Committee Transcript 1997-Feb-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

SOUTH ROSEDALE RATEPAYERS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the standing committee on general government, where we are hearing Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act.

We'll begin this morning with the South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation. Please begin.

Mrs Valerie Sirén Schatzker: Madam Chairman and committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association. My name is Valerie Sirén Schatzker and I am president of the SRRA.

Our association was established around 1911 and as such is the oldest residents' organization in the city. In its letters of incorporation of 1936 the association is enjoined to promote the welfare of south Rosedale and preserve and improve its character as a residential park area and to promote good government of the city of Toronto particularly as it affects the community.

Our association has fought many battles to carry out this mandate and has succeeded in maintaining our green and peaceful streets and much of the historic charm of south Rosedale. It and the other equally lovely residential areas in the downtown core of the city, from the Beaches to Roncesvalles, from Lawrence Park to Cabbagetown, are the jewels in the crown of "the most livable city in the world," the characteristic which sets us apart from many American cities which could once boast of such features but are now hollowed out, derelict and desolate because of ill-considered tax measures and remote government.

Of all the battles our association has fought, none has presented as grave a threat as Bills 103 and 106 and the other legislative measures announced by the government. If these are passed, our city will face punitive taxes, decreases in services, a dilution in political representation and a bigger, more unresponsive, more costly civic bureaucracy. The fragile residential communities of Toronto will be among the first to suffer.

However, along with all citizens of Ontario we will have lost something much more precious: a municipal government which is close to the people, our traditions of consensus and our trust in government.

South Rosedale is known as a Conservative bastion and gave strong support to our MPP, the Honourable Al Leach, in the last election. Many of those who voted for the Common Sense Revolution thought the campaign against big government would curb excessive expenditures and the unwieldy bureaucracies that had grown over time. They did not realize it meant greater centralization and government in the hands of fewer. Lifelong Conservatives now see that this government does not understand the principles of conservatism, which are to make change with care, conserving what is good in the institutions of the past, and many tell me that in the next election they will not vote Conservative.

In a recent forum on the megacity in the Globe and Mail there was a revealing exchange between Mr Gilchrist and the other participants. Mr Gilchrist complained that most of the people who have come to speak to this committee on Bill 103 had already made up their minds. Yes, Mr Gilchrist, the South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association has made up its mind. We have studied Bill 103 and listened to the government's defence of it; we have read widely on the subject and consulted with experts. We are convinced that it is not a good bill.

We also want to assure this committee that we do not wish to waste your time. We are here to ask you to listen. We hope that through this process we can inform you of just what we find offensive in Bill 103 and that you will take our grave concerns seriously. We do not think it can be amended. We ask you to withdraw it.

Bill 103 has few items of substance. All it reveals about the governance of the new city of Toronto is that seven municipalities will be amalgamated and that the council of the new city will be composed of 45 members whose terms of office will begin on January 1, 1998.

In this new city the 2.3 million citizens of Metro, now represented by 106 Metro and city councillors, will lose much of the access to their political representatives they now enjoy. Ratepayers throughout the Metro area have closest contact with their city councillors, who look after the services which most directly affect neighbourhoods. Contact with our Metro councillors is much less frequent.

Our individual city councils are much more responsive since each understands local concerns, the historic development of each municipality, and since each has its distinct vision for the future. Our experience with Metro has been much less satisfactory. Its bureaucracy is much larger, and because its concerns for local problems are much more dilute, one municipality can be easily outvoted by the others. This level of government, the one we find the least responsive, the least effective, is the one the provincial government wishes to impose on the six cities. This more remote council, incapable of reacting with sensitivity to local nuts-and-bolts problems, is to replace our city councils which are working well in this respect.

We are told that neighbourhoods will be served by community councils and volunteer committees. Community councils will not replace our city councillors, whose wards are smaller and whose duties are less onerous. As far as neighbourhood committees are concerned, we fear that they may be hijacked by special interest groups. We are aware that our venerable association, which has been an effective grass-roots organization for 86 years, is limited in its ability to represent all voices in our community. We would neither compromise its effectiveness through political appointment nor wish to dilute its access to our elected representative through an appointed committee. We also know of no jurisdiction where neighbourhood committees have worked. In Winnipeg, whose 25-year-old amalgamation is still controversial, they were abandoned in the first three years because the system kept the voters at a distance.

The rest of Bill 103 is frighteningly vague. Everything other than the amalgamation and the numbers on the council will be decided by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his appointees, the board of trustees and the transition team. They will fix the new ward boundaries, decide what further legislation is necessary to implement Bill 103, determine the limits to revenues and expenditures of the new city, organize its structure and modes of operation, hire department heads and other employees and determine the function and membership of neighbourhood committees.

The decisions of these non-elected persons, responsible only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court, nor are they subject, as all elected officials are, to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which ensures that decisions are not made behind closed doors. Their terms of office are also not limited in the bill. Furthermore we, the citizens of the new city of Toronto, will have to pay whatever expenses these appointed officials incur.

Bill 103 is therefore an act which creates only the barest bones of a new city, gives extraordinary powers to non-elected officials and allows taxation without representation.

We are concerned about the first years of transition. We know that the new system of tax assessment and the downloading of welfare and other services will present enormous problems that may occupy the council for the first six months at least. In these deliberations the transition team will decide the limits of expenditures and revenues. Since the provincial government promised that taxes will not go up, we may expect drastic cuts in services.

The coordination of the regulations of seven different municipalities is also vague. Whose vision in the drafting of new planning codes concerning land use and zoning will prevail? That which each city has evolved to protect its neighbourhoods, one that will impose a suburban vision on the old urban core, or the province's vision of Toronto?

Will the network of social services Toronto has built so carefully to respond to the complex needs of the inner city be maintained? Will public works and parks departments be downsized to the barest minimum?

Perhaps the transition team will take upon itself the responsibility for conducting business as usual until the council is able to assume its full duties. It will be able to do so with full impunity before the law. Will ratepayers' associations be able to count on the checks and balances of committees of adjustment and land use and zoning committees to protect their neighbourhoods?

The key bureaucrats will also be appointed by the transition team. Their contracts will have to be respected by the new city council. Will they be chosen according to the province's vision of Toronto's future? If its vision allows casinos, trade centres or grand sports and Olympic facilities to take precedence over the preservation of our colourful ethnic and unique residential communities, over concerns for history, architecture and the maintenance of the everyday human scale, the features that make Toronto the queen of cities according to Fortune magazine and the United Nations, will swiftly disappear.

We are particularly concerned about relaxing regulations which help preserve our greenbelts and natural preserves. These have been slowly built up since the early 1950s. Each step in the struggle was hard won, but the benefits are available to all citizens.

Our concerns also go far beyond this bill. Bill 106 and the forthcoming legislation the government has announced are inextricably linked with the legislation on the city of Toronto.

The South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association met frequently with Minister Leach to oppose market value assessment, AVA and, its latest incarnation, current value assessment. Our opinions were not considered. South Rosedale wants to pay its fair share of taxes but has serious reservations about a system that may threaten the residential communities and the downtown business core and is the most costly to implement and maintain.

We are fearful about the impact of downloading and so-called disentanglement. We have felt insulted by the KPMG report. We resent that Metro Toronto is singled out among all other Ontario municipalities for imposed amalgamation. We wonder why new wards are to be created from the federal ridings. Toronto developed in concentric arcs around the original settlement on the lake and the city wards reflect this, keeping neighbourhoods of generally the same age and character together. We ask why this unpopular and immensely expensive plan is being forced upon us when the most urgent reform of governance needed, according to the Golden report and the Who Does What panel, is the coordination of services in the GTA.

In the Globe and Mail forum, Mr Gilchrist gave assurance that the government would be open to considering a model for governance in Metro other than the single-tier model. Our association takes this opportunity to present an alternative to Bill 103 and the government's further plans.

Please withdraw this bill. Leave the current two-tier system of Metro government intact for the time being to conform with the two levels of government in the other four regions of the GTA.

By withdrawing Bill 103, you will not burn any bridges. You will not have to worry about the narrow time frame before the next civic election. You will save money, for as all the experts have demonstrated, the administrative savings and costs of politicians and their staffs are minuscule, while the transition costs for this unwelcome experiment and the enlargement of the bureaucracy to service a population of 2.3 million will cost millions of dollars.

Without Bill 103, you will be able to concentrate debate on the crucial financial bills. Considering that your package of municipal legislation represents substantive change and is so controversial, we ask you to prepare a white paper before drafting legislation on the downloading of services and the organization of the Greater Toronto Services Board. When these bills are debated and passed, the government could then present a white paper and hear debate on local governance for the entire region.

Abandon the promise of a tax cut. The need to fund it seems to be the rationale for this controversial package of municipal legislation. These complex issues of governance, tax assessment and disentanglement of services are best assessed on their own merits. If the legislation is carefully considered and widely supported, it will result in a wise plan for our city's and our province's development in the next century. There are many residents of south Rosedale who may benefit significantly from a tax cut, but a great number have indicated that they would forgo it, preferring that our municipal services are left intact and our health care and education systems not decimated.

Finally, we ask this government to be aware of the dangerous mood of dissent that has risen in our community and is spreading throughout the province. Those who have appeared before this committee represent citizens, distinguished experts and politicians who care about our city and give much of their time to promoting its welfare.

We ask this government to respect our parliamentary and time-honoured tradition in Ontario of seeking consensus. If you do not act pay attention to the large segments of the electorate and act swiftly to heal the wounds opened in this debate, the proper processes of good government will be more difficult in the future, the council of your new city will reflect the anger of the voters, the willingness of citizens to help make new systems work will be alienated, and I fear that people and businesses will hesitate to remain or settle in a city so riven by hostilities and tension.

0920

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Thank you, Mrs Schatzker. I certainly do appreciate your thoughtful presentation of an option that you've presented to the committee and to the government side. I hope they look at it, because we had another option presented yesterday by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation similar to yours that said to forget about the tax cut and ensure that local services aren't paid for through a property tax explosion.

I guess the comment you made that's critical here is, traditionally in Ontario, as with the creation of Metro originally, we did it through consensus. Why do you think this government has abandoned the consensus process we have been used to in Ontario and Toronto?

Mrs Schatzker: I'm not exactly sure why they've abandoned it. I sometimes think that this Conservative government has gone beyond the traditional right-of-centre Conservative that we've been familiar with in this province and has moved far to the right, and said so perhaps in the Common Sense Revolution. This is a revolution, a revolution of the right. But I know that the fact they're not listening to us is very, very distressing to the citizens in our area who speak to me when we meet them at the meetings we are holding. Everyone is very perplexed, upset, angry at the fact that they're not being listened to. So I'm here to plead that the government listen to us.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Schatzker. We've run out of time.

BARBARA GODARD

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

Ms Barbara Godard: Madam Chair and members of the committee, je m'appelle Barbara Godard. Je vous remercie de m'avoir invitée à faire une présentation sur le projet de loi 103. Je tiens à exercer mes droits de citoyenne, but rest assured, I shall continue in English.

My mother's family came to Toronto over 100 years ago as "masses" gardening for the Masseys. My father's family, the MacKenzies, as parliamentarians initiated the Lord's Day Act of Canada among other pieces of legislation. I am a ratepayer in ward 5 where my house is on the Baldwin lands near Robert Street, named for the celebrated Torontonian, Robert Baldwin, who formulated the principle of responsible government, giving ultimate authority to the people through their elected representatives. Mindful of the charge laid upon me by the past and of my responsibility to the future, to the claims of my son and my students, I come before this committee today to voice my opposition to Bill 103 and the amalgamation of six local governments into one big city government.

My objections are both to the process and the substance of the proposed restructuring of urban government. The proposal has been hastily prepared and contradicts the government's own stated objectives. More important, its provisions may well be unconstitutional. I am gravely concerned, should Bill 103 be passed, about the abrogation of the rule of law and the rights of citizens to taxation by elected representatives which have been the cornerstone of democratic government in Ontario for 160 years.

Improvement helps any organizational structure keep functioning well. Other great cities have much to teach us. In Paris, where I lived for a number of years, not only did every suburb but each ward have its own town hall. Local government is highly developed in France and there it's the provincial level of government that has been deemed redundant. Toronto could well learn from cities such as Tokyo and Seoul, where I have gone to talk about Canadian studies, about the effective coordination of transportation at local, regional and intercity levels, where there is strong financial support from all levels of government. However, Bill 103 is completely silent on such questions. Indeed, it has nothing to say on the details about the future visage of the city, nothing except amalgamation of six cities into one megacity.

The absence of specific information is unusual with legislation as sweeping as Bill 103. Normally a white paper explaining the government's proposals would be prepared first. Such careful planning has not been carried out. The citizens of Toronto are asked to take on faith the government's claims that the present proposal will lead to improvement through the reduction of duplication and saving of money. This is impossible when the proposed legislation flies in the face of conclusions of previous studies of municipal governance. Indeed, the Golden report specifically rejected amalgamation of the existing cities.

Moreover, this particular motion to create a supercity with large councils distant from the electors, under the overlapping jurisdiction of appointed trustees and transition team, supplemented by some undefined appointed neighbourhood council, introduces many more levels of government into Toronto, only one of them elected. This is a direct violation of the government's pre-electoral promises in the Common Sense Revolution where it states, "We will sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government bureaucracy with an eye to eliminating waste as well as unfair downloading by the province." Bill 103 contradicts these stated goals by increasing bureaucracy. It is impossible to give it any credence when the provisions of this bill would prevent the city from carrying out its democratic function of giving government responsible to the taxpayers of Toronto.

Bill 103 concentrates primarily on usurping the powers of the elected municipal representatives in what is an unprecedented coup. According to a number of lawyers, this exercise of provincial jurisdiction to wipe out local democracies is unconstitutional, and I refer to the Globe of February 7. The heinous sections of the bill put the elected representatives of the city under the absolute control of appointed trustees and a transitional team, which is nothing short of a dictatorship.

Trustees are charged with reviewing the operating and capital budgets of the city. They are directed to report to the minister at his request, not to the elected municipal officials. Section 11 limits the powers of elected officials on matters of taxation and expenditure. Section 10(d) restricts the financial powers of elected authorities over the reserve funds of municipalities. The bill, however, provides no guarantee that these reserve funds raised from taxes are to be spent only for the municipalities in which they were collected. There is no assurance that they will not steal our tax money, and with impunity at that, for section 12 specifies that the decisions made by the board of trustees are final and shall not be reviewed or challenged by a court of law. Such powers granted to appointed officials are a clear violation of the fundamental principles of Ontario democracy since 1840. They place such officials above the rule of law, not responsible in any way for their actions, and this is unconscionable in a parliamentary democracy.

More disturbingly yet, there is no limit to the term of office of these appointees who, again in violation of the rule of law, were supposed to begin their duties months prior to the passage of the bill. Section 10 says that the cabinet "may dissolve" the board of trustees on or after January 31, 1998. However, since section 16(h) requires the transition team to cooperate with the trustees, there is a presumption that the trustees will remain in office indefinitely.

The transition team is likewise granted dictatorial powers. It is this team, not the elected officials of the new council, which would establish the new city's basic organizational structures and consider "what further legislation might be required to implement this act." Like the trustees, the transition team is accorded total power over the new council to vet taxation and spending and to hire "department heads and other employees." An exemption is granted to them from liability for its actions. Its decisions are also to be final and above the rule of law.

Municipal elections to the new council will be virtually meaningless since the Minister of Municipal Affairs is given authority by this bill to prevent the municipal government from carrying out the usual functions of city governance, nor is there any terminal date for the exercise of this unprecedented authority, for the transition team "may" be dissolved on or after January 31, 1998, but there is no requirement to dissolve it at all. Restricted from speaking to the press, the activities of these appointed bodies are shrouded in secrecy, and the document of the Common Sense Revolution said there was "No hidden agenda." Nothing is in the open in this bill except the arrogation of power. This suspension of all democratic rights smacks more of the totalitarian regime of Stalin than of the rule of law and government by elected representatives long sanctioned in Ontario.

There are a number of other sections of this bill which affect the democratic rights of citizens. The gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries of wards for the new city council to align with those of federal wards would make representatives unresponsive to citizens. Wards of over 50,000 make for ineffective local government and disfranchise the citizens of Toronto in relation to citizens of other Ontario local jurisdictions with smaller wards. Moreover, the establishment of such large wards disproportionately affects women's rights as citizens to participate as elected representatives. Larger wards mean more expensive electoral campaigns, and this constitutes a significant barrier to women entering politics.

Little information is given regarding the neighbourhood committees to be established. Their "function is to be determined." The vagueness is disquieting. How these would relate to existing ratepayers' associations is unclear. Currently, as associations elected by members, these grass-roots organizations play an important role in ensuring that taxes are spent wisely and effectively in neighbourhoods.

My parents belonged to one of the earliest ratepayers associations, founded by our next-door neighbour, who was a treasurer of the Progressive Conservative Party. Their intervention modified plans for the subway. However, had they been attended to more closely, more money might have been saved, as they knew the site chosen for the barns and switching yards was traversed by a buried stream. Pumping out the quicksand delayed opening of the subway by several years. The local knowledge of ratepayers' associations is important in preventing costly mistakes.

0930

The existing associations in concert with the elected councillor also carry out mediation among property owners. Discussions had just begun in November with the councillor on my back laneway where such mediation is needed to reconcile the rights of some private owners of the lane with the interests of other users. The need of those with large cars gouging ruts in the lane to have it paved conflicts with those concerned about the environment and protective of the mourning doves nesting in the mud. With the uncertainty about the future of the city council and its authority over such matters as lanes, negotiations have been suspended. Many other matters of local concern and economic importance are also in suspense, contributing to the chaos in social and economic arenas.

I have not mentioned here the staggering implications of the provisions of other projected legislation that would download $1.7 billion in costs for welfare, health and assisted housing costs on to Toronto municipalities with the negative consequences falling disproportionately on the women of Toronto, nor of the implications this would have for other programs supported by the city, such as the Toronto Arts Council whose provision of seed money has synergistically generated much creative energy to make Toronto a major cultural centre, the third largest in the English-speaking world, with writers such as Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje that the federal minister of trade and commerce wants to export. Without the help of the Toronto Arts Council there won't be any culture at all.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. I just must interrupt you, because we're running to the end of your time. So if you would just wrap up.

Ms Godard: Yes. None to offer to the rest of the world. None to teach to the next generation of Torontonians, my students.

In my recent research I have been reading the parliamentary debates on the Quebec Act of 1774. At issue then too was the rule of law and the authority of the people's elected representatives. The great parliamentarian Edmund Burke, upholding the principles of democracy, demanded more facts "for the sake of the public good" so that he could "give an honest vote." As he said, "Supposing the bill to be delayed for a whole year, the extent of the evil on our side will be that we shall have more information; and as for the Canadians, they will remain a little longer in the same situation in which they are at present...necessity [though] -- necessity, the tyrant's plea -- is urged for proceeding immediately."

History judges severely those who have sought to do away with democratic processes.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, you have run out of time.

Ms Godard: Do the members of this committee, of this Legislature, want to bear the ignominy of being remembered as those who disfranchised the citizens of Toronto?

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. I must ask you to stop.

Ms Godard: I urge the members of this committee to follow the honourable lead of Burke and of their conscience to recommend the withdrawal of Bill 103.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

ROB DAVIES

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Rob Davies. Good morning, Mr Davies, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Rob Davies: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I want to thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak to you today. I want to first give you a little bit of background about myself.

I was born in Metropolitan Toronto. I was raised in this city, in this region, and I have had the opportunity to benefit, I believe, from the very attributes that have made Metropolitan Toronto the best place to live in the world, namely, the safe and secure neighbourhoods, the economic opportunity that exists for people and the economic opportunity that draws people from around the world, the cultural diversity and the cultural arts community that make Metropolitan Toronto a nice place to play.

As a very young person, I was drawn to politics. In fact, my very first political campaign was in 1976. I had the opportunity of helping a grade school teacher who ran for a position of what was then called separate school representative, on the public school board. Unfortunately, he lost that campaign, but I was bitten with not only the bug of politics but also the bug of public service, which is very important to the strength of our communities.

In 1991, I was fortunate enough to be elected as a city councillor in the city of York, and I represent the municipal ward 3 in the city of York. I have had the opportunity of working on many campaigns since that first one in 1976. I've had the opportunity of being involved in many, many issues in the community. So I come to you I think with a little bit of experience both as somebody who was on the periphery of political action and as an elected representative who currently represents about 16,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto.

I will tell you that I do not believe Bill 103 is a panacea for all that ails Metropolitan Toronto. I also don't believe the passage of Bill 103 portends the apocalypse of safe and secure neighbourhoods, economic opportunity, or our cultural diversity and the cultural arts that make the city a good place to play.

I do believe the new governance model in the very beginning will cause some confusion. I think that's obvious. There's some confusion now. I think over time that will subside.

From my constituents I'm hearing that they recognize that in the media, in the chamber next to this room upstairs, both opponents and supporters of Bill 103 have been cited on numerous occasions for their hypocrisy or for the various comments that they may have made last year or five years ago or 10 years ago. What I'm hearing from my constituents is that they're really quite sick of the backbiting. They want to hear some of the rationale and the reasons for and against Bill 103, but they can't over the din of some of the screaming and shouting and yelling that has taken place thus far in many of the public forums.

With that in mind, I took a slightly different approach as an elected representative and as a local councillor in that I held and hosted and moderated two public debates on Bill 103. I invited both supporters and opponents of Bill 103. In fact, two members of this committee attended and participated in two separate debates on the very issue. I gave my constituents an opportunity, very directly to the people they see on television every day, to ask them what would happen in a post-Bill 103 Metropolitan Toronto, to ask them the reasons and the rationales for support or opposition to Bill 103. I think it was a very fruitful exercise and a very healthy exercise, and I would only hope that type of debate would occur across Metropolitan Toronto a little bit more frequently.

Some of the things I want to tell you about the city of York I think will speak to one of the reasons why I'm going to give my conditional support to Bill 103. I want to be clear here: I'm not expressing my support necessarily for some of the downloading and uploading that may go on, but I know this committee is specifically concerned with Bill 103 and that's the issue that I'm going to speak to.

The city of York, which was founded in 1793, is over 200 years old. Over time, with the various rejiggings of boundaries, we found ourselves in a situation with a very, very small industrial-commercial tax base. Most of our tax burden, in terms of the percentage between industrial-commercial and residential, is on the residential taxpayer. What that means is that in the city of York we have the highest mill rate of any of the Metropolitan municipalities.

In addition, we find ourselves in a financial crunch in terms of not being able to provide some of the services that the other neighbouring municipalities are able to provide. In fact, a constituent a number of years ago put it quite succinctly. He said that in the city of York, what we do is we milk the cow through the fence, so that if we want to use libraries, we go to the city of Toronto. If they want to access a recreation centre, like the Joseph Piccininni centre, they have to either pay a surcharge to use the programs and the facilities or they misrepresent their address when they are signing up for programs.

So we lack recreation facilities in the city of York. We have probably the lowest income per capita of all the communities. In other words, our community is in the greatest need of some of these particular services.

0940

We also have a situation with some of our infrastructure, particularly in terms of our stormwater and sewer system, where we have an antiquated system where people, if they get a 15- or a 20-year storm, experience severe flooding in their basements. We have not been able to address the infrastructure problem for many, many years because of the financial demands, because of the lack of an industrial-commercial tax base, because of the very real concern of many local politicians, such as myself and those who have gone before me, not to pass on extremely high tax increases to the residents and the business community we represent.

It is my belief that while Bill 103 is not my first choice -- I would have preferred perhaps a four-city model -- I would rather see Bill 103 pass than be defeated. I don't believe the elected representatives that I sit on council with today, my cousins at the city of Toronto or North York or Etobicoke, in the advent of Bill 103 will suddenly turn into black-hearted accountants who will tear the heart and soul out of Metropolitan Toronto and let some of the things that we support -- the social programs, the recreation programs, funding for the arts -- go begging and suddenly have this change of heart a year after the passage of this bill. I just cannot see a future Mayor Lastman or Mayor Tonks or Mayor Hall necessarily becoming the Simon Legree of a new Metropolitan Toronto. I just don't believe it.

What I do think will happen in the community that I represent, and what I'm hoping will happen, is that there will at least be a level playing field with respect to some of the services that other Metropolitan municipalities take for granted. I would like to see the end of basement flooding at a cost of several thousands of dollars to the residents that I represent. I would like to see either the elimination or the reduction of some of the user fees for parks and recreation that our constituents have suffered through for many, many years. I would like to see a recreation centre, a real recreation centre, not four rooms in a park, built to support some of the very urgent needs of our young people, of our families, and of our senior citizens in our community.

The Vice-Chair: I must ask you to wrap up. We're coming to the end of your time.

Mr Davies: Okay. There are some things in Bill 103 that personally I don't like and I think might need to be modified. The trustees issue is one that I take some issue with. I think the community councils need to be spelled out a little bit more and maybe that should happen, and I think the provincial government needs to very quickly spell out some of the process by which they would implement the amalgamation of the seven municipalities. That's something that some of our non-government organizations, our social service agencies, are very concerned about: Should they fold their tents or should they continue operating as per usual? Will they be successful in grant applications in a future city or will they have to themselves amalgamate with other non-government organizations and charities?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Davies. We've run overtime. Thank you very much for making your presentation this morning.

VALERIE HUNNIUS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Valerie Hunnius. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Valerie Hunnius: Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Valerie Hunnius and I've been a resident of Toronto since 1952. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee today because I believe that each one of you has a profound opportunity through these hearings to examine carefully what the public has said and review the evidence.

I am not, myself, a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party, though I can recognize that within the 40-year period when the party essentially controlled government in Ontario, there was recognition for the importance of consensus in introducing legislation in the House. That spirit, that important parliamentary tradition, seems to have been dismissed by this government in its effort to accomplish change. What I hope this committee will do is to consider courageously its options at the end of this hearing process and recommend that the government not proceed with Bill 103.

I believe that Bill 103 is pernicious legislation which creates systemic inequalities for Torontonians and other citizens of Metro Toronto among the citizens of Ontario by increasing the ratio of representation in the proposed megacity to one representative for every 50,000 voters, as compared to one for every 5,000 voters in North Bay, for example. In principle, this betrays the concept of equality before the law. While on the surface it may adhere to the concept of no taxation without representation, it does so in an inherently unequal way.

In particular, I am profoundly alarmed that this legislation, even prior to passage, gives excessive powers to provincially appointed trustees, retroactive to December 17, to control the assets, budget, all financial operations, hiring, promotion and job termination responsibilities which are properly the mandate of elected representatives of the local governments. Even more disturbing are the additional powers placed in the hands of a transition team to develop the structure, organization, mandate and recommended legislative framework for the new megacity.

It frankly scares me half to death that with the exception of the police services board, none of the decisions of the trustees or members of the transition team can be appealed or questioned by a court and that many of their decisions are exempt from requirements under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, various freedom of information and protection of privacy acts and any other act with which Bill 103 is in conflict. This tells me that this particular statute and its application is being created outside the normal rule of law. Why?

The Fair Tax Commission, the Golden task force and the Crombie Who Does What advisory panel have all identified problems with respect to economic development, delivery of services and tax inequities within the greater Toronto area. There is no doubt that our assessment base should be changed to ensure fair investment opportunities and equity of service delivery throughout the whole area. This may require fine-tuning or even negotiated changes between local governments within the GTA and changes to regional government. There are rigidities in the assessment system which are inequitable and need to be changed. There are harmful discrepancies in tax rates which discourage investment in some localities and provide unfair advantage in others. As well, I believe there is an unfair tax burden for tenants as opposed to homeowners. In my view, it would be a great pity if provincial control of the mill rate for commercial and industrial property continues to move more and more revenue away from that base and on to the residential property base. I am certain this government will not share my view in this respect, but I do acknowledge that this government is demonstrating courage in taking action to update property assessments.

Bill 103 in itself, however, does not address any of these issues. David Crombie in his report to Mr Leach was adamant -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that if there were no new relationship created to harmonize the economic and political relationships within the GTA, creating a megacity of Toronto would make things even worse. Even Hazel McCallion, the redoubtable mayor of Mississauga and a long-time Tory, is on record as saying that amalgamating all the local governments in Metro into one megacity will be bad for Mississauga.

What really alarms me is that the government seems prepared to push this legislation through the House without regard for either the expert opinion of its own consultants or considered recommendations of all of these various commissions. It is especially unnerving to hear the Premier state that the government will ignore the results of local referenda. To ignore the will of the people and to blatantly profess to do so, it seems to me, is false courage which can only be perceived as expedient. I really believe, even in the short run, it is a politically dangerous thing to do.

Why is the government doing this? Is it merely, on the one hand, intending to silence the progressive voices which citizens of Toronto frequently elect to represent them at city council? Are we in Toronto being punished? Or is it, on the other hand, a means to create a tax base sufficiently large to appear to be able to offload social expenditures on to municipalities, social expenditures which should be derived from a progressive provincial tax base?

In particular, Toronto has had a remarkable history of improving the conditions of living of our most vulnerable citizens. It has not been an easy task to protect these services during the progressive downloading of costs from the federal government to the provincial government for health care, post-secondary education and welfare assistance, and the resulting restriction of provincial transfers to municipalities. It has required tough political decisions with a lot of community support to maintain essential social services in the city of Toronto. It really frightens me that after all the offloading of hard service costs and social transfers on to the municipal property tax base, my city will no longer be a good place to live or to do business.

0950

This government intends to make it easier for the private sector to deliver a great variety of public services, with an expectation of improved efficiency. I ask you to remember that a benchmark for efficiency cannot be considered unless service standards are maintained, standards of quality as well as standards of accessibility. The last recession in Metro took an enormous amount of purchasing power out of our community and we are still paying a price in high unemployment. I ask you to consider the impact on our local economy if public sector jobs paying adequate salaries are outsourced to large companies employing non-unionized and possibly contingent labour. There will be even less money to support local economic development.

At the end of these hearings you on the committee will have some tough decisions to make. I only ask that all of you consider this legislation in terms of its likely historical impact. It will do no good to save the tax break at the expense of hollowing out the economic engine of Ontario, and any economic benefit the tax break could provide will do no good and produce no jobs if public services are reduced to commodities available only to some for a user fee.

It is still possible to put in place an effective change process with adequate public input. I implore you, especially the Progressive Conservative MPPs among you, to urge your party caucus to withdraw Bill 103. I applaud the member for Wentworth North who has had the courage to oppose amalgamation in the Hamilton region. I hope some of you will have similar wisdom and similar courage when you come to the conclusion of this process.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you very much; certainly some very interesting and important input here this morning. The presenter before you said that in the Common Sense Revolution the present government said, "We will sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government bureaucracy, with an eye to eliminating waste as well as unfair downloading by the province." We see in this bill, under section 12, that what they're doing can't even be challenged by the law. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on what happened on the way to the forum.

Ms Hunnius: It seems that what they have wanted to do is to create some kind of a windfall to support the tax break, and the only way they could that was to do the swap between education and all the other downloading of social services. I think it is a rather unprincipled and ineffective expectation that there will be efficiencies emerging out of this that will cost less. I think all the evidence shows it is going to cost a great deal more, and unless they are going to reduce the resources that go into education, they're not going to get the money to support the tax break.

Mr Martin: The presenter before you spoke of another model; even he, an obvious Tory supporter, spoke of another model. Is there something specific you would be willing to bring forward if a forum was opened for the presentation of another model, or are you simply saying leave it as it is?

Ms Hunnius: I'm not simply saying leave it as it is at all. There are a lot of problems within the whole GTA, but I think the problems have been defined at that level; they've already been well defined by a series of commissions. I think it is time to have public hearings on some of those issues dealing with the problems within the whole GTA, strengthen the delivery of services within the whole GTA, keep social transfers off the property tax base, deal with the improvement of some of the hard costs within a larger area, and then look at revisions if there are necessary revisions in local governance to improve the situation.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hunnius. We've run out of time.

ADRIAN HEAPS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Adrian Heaps. Good morning, Mr Heaps, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Adrian Heaps: Thank you very much. As someone who has lived and worked in a number of countries around the world and as someone who has lived for over three years on native reserves in southern Ontario, I feel I can bring to this discussion a perspective of human experience and comparison of various communities where I've lived.

First off, though, I want to thank the Conservative government for creating such an incendiary issue as amalgamation of cities, because for the first time it has motivated people from all walks of life, from business, from labour, from young to old, in a unique display of social unity that this province has not seen in recent history. It has motivated people to think and care about their cities, about where they live and work. People no longer take their cities and communities for granted.

But this issue has also created a crisis. In a crisis, people have the opportunity to see how their elected officials act. It's usually a test of strength, of leadership, of commitment to their constituents. In this crisis that we call proposed amalgamation, we have seen the true mettle of people like Mr Harris and Mr Leach and Mr Gilchrist, the most vociferous proponent and front man of this archaic scheme.

It's easy to criticize the government and say that this idea is ridiculous, but that would be counterproductive. Today I want to spend my valuable time before the committee in trying to convince them and the government that there are constructive alternatives to the government's proposed legislation.

As Mr Gilchrist told me a couple of nights ago when he was at the debate in Scarborough Civic Centre, there are over 800 municipalities in Ontario, of which over 300 have chosen of their own accord to amalgamate or merge services to some degree, including of course municipalities in Metro. However, these communities, and I stress communities, have chosen their own path instead of having it imposed upon them. They have seen in the context of their local needs where they can create economies of scale and provide increased benefits to their constituents.

The mayors of the six Metro cities have offered a plan to merge several services and organizational duties that would save millions of dollars and reduce the number of politicians by 52%, with increasing accountability, yet the government has chosen to ignore this approach, along with every other report including the government's own hired experts. But this is old news.

In several instances, Premier Harris has referred to himself as the CEO of the province and to the citizens of this province as shareholders in some kind of mammoth corporation that he refers to as Ontario. This is a government that likes business practices, so let's look at simple organizational economics. In an organization when one wants to restructure in an efficient manner, the most effective method is the following.

First, you set goals that the organization can realistically reach. You then discuss these goals with the various departments until they and the management come to a viable and realistic expectation of results. The department then goes out and implements the programs to meet the goals. You then assess the results.

These are time-honoured organizational strategies that have proven results. Why can't the government sit down like good managers and discuss realistic goals and expectations like any competent CEO would in a self-respecting corporation? You would be surprised at the results if you approached improving the services and communities of our cities in this manner.

Somehow I think the Ontario government believes that cities in Metro are incompetent in managing their own affairs. Yet Scarborough, for example, is considered to be the number one city in delivering local services, as determined, incidentally, by the province's own auditor. Scarborough has the lowest staff-to-resident ratio of any city in Metro. If anything, this city should perhaps be used as a model for efficient municipal government.

Yet the government chooses once again to ignore the truth, because amalgamation is not about truth; it is not about benefiting the communities in this great area we call Metro Toronto; it's about destroying communities in the interests of power and control.

I will be the first to state that not all local representatives accomplish everything to their full potential. I will also state for the record that there is plenty of room for improvement because, committee members, cities will never be perfect. And the reason why? Because they are run by human beings, with all their imperfections. Yet most of these people are dedicated and committed to their cities. Cities are not just about cold, efficient delivery of services. They are about identity and civic pride.

1000

I constantly hear Mr Leach and Mr Gilchrist state that people in foreign lands know where Toronto is but don't know where Scarborough or Etobicoke is. Why should they? They don't even live here. I can categorically tell you after working in countries around the world that the international trade potential of a city is not diminished or for that matter enhanced by the simple virtue of its name. People in foreign countries care about the quality of the product, the individuals who produced it, not about where it came from.

However, for the people who live and work and play in those cities like Scarborough, contrary to your belief, they are proud about their local affinity to a city and community they have helped to build. The very fact that the government does not understand this is already a blatant example of how far removed some provincial politicians are from their local constituents. Imagine how much worse this problem will be if your proposed legislation goes through.

Something else to think about: When you remove the identity of a city from its community, something happens. People over time start to lose contact with their elected representatives. It might be something simple like a building permit or a traffic calming request. Even for simple requests like this people will be forced to go to some anonymous building where hopefully their representative will not need a map to figure out where they live.

I know the government intends to have neighbourhood councils be responsible for such local matters as traffic calming and speed zones, but these require a skill level that includes urban planning skills, the ability to analyse engineering studies and traffic flow patterns. Somehow I don't think neighbourhood councils will be up the task. They will still have to tap into experts somewhere at the respective departments of some vast city hall.

More important and much more relevant, on relatively more vital issues like race relations or crime, people will find it much more difficult to find a local councillor who truly understands their local problems. Eventually, people will grow tired of the frustration of trying to contact someone. Over time, frustration will turn to apathy and cynicism and the motivation to even exercise their democratic right will gradually atrophy away.

Is this the kind of community we want to build for Ontario's future? Local government and local representation is a standard that has been validated by virtually every professional and individual who has come before this committee, yet once again the government chooses to ignore the overwhelming evidence.

I notice that one of the pivotal issues in this rancorous debate is the downloading of social and other services to the municipal level. First, I regret that people on both sides of the issue refer to these subjects in a cold statistical light. These are people, not numbers. They are single mothers struggling for survival, they are the impoverished and they are the elderly. The government tends to look at these people as a volatile problem that they do not wish to connect themselves to. It's a hot potato and the province wants nothing to do with it. I find this repugnant, that the callous nature of the Harris government can be so insensitive to people's needs.

I ask you, if you really are genuinely intent on improving the quality of life, then why not treat the disease instead of addressing the symptoms? If we actually intelligently tackled through preventive measures the problems of the people who receive social services, we wouldn't even have to talk about passing the buck and avoiding the real responsibilities of a provincial government.

But once again Mr Harris chooses to ignore the truth. Maybe in Mr Harris's megacity we can use our local charity casinos to offset the tremendous social costs that will befall municipalities.

I urge the committee to use whatever it is in its power to look further than money and power as the only building blocks of a society. This was not a mandate offered by the government in their election platform. Yes, they professed to being more efficient, but they did not, I believe, promise to destroy our local communities and cities. They did not promise to upheave the social structures that have worked, for the most part, quite well.

If amalgamation is such a great idea, then let's approach it on a small-model basis with one city providing the example and see if the theory is everything it cracks up to be. However, I would caution the government not to use Halifax as a shining example.

The government has suggested it will not recognize the results of the Metro-wide vote on this issue, yet the very process of using referendums that Mr Harris decries is the one the government is actually proposing as a bill in Queen's Park.

Cities provide a sphere of influence that indirectly touch all those who choose to live there. I choose to live in Scarborough because for all its good and bad points it is my city, it's my community where I can exercise some control over my own destiny. This is not a privilege; this is a civic right which will be violated for every citizen in Metro if this bill goes through.

We are in a crisis of confidence, where leadership and common sense must prevail more than ever. This is not a time for immature posturing, where politicians dig in their heels just to maintain some warped political position; that's conduct more becoming of two high-school teenagers squaring off in a playground fight, not adults. This is not a playground, and too much is at stake.

I ask you to look at the logic and the insurmountable evidence of the arguments presented by everyone who has come before this committee. I ask you for perhaps what may be the first time in years in your political lives -- Mr Harris -- to start to look at what actually motivated you to get into politics in the first place. I hope for your sakes it was to serve your community's interests and not your own.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Heaps. You have used up the 10 minutes.

PETER ALLEN

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Peter Allen. Good morning, Mr Allen, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Peter Allen: I'd like to thank the government and this committee for the opportunity to address Bill 103 issues. My name is Peter Allen, born and raised several blocks north of this Legislature. I am a trained civil engineer and businessman with some international perspective and community involvement with local organizations such as the Young People's Theatre, the Royal Conservatory of Music and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

I will address Bill 103 under four topics: the megacity plan, PC reform towards less government, the big picture and anti-democratic tendencies.

First topic, the megacity plan: Where is the strategy, feasibility, schedule? What is the capital and human resources requirement? How, specifically, does it improve our lives? Is there a cost-benefit analysis, overall and segmented? Where is the risk assessment?

This is a huge project affecting millions of people, and yet it has had only cursory expert opinion and discussion. Particularly, we citizens all would like to examine fiscal breakdowns and estimates to better plan our own individual and community futures in our own cities. Anything less than this is an insult to our intelligence.

I'd like to remind the government that you are playing with our money. I don't really see the need for political expediency in this situation. I suggest following up the Harris government's strategy with a monthly scorecard so that we can share the results of the project we're in fact financing. I've made this suggestion several times to MPP friends of mine and party people.

How about a frank discussion of the wild cards in the deck: Hydro, workers' compensation, OHIP, asset sales and write-offs, privatizations, differential pensions? Too many unexplained variables of social welfare downloading, property market value assessment, concentration of education and local services all leave a muddled picture. Last week's published financial information, for instance, is incomplete; it had to be revised immediately. It had excluded, as well, key fiscal points -- old debt, new debt, debt service -- as well as the effect on our debt structure and credit rating.

What's the implementation plan for the next morning? Who does what? What about contracts, old and new; assessments, old and new; policies and systems, old and new? I'm somewhat relieved I don't personally have to manage this pending chaos, but I'm unhappy that we have to finance it.

How about a full comparison of the social balance sheet before and after this mega-experiment? Almost by definition, a mega-experiment is illogical, it's an oxymoron, it's unscientific, it's too risky. We don't want to lose anything, because we don't have to perform a mega-experiment; we're already a productive and caring society. If we have to do it, let's at least keep this mega-experiment carefully controlled and sequenced.

1010

Second topic, PC reform and Bill 103: I'm actually in favour of moving to a smaller, more responsive government. Government growth over 30 years has sucked too much oxygen out of the system, so I think reform has merit. I'd like to try shifting the paradigm. But on Bill 103, I'm totally in the dark. What are the ultimate goals of the reform? Will we be left with better- or poorer-quality lives? Details please. Will the needy still have the same, essential social net to count on? Why is the price of this the demolition of local government? Why use expediency and secrecy? Thus, we citizens are automatically relegated to being a somewhat stunned opposition instead of having a more normal partner status. For me this is a confusing, unstable situation. I don't like it. It defies definition.

Churchill once described a fanatic as one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. It seems this government can't change its mind and immediately changes the subject.

Third, the big picture and Bill 103: Our province continues to overlook, in my opinion, a greater strategic opportunity to enhance our lives, namely, developing the world-class economic unit bounded by Toronto to Barrie and Hamilton to Oshawa. This region is a dreamland of opportunity, possessing critically abundant amounts of population, capital, trade, infrastructure, quality of life, law and order, traditions, political stability and skilled, competitive workforces. Most of these things are absent in the globe.

The region already produces more than a third of Canada's wealth. Upgrading this to world status, with its manufacturing, service, transportation and communication facilities to a high standard within this powerhouse, is an extremely exciting prospect. We have free trade, it's high-volume trade, immediate access to the eastern USA industrial powerhouse. It's an extremely efficient model and a unique opportunity for the Ontario government to seize now. Toronto will then be better defined in the centre of the region. Bill 103 issues can then be better addressed in a context of Toronto at the centre of Canada's most dynamic region.

I consider democratic freedom my most valuable personal asset, and so under the fourth point, anti-democratic tendencies of Bill 103, I'd like to just mention that recently I was in Bruges, Belgium, on a visit. I found out about freedom's beginnings in this very prosperous trading city of the 13th and 14th centuries. By 1301, a stranger seeking freedom could enter the walled city, be recognized by a councillor or sheriff and be thereafter a free man. This was the first instance of the end of feudalism.

Democracy has actually continued to make a lot of progress since 1301. Bill 103 is a retrograde step, however, in its elimination of what we have, which is our most democratic government, which is local government. Local government needs continual fine-tuning, but not destruction.

Further, I am offended by my own provincial government saying in effect, "You can have a referendum if you want to go to all that trouble, but the effort will be wasted, because we won't pay any attention to it"; or "If you debate this profusion of dramatic bills, 103, 104, 105, 106 and so on, we will bring closure"; or "Generations of locally elected governments will be simply swapped for a few dozen appointed supertrustees to govern you" -- nicely protected, incidentally, from normal judicial process.

I think a closer reading of Alice in Wonderland is warranted here. I must say I'm quite unimpressed with this game of mirrors.

To summarize:

(1) The megacity plan is sketchy, risky and suspect.

(2) The PC reform plan to streamline government has turned into mass confusion.

(3) Bill 103 is part of a dangerous juggling act, if you can imagine it: juggling fresh eggs. Drop one and it's broken forever. The bigger regional picture may be the important target for the provincial government, and certainly more within its jurisdiction.

(4) Disbanding some of our wonderful democratic traditions admired by the world is unwarranted and totally inappropriate. As Adlai Stevenson said: "In America, anyone can become president; that's one of the risks you take." Transposed to Ontario: Anyone can become Premier; that's one of the risks you take. This ironic statement may not be so funny. We're all holding our breaths. We need to return to the commonsense part of the revolution.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Allen. You've used up the time allotted. Thank you very much for coming here this morning.

COALITION OF AGENCIES SERVING SOUTH ASIANS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to move on to the Coalition of Agencies Serving South Asians. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Viresh Fernando: On behalf of the Coalition of Agencies Serving South Asians, I am pleased to make this presentation. My name is Viresh Fernando. I am an economist by education, and a lawyer and a chartered accountant by education, training and experience. Currently, I practise full-time as a lawyer dealing with international settlement and investment issues, and various aspects of commercial and tax law. I am here as a member of the board of the coalition.

Let me begin my presentation by asking you a rather simple but necessary question: Have all of you read the KPMG report and draft Bill 103 in its entirety? I suspect the answer is no, as otherwise you would have convinced your fellow legislators that the KPMG report, which has been used to promote and justify amalgamation, is fatally flawed and that Bill 103 is the most vindictive and worst political decision in the history of Canada since perhaps the scrapping of the Avro Arrow.

I will leave it to others to demonstrate the negative consequences of Bill 103 in many other areas and restrict myself to addressing the failure of the bill and its proponents to deal with the bill's impact on the various cultural communities spread across Etobicoke, city of York, Toronto, North York, East York and Scarborough.

Many federal elections ago, former Prime Minister Joe Clark spoke of Canada as a community of communities. This theme was adopted and endorsed by no lesser Conservatives than Don Getty, Bill Davis, Larry Grossman, and of course our very own David Crombie. Those of us who helped define and refine this concept saw it as reflecting and celebrating the historical distinctness of the aboriginal people from the European settlers, the English from the French, the Hutterites from the Ukrainians, and the more modern differences such as between the Jewish and the Palestinian people, the Sikh and the Guyanese people, and the Jamaican and the Somali people, as examples.

Inherent in the concept of community of communities, or multiculturalism, was a recognition that in any public policy discussion in Canada we had to heed the fact that we were not a melting pot, that we had in our midst groups that have vastly differing needs and therefore expected to be and would be treated differently. Also central to this concept is the notion that people would be consulted in a genuine manner on issues that are of deep concern to them and affect every aspect of their lives.

As our organization represents not only south Asian ethno-specific social and community organizations, but other mainstream organizations that serve south Asians, the concerns we raise with respect to the KPMG report and draft Bill 103 are shared by many social service, ethnic and cultural organizations across the six cities.

Speaking as an economist and a chartered accountant, I am shocked that the KPMG group would publish the report they did on the supposed cost savings of amalgamating the six cities. They have ignored every study that contradicts their recommendations. They have ignored the basic principles of economic forecasting. At the very least, KPMG should have followed the guidelines issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants with respect to forecasting, and in fact these are required of us chartered accountants and I'm shocked KPMG did not follow this.

If a study similar to the KPMG study was included in the prospectus of a company wishing to issue shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Ontario Securities Commission would tell them to get to hell out because they do not comply with the requirements. I am sad that members of my own profession have, for the sake of a $100,000 fee, made unfounded recommendations that will lead to the destruction of the city that Fortune in its November 1 issue picked to be the number one international city.

1020

Let me deal with just one of the basic flaws of the KPMG report, because I don't have the time to go through the rest. On pages 8 and 9 of the report, KPMG acknowledges that to achieve savings by removing duplication and achieving greater efficiencies, it is important to identify so-called cost drivers. It is only by highlighting, identifying and changing these underlying factors that expenditures can be controlled. The three types of cost drivers identified by the report are:

(1) External factors such as weather, topography, population, age, income, crime rates etc, and decisions of senior levels of government. KPMG believe they are static and will not impact on their calculations.

(2) The levels of municipal government services are considered a second and distinct category of cost driver. KPMG does not expect the levels of service to change in the short or medium run and therefore expect no savings in this area.

(3) The third and only area in which KPMG identifies potential savings is in a third type of cost driver named internal or institutional costs which they define as inputs such as number of staff, purchase of goods and services, and of course wage rates.

The entire KPMG study is based on the premise that the first two cost drivers I just referred to, external cost factors and levels of service, will remain the same while $865-million worth of savings will be squeezed out of staff salaries and the purchase of goods and services.

KPMG also states that their prediction of $865 million in savings will be effected only if we assume that all things remain equal.

As anyone who has taken a first-year course in economics will confirm, other than to make a basic point about supply and demand curves, the phrase "assuming all other things being equal," which is the KPMG approach, is never used in any serious discussion of economics, political science or finance by any self-respecting academician, forecaster, or anybody.

That is simply because it is clear to even the first-year university student -- I would say now to a grade 13 student -- that there never can be a situation where everything else is equal. Economic and social policy, financial policy, marketing policy, laws, customs, fashion and our own lives are constantly changing and responding to new developments. It is utter nonsense to talk about a static world, particularly in a technological era. But as you will all read on page 9 of the KPMG study, this is their central premise.

Therefore, we now are left with KPMG's own admission that external cost factors were ignored in their review. In other words, they recommended drastic changes to the governance of the six cities in which we live by ignoring everything that is central to the cities, such as weather, density, population, age, income distribution, employment rates and crime figures. They ignored these figures not because these are irrelevant, as they do admit that these are all very relevant factors, but rather because they felt that none of these could be changed in the short or medium run. If the factors that are most important to our everyday lives cannot be changed, why in the world are we being frog-marched into amalgamation?

The next issue that is obvious from reading Bill 103 and the KPMG study, and I urge all of you to please do this, is that the debate over the amalgamation of the six cities is devoid of any mention of diversity and equity. Over 50% of the population of Metro Toronto today -- although it is not reflected in this room -- is of neither English nor French background. In fact, in 1996 it was projected that the racial minority population was 41% of the population and will rise to 53.2% by the year 2001. In some schools in Metro the student body is 70% to 75% non-white.

All these facts were easily available to KPMG and are crucial to any accurate analysis, yet they were either assumed away or ignored. Of course, Mr. Leach did not bother to take these facts into account either in drafting Bill 103.

Members of the committee, for groups such as ours, access to services and localized municipal government is of great concern. By "access" we mean the ability to have our local councillor listen and respond to our concerns. By reducing the number of councillors by 60%, our ability to be heard and served will have been drastically curtailed. The further government is removed from people, the less impact marginalized communities like ours will have in the governance of our cities.

The reduction of the number of councillors will have another insidious impact. As has been demonstrated in the United States, the larger the wards, the more difficult it is for members of cultural communities and new immigrant groups to seek office. The lower the number of municipal councillors, the higher the value to business élites of having these councillors to people like property developers who have traditionally bought these councillors in different ways, not necessarily by paying them outright.

Let me deal with another aspect of the source of anticipated savings as projected by KPMG in relation to the disproportionate impact it will have on marginalized communities. To operate programs as diverse as battered women shelters, youth recreation programs, English-as-a-second-language classes and programs for seniors, we depend on the availability of funding from different levels of government. These are programs that not only help the integration of all groups in the society, but also produce economic benefits in the society by increasing their productive capacity. Obviously, if you teach somebody to speak English, you are helping them to go out and get a job. Clearly, therefore, the squeezing of savings that KPMG calls for will have a drastic impact on our communities in this way as well.

Then there is the issue of offloading. I won't spend much time on this, except that Mr. Eves and Mr. Martin have become quite adept at it. The ultimate losers once again are the less powerful in our society.

Being a practising lawyer, I must mention that even if Bill 103 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by making it lawful for residents of the same city to receive differing levels of service, it certainly violates the spirit of section 15, the equality section, and section 27, the multiculturalism section of the charter, by making some of us bear a larger burden than at present while receiving a lower level of services. By the way, I believe that Bill 103 does violate section 15 of the charter.

In conclusion, we urge you to reject the KPMG study, as by its own admission it is at best highly speculative and in my opinion very partial and misleading. The issue of whether the six cities should be amalgamated must involve much wider discussion and more credible study.

All that Bill 103 will achieve, besides increased distrust of elected officials such as yourselves and scepticism of their highly paid consultants, who will produce reports for whatever the fee is, is the destruction of a central idea that small government responsive to the people is the essence of Canadian democracy, whether we know it by the name of responsible government, multicultural democracy, community of communities or any other familiar name.

I shall be prepared to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Fernando. I appreciate your taking the time to make a presentation before us here this morning. Could I just go back to one of your opening comments that KPMG should have followed the guidelines issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. That's a very damning accusation.

Mr Fernando: Absolutely.

Mr Gilchrist: Have you filed any kind of complaint with the institute, and if not, why not?

Mr Fernando: No, because it was only last night that I had the time to go through sections 40 to 50. By the way, Mr Gilchrist, you may remember we used to belong to the same party at one time. Sections 40 to 50 clearly state that any sort of projections like the stuff that has been put forward by KPMG should come from management, and this study of course did not come from management.

Mr Gilchrist: So it's your submission to us here that you will be making a complaint, or are you just making a spurious accusation before us?

Mr Fernando: I have to consider that because there are certain implications to that.

1030

Mr Gilchrist: Let's get on to some of the other stuff because we only have a few seconds, Mr Fernando. Please explain to me why eliminating, for example, the artificial political boundary at Victoria Park will in any way influence any of the communities within Scarborough. Please tell me substantively how changing the number of politicians affects, for example, the south Asian community in Scarborough East.

Mr Fernando: Let me answer your question by asking you a question: Why don't we then eliminate the boundaries between Eglinton and St George-St David and just have one person elected for the whole province? We need local representation, Mr Gilchrist. You knew that. You used to live in Scarborough.

Mr Gilchrist: That's not the point. You yourself alluded, Mr Fernando --

Mr Fernando: That's the whole point. Why don't we have one Canadian Tire store?

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Fernando, if that's your submission --

Mr Fernando: I'm not going to drive out to your store in Scarborough to buy something; I'm going to go to the one at Davenport and Yonge. We need local access, local contact and local impact.

Mr Gilchrist: You yourself, in your submission, alluded to the fact that there are other models out there, that the mayors have done a study, that we're somehow flawed in our vision, but the mayors themselves said, "Reduce to 48 councillors," virtually, unless your premise is that four councillors across all of Metro makes a difference. If the mayors themselves believe we can operate with 48 councillors, the only difference being that they'll show up in six city halls instead of all sitting in one city hall, where there can be more cooperative planning on all those big-ticket issues such as transit and water and sewers, what is the difference?

Mr Fernando: The difference is this: If I live in Scarborough, I will go to Scarborough city hall if I need snow removed, if I need a pothole fixed or whatever.

Mr Gilchrist: No, you won't, you'll go to your councillor.

Mr Fernando: Or if I need a committee room booked or if I need a playing field for my cricket match, I will not have to come down to the corner of King and John Streets or wherever the headquarters are.

Mr Gilchrist: You still won't. You'll call your local councillor and you'll still live in your community.

Mr Fernando: Come on, Mr Gilchrist. You've always been like this.

Mr Gilchrist: Likewise, Mr Fernando.

The Vice-Chair: We have completed our time available. Thank you very much for coming forward today and making your presentation.

ALLIANCE OF SENIORS TO PROTECT CANADA'S SOCIAL PROGRAMS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mr James Buller, from the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs. Good morning, Mr Buller. Please begin.

Mr James Buller: I'd just like to point out that I am a long-time resident of the city of Scarborough and that 20 years ago I was appointed to the Scarborough Civic Award of Merit committee. I've been very active in community affairs for many years in Scarborough. I noticed Mr Gilchrist commented on how few people from Scarborough appeared before the committee. I want to reassure him that Scarborough has a keen interest in these events.

My submission is as follows. Every summer my cottage neighbour, a retired journalism professor from the megacity of New York, travels to his modest cottage on an island in Ontario's French River Provincial Park to "regain his sanity," as he chooses to put it. New York City became a megacity to the great detriment of its residents. I think you've already had submissions from a former New York City resident to this committee as to why she left New York City.

Other famous megacities include Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Mexico City and Cairo, Egypt, all of which have far inferior living conditions to the cities of Toronto or Scarborough.

This drastic and ill-considered action will have an enormous negative impact on all the cities within Metro Toronto, and the offloading of the enormous costs to the municipalities for numerous vital social services such as social assistance, homes for the aged, long-term-care facilities, child care and other services will result in reduced services and higher municipal taxes. I see that Metro has already announced a tax increase coming up. The whole exercise is a terrible, irresponsible step backwards designed to give a huge tax cut to the wealthy at the expense of those with more modest means.

Our alliance is only too aware of the serious harm being caused seniors and the disabled by health care and hospital funding and staffing cuts, with hundreds of registered nurses being terminated and entire hospitals facing outright closure. The province's severe cuts to public transit funding -- and mention has been made of public transit -- now make Metro Toronto transit riders pay the largest cash payment proportionally of any other city on the North American continent, thanks to this provincial government. We've had two successive fare increases plus substantial cuts in service. One would think that Mr Al Leach, the former general manager of the TTC, would have spoken up against these harmful cuts which have impacted very harshly on seniors and the disabled, with cuts to Wheel-Trans and so forth. Al Leach was the former general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission.

Separate documents I am filing today show the neglect of safety equipment and training evident during Mr Leach's tenure as TTC general manager. Accordingly, due to his record of incompetence and neglect, we strongly urge the immediate removal of Mr Leach from his position as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the public good. I won't go into the question of rent controls; the majority of Metro Toronto residents are renters and many of them move.

Due to the current negative economic climate, serious mass unemployment and the added unemployment amalgamation would cause with many layoffs, added social welfare costs, severance packages, buyouts, a newly created bureaucracy and other negatives, we strongly urge that Bill 103 be withdrawn in the public interest.

We also request that the ill-advised 30% tax cut to the wealthy be scrapped as they already have received a substantial personal income tax cut from the federal government in 1984, when the Mulroney government cut the top personal income tax rate from 36% down to 29%. Many wealthy Ontarians use numerous tax loopholes to pay even less. Ontario has a minimum corporate tax rate of only 4%. This should be increased without delay. Recent information from Statistics Canada reveals that in 1994 some 81,462 profitable corporations with profits of $17,100,000,000 paid absolutely no federal corporate income tax whatsoever. The province can help correct this. No wonder the deficit is so high.

Revenue available to the provincial government must not be squandered by ill-advised and unneeded tax cuts to the most affluent who have already had their taxes cut by the federal government. Don't compound the injustice. I'd like to ask the members of the Legislature later on if they think that Frank Stronach of Magna International, who pocketed $47 million last year, needs a tax cut, or if Mr Barrett of the Bank of Montreal and the other CEOs of the major chartered banks, who pocketed several million dollars each in salaries and bonuses last year and are multimillionaires, need a tax cut. Evidently Premier Harris thinks they do. I don't think the majority of citizens of Metro Toronto agree with him.

The downloading of the enormous costs of social programs to the municipalities has been condemned by David Crombie, who headed up the Who Does What panel; by the president of the Toronto board of trade and the business community; by Anne Golden, the president of the United Way of Metropolitan Toronto; and by responsible municipal officials including Metro's social services commissioner, Shirley Hoy. For Al Leach to state that this downloading is revenue-neutral is absolutely false and he should resign or be dismissed for misleading the Legislature and the people of Ontario.

The recent negative cost and social impact of the Halifax amalgamation shows the dangers of this irresponsible, ill-advised provincial government Bill 103. I would also mention that the current number one bestseller in the non-fiction category is a book called Boom, Bust and Echo. You've all probably heard about it. You can get it from your local public library. It states that large cities, megacities, with populations over one million people are the least efficient and the most costly and that the best cities in providing services are smaller cities.

1040

We urge that this legislation be withdrawn forthwith and adequate funding be granted Metro Toronto and all Ontario municipalities. This government can still correct this massive proposed legislative blunder. We urge this committee to close ranks and adopt our proposals.

I have Hansard here from February 8, 1996, and Mr Gilchrist was present when the multiparty finance committee met. Our first recommendation, which was one of 16, was as follows to the government: "Provide full extended funding to all municipalities as in the past and do not institute regressive block funding cuts to the municipalities." This was a year ago, so we had some prophetic foresight as to what might be coming down the pike.

I filed supplemental documents here, very recent information I've received from the chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission. I'd like you to pay particular attention to the time frame, going back to 1978, about malfunctioning safety equipment, such as the Ericson trip arm mechanisms which failed during the subway accident, and the inadequate training of new subway drivers. This was changed after that accident by the new general manager and the TTC commission.

The lack of adequate safety equipment and adequate training while Mr Leach was general manager helped contribute to one of the worst disasters, the horrible subway disaster, which was very costly. The economies of skimping on training were false economies; they were penny wise and pound foolish. Sometimes the economies that are being sought by government are counterproductive and harmful.

If any of you have any questions, I'd be only too happy to answer them.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Thank you very much for coming down and making a presentation to our committee. A couple of questions: Seniors have been hit very hard by the cuts made by the Harris government in the last couple of years or so. When in opposition, Mr Harris said to the then government, "It's not a money problem; it's a spending problem." Why do you think he's making cuts now? Is it a spending problem or is it a money problem or is it his incompetence that is the problem?

Mr Buller: My own opinion is that some of these proposed changes are ideological. I feel that the whole idea of a 30% tax cut and the downloading of very costly services to the municipalities is an enormous contradiction; it doesn't add up. Here you have on the front page of the Toronto Star a prominent Conservative, David Crombie, "`It's absolutely the wrong thing to do,' Crombie blasts the Tories on welfare." Al Leach said in the Legislature before he introduced this: "I've consulted Mr Crombie and we're on board. We have one voice." That's not what he said afterwards. He was absolutely shocked. I have an extensive quotation here. I feel it's essential that the provincial government be big enough to say, "We made a mistake." We all make mistakes. I frequently meet with my local Conservative MPP in Scarborough Centre and he knows of my concerns.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): We have met many times.

Mr Sergio: I don't want to cut you off but we have lots of questions. Do you have a question too? I'll continue. This proposal here, Bill 103, nobody knows where it came from really. Maybe Mr Leach and Mr Harris had it in their back pockets many moons ago, but it's totally not what Mr Crombie expected the government would bring on the table. We had the Crombie report, the Golden report, the Trimmer report; every other report had some type of consultation, if you will, among the commissioners themselves. This has not received anything. We have been asking the government: "Give us the information. Give us the data. Give us the costs. Give us the figures. Give us whatever material you have to support your views that this legislation is good for the people of Metro and indeed Ontario."

We believe they don't have anything. If they don't have anything, do you think they should proceed with this legislation until they have provided the people of Ontario with an opportunity to view all of that information?

Mr Buller: No, they definitely should not proceed. There have been some very, very important observations made by Metro social services commissioner Shirley Hoy as to the enormous added costs to Metro and the municipalities of this whole scheme. This goes beyond Metro too, this transfer of these services to the municipalities. I feel that her figures are only the tip of the iceberg. She also stated they could be considerably higher.

We all know what happened to a number of services. For instance, at Metro they were talking about privatizing homes for the aged, which would have lowered standards because provincial standards are lower. It was only a public outcry that forced Metro to back off on this. There have been other threats to social programs from Metro, and it's only public awareness and activism that forced Metro to make some changes in the right direction. This provincial government has to respect the professional opinions of civil servants like Shirley Hoy who have analysed the costs and have said, "No, this is definitely not revenue-neutral." Al Leach misled the Legislature. There's no doubt about it.

Mr Sergio: In terms of the process and the democratic process, if you will, do you see this as an important enough issue that we should have had a binding referendum?

Mr Buller: I would think so. I urged it. I wrote a letter that was published in the Toronto Star urging a referendum on this issue so that the public could really be informed and make an informed decision, but that was evidently not acceptable to the province.

Mr Sergio: You know we're going to legislation now with respect to referenda?

Mr Buller: I heard about that, yes.

Mr Sergio: Don't you think this would be an appropriate time and an appropriate item to delay this until we have all the workings of the referendums worked out?

Mr Buller: Absolutely.

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

JOHN KELLEN

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on John Kellen. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr John Kellen: Good morning to the honourable members of the committee. My name is John Kellen and I am here to express my support for Bill 103. I would like to voice my opinion on how our municipal governments have failed the people of Toronto. The plan to amalgamate the municipalities is a result of waste, duplication, overtaxation, and a political structure lacking planning, coordination, cooperation, and consideration for its citizens.

I would like to briefly comment on our "small" municipal governments and their irresponsible method of managing our money. The figures obtained from the 1993, 1994, and 1995 financial information returns clearly demonstrate their inability to exercise the financial constraints that most of us have been forced to do in our personal lives. Total government costs for the six municipalities and Metro have increased more than 10% from 1993 to 1994. There was an even greater increase from 1994 to 1995. The figures show municipal increases ranging from 0.5% to as high as 31.2%. That's 31.2%. This is unacceptable.

These increases often bear no relation to improving services or increasing accessibility, just poor management of my hard-earned money. We continue to be victims of unnecessary competition with our neighbouring municipalities. With amalgamation, we will elect people who can manage in our best interests, people who will maintain or improve services with less.

1050

The current system is inequitable. Why does the spending dramatically vary without a relationship to service programs and levels? The answer is that the current system does not work and demands change.

For example, why is the response to fires on municipal boundaries determined by politics and not the ability to serve the public's best interests? Why do the expenditures per capita for fire protection services drastically vary in each municipality? Do the people of Scarborough deserve less service than their neighbours in East York? Amalgamation would not only bring about cost savings through efficiencies, but would also save lives by sharing modern technology such as dispatching.

Again, why does the construction and maintenance of local roads depend on which side of the border one resides on? Why do roads simply end at municipal boundaries? Is this efficient? Is this in our best interests? No. It is a result of political disagreement and a lack of continuity.

In the area of water, sewage and waste management, we have another example of inconsistency and mismanagement. Total expenditures per capita in 1995 illustrate major differences in spending and service levels. In East York, expenditures were half of North York and Etobicoke. This spending is not indicative of service levels. The application of best practices would not only save money but also provide all citizens with an equal and better quality of service.

In regard to health services, which include programs that focus on health promotion, we see huge inequities in the per capita expenditures. East York spends almost double that spent in Etobicoke and Scarborough. Does this mean the citizens of Etobicoke and Scarborough deserve less attention in this area? And if these services appear common in the municipalities, how well is East York managing their spending? We do not need six separate health administrative structures to promote health and prevent diseases. It's time to identify the effective and low-cost practices, implement them, and equalize services across the board. The only way to achieve this is through amalgamation.

We all feel very strongly about our access to recreational and cultural facilities. Let's remind ourselves that these parks and recreation centres are unique not only to the community or the municipality but to all the people in Toronto. Why is the per capita spending for parks and recreation in Etobicoke almost double that in Scarborough? Are we not putting the citizens of Scarborough at a disadvantage? Perhaps Scarborough's recreational services are in place and we would be able to incorporate their practices across the GTA. This thought is the light at the end of the tunnel, but amalgamation must first occur before we can implement these improvements in services and address waste in the existing system.

Many citizens value their access to libraries, especially as a vital source of information and knowledge for our young people. We again see inefficiencies and inequities as a result of government structure. Why are expenditures in North York almost twice those in York and East York? Are the citizens of York and East York less worthy? The municipalities are so out of touch with public needs that they cannot even agree on something as simple as a universally accessible Metro-wide library system with one card: a very simple concept, one that would not only improve the current services but save money. This typical approach to providing services and managing our hard-earned tax dollars exists in our current structure. It is time for change.

Another area of great concern to many citizens is the handling of the smoking legislation in the various municipalities. We are all aware of the introduction of legislation for restriction and/or elimination of smoking in public restaurants and bars. It is common knowledge that smoking is the greatest cause of preventable illness, disability and premature death in Canada. It is also a massive drain on the health care system in terms of capital resources and people. The attempt to legislate smoking is another example of how the current structure completely fails to provide for the wellbeing of the people of Toronto. The delays and softening of the legislation are not the sign of a responsive government.

Some believe the existing government is accessible and responsive. Let's talk about accessibility. Who gained access to our local government during the attempted implementation of this legislation? Not me and not the voice of the people. It was the Ontario Restaurant Association that successfully lobbied against the law and its effective date. By the way, the Ontario Restaurant Association receives funding from the tobacco industry. Is this a surprise to anyone? Why did the Ontario Restaurant Association lobby against the bills? Do they believe a little tobacco with their customer's entrée adds to the experience, or was it because they enjoy spending extra money on maintaining smoking sections? No. It is because smokers walked across the street to give somebody else their business. Our municipalities failed because our cities, and the structure that comes with them, could not develop a consistent plan to address this issue.

The impact of restructuring and deferral of the smoking legislation will never be known, but our mayors can be proud that their surrendering to political pressures due to municipal boundaries will encourage smokers to continue their hazardous habit and continue to expose non-smokers to secondhand smoke. It is also a proven fact that the outcome of the municipalities' actions continues to encourage many of our young people to start smoking, thinking this is a cool thing adults do in bars and restaurants. Is this how our municipalities work together for the better wellbeing of the people? These actions display a disregard towards people's health and, once again, a disregard towards the fiscal concerns in the area of health care.

I would like to also comment on the municipal referendum campaigns. This is just another example of the inconsistency and mismanagement that exist in our current system. Six municipalities, six different referendums, each varying in cost -- some even failing to promote voter secrecy, others soliciting deceased voters' opinions. Again, my hard-earned tax dollars at work. For these reasons, I and many others will not participate in this process, and I urge you not to be influenced by the outcome.

If the municipalities were responsible and believed in referendums, they should have had a referendum on the referendum. Many people disagree with the idea entirely, outside of the fact that it was poorly planned and will not clearly voice the opinions of the people.

In closing, I believe amalgamation will inevitably decrease the municipal bureaucracy and lower costs for services. We will realize cost savings through efficiencies and the elimination of duplication while maintaining or improving existing services. It is good for business, it is a good start in creating an environment for job growth and, most important, it is good for the people.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us today. Unfortunately, we've run out of time.

ONTARIO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE YOUTH ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to ask our next speaker, Walied Soliman, from the PC youth association, to come forward. Good morning, Mr Soliman.

Mr Walied Soliman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Walied Soliman and I am the president of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Youth Association. Today, Ontarians, specifically Torontonians, Etobicokians, Scarboroughians, a couple of Yorkians -- sometimes I think it might be better to amalgamate simply because "Torontonians" sounds kind of neat -- are faced with an important decision about their future.

Let's start off with a widely accepted and understood premise: The status quo is unacceptable. That's not something that only I would say. "I've done a lot of soul-searching lately and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous for us to have six fire departments, six works departments and six of everything else in Metro." That was actually Mel Lastman, and I hope he can do some soul-searching some time soon also and come onside with this bill.

He also said on March 12, 1984: "We look like idiots not amalgamating. Why do we have all these works departments and health departments, all this overlapping? Why do we need all these treasury departments and building departments? The work could all be done out of one big office." Mel Lastman, mayor of North York, Toronto Star, March 12, 1984.

"`York and East York are the poor cousins in Metro's six-member family and should amalgamate for their mutual benefit,' York alderman Mike Colle says. Mike Colle said yesterday an organization he's chairman of, Reform York, has been trying to raise the issue of amalgamation for the past eight months." Toronto Sun, April 8, 1982.

"Colle thinks the borough should be disbanded because `We find our taxes are the highest in Metro and our services, if not the worst, are among the worst in Metro.'" Globe and Mail, April 10, 1982.

1100

So it's not only me. I found it rather amusing yet telling of our political times to watch the various mayors get together at early wind of this new change for a conference on how to reform our municipal system in Toronto and its surrounding cities. Instead of flatly admitting the failures of our current system, its inefficiencies and lack of vision, they came up with a half-thought-out plan to significantly cut the number of politicians in Toronto. I must say I was sincerely proud to see that the catalyst, the Ontario government, did not succumb. Where, my friends, had these glorious ideas of municipal reform been for so long? Was the system of municipal government in Toronto so lacking in the essential attributes of good government that not once had it seriously considered its future as a city serving people?

What I am stating is quite simple. Inefficient municipal government in Toronto must be stopped; not streamlined, but stopped. No, I do not believe that we should spend years studying the obvious. It doesn't need a Somalia-inquiry-type government study to figure out that fewer politicians will save money; that streamlined government where garbage collection, roads and planning departments are consolidated will be more efficient. But being politicians, you all recognize, even in times of fiscal restraint, that savings are not the only factor that constituents desire. Efficiency, local representation, the ability to live a more comfortable life are all essential and important attributes.

I'm only a second-year political science student living at home and making a meagre living -- in fact some of you have been in the political game much longer than my 19 years -- but I am sure that, whichever side of this table you sit on, you shall agree with me that the 50 or so politicians who shall be unemployed after Bill 103 will not be missed. Some may throw a going-away party, but I am confident that many will find their constituents doing that for them.

The constituents of the new Toronto will quickly learn that they can do better for less. Citizens have realized and shall continue to be reminded that the Metro regional level of government currently already administers 72% of the operating budget and has consolidated major services such as police, public transit, social services and ambulance services. The six cities, as you all well know, administer only 28% of the budget for services that could so easily be merged and provided more efficiently at less cost. How much less? Well, if the figures of the reputable KPMG are correct, almost $1 billion up front and by $300 million from then on. Clearly, ladies and gentlemen, a unified Toronto is better for all of us from a fiscal perspective, a comfort perspective, an efficiency perspective or, of course, an economic development perspective.

So what is all the fuss about? This morning I spoke to about 500 students at an amalgamation meeting from Leaside secondary school in East York. The message they gave me was one of confusion: Efficiency, saving money, living a more comfortable life we agree with, but what is the opposition doing at Queen's Park? What is John Sewell ranting and raving about in his civilly disobedient and immature way? What are Mayors Hall, Lastman etc -- I don't even know all the names of all the mayors -- trying to achieve?

Ladies and gentlemen, some will tell you this is about democracy. We hear this from Dalton McGuinty and Howard Hampton almost every day in the Legislature these days. But I'd like to read to them also a couple of quotes. They're going on about how we have to hold this referendum and recognize a referendum where ballots have been thrown out behind garbage cans and today we hear that there were ballots sent to Stoney Creek.

"The issue of referenda is simply an opportunity for the majority government to move the decision-making and the difficult part of governance on to a very simply asked question through the process of referenda, and that is something the Liberal Party cannot support." Sandra Pupatello, Liberal MPP, Windsor-Sandwich, December 4, 1996, in this room.

That is not where it ends, actually. I'm just trying to present the hypocrisy. Hamilton East Liberal MPP Dominic Agostino and Hamilton Centre MPP David Christopherson said that referendums are not useful in sorting out municipal restructuring. Again, it's not me. It is an interesting thing.

People are not being fooled. Citizens of this province are not being fooled. Mel Lastman sometimes does, sometimes doesn't; sometimes just may support a unified Toronto and other days he doesn't support it. A referendum on the issue: He supports it some days; other days he doesn't.

In Politics 100 -- I take it Mondays and Wednesdays at the University of Toronto -- we're taught that this is a classic example of a political term we call "opportunism." It's a sick political tool used to advance the politician against all odds, even constituents, people, citizens. I'm looking forward to the day Bill 103 becomes law; the day Toronto becomes a strong, unified city and the tyranny of opportunistic municipal politicians and demagogues comes to an end.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): How much time is remaining?

The Vice-Chair: Less than two minutes.

Mr Marchese: Mr Soliman, it's good to have you here.

Mr Soliman: My pleasure.

Mr Marchese: It's nice to hear from people like you. We've heard a number of young people who have come, and they share the same view you do. I'm interested, in fact fascinated, by your particular views.

You've quoted a number of people. I want to quote somebody else to you to see what your response is to that. In Fergus, Ontario, in 1994, a friend of yours said this: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." That was Mike Harris.

Mr Soliman: I actually read that this morning in the Toronto Star. That was an interesting quote. What I think we've got to take a look at is the situation we are facing right here in this city, in Toronto. We've got several cities where there are inefficiencies. These inefficiencies are not ones that were brought up by Mike Harris, not ones that were brought up by the government, but just at the simplest wind of a problem the six mayors got together and said, "We recognize there's a problem, and we're going to fix it before we lose our jobs."

Mr Marchese: I've got another question for you. We have only two minutes. Mr Soliman, on this issue you're saying that the Premier meant it only for Fergus, but for Metro it's a different story, caused by the mayors, so this quote really doesn't apply to Metro. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Soliman: Actually, I didn't say anything of that sort. But if I may, the difference between the quote you're using there and the situation we're having here in Toronto is one that's -- and I'll just stress it again very simply -- here in Toronto, there's a recognized problem that is being addressed, not streamlined, not just shaved, but cut and done properly so that we can have more efficient government. That's something I know you guys certainly don't believe in.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Soliman. We've run out of time.

1110

TERESA HIBBERT

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

Ms Teresa Hibbert: Mr Chairman and committee members, my name is Teresa Hibbert. When these hearings were in their initial stages, Mr Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, remarked that he did not need to hear all of the presentations, because the speakers were repeating the same things. I would like to take a moment here and say that, on the contrary, Mr Leach, these reports have shown a high level of originality and have been well researched and eloquently presented. The arguments have been lucid and sound, in contrast, I might add, to some arguments I've heard put forward by certain Conservative members of this committee. Mr Leach has since stated that as a result of these hearings modifications will have to be made to Bill 103. Could it be that he is now actually listening?

The context of my critique of Bill 103 is that of the social situation of women and the ways in which this bill affects women's lives. The main points I wish to focus on are, first, the nature of the prevailing philosophy inherent in this legislation, and second, the harmful consequences this ideology has on women.

Before I elaborate on these aspects, I will just state briefly that the changes proposed by Bill 103 for Metro Toronto and the municipalities cannot be seen in isolation and are interconnected in terms of the destruction of local government, the dismantling of local control of schools and the downloading of municipal services and essential social services on to cities.

The most insidious and lamentable section of Bill 103 is that dealing with trustees and the transition team. The three trustees, along with the transition team, have been accorded powers that transcend the law, since their decisions "are final and shall not be reviewed...by a court." This is unconstitutional. Further, it is increasingly evident that the concept of a megacity is a smokescreen for the privatization of the province, and the transparency of this government's relationship with mega-corporations is blatantly apparent.

Regarding the philosophy expressed in Bill 103, I would argue that it is a philosophy based on dishonesty, deceit and manipulation. Witness Mr Harris's remarks when confronted by the taxpayers' federation before his election in 1995. He stated at that time that local government would not be eliminated; and further, that ordinary citizens would not find financial matters and public policy at the provincial level too difficult to understand and voice their opinion on through a referendum. Yet Bill 103 will dismantle government at the local level.

Regarding the referendum, we have been told that regardless of citizens' opinions, the government will continue with its agenda and ignore the people. How is this a democracy? The essence of democracy is government by the people and for the people. The hypocrisy and contradictions inherent in this government's philosophy abound at every turn.

The Conservative Party's document entitled Your Ontario, Your Choice -- excuse me for feeling nauseated -- states, "The Ontario government is firmly committed to using the referendum as a tool of increased accountability and improved public participation in the decision-making process." Yet here again we have been told that our expressions of dissent will be dismissed and that our public participation will stand for naught. Is this not contradictory? Is this not hypocritical? Are these not lies?

Bill 103 reflects the principles of demagoguery and not those of democracy, because Mr Leach will have sole authority over all municipal decisions since not only is he the appointee of the three trustees who will oversee the city, but these trustees are answerable only to him. This is a philosophy of dictatorship, and we need not point our finger at so-called Third World countries as if those places were the only homes of tyrants and despots. Bill 103 firmly entrenches despots in our own backyard.

When considering the effects of this ideology on women in particular, the reason my focus of analysis is on women is because as a group women are most reliant on and in greater need of essential social and community services than any other group. When these services are denied, women have nowhere to turn, and consequently suffer the most. In particular, women of African origin and women of colour are extremely vulnerable because they suffer a double oppression, that of racial inequality and gender discrimination. Since women are still regarded as being primarily responsible for child care, children's loss is automatically linked to that of women. The philosophy, therefore, of Bill 103 is particularly cruel and vicious, because it targets and attacks the most vulnerable group in society.

The full effects of Bill 103 proposals on women in particular are too numerous to be enumerated here. These effects, however, have been fully detailed by Women Plan Toronto, and I include in my brief a copy of their statement. See addendum 1. Suffice it to say that women have worked tirelessly to create services such as child care and all manner of community programs, including those affecting health and safety. Bill 103 seriously jeopardizes all these programs which women in particular need because of its downloading on municipalities of housing for low-income people, long-term care for the elderly, employment equity programs and in particular programs to prevent violence against women. Thus, women's rights are being systematically eroded by this legislation, and the philosophy of this government can clearly be seen as one of contempt towards women.

This contemptuous attitude is mirrored in a report on violence against women, a report which the provincial government was supposed to release but refused to do. This report, entitled Framework for Action on the Prevention of Violence Against Women in Ontario, was completed in November 1996 by McGuire Associates, who were hired in conjunction with the minister responsible for women's issues. In December 1996, at the request of the minister responsible for women's issues, a forum composed of women's groups was held at George Brown College to respond to this report.

Panellists, however, did not receive copies of the report but only a four-page excerpt of the executive summary, and this only one day before the forum. As a result, panellists and participants questioned the entire aspect of this report and consequently they, along with those others who managed to see the report, wrote a synopsis outlining the problems inherent in this document. I have included in my brief a copy of this synopsis. Please see addendum 2. In general, this report is an attack on services for women and proposes severe budget cuts to shelters and to rape crisis centres. As many women have observed, this is a report which is dismantling over 25 years of women's struggle for freedom from violence.

I am here before this committee to remind the government of the terrible price women and children will pay if services for women are eliminated or radically altered. Legislators and law enforcement agencies should be working to eliminate abuse and violence against women and introduce legislation that creates a safe and positive environment for women. Instead, to its shame, this Conservative government, with its introduction of Bill 103, is placing women in serious jeopardy. Women have fought hard for the right to vote and make decisions that affect our lives, but sad to say, the Ontario government, with Bill 103, has walked roughshod over that struggle by denying women today those hard-won rights.

It is timely here to recall the words of Charles Fourier, a sociologist and an early advocate of women's equality. He said: "The change in a historical epoch can always be determined by the progress of women toward freedom, because in the relation of woman to man, of the weak to the strong, the victory of human nature over brutality is most evident. The degree of emancipation of women is the natural measure of general emancipation." I remind the government that this was written in 1841, and how they have indeed, with this legislation, turned back the clock regarding women's human rights.

I therefore demand that the government of Ontario withdraw totally, and not just amend, all proposals of Bill 103. As our own Jane Jacobs so aptly stated, "It cannot be improved and therefore it must be discarded," on the grounds that it is an unconscionable and tyrannical piece of legislation and as such it violates the basic democratic rights of all citizens. As Jane Jacobs has further stated: "We are up against heavy stakes -- the future of our city and society, and in our struggle, we have to have a combination of high hearts and unyielding wills. These are our resources and we will win."

I ask Mr Harris and Mr Leach, along with the women of all Metro Toronto who signed the Women's Declaration Against Amalgamation and for Local Democracy, what part of "no" don't you understand?

I end with a sobering thought. As the Rape Crisis Centre of Peel has reminded us, "Cuts cost women's lives."

I now ask for one minute of silence so that the committee may reflect on the message they have heard during these hearings and in particular to remember the women who have died through acts of violence and those who will probably die if safety programs and violence prevention programs are jeopardized as a result of the proposals advocated in Bill 103. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hibbert. You have timed that absolutely right. It's 10 minutes. Thank you very much for appearing before us.

Ms Hibbert: I did ask for one minute's silence.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. We have only the 10 minutes for each person making a presentation here today.

1120

DENNIS FOTINOS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Dennis Fotinos, the Metro councillor. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Mr Dennis Fotinos: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dennis Fotinos. I am a Metro councillor in Metropolitan Toronto, representing the city of Toronto wards 11 and 12. This is my second term in office.

I support one strong, unified city of Toronto governed by directly elected councillors and a directly elected mayor. In addition to rationalizing municipal service delivery and permitting for greater efficiencies and revenue generation, unification will provide for better government accountability than the models presented in the Golden report or in the mayors' proposal, Change for the Better, respectively.

While your government is to be commended for recognizing this, the previous Liberal government of David Peterson, with Bernard Grandmaître as Minister of Municipal Affairs, must also be acknowledged for recognizing the need for accountable government and establishing a directly elected council to manage the affairs of 2.3 million people in Metropolitan Toronto. Bill 103 recognizes and builds on the reforms initiated by the Liberals, and with some amendments it will produce a strong, vibrant municipality run by democratically elected, accountable representatives of the people.

Tip O'Neil, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said, "All politics is local." I agree. Politicians may be elected for their positions on the bigger issues but they are defeated for their mishandling of local issues. The public may not be totally informed about the complexities of the larger issues but they sure know the details of local matters, and as you all know, they hold politicians accountable for these issues. The best way to ensure that people become better informed about the bigger issues and about their respective representatives' positions on these issues is to allow for elections. When politicians have to defend their record in elections they become much more accountable.

Both the Golden report and the mayors' report dismissed the need for accountability at the level of government managing the services delivered to 2.3 million people. One can only surmise that the Golden commission arrived at this conclusion due to the lack of any political representation on their panel, and the mayors -- some might suggest self-interest; I leave that to you to determine why they would do that. For even if all other reasons are dismissed, it defies logic to insist, as the mayors and Golden do, on having accountability for local councils which approve budgets in the order of $500 million and then recommending substantially diminished accountability for a council responsible for a $4-billion budget.

As Jane Jacobs, one of the heroes of the anti-unification side, noted, mistakes made by larger bureaucracies are bigger than those made by smaller bureaucracies. While I don't agree with this statement entirely, it sure makes the case for the necessity of directly elected, accountable representatives who will ensure that the public interest is preserved. The Liberals, as I said earlier, recognized this need for accountable government in 1988, and Bill 103 supports the need for strong, accountable government and builds on that.

Bill 103 supports the need for a government and a council whose size will make it more accountable by making it less susceptible to the influence of unscrupulous interest groups and individuals, the kind of behaviour, regrettably, we have witnessed at Etobicoke city council and York city council in the past while -- two of the councils, I might suggest, that the mayors and Ms Golden would have us preserve.

However, while I believe that Bill 103 will produce an accountable, strong city council, I also believe some amendments are necessary, and I'll list those amendments for you.

(1) I believe the community councils mentioned by the minister in his press release after Bill 103 was introduced must be included in the final draft of Bill 103 and they ought to be given very defined statutory powers on local issues. Allow them to deal with the local issues and make sure that they have the authority and power to do that and that they're not just paper tigers.

(2) The proposed transition team should be comprised of elected representatives from the existing six local councils and Metro council. If you're going to insist on accountability in the new council, then the body that determines the role of that new council should also be made up of accountable people, people who have been duly elected by the citizens of this municipality.

(3) While the government should enact Bill 103, you should delay implementation until January 1, 1999, or until such time as the transition team, comprised of elected representatives, has had an opportunity to consult the public on the details of the new council. That transition team should go out and hold meetings on the details. I think you have the broad strokes right on amalgamation, on one city, but I think some of the short strokes still have to be ironed out.

(4) I think the board of trustees should become an advisory panel to the minister with no powers to override duly elected representatives of the people. If the minister feels this is necessary, that the council should be overridden, then he should do it himself. He is accountable; he will have to answer for his decisions. The trustees should not have that authority over council, and while it may be very restricted and may be very limited in nature, again it flies in the face of accountability and the thrust of the new council.

(5) As a member from the city of Toronto I would hope this government would scrap actual value assessment.

(6) I would hope that this government would reconsider some of the transfer of financial responsibilities, or what's known as downloading, to the municipalities. Give the new city a chance. The downloading and AVA, I think, will not allow the new city to survive.

I have some suggestions as to how I think you can transfer responsibilities. You might consider, for instance, taking over actual classroom education and education in outlying municipalities to remain in control of the administration of education. That principle should also apply in social services: Take over the cost of the welfare cheque but allow the municipalities to handle the administration.

If municipalities want a say in what is happening in their municipality with respect to social services and education, and I think they do, they should also have to pay for that. It's not fair to suggest that the province should take over the entire cost. Some of that should be borne by the municipalities. I think a scenario of that nature, given the discussions I've had with our staff at Metro, would provide for a revenue-neutral solution, and more important, would provide for a financial tradeoff that would make sense in the long run when the welfare situation may become more volatile again.

In conclusion, I'd like to say for the sake of Toronto, pass Bill 103 with the necessary amendments. Unify the six municipalities but take the time to get it right. Thank you.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Thank you very much, Mr Fotinos, in particular for your helpful suggestions. I want to follow up on one of your comments in that regard: community councils. Can you give us a little more detail as to your thoughts on just what the structure of the community councils should be, what their authority should be, what subject matter and how it all plays into the total picture?

Mr Fotinos: There are issues that are very clearly local in nature: traffic mazes in neighbourhoods; Stop signs on city streets; front-yard parking; building permits with respect to very local issues -- the size of a garage for example, the size of an extension to a home. Those kinds of issues are very local in nature and we would all concede that the people best able to handle those issues are probably the communities and their respective representatives. Those are probably not the kinds of issues that should take up lengthy debate at a council that would be handling a budget in the order of $6 billion.

Those kinds of responsibilities should not only be assigned to the local councils but local community councils should have statutory powers to deal with those issues. If there is an issue which is very germane to the citizens of a community in former Etobicoke or Weston or any one of those neighbourhoods in Etobicoke, or Forest Hill or Cedarvale in York and the city of Toronto, then I don't think communities in other parts of the larger city should really be able to delay or somehow alter significantly those issues.

When some of those issues begin to interact with the broader good, for example, when road closures or traffic mazes begin to impact on the flow of arterial roads, that is the kind of thing that has to come out to the larger council to be dealt with on a larger basis.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Councillor Fotinos, many of the critics have gone after Metro council, of which I've not been a great fan in the past on some issues.

Mr Fotinos: I know that.

Mr Hastings: Some of you have sat down and put your heads together to try to figure out how this new amalgamated city council could work effectively. I had a breakfast meeting with Councillor Griffin this morning and she was suggesting we should look at moving the date of actual taking of office from January 1 to March or April 1, concurrent with the old councils to deal with a number of procedural and mechanical issues and make it a much smoother transition.

1130

Specifically she was most concerned about having the CAO of the new city appointed by the new council, exclusive of the transition team, because she said if you're going to have a smooth transition, to get things going you need a CAO whose council has a tremendous trust in that individual. Your comments?

Mr Fotinos: Some of those suggestions may be valid; they may not be. I personally think one of the strong points of a unified city is that it's simple and easy to understand for people. I think that kind of process may be a little convoluted. More important, rather than that suggestion coming from Councillor Griffin, I would rather have that detailed suggestion come out of consultations with the public.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we've exceeded our time. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

COMMUNITY HOUSING SECURITY ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to now call on Donald Campbell, the chief coordinator of the Community Housing Security Association. Good morning, Mr Campbell. Welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Mr Donald Campbell: I'm not sure whether to give presentation A or presentation B. Today I'm a schizophrenic as I appear before you because I feel very passionately about the future of this city, as we all do. I think we should remember that we all feel passionately in this city and should respect each other's points of view.

I want to say briefly what I think the new city of Toronto should look like, which is not sensational stuff; it's technical and administrative. Most of this I shall follow up in a written presentation next week. I promise that. I speak from my own experience as someone who has worked in social policing for six years in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority before I was purged from the authority at the end of May.

I found that I was basically all by myself in the Wild West of Weston-Bellevue, which is Lawrence Avenue and Weston Road. Police services there were almost non-existent. I hardly ever saw a police officer on patrol in terms of walking the beat. The division I was in was so short-staffed that another division had to step in and we never knew which police division would be operating.

Also, my experience in terms of MTHA is that it's one big, bureaucratic mess. They currently have two security zones, but then they have four district security advisers, six district housing managers, and then they have private management on top of that.

I'm not going to present a brief here today, whether one should have a privatization situation or not in something like the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, but I can tell you folks that what is going on in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is a mess.

It is interesting to note that of the six murders that have occurred so far in Metropolitan Toronto this year, three have occurred in MTHA. It is interesting that the murders that occurred were, first, at north Regent Park. I'm going to say something which is very much rumour and hearsay but I think this will illustrate why I believe that when Al Leach recently said there should be a review of agency operations, indeed there should be. It should be thorough, it should be independent and, in my opinion, it should be done by you folks. It should be done by members of the legislative committee because this is a problem that has gone on for years and years.

This piece of unsubstantiated rumour is that in that same authority an in-house security services officer, who's also reputed to have been found in a crack house, is apparently a cocaine addict, was found in one of the stairwells at north Regent Park having group sex with some other females. There is another in-house security officer who allegedly is a heroin addict and his addiction spills over into the community where he apparently works.

I can tell you there are about 50 different categories of problems in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority which have not been dealt with, notwithstanding the best intentions of all you honourable members of the Legislature. All I can say is that because I had the nerve to speak up for the junior guys back last February -- I became the head of the Community Housing Security Association and wrote the minister, Al Leach, that April 2 submission warning of the problems almost a year ago -- it was for these reasons that I have been unemployed since May 31, and not only have I lost approximately $25,000 in income so far, but it has also been $25,000 in expenses.

So, ladies and gentlemen -- murders in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and Don Campbell possibly being out on the street in another two or three months, $25,000 outstanding in Mastercard to pay for this democratic effort, I've highlighted a few points just to get your attention.

I'll be sending another transcript regarding unfair labour practices at MTHA which all members of the Legislature will get next week. All members of the Legislature have already got three packages from me. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Take my word for it. Before OHC says, "Yes, we are going to approve your budget," take a close look at what's going on in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. As I've already forewarned the government, this is a Somalia-type scandal that is on the verge of emerging, and better the government root it out than it be rooted out by the media, which I have not yet approached despite being advised by a member of the opposition and a member of the government a year ago. I'm not a sensationalist.

That's all I have to say. I deliver on my promises. I put my money where my mouth is and that is why I've been a threat to the bureaucratic tyrants and despots of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

Mr Sergio: You don't have anything in writing for us, do you?

Mr Campbell: Not today, and you should be thankful for such small mercies. You shall be receiving the transcript of the June 26 conference after I made about several thousand minute changes; I'm a Virgo and I like perfection in transcripts. You will get this labour of passion and concern next week, so that will be package number four. I estimate there are probably about another eight packages to follow if we don't go the legislative committee route.

Mr Sergio: Thank you for coming down and making a presentation to our committee, Mr Campbell. I can sense the amount of frustration you're trying to get rid of. I can sense that and I'm sure there are a number of problems associated with the management of MTHA.

Last year Mr Leach, the minister, wanted to get rid of all 84,000 units, whatever we have in Metro here. Evidently that is proving to be a very hot item the government and the minister can't handle. They want to turn it over to the local municipality now, with all the problems. Mr Leach said that the cost of repairing those units is too excessive. How do you feel now that the provincial government wants to dump all the social housing on to the local municipality? Is the problem going to go away?

Mr Campbell: I think it's quite evident I am not a fence-sitter, anything but a fence-sitter, but on the other hand, there is more than one valid point of view on these issues. These are very complex issues, and I believe that when there are various differing points of views, quite often if you not only talk but also listen, you can come out with a consensus that works.

I don't think that the most important problem is whether, for example, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority ends up having a chair eventually who is a municipal appointee or provincial. I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that you first have to root out completely the mess you currently have in MTHA, whether you keep MTHA or whether you pass it on to, let's say, an amalgamated city of Toronto on January 1.

Mr Sergio: What do you think should be done? Can you give us, especially members of the government, some idea as to what can and should be done to clean up the mess you have mentioned there? I believe there is a mess in there.

Mr Campbell: Modest I'm not; I used to be shy a long time ago, but basically appoint me chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and I can guarantee you one thing. I have paid my dues. I have demonstrated that I have integrity, that I have courage and that I'm even willing to be tossed out on the street. I'm behind in my mortgage payments. I've put everything on the line. I've exhausted my RRSPs. Put me on the board, if not as chair -- I don't have to be the chief honcho -- but I'll tell you what, you put me on the board in any capacity and there isn't going to be any more nonsense going on in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. But I would ask you that also someone pay me so that I can do this job, even if it's in a consultant or an investigative capacity, because quite frankly right now unemployment insurance runs out in a few weeks and Canada Trust is going to be sending all my Mastercard payments to collection. These are practical matters.

I can answer that more in the future, the sort of things that can be done. I have many proposals to that effect. The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is an excellent institution run by about the worst bunch of scoundrels you'll find in the whole province of Ontario.

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

1140

WOODGREEN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF TORONTO

The Vice-Chair: I'd like now to call on Brian Smith of the WoodGreen Community Centre.

Mr Marchese: Mr Jakobek isn't --

The Vice-Chair: He isn't here yet.

Mr Brian Smith: I'll stand in for him.

The Vice-Chair: Good morning, Mr Smith, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Smith: My name is Brian Smith. I'm the president of WoodGreen Community Centre of Toronto, which is a multiservice organization serving the east end of the city of Toronto.

WoodGreen Community Centre has been a partner in providing services and building neighbourhood capacity for 60 years in east Toronto and specifically in Riverdale. During those years the demographics of the community have changed dramatically, but the spirit and the care for the community among the residents has flourished.

Is this unique for Toronto or the other cities that make up Metropolitan Toronto? Having been born in Toronto, my experience has shown me that there are many communities which are equally cared for by their residents. It is the neighbour to neighbour which adds the life that no planning document or decree can create. Our present envied status as a great city to live where neighbourhoods flourish needs to be ensured in any proposed changes.

The fundamental question must be asked: Will the changes proposed in Bill 103 threaten or enhance the strength of the neighbourhood? The existing form of government with all its flaws allows and encourages neighbourhoods, and this is of extreme importance. The neighbourhood is the home where the family lives. The neighbourhood is also where there are issues, neighbours who perhaps don't live up to our standards, where there is perhaps abuse, but is also the place where neighbours plant flowers in gardens and improve their local community, and it provides the environment for the growing children which either offset or enhance family life.

Similarly, the neighbourhood where the need for housing repair or renewal goes unheeded or where municipal housekeeping or public safety are neglected or where residents and city administration work together to improve conditions provides the community environment which will enhance citizenship.

The quality of the neighbourhood life in both its physical and social aspects is therefore of vital concern to individuals, families and communities. This is the priority for WoodGreen and our community. These should be the criteria which you, who are entrusted with the health and prosperity of Ontario, should measure any changes against.

It is not good enough to take the expedient way out. You must get it right. Too much depends on this decision to cross your fingers and hope. Families and children depend upon your decision. A lot has been said in the past few days about child poverty and the federal response. However, I would suggest, it is at the level of the neighbourhood that this gets lived. It is equally important if we are to reduce child poverty, by ensuring the quality of the communities we create, where alienation does not become the benchmark as measured by the length of the lineup at the food banks or the hostel or the number of people begging or sleeping on the street.

We have taken too easily to accepting these standards as reflected so pervasively by the media in the cities of the United States. This standard is not good enough.

Your present proposal gives no encouragement that the strength of neighbourhoods, and the families and citizens who live there, have more physical and social wellbeing. There is a body of knowledge that says there are limits to the size of a city if the goal is to create an entity which operates efficiently and allows and encourages its citizens to have an active role in its governance. It is hard to believe you can think that creating a municipal government that would be larger than most provinces in Canada will somehow achieve these goals of a healthy and safe place for our children to live.

Finally, a few words about the proposed cost-sharing proposals that have been put forward and go hand in hand with any municipal structural changes. The proposed changes do not accomplish the stated objective of greater disentanglement between the two levels of government. Also, the appropriateness of the shifts must be questioned. There are two questions which appear to be confused: (1) which level of government is able to deliver the service; (2) which level of government should pay for the service.

The first question should be answered on the basis of customer service and efficiency, and the second on the basis of whether this service should be funded through a broader shared income tax or through a focused and less geared-to-ability-to-pay property tax.

As an experienced deliverer of services, WoodGreen would recommend that those services that relate to the basic needs of food, shelter and health be the responsibility of the provincial government, and those costs related to the operation and infrastructure of the municipalities be funded through the property taxes. However, this should not be used as the criterion for delivery, where closer to the customer should be the preferred delivery mechanism.

Over the last few weeks you have been engaged in a debate, and we must be able to move beyond the political rhetoric and positions. Our concerns are twofold: (1) Keep the size of the municipal entity at a maximum of one million people to ensure efficiency, while keeping it at a scale where there can be a reasonable hope that citizens can be engaged and neighbourhoods can flourish. (2) Review your realignment of financial responsibilities placed on municipalities to keep those costs that ensure basic needs of the individual at the provincial level and those costs that relate directly to city life the responsibility of the municipalities. Where these municipal services cross municipal boundaries, larger, shared, responsible entities, which should include the larger GTA, can be created to provide the service.

To conclude, I'd like to refer to Peter Drucker, a well-known management consultant. Peter Drucker, in talking about effective leadership, tells us that efficiency is doing things right, but effectiveness is doing the right thing. We are asking you to do the right thing and make the changes required in this legislation to ensure our neighbourhoods flourish, because healthy neighbourhoods ensure healthy cities.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thanks for coming down, Brian, and giving your thoughtful presentation. I just want to ask you -- we come from the same area of Toronto -- your view on the larger issue as well, the connection between the amalgamation and the downloading. There are those who say that there is no connection. I beg to differ. There are lots of connections, and I wonder if you have a comment on that.

Mr Smith: Certainly I would think that for the services, especially related to welfare, social assistance, some of the long-term care, the housing, there needs to be consistent funding across the entire province. It may be more effective to be delivered through a municipal infrastructure, but I believe that the way to ensure equity at these most basic service levels for our fellow residents in our communities, whether they be in large centres like Toronto or in small municipalities, should be the responsibility of the provincial government.

1150

Ms Churley: Other things are coming down the pipe, for instance, the removal of the business occupancy tax for big business, so that's got to be made up somewhere, and AVA which is really another form of MVA, and all of these downloading things. Just from the work you do in the south part of Riverdale, do you have a concern that all these things are going to lead to higher taxes, more user fees? At WoodGreen, for instance, there are a lot of free services for seniors and poor children.

Mr Smith: Already we're looking at more downloading of services to communities. Whether the local property tax base can afford those, there is much concern about that in our sector. I wouldn't see that the local municipality in the long run could bear those costs, especially when there are economic downturns in the local economy and a loss of the property tax base.

Mr Marchese: We've heard from about 200 people who have come here, very passionate about wanting to preserve local governments because they've argued that they're much more accountable, more responsive and attuned to communities and neighbourhoods and to the kinds of issues you've been raising.

The others argue, "We're not going to lose all of that," and the Toronto Star has argued that: "We're still going to have elected people. There will be 44 politicians. We're going to have community councils and neighbourhood councils. So why are you and others so worried about this?" What is your response to things like that?

Mr Smith: As I heard a previous speaker say, in terms of neighbourhood councils, their role and responsibilities certainly hasn't been defined, and whether they're just advisory bodies. I know a number of local cases where there are local issues and in many cases these are seniors who are concerned about these issues. They've been able to go to their local council and make representation. I see it as very difficult for these same individuals if we've created such a huge bureaucracy, that they would have the same ability to have impact and create local change.

Mr Marchese: There is a Mr Wendell Cox, who you may have heard of, who's done some research in this whole field, and one of the matters he raises is that "larger governments are more susceptible to special interests." This is so for a number of reasons. "First, special interests have the financial resources to hire professional advocates (such as lobbyists) to learn, understand and manipulate the rigid process of larger governments." It's one of the reasons he gives. I'm concerned about that because my sense is that people who have come here deputing are very worried about their inability to influence this much more powerful council.

We had the Urban Development Institute come here yesterday, very supportive of this particular bill; they think this is great for the economy, for themselves. They stated a worry which is of interest to me. They said: "We are concerned about the development and use of community councils and neighbourhood committees as contemplated" under the bill. "While the details have yet to be clarified, it is our understanding that community councils would consist of seven or eight wards, with each ward being represented by its elected councillor. These community councils would receive input from neighbourhood committees."

It is interesting that they are very worried about planning issues and they're worried about some of these few people -- we don't even know what power they might have -- who might give advice to these community councils made up of politicians. They're worried about the influence they would have on planning issues. They, presumably, would like to get rid of even that modest voice that might be kept under this bill. What is your sense of that?

Mr Smith: I certainly would want to have local input. My concern is those groups would be better served if they are incorporated into smaller community councils, or actual municipal councils, and kept below sort of a million threshold in population so that at least it's within a size that people can go. I guess a lot of questions: Are these people elected? How do they get there? Are we creating more confusion to the individuals in the community in terms of bureaucracy? How many structures?

I think it would be simpler to have a smaller council that was elected and responsible for these decisions, where people can actually go and make representation, rather than to create a whole -- it seems to be more entanglement rather than less to create these huge structures. But if it's a large bureaucracy we're talking about, then definitely that's better than nothing.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here today. I would like to thank those who have agreed to be rescheduled. We will stand recessed until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1156 to 1536.

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are going to resume our hearing here.

LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to begin by asking Hilary MacKenzie of Low Income Families Together to come forward for a presentation. Good afternoon, Ms MacKenzie. Welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Ms Hilary MacKenzie: Thank you. Low Income Families Together is an organization which is governed by low-income people and whose members are all low-income people. We work in community economic development, popular education and advocacy. The impact which Bill 103 will have on the low-income community has been discussed extensively by our members, board of directors and staff, and this brief provides a compendium of their points of view.

One very direct impact that was immediately obvious to us was that there would be virtually no access to participation in municipal politics for low-income people in the new Metro. It is already extremely difficult for low-income people to participate in municipal politics due to the time constraints and uncertainty that financial hardship forces on them. Now with far fewer wards, campaigns will be far more expensive.

A former president of our organization, Carol Anne Wright, a sole-support parent, woman of colour and resident of Regent Park, was a candidate for the mayoralty of Toronto two municipal elections ago. The financial resources for her campaign were minimal, but she had a very determined campaign team and, although she didn't win, she got a very respectable number of votes and brought a lot of low-income issues to the fore.

If the six cities are combined, no one will be able to run for office without a party or business connections behind them. Running for the mayoralty of Toronto will be like running for the mayoralty of New York City. Only those who are affluent and/or well connected will be able to run for office and those who get elected will not be able to represent all their constituents effectively because the business interests or party which supported their campaign will expect to have favours returned.

Citizens' access to their local councillor is also being more or less halved. Currently, wards are small enough for councillors to know all the different neighbourhoods in their ward. When you visit a councillor's office, they immediately know the neighbourhood you are talking about. When you double the ward size, you sacrifice accessibility, accountability and efficiency.

The present government, which is so keen on the concept of flexibility in certain contexts, is promoting the growth of a bureaucracy which will inevitably be far more rigid than the current city administrations, leaving citizens with less ability to intervene.

The proposed neighbourhood committees will not ameliorate this situation in any way. They will not dispose of any significant resources, so they will have little power and, because they are not elected, they will not be accountable to citizens. Committee members will not be remunerated, so they will inevitably be composed of better-off homeowners who can afford to be involved in such a capacity. There will be no place where low-income people can take their concerns, as they have no obligation to respond as unelected appointees.

Metro-wide planning will also be very prejudicial to the interests of low-income communities. Fast and easy automobile access downtown will predominate in city planning, endangering the health of lower-income inner-city neighbourhoods for the convenience of suburban commuters. Traffic calming, encouraging bicycling, taking a holistic approach to neighbourhood safety are going to be a low priority for a suburban-dominated mega-council.

Currently the record of the city of Toronto in making it possible for citizens to have their say in what is going to happen in their neighbourhoods is not bad. Meetings to discuss changes are held at locations and times of day which make it possible for most citizens to attend. We are doubtful that a mega planning department will be so citizen-friendly.

With the changes in land use planning in Bill 20 and the weakening of environmental assessment in Bill 76, there is a greater likelihood than ever that health-endangering installations such as incinerators and highways will be dumped in low-income neighbourhoods. Who will protect such communities in the framework of a megacity where the planning department knows little about what makes specific communities tick? Their status will shrink in relation to the territory of their local councillor.

Actual value assessment will increase the regressive tax burden above all on low-income households, especially senior homeowners on fixed incomes, as well as renters. On average these low-income groups pay almost 6% of their income in property taxes while higher-income people only pay 3% of their income in property taxes.

The downloading of so many programs based on need, such as health and welfare, to property taxes which are inflexible and regressive and do not take any account of income is neither a sane nor a sustainable alternative to our present system. It will pit children's development -- bearing in mind that one in three children in the city of Toronto is dependent on social assistance -- against the interests of small businesses and homeowners when there is a recession. What will happen to the dental plan and the drug benefit plan so essential to families on social assistance? What will happen to the assistive devices program which is so essential to people with disabilities?

Many of the services which are essential for low-income people to have any quality of life and for their children to have an equal chance will be competing for very scarce funds if these measures are passed. The amount which municipalities are to contribute to child care has been multiplied. Many families will be denied, making it impossible for them to go out to work or attend training programs, thus increasing unemployment.

With so many essential services competing for scarce dollars, we are likely to see higher user fees, the loss of income supplements which help to prevent high staff turnover in this extremely low-waged sector, the elimination of programs for children with special needs, as well as some families being forced to resort to informal, unlicensed child-minding rather than child care with proper facilities which can stimulate children's development.

Recreation programs are also likely to suffer considerable cutbacks in the downloading of costs to the municipalities. Currently the use of libraries and recreation centres is free in Toronto. They are extremely important for low-income families as they have no other options. Mr Leach has described charging for such services as an opportunity for municipalities. It does not represent an opportunity for low-income people. It represents the denial of services. They can hardly afford to pay the rent and buy food, so going for a swim or borrowing books would become an unaffordable luxury.

The other alternative that municipalities will have will be to cut back services. Do we really want the recreation centres and libraries we have built to remain closed while our kids hang out on the streets or stay home and watch TV?

Housing, one of the most basic determinants of health, safety and stability, is severely threatened by these changes. Metro housing, Cityhome, non-profits and co-ops are being downloaded to the municipalities, which do not have the administrative capacity nor the funding to cope. It is feared, justifiably, that this will lead to inadequate maintenance and the deterioration of the already vastly inadequate supply of affordable housing in Toronto. The loss of access to social housing, combined with the high unemployment rate and reduced shelter allowance, leads to ridiculous situations such as municipalities spending thousands of dollars on putting families up in motels because all the shelters are full.

Public transit, again, is a very important issue for low-income people. They depend on it as they cannot afford to own cars or take taxis. Saddled with its new financial responsibilities, Metro will be forced to increase fares and cut back service, which will lead to more isolation for low-income people and more difficulties in accessing the services they need. It is also very unlikely that there will be any funds left for retrofitting in order to make transit accessible for the disabled and the elderly.

Public health programs are very important for low-income people too, and with the downloading of costs, both the quantity and the quality of them are likely to suffer. They are an essential investment in prevention and an important link between existing social service and health care systems. Reducing them will only lead to greater costs in social services and health care in the long term.

The downloading of a lot of the responsibility for providing long-term care, coupled with the current demography of Metro, will result in the need for long-term care outstripping the ability of Metro to provide it by far. We have an aging population, we have an increasing number of frail elderly persons who require a lot of care and there are hospital closures, increasing the demand for long-term care. How is Metro going to cope? The only options will be an increase in user fees, which poorer seniors cannot afford, or a reduction in service quality and standards.

Low-income seniors are also very dependent on programs provided at our recreation centres for their socialization needs. They cannot afford any other form of entertainment.

Low Income Families Together believes that the results of amalgamating the cities of Metro would be devastating for low-income people. There is no evidence that amalgamating the cities will reduce costs. In fact, the evidence is all to the contrary. All academic and government research shows that the best size for a city from a financial point of view is between 200,000 and one million. In the US, cities with over a million inhabitants spend 21% more per capita than cities with populations between 500,000 and one million.

Low-income people will bear the brunt of the costs of the new, more powerful bureaucracy as well as the costs of downloading, both in increased rents from which they have little protection with the abandonment of rent controls and in the cutback of services on which they depend.

The municipalities of Metro Toronto largely work very effectively, which is why Toronto has such a high reputation internationally as a multicultural city with a thriving inner core, unlike amalgamated US cities. Why fix something which isn't broken and damage our reputation in the global economy?

There is evidence, however, that amalgamation will result in less citizen participation and significantly reduce involvement in municipal politics, with more costly campaigns and a more remote and powerful bureaucracy.

I immigrated to Canada from Spain 20 years ago. Spain was just emerging from a Fascist dictatorship with humongous bureaucracies and hardly any citizen participation. Even to get a library card you had to traipse back and forth between four different government offices. In Canada I became involved in issues and campaigns in the wards I lived and worked in because they were issues which directly affected my neighbourhood and because access to information and input at city hall were not intimidating.

With the new amalgamated structure it will be far more difficult for low-income people to defend their neighbourhoods as livable communities. They will have to deal with more powerful bureaucrats and councillors who have less time for them and are less familiar with their communities.

1550

Mr Newman: Thank you, Ms MacKenzie, for taking the time to come before the committee today.

On the second page of your brief, it states, "Only those who are affluent and/or well connected will be able to run for office and those who get elected will not be able to represent all of their constituents effectively because the business interests or party which supported their campaign will expect to have favours returned." You talked about party politics that would be brought into municipal government. Is that what you were saying?

Ms MacKenzie: I suppose I'm indicating a person could not run independently unless they had -- they'd either have to have a lot of money or they'd have to have a political party behind them.

Mr Newman: Okay. I just wanted to say that party politics is very much alive at the municipal level.

Ms MacKenzie: Yes. I'm not denying that.

Mr Newman: Okay. Thank you. The second point was that you said, "Currently, wards are small enough for councillors to know all of the different neighbourhoods in their ward." With what's being proposed in Bill 103, I would expect that someone who is seeking office as a city councillor would be able to know what each and every one of the neighbourhoods in their ward would be. I don't believe they are that unmanageable or that unworkable that a councillor wouldn't be familiar with all the neighbourhoods.

Ms MacKenzie: You are more or less doubling the size of the wards, so you're halving the representation, and things change. I mean, sure, if someone wants to get elected, they're going to do the rounds and find out whatever they don't know of their neighbourhood, but things change, and you're halving representation in Metro Toronto.

Mr Newman: I can assure you I can speak for members on this side of the committee, and I'm sure the other side as well, that they know all of their neighbourhoods in their communities, in their ridings, so I think the wards will be workable sizes for people to be effectively represented. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms MacKenzie, for appearing before us today. You have used up the time available. Thank you very much.

COALITION OF VISIBLE MINORITY WOMEN

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Elaine Prescod, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women, please. Good afternoon, Ms Prescod, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Elaine Prescod: Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the standing committee on Bill 103. My name is Elaine Prescod and I'm a long-time resident of Scarborough. I am employed on a daily basis as the executive director of the Coalition of Visible Minority Women. I wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

I have been listening to the deputations being made here at home late at night on the channel, and therefore I see a lot of repetition. I don't want to go through the repetition of what has already been said, so I thought that when I was called to make this deputation I would write what really concerns us as women and coming from an ethno-racial community. I'm a black woman and working in a community as a community lobbyist-advocate, and therefore I focus my attention on how we see the megacity would affect our lives.

First of all, when asked about amalgamation and Bill 103 with the people I work with, I was a bit confused and not sure whether it was a good idea or not. Many people in my community are not sure themselves what the megacity means, what impact it would have on their lives and how best they would be able to make an informed decision. Their concerns were: Where would we, as racial minorities and women, fit into the schemes and plans of a megacity? Why was there so little information for us to share and be informed? Are we going to be worse off in the social framework of a megacity? What about our children: education, child care, social services and cultural sensitivity to their need; in fact, their overall wellbeing in the proposed megacity?

I had no answers at the tip of my tongue, but I decided that these questions warranted me to find out so that I can talk to them. By the way, I teach English as a second language to newcomers to Canada as well. So therefore I thought I would do some research and reading to find out what would be the impact of Bill 103.

For the first time in my almost 30 years of living in Canada, especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area, it scares me to think what can happen to our community. Whatever gains we may have made may be at risk of being unravelled or propelled backwards.

I remember quite well, in the 30 years I've lived here, how we lobbied and advocated to government for changes in policies and programs that could have a serious impact on our lives. Many days I carried banners to protest the wrongs and the barriers that were faced by minorities, particularly black people, in the areas of employment, housing and social services, and these protests, I must say, were taken seriously by government. We could approach Queen's Park and we had a sense that the people within its hallowed walls would not only listen to us but respond, even if they were not politically moved to action.

I think one of the worst things the megacity bill would do is to disregard the rule of law and take away our ability to be heard as citizens of this province, especially for a community that always seems to be at the bottom of the totem pole. Decisions made by the transition team of the megacity would be final. Imagine not being accountable to the people. When they make a decision, probably it couldn't be questioned in a court of law. This is suppression and oppression. In fact, the transition from elected councillors would mean that work with local government will be at risk. The ability to affect government will be lost to our communities.

There are some concerns I have regarding the issues of access and equity within a megacity. Has anyone in the government who has made the decision about amalgamation thought to look at the broad picture on the delivery of anti-racism, access and equity issues within a megacity? Are there any structures being put into place that would deal with the issues of access, equity and the racism that is constantly perpetuated on ethno-racial communities? What opportunities are provided for these communities to have input on these concerns?

There is more to a megacity than dollars and cents; it is losing the right to choose, the right to participate in the decision-making process. We live in a democracy, and because we live in a democracy, there should be a democratic process. Isn't that right? The megacity bill is an attack on democracy as it presents a challenge to us. It decides where we live, work and play. It will destroy many of the local programs that make our municipalities a good place to live for all people. We live in a cultural mosaic, and as Fortune magazine says, Toronto, with its multiculturalism and diversity, is one of the best places in the world to live. I say local councils must not be replaced with one big mega-council. The province, however, seems to be forging ahead regardless of what the populace thinks. Government has to be accountable to the people.

According to Bill 103, the province will appoint people to be overseers of this city. I live in Scarborough, and when I have a problem, I can go to Scarborough city council. Where will I go when amalgamation takes place?

How are we supposed to deal with 40 or 45 people in one conglomerate? The influx of racial minority people from what are termed Third World countries brought in people who are unable to speak for themselves because of the language barrier. Who will speak for them in a megacity? These are questions that need to be answered. For the ordinary, grass-roots-level people whom I see on a daily basis and who do not have any say or part in the decision-making process, I want to find answers. Where do I stand on the totem pole as a person or individual and as a community?

Many things we read about indicate that our government is willing to accept the standards of our neighbours to the south. Fortune magazine wrote that Toronto was the best place to live and raise a family. I believe that megacity might change this. Our neighbourhoods will change dramatically, as Metro will fast become a costly place to live and many people will move out to the suburbs. We will all be big numbers in a big institution of a megacity, and in the future we might not even be numbers.

You were elected by the people of the province to exercise the will of the people. Where in the Common Sense Revolution did it indicate a megacity should be enforced on the people of Toronto?

I firmly believe that some of the people at Queen's Park might not themselves fully understand the impact of Bill 103 on our communities. The government wants us to believe that a megacity of 2.3 million people would be less costly. We believe that property taxes will increase, although government wants us to believe they will decrease. The bottom line is that it will mean higher property taxes, reduced social services, and that programs of access and equity will be entirely eliminated.

1600

It is not only our social programs such as welfare, public housing, long-term health care and child care which are at risk, but also loss of employment as higher property taxes could cause businesses to move where costs are more affordable. In the next few years, without money being spent on social services, housing, child care, seniors, shelters and seniors' homes, where would these people be and where would they go?

This amalgamation threatens what we hold dear. We often see in the stores signs which say, "One size fits all." To me, this is the most ambiguous statement, when people come in all different sizes. Look at me. I can't wear something that says, "One size fits all." Therefore, as people are different, so are our needs.

Who then will meet the needs of racial minorities, immigrants and newcomers to Canada, people ghettoized in smaller municipalities? What happens to those most vulnerable? Right now, many of us in these communities have fallen through the cracks, but in a megacity there wouldn't be cracks alone, there would be potholes, the largest ever seen. Ethno-racial communities are in Toronto because there are very few services for us outside Metro. Members of our communities have always felt services for them have been inadequate. It's hard to imagine if it could become worse, or if there would be none at all.

Access and equity for racial minorities will be lost in the shuffle. There will be a change in the social equity and equality of life. There will be changes in the principles which guide us through the years and link us with local government. Larger government does not mean better government.

Look at the inner cities in the United States: Amalgamation did not work and does not work. The megacity bill will open doors to privatization. All the social, recreational and other services we hold dear would most likely be contracted out. What value would be placed on these?

What is also at stake in a megacity is control of our own neighbourhood. The multicultural makeup and tolerance for diversity and equity are most important in North America, especially in Toronto, which boasts about being the most multicultural city in the world.

You know, the other day I realized that there are the same number of letters in the word "American" as "Canadian," so if we are going to make change, all we have to do is sit on our computer and press "typeover" and we can change to American standards.

We have had the opportunity to work with local government which listens and allows us to participate in the decisions affecting our lives even if our participation was not fully accepted. In a megacity, we feel the politicians will be less accessible and we would have people controlling our neighbourhoods when they do not even know what it is like living there. I remember in the city of Toronto when an elected mayor who did not live in the city moved to the neighbourhood so that they could be more accessible. This would never even be considered in a megacity.

Toronto works because it is a community of communities. In a megacity, people would face competition for all the services required, and for racial minorities, the tolerance level will peak. People will be less understanding of the issues of human rights, and these communities will be subjected to more hatred and racism because of the competition for services. Many of us who have worked hard and fought so that others who follow could come in and settle easily would now be thinking of moving out of Toronto. We could experience the same isolation as when we as immigrants first came to this country.

I wish to end by quoting from by Anne Golden, who wrote: "Access, participation and accountability are not just words; they reflect the right of local governments to design programs that meet the unique needs and preferences of their constituents. One single, large and remote amalgamated municipal government for Metro Toronto would have greater difficulty identifying and responding to the distinctive nature of local populations."

I wish to thank you for listening.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Ms Prescod, for a very thorough and certainly thought-provoking presentation. I think you bring a new dimension to the debate and the information. I appreciate that.

One of the things you touched on in terms of having input in the shape on this new proposed megacity is that the people who will be leaving their imprint on this new megacity will be appointed people. That is, there are the trustees, then there's a transition team which will hire all the new department heads and establish the structures of the new megacity. As you know, this transition team, as it says here in section 18, its decisions are final, no judicial review. "The decisions of the transition team are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court."

Do you think this is going to make it somewhat of a challenge to get some kind of positive direction from day one that the city is created if you've got a transition team that's making decisions that can't be questioned by a court, never mind even reviewed?

Ms Prescod: Sir, I don't think in any democracy that anybody should make a decision for the people without being challenged. Democracy is a process. Right now when something happens to me -- there used to be the Ombudsman, there used to be people you can go and talk to. You can even meet with the politicians. I don't have the faintest idea, if anything happens with the people I represent and work with, how I would approach the transition team, because it doesn't seem fair to me that they would be able not to be questioned or make final decisions. I think there should be some sort of input from people like us who are in the forefront and who would like to be part of the democratic process.

Mr Colle: I guess that's doubly difficult when the transition team is going to hire the new department heads of each department of the new megacity. They're going to be putting their shape on it with the people they hire. As it says here, the new city will be bound by the resulting employment contracts of the transition team, so you're going to have department heads in place in the new city who are hired by faceless appointed transition persons. How do you even get to first base if you don't know --

Ms Prescod: I have no answer to how we will get to the first base. I didn't even realize that I would be here today because when I first sent my name in I was told there were no more places for deputations to be made, so I don't have any idea what will happen.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Prescod. I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

PAULINE BROWES

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Pauline Browes. Good afternoon, Mrs Browes, and welcome to the standing committee.

Hon Pauline Browes: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the legislative committee. My name is Pauline Browes and I have been a resident of Scarborough for the last four decades. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the legislative committee concerning Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto.

First, let me commend you and the government for scheduling the extended amount of time, I understand up to five weeks, to receive submissions concerning this bill. It gives the public a great deal of time, with these committee meetings as well as the many public meetings that are being held in various city halls across Metro, for people to have an opportunity to have their submissions. As a former federal elected representative, I certainly appreciate the work that you're doing here and in your other committees.

1610

As I see the issues that are before you, the question is, do we need four levels of elected government for residents of the Toronto area or would three levels of government be sufficient? I believe it to be a common sentiment that we are overgoverned and overtaxed. Do we need 22 MPs, more than 22 MPPs as of now and some 106 municipal politicians to organize, administer and manage the affairs of the people of Metropolitan Toronto? It seems excessive.

Premier Mike Harris and the government rightly took the steps to reduce the number of MPPs to 22, the same number with the same boundaries as the federal level of government, and it rightly follows that a reorganization at the municipal level is also required. The number of municipal elected persons would be reduced from 106 to 44 plus the mayor, which would become more than the number of federal and provincial representatives combined. Surely this is sufficient representation.

Besides the details of Bill 103, in reviewing some of the submissions that you have received, some questions have come before you that I wish to comment on. There is the question, does the government have the authority to institute this legislation? Of course, one only needs to look at the instrument of the authority that the provincial government is provided with and that is the historical document of the 1867 Canadian Constitution, outlining the authority of the provincial government to govern the municipalities. There is also no doubt that the government, the duly elected government of the people of Ontario of June 1995, when each of you were elected, has the right to legislate in this area of establishing an efficient municipal governance for Ontario and, in this case, the Toronto area.

Also, some ask, does the government have the mandate to institute this legislation? It goes to the democratic principle and the role of the legislator. Is the elected representative a trustee or a delegate of the people? This issue has been debated for many years and some argue that the elected representative is a delegate of the people and that all the ideas, policies and programs should be decided by a referendum. Others argue that an elected representative is a trustee of the people. The duly elected representative of government has been given the trust of the people to govern for a period of time -- say, four to five years, as it's stated -- and decisions, after consultation, are made by those trustees, the elected representatives, in their best judgement. It is my position that the latter is the preferable option. I'm not a fan of referendums.

The present referendum that is being conducted does not fall, in even the slightest way, within the confines of a vote on democratic principles. It's not secret; it's very easy to get a ballot. Several ballots were mailed to my own home.

You, the legislators, are making your decisions with the best judgement that you have and acting as the trustee in our system of responsible and representative government. I commend you for the courage that you exhibit in making those decisions.

The Mike Harris government has made many courageous decisions since taking office some 21 months ago and Bill 103 is another example of the decisive action that is taking place to bring efficiency to our communities.

As the Premier stated yesterday, Bill 103 at this committee has taken on issues that are not even in Bill 103, but it's difficult to discuss Bill 103 without talking about some of those issues. I want to refer to some of the structures that have been discussed in this forum. One is public health. In respect to public health, I am very pleased that this bill will be coordinated for all of Metro Toronto. As a former chair of the Scarborough Board of Health a few years ago, I was concerned about the programs and policies that were instituted by individual boards. The artificial boundaries of the various boroughs and cities did not serve the community well with those separate boards. Now the public health policies and programs will be unified and consistent throughout. Ambulance service is fully amalgamated for efficiency, so why not other aspects?

The issue concerning education, and it concerns the property tax system -- there has been much discontent. While I was an elected representative, even though at the federal level, I heard so many comments about, "Why does the large cost of education have to be on the property taxpayers' backs?" It is right to have this area funded at the provincial level. In the past, municipal councillors had no control over the education expenses even though it was the major portion of the tax bill.

I wonder, in this debate that's been going on, if the education was being flowed to the municipalities, what kind of discussion we would be having. We'd be saying: "Education definitely shouldn't be on the part of the municipalities. The costs are going up. There are so many variables." I think it's excellent that the education is going to be at the provincial level and be funded there.

Elections: As we know, the voter turnout for municipal elections is around 30% to 35% of the eligible population. When there are a number of persons seeking office for a particular ward, a councillor can be elected with as little as 10% of the eligible voters. I understand that in the last election, the 1994 election, a large number of the Metro councillors were acclaimed. Hopefully with this new system -- the concern for community standards and municipal taxes -- a greater interest will be engendered in the public to increase voter participation at the municipal level.

At present, property owners who have many properties in Metro Toronto can have many voting opportunities. An example: If you live in Scarborough and own property in North York, you'd have a vote in Scarborough and you'd have a vote in North York. Hopefully with this new system a person would have one vote in this great jurisdiction that we have and live in, Toronto.

With the reduction of the number of names on the ballots in terms of the number of positions, I hope that it would also decrease the confusion that a voter has. Many people have called me the night before the election and said: "I haven't a clue who's running for all of these positions. Who do you recommend that I vote for?" I had some ideas who they should vote for.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Browes, I'll have to ask you to conclude your remarks.

Hon Mrs Browes: Okay. Bill 103 has some major changes, and change and managing change is never easy. Governing in a democratic system is also not without controversy, but our open system grants the people the opportunity to state their opinions and we will continue to fight for that right. The government also has the right to bring forth and pass legislation, and I believe the legislation before you is appropriate, will effect efficiency and will prove to be beneficial for all the residents of Toronto.

In closing, I thank you for this opportunity to be present and to have this submission. I urge you and your colleagues to pass Bill 103.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

1620

GORDON CHONG

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Gordon Chong. Welcome to the committee.

Dr Gordon Chong: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today.

First, let me say I think it's rather tragic that amalgamation and the proposed downloading of human services have been linked, because it tends to muddy the waters. The apparent linkage has been reinforced by the haste with which the provincial government has moved in both areas, but it has also been reinforced and exploited by those who oppose amalgamation because it offers them an opportunity to spread fear about amalgamation. The spectre of astronomical tax increases, destruction of neighbourhoods and the anti-democratic nature of the process has become the mantra of the anti-amalgamationists.

What is being ignored or largely forgotten in all the hyperbole is that downloading could actually occur in the absence of amalgamation. No one disputes that downloading under the existing municipal-provincial relationship without mitigation measures would devastate municipalities which depend primarily on the real property tax base and dwindling senior government largesse for their sources of revenue.

The issues of amalgamation and downloading or offloading must be delinked so that we can analyse them separately before discussing how one may have an impact on the other. I'm certainly not suggesting there isn't a relationship; I'm simply saying that each should be clearly understood on its own before relating them.

But why amalgamation now?

To me, a unified, consolidated, amalgamated new city of Toronto is the logical conclusion to an evolutionary process started some 43 years ago. While it seems to have evoked near hysteria in some quarters, it need not and it should not.

The essence of the proposal, which follows the Who Does What panel recommendations, of which I was a member, is that the amalgamation of Metro Toronto's seven municipal governments should be done within a greater Toronto area context. A strong urban core is essential to sustain the viability of the entire GTA. Unarguably, that core is now an amalgamated single city within the boundaries of Metro Toronto.

Metro Toronto is to the GTA what the city of Toronto was once to Metro. The analogy is too obvious to overlook. I think it's time that some people take a Valium and calm down a bit and get a grip, because what's been proposed is the consolidation or amalgamation of seven municipalities, not some massive, unilateral disfranchising of our citizens. We aren't talking about some radical new concept that has sprung fully formed from the Premier's forehead or any of the cabinet; it has been in place and has grown incrementally since 1953, when the regional municipality of Metro was formed, modelled on the old two-tier county system.

In 1953, roughly 30 municipalities were amalgamated to 13. In 1967, Metro was further amalgamated to the six existing municipalities, even though the Goldenberg commission recommended four. An amalgamated city, Metro Toronto, has been delivering services like policing, transit, social services, ambulance services, waste disposal, substitute child care and homes for the aged for 30 to 40 years. What the heck is so revolutionary or outrageous about the area's ultimate amalgamation to a single unit of governance?

For those who insist on using the misnomer "megacity" to refer to an amalgamated, unified new city of Toronto of roughly 2.3 million people, even though by definition a megacity is one of 10 million or more people, l've got news for you: You've been living in and governed by a megacity since 1954 when Metro came into existence. John Sewell himself served on Metro council. Is he, along with other anti-amalgamationists, now repudiating it? Who elected him in his current reincarnation to speak? Who is he accountable to? Who funds him?

The greatest testimony to amalgamation and the most compelling longitudinal study is staring us right in the face. The success of Metro Toronto is self-evident. The international accolades showered on the collection of municipalities known as Toronto are due in no small measure to the services provided by the unified, centralized, amalgamated Metro level of government. It's unlikely the GTA would be as successful without the vigorous, thriving presence of Metro Toronto regional government; in essence, the proposed new city of Toronto.

Let's look for a moment at some of the objections to amalgamation and the natural fear of change that it engenders and that is being exploited by self-appointed spokesmen like Sewell.

Various municipalities are producing figures that purport to show that there will be astronomical tax increases precipitated by downloading. These are based on the most pessimistic scenarios using current assumptions without factoring in any of the mitigation measures that have been proposed. Besides, when is the last time any municipal politician had the intestinal fortitude, the guts, to support a 20% tax increase? At Metro, we are currently agonizing over a 2.5% to 3.5% increase. Local councils should stop their fearmongering and be honest. I know it might be a novelty, as North York is finding out, but I'm sure their constituents would appreciate it.

Another fear is that neighbourhoods will be destroyed. Stoking the flames of that fear is both patronizing and contemptuous of the activist community spirit of our neighbourhood residents and ratepayers. In 1954, did Swansea, Leaside, Forest Hill or Rosedale disappear? In 1967, did Don Mills, the Annex, the Junction, the Beaches or Riverdale disappear?

In 1997, it is highly unlikely that neighbourhoods with active citizen engagement are going to disappear. Now, as in the past, it is a misplaced fear, because vibrant neighbourhoods will never disappear. However, it is a fear that is being exploited to animate and bolster the anti-amalgamation side.

Let's look at the accusation that the whole process is undemocratic because the province, as someone earlier said, is ramming change down our throats. John Sewell is also shamelessly misrepresenting what is constitutionally and electorally sanctioned.

John Sewell, the mayors and the other proponents of the referenda, in their various mutations, taking place in different cities across Metro would have you believe that they are the staunch defenders of democracy. But they have a pretty narrow view of what constitutes democracy. The various referenda serve to demonstrate the self-centredness of their proponents. Why was it kick-started by six mayors who stand to lose their jobs in an amalgamated, unified city? They decided the question, they're administering the process, and they are actively promoting and funding only one side in the debate. Will the results be an unbiased, legitimate expression of the democratic will of the electorate?

All along, most people have agreed, both pro and con, that Metro Toronto and the GTA are an integrated economic unit with common interests and a common destiny that defy arbitrary geographic borders. If that is self-evident and it has achieved consensus, how can these dedicated, tenacious defenders of the democratic process deny the important stakeholders beyond Metro's borders an opportunity to vote on the future of Ontario's economic engine? To be most legitimate, only a true referendum that included the GTA regional municipalities at the very least could be said to be representative of the views of most of the stakeholders.

Just as Quebec's referendum had implications for the entire country, Metro's so-called referenda have implications for the entire province. But we have a majority provincial government elected over a year and a half ago that is the legitimate expression of the voters across this province which includes all the important stakeholders. Its Common Sense Revolution said it would downsize and streamline government. It is doing just that with Bill 103.

Municipal politicians would be better advised, I think, to serve out the balance of their terms as responsibly as possible, rather than wasting taxpayers' money on referenda that are unrepresentative and incomplete.

Bill 103 has also been labelled as an unprecedented amalgamation that has no studies to back it. Well, that's true. Toronto is unique and it has no historical parallel, so how are you going to have studies that are going to back it? But there are other amalgamations -- I know I'm going to run out of time, but I'd like to talk about Halifax and Winnipeg, the unicity etc. If somebody wants to ask me about it, I'll be happy to answer the question. But those amalgamations we can learn from.

The vision of a single, amalgamated city is worth the difficult growing pains that undoubtedly will be encountered. The new city of Toronto will be more competitive and have more clout in negotiations with senior levels of government. We would be taking the first step, we'd be setting a precedent and developing a prototype, for what I think could be a modern city-state that could demand constitutional recognition.

Amalgamation is both symbolic and logical. Amalgamation was conceived 43 years ago and it's had a 43-year gestation period. We should now give birth to the new city of Toronto and march confidently into the new millennium.

Thank you for your attention.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Chong. Mr Marchese, you have about a minute.

Mr Marchese: That's a shame, because there isn't much time. I'd love to ask you several questions, but I'm going to make some statements.

First of all, the province is doing exactly what municipal politicians are doing: The province is presenting one view and the municipalities are defending their own. That's why you get that opinion. One is a response to the other.

The second point I wanted to make quickly is that you seem to assault and insult a lot of ordinary citizens, different people, with the language you use of them: "near hysteria" kind of language, "take a Valium" kind of language, "emotional hyperbole," and quite a number of other words. I don't know why you insult them that way.

The third: Why wouldn't natural evolution be the amalgamation of Metropolitan council functions with the GTA and force that as a natural evolution towards those services, as opposed to eliminating cities?

1630

Dr Chong: Well, I indicated that in my remarks. I mean, 43 years ago when Metro Toronto, the two-tier system, came into existence, it was clearly destined and one of the objectives was to eventually amalgamate to a single city. I don't think I need to repeat what I said, but it's evolved from close to 30 to 13, down to six when it should have been four had it not been for some effective political lobbying, and I think to go the final step in 30 years and amalgamate what should have been four but are currently six municipalities into one single entity is not farfetched.

Mr Marchese: I'm talking about Metro and the GTA amalgamating, those services.

Dr Chong: But the Crombie panel in fact are suggesting that the amalgamation in Metro Toronto should take place in the greater Toronto area context, which means that the 905 regions should be looked at as well. In my opinion, the 905 regions are not at the same stage of maturity as the 416, meaning Metro, but clearly you need a services board or some authority to coordinate the services that spill over the boundaries of Metro and into the other regions.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. I have to interrupt, cut you off. Thank you very much, Mr Chong, for being here today.

DILYS JONES

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Dilys Jones, please. Good afternoon, Ms Jones, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mrs Dilys Jones: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of being here. I'm not a politician; I'm a homemaker, a wife, a mother, a grandmother and almost a full-time volunteer and I just felt the need to be here. My name is Dilys Jones and I am a resident of the borough of East York.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I have been a proud resident of East York for 40 years. My children were all born in the Toronto East General Hospital and educated in East York schools. I spend many hours each week volunteering within my community. It is a privilege to be personally acquainted with the mayors, past and present, and my councillors.

Having said all of this, I must now say that I support Bill 103. It is time for this great city of Toronto to move forward, to really become the world-class city that we claim to be.

Speaking again of East York, it is a proud claim of the council that we have had no tax increase for some years. However, as I drive around the borough, I see the infrastructure crumbling. The roads are in bad shape, the sewers need replacing, we have very little industrial tax base and, under the present form of government, we have no hope of attracting new businesses.

I cannot see East York surviving under the present system. Already Mayor Lastman has suggested that we be "eaten up" by North York and Scarborough, and if Bill 103 is not passed, this may well happen. I'm sorry, Mel, but I'd rather take my chances with Toronto under the Bill 103 structure.

I cannot say that I support the name "megacity," because that is certainly not accurate. We would, in the world scheme of things, at best be a mini-city, but we can be the best one, and this has already been recognized by Metro council.

Nobody enjoys government, and it has been said for years that we in Ontario are overgoverned. Now it's time to deal with the issue.

The so-called referendum which is now being conducted by the municipalities should really be called a public opinion poll. The six mayors couldn't agree on how best to handle the voting, and so each municipality is doing its own thing.

Certainly in East York the whole process is flawed. This isn't surprising, as the planning was done in a very hurried manner. I cannot fault the councillors for this. They had to do what they felt was right. However, the list being used is three years old and many new residents are not receiving their ballots.

I was at a local town hall meeting last night, and although many people feel they want to support a unified city, they are afraid their taxes will increase dramatically because of the sharing of expenses. I realize that Bill 103 has no mention of expense sharing or downloading, but in the eyes of the people of Toronto and surrounding municipalities, it is one and the same thing, and as there is only a simple yes or no answer to the question of amalgamation, they feel if they vote yes, they will also be saying yes to the sharing of expenses in its present form. It is a difficult decision, and in the circumstances I am sure there will be many who will say no when in fact they agree with amalgamation, but not with the sharing of expenses.

We have all heard the figures concerning uploading and downloading, duplication of services etc, and there is no need to repeat them. However, one figure I have not heard mentioned is the $40 million the city of Toronto alone saved in welfare payments in 1996 since the welfare act was reformed.

There is no doubt that the provincial government will have to make compromises. I am quite sure they do not wish to see the newly formed city crumble under the burden of downloaded payments. Perhaps they need a further three- or six-month period to plan all the details and to allow candidates who intend to run for the new city council time to raise their funds and put their campaigns in order. These are decisions that must be made sooner rather than later.

Some people who love East York as much as I do are worried that it will disappear. I can't see this happening. We are a community made up of people who care. We have an extremely high rate of volunteers per capita in East York, and this wouldn't go away. We will always be East York, just as Leaside is still Leaside, the Beaches are the Beaches and Riverdale is Riverdale, communities all, with community events and community feelings.

We need to elect 45 excellent candidates to run our new city and make the necessary changes, not all at once but in an orderly and businesslike manner. They need to be people who can see beyond the next election and who believe in this new city and will give their all to make it work. It is a huge job. It cannot happen overnight. Some people will be hurt, and I am sorry for that. But we must progress. We must leave a legacy of good order and government for our children and grandchildren.

The anti-megacity groups are making themselves heard very loud and clear. Would the shouts be quite as loud if it were their particular political party in power and doing this? I don't think so. If people really cared about their community, they would be out on municipal election day to vote for their candidates. Voter turnout in all of our municipalities is dismal, sometimes less than 30%. Does this indicate community caring? Only by a very few.

Would the mayors be shouting as loud if their jobs were not on the line? I don't think so. Many of them are already making plans to be candidates in the election for the new unified city council. Good for them. I hope some of them are elected. They are good and caring people.

Let's grow up, Toronto. We need to make the right decisions, and make them meaningful and progressive and in a timely manner. Bill 103 is the start of something good.

Mr Hastings: Thank you, Mrs Jones, for a more farsighted, balanced presentation. I notice that as usual we have the offside comments; if anybody comes and states a contrary view that's well argued and solidly presented, somehow you're just barely tolerated. That's been the continuing trend around here for three weeks, but we'll endure.

My question, Mrs Jones, to you is there is this unquestioning thesis around here that every neighbourhood and community is just about to drop off into Lake Ontario when and if this legislation is passed and that there will be no more communities such as Weston or East York, Swansea or Long Branch, Mimico or West Hill, that they're all just going to disappear overnight with this bill, which suggests the absurdity of the argument. I'd like to know how you see yourself or your fellow folks who are volunteers in the new amalgamated city. Do you see their roles changing much, or staying about the same?

1640

Mrs Jones: My volunteer work is mostly done at the Toronto East General Hospital. It has a very large catchment area which goes beyond the boundaries of East York, and people come from all walks of that area. I don't see the volunteers ever stopping, certainly not in East York. There's a great love of East York and a great feeling of community, which has been nurtured by our councils over the years but I think nurtured in such a way that it won't go away.

As you say, the Swanseas and Riverdales and the Beaches -- the Beach is a community; that's all it ever has been. It is very much a community and I just don't think that will ever go away. People need communities, people need their neighbours and they need each other. I think that's important.

Mr Parker: Mrs Jones, you made a comment that I want to pick up on. It echoed a comment from the previous speaker related to the number of issues that have been rolled into the discussion of the prospect of Toronto's amalgamation, the confusion you refer to.

I will tell you, I have noticed from a great number of the presenters who have appeared before this committee that discussion, presumably on the subject of amalgamation, has branched into a whole host of other issues unrelated to Bill 103 and unrelated to amalgamation. Jack Diamond was here yesterday. He never did get around to talking about amalgamation. He talked about other matters.

You're from East York; so am I. You are probably aware of the campaign under way by a group that calls itself Team East York. They're going door to door handing out brochures that urge people to vote no. It gives all the reasons people should vote no and it gives all the arguments against amalgamation. In your view, has that group done a good job of distinguishing between the issues in this case? Have they done a good job of focusing on the issues relating to amalgamation --

The Vice-Chair: You're running out of time, Mr Parker.

Mr Parker: -- as distinct from other issues unrelated to amalgamation?

Mrs Jones: No, I don't think they have. They have definitely combined the two issues. I was most disturbed last night at the town hall meeting to find people felt that way. They're not looking at amalgamation; they are looking at the money. They're looking at --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Jones. Sorry to cut you off, but we have run out of time.

BETH MOORE MILROY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Beth Milroy. Welcome to the standing committee.

Dr Beth Moore Milroy: Thank you. My name is Beth Moore Milroy, professor of urban and regional planning at Ryerson. I'm glad to have the opportunity to address this committee regarding Bill 103. I'd like to make the following three points: (1) Bill 103 should be withdrawn; (2) there are sound, even exciting, alternatives to Bill 103 just waiting for elaboration; (3) if the bill is not withdrawn, MPPs should vote against it.

On the first, that Bill 103 should be withdrawn: This bill is not an appropriate basis for restructuring urban government. Mr Leach has said that there will be amendments. However, even if the bill is amended to bring it into line with basic democratic practice, it still constitutes illogical policy.

Regarding democratic practices first: No member of this Legislature should vote in favour of a bill that places its implementation above the rule of law or that usurps citizens' rights to decide how they will be governed. This bill does both.

I beseech members of Parliament to read Bill 103 in the original, not merely in briefing notes. This may sound like a gratuitous request. However, I have good reason to believe that some MPPs, even in the cabinet, have not actually read the bill.

To read it is to understand why it must be withdrawn. One has to be shocked by the arrogation of powers to the provincial government and away from the people directly affected by the legislation. One is staggered by the statements that the trustees and transition team, and the government to which they report, are above the law.

One has to be astounded that virtually the entire bill is about the powers given to the trustees and the transition team. It says nothing substantial whatever about the new city, what it will be like, how it will manage itself. This city, the largest in Canada, is to be born in nine months from projected passage of the legislation as a great lump, with neither form nor clear reason for existing. This bill is not a sensible basis for structuring urban government. It should be withdrawn entirely.

Regarding illogical policy: To massively restructure urban government necessarily entails justifying it logically. I have paid close attention to the justifications that government representatives have offered for Bill 103. They seem to boil down to three.

First, saving money: As has been said so often, there is no evidence whatever, leaving aside the less than thorough KPMG report, to support the claim that money will be saved by amalgamating the six cities. All evidence points in the opposite direction, that in all probability the megacity will cost more to run than the six individually. I find the evidence that costs will be higher compelling.

The second justification: Finish the 28%. It seems intuitively logical that if 72% of Metro's services are amalgamated, and this is cost-effective, then it will be even more cost-effective if the remaining 28% are also amalgamated. But intuition lets us down here, because one is assuming all services are alike: seen one, seen them all. But actually each service factors out differently. Urban economists have studied them all for decades. There are probably no savings or economies of scale for those remaining services, and there may even be higher costs or diseconomies associated with them. Thus, the argument for finishing the job depends upon faulty logic.

A rough analogy to this logic would be this: Assume I have eaten a meal, I am three quarters full and feeling comfortable. If I keep eating, this does not mean I will become even more comfortable; in fact, I will start becoming uncomfortable, and perhaps start to feel ill. When you think about the 28% solution, analyse it like you would your supper: Some is good, lots is not so good; not like lottery winnings where some is good and lots is better.

The third justification given is that we have done enough studies. There certainly have been studies, but none at all about amalgamating the six cities of Metro, to my knowledge. Further, all the studies that have been done argue for solutions which bear no resemblance whatever to Bill 103. I worry that supporters of this bill have not read those studies, because in speeches, interviews and the infamous One Toronto for All brochure the reports are paraded as if they offer justification for Bill 103. In fact, if they do anything, it is the opposite.

All the important studies take as their point of departure that it is the GTA, not Metro, which must be dealt with first. This is logical. Why? Because the two scales are intimately intertwined and because we need to know the larger structure before adjusting the smaller.

Mr Leach laments that even with all the studies, "People resist change." People should resist change when it has no policy support whatsoever. To do otherwise is to relinquish the duties of citizenship. All of us, the government included, should rejoice that our fellow citizens are so well educated that they know a justified from an unjustifiable piece of legislation.

On to alternatives: Principled alternatives to changing urban government in this region already exist in various forms. The principles for organizing government need to include, first and foremost: Get the right scale for the issue. This is the first and most important principle. Return to the Golden report and other studies that look at the GTA scale. That scale is essential in the Toronto region for activities such as transportation, economic development, environmental protection and regional planning. Environmental protection, for example, needs to be conceptualized at the level of the GTA because the watersheds are at that scale.

And go to studies that teach about the local, human scale. That is the scale at which people can understand their surroundings and at which they believe they can have an effect on their milieux. Understanding and believing in one's efficacy brings out energy, caring, innovation, dedication. Take away the capacity to grasp the scale and to have a say in what's going on and people stop paying attention, the city debilitates.

The right scale feeds efficacy; efficacy feeds caring; caring feeds the city; and around we go.

A related point is made by the scholar Robert Putnam, whose book, Making Democracy Work, is a 20-year study of the conditions that create strong, responsive, effective, representative institutions. One of his main findings is that good civic relations underpin economic wellbeing; that is, first you need good civic relations at the local scale, then you may have a good economy. Most of us think it is the other way round, that a good economy precedes a good city. But no, a good economy depends upon active networks of civically engaged people. Professor Putnam's findings fit with those of AnnaLee Saxenian for Silicon Valley in California, to name only one other study of this type. The right scale is a necessary condition of both a civil society and a good economy.

1650

A second principle to bear in mind is that services can be delivered at varying scales that need not match a jurisdiction. One garbage collection service could be used by three municipalities, by one and a half or by 12.7.

A third principle is that each service can be offered by a different mode, via the private sector, the public sector or various combinations of the two, a matter that can be decided depending upon its policy objectives. Economy matters, but so does public control.

In summary, getting the scale right and freeing services from jurisdictional and delivery mode habits from the past are principles for shaping a dynamic, forward-looking GTA. We need very strong local governments, like the ones that now exist; we need a strong GTA-wide body to handle the broad matters; and we need lots of flexibility in the governance structures.

My third and final point: This bill is profoundly wrong in every respect -- in process and in content. If Bill 103 is not withdrawn, MPPs should vote against it, recognizing the strong and well-founded reservations of their constituents who elect and pay them to serve their needs. Their party neither elects them nor pays them and does not have first allegiance in a case like this.

If you think you will be troubled by voting against your government's bill, be reminded of your task by reading a bit of Vaclav Havel, such as his Politics and Conscience. It will remind you that a poet of conscience who insisted upon speaking truth to power was so appealing to the Czech people that they insisted he be president. Take heart.

Mr Sergio: Thank you for coming down and making a presentation to our committee. I want to review one quick line from the presentation Mr Leach made to our committee on February 3. On page 4, among many other things, he says this: "Today it hardly matters whether a local politician is accessible. The real problem is that that politician may not be accountable." Can you comment on this coming from the minister?

Dr Moore Milroy: I must say that's a very difficult thing to comment on. I simply don't comprehend what could be being said in this case. It seems to me that the very point of a democracy is representation of the population by elected representatives who are accountable and who can be ousted or re-elected depending on their way of representing the population.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, I must interrupt, Mr Sergio. We've gone past our time. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

PAUL SUTHERLAND

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Paul Sutherland, councillor for the city of North York. Welcome, Mr Sutherland.

Mr Paul Sutherland: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and my former colleague on North York council, Mario Sergio. I have a few comments I'd like to make, although I have to start off by saying I know a few people in the room, and then I turned around and I noticed my grade 6 teacher was here, who actually helped me get to Queen's Park as a page back in 1967. That was a surprise. I hope I can chat with him afterwards.

I want to applaud the government on Bill 103 in the sense that we have to have change. The status quo absolutely is not acceptable. I've been involved with governance issues for a number of years at North York and at Metro. The duplication, the cost, the expense, the lack of accountability is really not acceptable for a city like North York or Metropolitan Toronto, and we do need to have change.

I've been a representative of the Fairview Mall area in North York for 11 years. In fact the area has been represented by a member of my family since its inception in the early 1960s, so I've certainly always been a North Yorker and I guess I'm a North Yorker first. For that reason, by the way, at council I supported the referendum. I support a referendum because the majority of people in our city wanted to have the opportunity to vote on this issue. I have not been happy and do not support the fearmongering that's been taking place. The fact that people have been told there will be huge tax increases next year and scaring people into voting one way or the other is not an acceptable approach to the residents in my ward in the city. I believe the facts should be presented to them and that people are intelligent enough to make a decision based on those facts alone. That's my position at council and it's been my position in my community.

Moving on from that and taking the new city of Toronto that's being discussed here as a second choice, because it's better to have one level than the two we have now, I have some specific comments to make related to that, particularly in the area of the neighbourhood committees and the community councils. I think the legislation, as I understand it now, is actually reversed from the way I believe it should be. The community committees or councils, we like to call them, in my view should be made up of seven or eight or nine councillors; the chairperson elected or appointed each year from that committee could serve on the executive of the new council. But I believe that committee has to have certain powers, particularly in the zoning and planning area, site plan area, committee of adjustment, even curb cuts, all the things city governments do.

There has been some discussion about amalgamated services that are in Metro now and that 70% of the expenditures are done at the amalgamated level at Metro, and that's true. But the other 30% of the money spent is actually the money that's most important to the average person living in our communities. That's the money spent on the parks department, that's the money that's going into the fire departments, it's the money that goes to cleaning streets, snowplowing, zoning issues. When a development comes in and somebody wants to build a three-storey building next to your house, you go to your local council through the planning process to make representation there.

The concern now is with the large city, that even though your representation is still roughly one councillor per 50,000 people, you as a councillor, when you're on the larger council of 45 members, don't have as strong a voice there as you do now at your city level council. To offset that concern, my view is that these community councils, who are elected representatives still, should make decisions on planning and those other ones I mentioned, and those decisions should be final in most cases. You could have discussion about when appeals could come directly to the main council, but for the most part those decisions should be final with appeals directly to the Ontario Municipal Board. That way people in your community -- and this is a concern that people have, that they don't want to lose that local flavour -- if you have that kind of mechanism, particularly for planning and site plan and zoning and those issues, will still be able to go directly to their elected councillor, or seven or eight of them, and have a decision made there that reflects their views and their needs in their community. That decision, if the applicant or developer or whoever is coming doesn't like it, then gets appealed directly to the Ontario Municipal Board.

This kind of approach would also free up the city council itself to deal with policy issues which are going to be time-consuming. They are certainly involved with policing and all the other issues that Metro is involved with. Issues that are often important on a day-to-day basis could be handled expeditiously and still in a very direct neighbourhood way. I say that to you because it is in Bill 103, and I know the other issues aren't, and that is an aspect that I think should be looked at.

The neighbourhood committees, and I heard comments made earlier in the discussions here before you last week or the week before that those committees don't work -- I would suggest for a lot of reasons that they probably don't work, and in the legislation, that's being mandated. I would reverse it. I would mandate that these community councils be put in place. I would make the neighbourhood committees certainly suggest that and let the new council decide how they want to set that up. Let them decide how they want to have public input.

If you give citizens who aren't elected mandates over financial matters, you'll find that council will in some way, somehow, eventually make it redundant. They'll do that, and I don't mean it in a machiavellian sense, but it's just the reality that when citizens are making financial decisions that impact on elected officials, in their view that's not fair because they are the ones who will have to go to the people to stand for what's happened in terms of tax increases and things like that. That's why those councils often don't work and end up being neutered one way or the other.

1700

I would suggest that if you go this other way with a neighbourhood community that's strong, and I have many other ideas on the legislation but I wanted to get this point out because I haven't heard it said up till now, that it's very important to the residents that that kind of local flavour be kept. If you do that, we'll go a long way in solving some concerns that people have with your proposed legislation for a new city.

Subject to questions, I really wanted to come down and make that point.

Mr Marchese: Mr Sutherland, I have a few questions. On the issue of fearmongering around costs, quite clearly a number of people are saying, "When you download services, there are going to be greater costs." I believe that strongly, but you don't mean that; you mean the fearmongering around amalgamation and costs, is that correct?

Mr Sutherland: I guess I mean both.

Mr Marchese: Okay. On the whole issue of amalgamation, you, Mr Chong and others argue presumably that there are going to be savings, because that's really what's motivated this government to do this, that we're going to save money. Do you hold that view?

Mr Sutherland: I believe you'll save money, yes.

Mr Marchese: A number of studies have been done, and I can only go by the studies of Professor Kitchen and Professor Sancton; Mr Cox has done a review that isn't just of Halifax, it's a worldwide review that I've been able to read from looking at some of the readings. Is it possible that these people are just analysing the wrong issues, that they've got it all wrong, that when it comes to Metro, some of you guys know exactly what you're doing and the Tories know exactly what you're doing, that we just have the right scale and you know where the savings are at and they just haven't looked at that? Is that the issue?

Mr Sutherland: I can't speak for them, but I can speak for myself. Very often people believe what they want to believe. They'll say that something can't be done and then I guess they find figures to show it.

I remember making the case at North York council in 1989 that it was impossible to have a zero tax increase. I was laughed out of council, as a matter of fact, and I did get a motion through, and ever since 1990 we've had a zero tax increase in North York and never cut any services. We were told, and people were there, that it was impossible. But as someone who's been involved with city budgets for a number of years and been very active in them, I can tell you it is very possible. It takes creativity and it takes maybe some serious looking at issues, but it's definitely possible.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate what you're saying and where you're coming from but I tend to believe the studies because they look at all the factors you are looking at as well. I am tempted to believe that there will be greater costs.

We had Professor Moore Milroy just before you, and I wondered whether you had been moved by anything she said. I certainly found it compelling. She argues on page 6 that if you "go to studies that teach about local human scale. That is the scale at which people can understand their surroundings and at which they believe they can have an effect on their milieux. Understanding and believing in one's efficacy brings out energy, caring, innovation, dedication." She goes on to say, "The right scale feeds efficacy; efficacy feeds caring; caring feeds the city."

I find it compelling.

Mr Sutherland: It's compelling, but it's difficult to know what the scale is. You know in North York we have almost 600,000 people. In York you have, say, 100,000 people. There are different scales already in the cities that are here.

Mr Marchese: And 2.3 million would be a good scale for you, presumably.

Mr Sutherland: I didn't say that. My first choice has been North York. I'm saying now I'm getting more comfortable with the idea of one city, and this is someone who's been arguing against Metro and trying to get rid of Metro for seven years. I'm on the public record of doing it. It's taken me some time to move in that direction, but the key point is, do you keep local what's necessarily local for people? You've got to do that. Your zoning, your planning and site plan, it sounds technical but it's real when you're dealing with people. That's the critical issue and this committee has that power, I think, to make that kind of recommendation to the government.

Mr Marchese: Why not keep local government then --

Mr Sutherland: The second issue is that people don't feel that all of a sudden, because there are income taxes being dropped, taxes on their properties are going up $700 or $800 a year. It's totally untrue. I know that's untrue.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here today, Mr Sutherland.

MICHELLE KENNEDY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Michelle Kennedy, please. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Michelle Kennedy: Honourable members of the committee and other concerned residents and deputants, thank you for this opportunity. I had planned on coming here to speak about what community is and what defines community and why I don't see Bill 103 as a threat to my sense of community. However, I can't sit here and do that right now.

The last hour I spent listening to other deputants and to some of the questions from the committee have angered me too much. Some of the posters that I've seen from the No team have angered me too much. They keep speaking of the derailment of democracy. This panel is not derailing democracy, but some of the scaremongering is -- this is not meant as an insult or an affront.

I live in the borough of East York. I have lived in the borough of East York for 29 years. I have lived at the same address in East York for the last three years. About a week ago I called the mayor's office because I had not received my mail-in ballot. I was told if I hadn't gotten it by Monday, then I should worry. Well, Monday rolled around and Monday evening at East York council the Metro councillor appeared with a bunch of discarded ballots. I guess that's where mine went, otherwise it went to Scarborough and ended up Pauline Browes's home.

The other issue is, it's not confidential. The issue of it being an opinion poll is just. If I vote against what the municipality is suggesting is the right idea, does that mean somebody might forget to pick up my garbage? Does that mean my water meter might be read incorrectly? The same intimidation that a secret ballot loses when it's no longer secret is being imposed on the employees of these municipalities.

We have a tradition in Canada where we send people through the UN to ensure that democracy and secret balloting and freedom of speech and votes are respected, and yet the councillors and mayors in the various boroughs and cities who are involved in this referendum are violating that inviolate principle. At least in East York my name would only have to go on the envelope. In some of the other jurisdictions it has to go right on the ballot.

The other issue -- I believe it was Mr Colle who mentioned it -- is that the trustees, the transition team will be allowed to appoint the most senior officials within the new Metro structure or within the new supercity structure. I'm sorry, but I understood that the most senior bureaucrats in the provincial and federal bureaucracies get to survive from government to government, yet that has by no means prevented this Conservative government from putting a unique stamp on the way they discharge the mandate they received from the people of Ontario, which includes reforming the municipal structure.

Most importantly, I'd like to point out that in the borough of East York I serve on a community safety council, which I think very directly mirrors the aspects I see as most positive in Bill 103, the community representation. It's a voluntary council. I get no reward. I have to give up my time. The one problem I have is that the reach of this East York safety council is too vast. It doesn't reflect my own community's needs. It reflects the entire borough and I'd like to bring government home.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Kennedy, for coming forward. I'm pleased some of the previous presentations put you on that track because I think many of us share the concerns particularly about the issues surrounding the so-called referendum.

I'll give credit where it's due. Mayor Faubert in Scarborough has said twice on the public record in the last week where I was in attendance that it's not a referendum, it is a public opinion poll. In fact the ballot from Scarborough says right on the return address that it's for the "megacity survey vote." Interesting to note, the return address for the Scarborough ballot is Toronto, Ontario. I guess that's something we'll gain after amalgamation, is post office boxes.

Seriously, we have Mr Sewell who as one of his vocations right now is on a retainer to advise South Africa or portions of South Africa as to democracy. How would you reconcile somebody who has made the strategy, the embracing of the so-called referendums a big part of their opposition to our bill, somebody who could accept something like the Scarborough ballot or even for those city employees you talked about earlier? You have to put down your name and address and that is seen by other civic officials when they're recording that vote. How would you reconcile someone who could say they're being democratic and yet allow something to take place that we have not allowed in votes in this province since 1840?

Ms Kennedy: I have a tremendous problem with that as I've already articulated. The other problem I have is the question on the ballot or the survey or the referendum, or however you want to describe this system, in that it's not clear. It can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you like the status quo. I'm sorry, but in the last municipal election a referendum was held to see whether or not to abolish Metro. Fine, this isn't abolishing Metro. This is just eliminating a two-tier system and bringing government back, making it more transparent and accountable and accessible to people.

1710

Mr Gilchrist: We're always constrained for time. There's a myth floating around out there that somehow the cities were told they couldn't operate binding referendums, couldn't operate according to the strict guidelines of the bill we passed last December. That is not true.

On December 17 in fact, if anybody wishes to check Hansard, what the minister said was that he thought it was inappropriate to spend $7 million on a so-called referendum process when in fact we have a legislative process that's worked very successfully for literally thousands of bills. You have two points of contact: directly to your MPP or in these committee hearings taking place right now. Since then the cities have decided to go off on a tangent.

I'm wondering if you're aware that in the same conversation the minister had with the mayors about the issue of referenda, if they had proceeded along the lines of the bill we had passed they could have had a binding referendum or at least something a lot closer, something with at least some electoral integrity to it, but it would have also allowed the province the opportunity to put its own questions on the ballot.

Do you think that was part of the motivation, to frustrate the province's ability to lay out 10 or 15 questions which would have asked people to at least look at look at some of the challenges in this complex bill before they asked that final question? Would that have been something far more useful for people to have had on the ballot?

Ms Kennedy: I think it would have. However, I think the municipalities would have been upset if they got an answer they weren't looking for.

Mr Parker: I'd like to touch on two issues, if there's time. We are both from the borough of East York and I'm interested in your perspective on this. A great number of people have appeared before this committee and they've urged us to vote against Bill 103 because they feel it will destroy the sense of community that different parts of Metro Toronto have, that the status quo promotes community, that the existing municipalities promote the viability of communities and that amalgamation will destroy that.

I have my own perspective on where the communities are within East York and how viable those communities are, but I'm interested in yours. As you know, East York was formed in 1967 by putting the old township of East York together with the old town of Leaside. Can you give me your comments on how the various communities in East York have survived that event?

Ms Kennedy: I think it's a community of diversity. I think Leaside is very different from other areas within the borough of East York. North Leaside and south Leaside are becoming quite separate entities in that they have different concerns with regard to really local issues, like traffic management.

I'm sorry, the safety council I serve on has representation from across the borough, it's wonderful, but we all have very different concerns and because there are limited positions on this council and because there are limited resources available to this council, no one's concerns can really be addressed, whereas if we focused on the immediate area that mattered to people, a difference could be made.

I'm sorry, but I don't like artificial boundaries for a community. A community is a group of people who share a common interest and a common value, even if that's diversity, and on that scale 2.3 million is not too big, as long as you can bring it closer to home, and in the model that is suggested in Bill 103 it comes right home.

Mr Parker: You comment on north Leaside, but what community are you most familiar with?

Ms Kennedy: North Leaside.

Mr Parker: Then could you comment on the viability of that community?

Interjections.

Ms Kennedy: I also started 10 minutes late.

The Vice-Chair: Order, order.

Mr Parker: Can you comment on your perception as to the viability of that community right now?

Ms Kennedy: The viability of that community: It's healthy. They've been looking at ways to restructure traffic flow. There's a vibrant home and school organization. It is a community. People know one another. They interact with one another. There's a very strong ratepayers' organization. We are not afraid to contact our municipal councillors, our provincial members or our federal members as a group because we share a common interest in maintaining a quality of life that we would be happy to share with everyone in Toronto, but we can't when everybody has a different focus.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kennedy, for appearing here today.

KEITH LEONARD

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Keith Leonard. Welcome, Mr Leonard, to the standing committee.

Mr Keith Leonard: Members of the Legislature, thank you for this opportunity to present my views concerning Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act. As someone raised in this city with a strong interest in history and genealogy research, I find the debate concerning this bill to be amusing at the least.

Changes in municipal governance since the days of Governor Simcoe have failed to eliminate or reduce our sense of community. The fact that North York will no longer have a municipal government does not mean North York will lose its identity and not be referred to as North York. The same situation applies to Etobicoke, Scarborough, York and East York.

These changes have instead reinforced our local neighbourhoods. Communities like Forest Hill, Swansea, Long Branch, Weston, Leaside, Todmorden, Riverdale, Rosedale, Willowdale, York Mills, Leslieville, Regent Park and High Park are only some of the local communities that continue to exist. We know these communities in spite of local politicians who insist in numbering our municipal wards rather than naming them as we once did, changing street names and rewriting our history to the flavour of the month to make them politically correct.

Toronto exists in its present form as a result of both expansion and annexation. With the outlying areas continuing to expand and develop and a GTA progressing, how many politicians and layers of government do we need? A bureaucracy, once allowed to fester, rarely reduces its own red tape voluntarily.

The provincial government, with Premier Harris, has taken a quantum leap in reducing the number of MPPs in the next provincial election. They're leading by example. How unusual to see a level of government reduce itself voluntarily. In both the last provincial and municipal elections, there was in fact a general consensus among the voting population that we were overgoverned and overtaxed. The city of Toronto, in another one-sided plebiscite, found support for the elimination of the Metro level of government. A different phrasing may have found support for getting rid of both levels of municipal government.

Who does what and why? It should come as no surprise now to see local politicians attempting to justify their positions, eliminating the other and fighting over a smaller trough. Bill 103 will provide us with a fresh start: one municipal government, one mayor and 44 councillors. That means one-stop shopping for municipal services, not seven municipalities, seven mayors and 99 councillors.

The new buzzword should be "cooperation," not "megacity."

The ward boundaries will follow the current provincial proposal. Those of you with provincial ridings that include different municipal boundaries know of the inequities, waste and duplication of services that occur in these areas alone. In ward 8 in the city of Toronto, where the city meets East York, some streets are almost entirely in the city of Toronto with only two or three houses in East York. For east York to provide services to these people, East York must use city of Toronto streets to access for garbage collection, fire departments, snow clearing etc.

In terms of trustees, there exists a great deal of scepticism concerning politicians. This may or may not be a valid concern. With one-sided plebiscites again being forced upon us by the cities and boroughs of Metro Toronto, these trustees will protect us from the perceived eccentricities of some of these elected officials as their turf disappears.

There is much more that could be said, but little need to say it. Bill 103 is the City of Toronto Act. It deals with amalgamation only. Other bills in progress will help to alleviate other inequities and waste.

I welcome the opportunity to again voice my opinions. Do we need two elected levels of municipal government? Do we want two levels of elected municipal government? My reply is no. You will find that there are a lot of us who feel the same way. Bill 103 should proceed to third reading as is.

1720

The Acting Chair (Mr Dan Newman): Thank you, Mr Leonard. We have a little over five minutes for questions from the Liberal caucus.

Mr Leonard: I said I would be short.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Leonard, for your initial historical perspective on this. You mentioned Governor Simcoe and the changes in governance that have taken place in Ontario. I just wonder if you're aware of any other situation where there has been a change in governance where the people of the governed area have been put under trusteeship and where the appointed trusteeship is given such power that the decisions of the board of trustees are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court. Do you recall any other situation where there's been a change in governance where that has been required?

Mr Leonard: It's not a level of government that I have looked into. I have no idea.

Mr Colle: In terms of communities, a lot of the proponents of the megacity list the cities, usually, Forest Hill, Swansea, Long Branch, Weston, Leaside etc. Isn't it possible that one of the reasons these small communities and neighbourhoods have been vibrant and remained livable places is because the local councils have paid attention to the details? Councillor Sutherland talked about the little things that make communities work, whether it be what goes on in a park, what goes on in a small zoning situation, what takes place in terms of garbage pickup. Perhaps one of the reasons we have such strong local human-scale neighbourhoods is because the councils at the local level have been able to spend enough time and resources to nurture local neighbourhoods.

Mr Leonard: I've found, to my knowledge, that our communities exist in spite of our politicians, not because of them.

Mr Colle: May I ask what part of the city you live in?

Mr Leonard: I live in a community called South Hills.

Mr Colle: Where is that?

Mr Leonard: Just south of Forest Hill. I've done a lot of work, however, in the Riverdale area and I sit on a council in the Riverdale area.

Mr Colle: To give you a bit of my experience, I've been at Metro council, which is a regional council, and I've been at local council. I find that there is a dichotomy: At a regional level you're dealing with macro issues, dealing with massive budgets, dealing with transportation, dealing with social services that go across 2.3 million people, yet there are daily demands from constituents to take care of little things, maybe a problem that may seem insignificant to some people, about historical preservation or about traffic flow on a minor street.

Don't you think it's possibly better to have a division of powers where you have some that pay attention to the detail and to the micro issues and some that pay attention to the macro issues? Has this not worked in the last 30 years in Metro, despite all our warts and despite some of the problems you've mentioned? Somehow this has worked to produce a pretty decent place to live in.

Mr Leonard: I wouldn't disagree. I grew up in an area of Toronto where we had probably the best municipal politicians around; we had people like Tom Clifford and Fred Beavis. Under our old system of government, before we had an elected Metro council, the system was such that the two best people running were the two who were elected, and I think they did a very good job.

Mr Colle: Yes, and those two individuals have gone on the public record and have been acknowledged as taking care of neighbourhoods, and they were very accessible. They helped make this city -- when I talk about "this city," I talk about the six cities -- very human neighbourhoods, very human cities to live in.

One of the fears people have been bringing forward is the new council being bigger. You mentioned bureaucracy. As you know, what's tended to happen in the analyses done in the United States and Great Britain is that when you have bigger governments, you may get rid of politicians, but what happens is that you replace them with bureaucrats you never see and they tend to make most of the decisions. Your costs go up and your accessibility to the bureaucrats making decisions is diminished.

Mr Leonard: And your point?

Mr Colle: I wonder if you're concerned about that. With this bigger government, which is going to be the size of the province of Alberta, are you not concerned that the bureaucrats will replace the elected officials as having importance and everyday sort of attention taken into their hands?

Mr Leonard: When you consider the fact that we currently have two levels of municipal government, one being, as you've said, a macro government and one being a micro or representing the local municipalities, I have never found it necessary to go specifically to my alderman, councillor. I've always found the people I have dealt with, whether it was their assistants or whatever, more than appropriate.

Mr Colle: So you've dealt basically with the civil servants at city hall rather than the elected officials?

Mr Leonard: No. I've dealt with the elected officials' assistants. I've never found that to be a problem. I think most people who decide they have to speak to their alderman, their councillor, their MPP or their MP could quite easily be served by speaking with the assistant.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Leonard, for coming before the committee.

OUDIT RAGHUBIR

The Acting Chair: Our next presentation is from Oudit Raghubir. Good afternoon, Mr Raghubir. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Oudit Raghubir: I hope my 10 minutes starts when I'm ready to talk, right?

Mr Chairman, members of this committee, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be here. I'm here as a private citizen. We've lived in Scarborough for 29 years, and we've had an investment in the city of Toronto since 1981. We pay a reasonable size of taxes.

I'm not here, as yet, to say if I am no or yes, but I want to shift this whole focus to a different point, and you will have to trust me here. I have followed from David Crombie, John Sewell, Art Eggleton, June Rowlands and Barbara Hall. I am very authoritative, because today as I speak to you I must be one of the most contentious persons in the city of Toronto for a long time, based on a lot of illegal prosecution. I'm very much appreciative that faces like mine are here and you listen to the issue.

Let me start by saying this: The issue is not for or against megacity. The issue is amalgamation of these municipalities to have a better partnership and to have a partnership at the provincial and federal level, to have a fair share of the cost-share. You can read between the lines. For Metro residents and taxpayers, "Big is better" speaks best to have a fair share of social programs and to provide social programs.

I have changed my thought about 10 different times before I arrived here. I have taken this issue very seriously. On February 18 at the Scarborough Town Centre, I listened very attentively to Steve, Dalton and Mr Hampton, very carefully. On February 16, I stayed awake a few hours -- that was Sunday night -- to listen to CPaC, to Mayor Hall and Mayor Lastman. I've spoken to George at the board of trade -- I happen to know him, not personally, but we met at a synagogue about a year ago -- and he has provided me with his letter of comments.

I heard John Sewell a lot, I heard David Crombie a lot, I heard Frank Faubert a lot, and others. These are not the gurus of these days. They are not. The provincial government will have to listen because this is their forum too, and the people's forum. This amalgamation will create less ARB, Assessment Review Board; less OMB -- one person was concerned about bylaws; I'll get to that; less regional commissioners -- we pay the bills, so we should call the tune now; less lawyers to fight taxpayers who want to appeal their taxes.

Somebody said in the Globe and Mail and the Star -- these are great journalists, and sometimes they tell some very true stories; Barber I think is his name and another guy from the Sun, but don't worry about that. These 100,000 bylaws they're talking about can be amalgamated into 100 bylaws. We don't need bylaws for you to hire expensive Bay Street lawyers to go to court and hammer an ordinary guy like myself. What sense is that? Is that what we're paying tax dollars for? When you appeal and go to the OMB, the commission retains the best lawyers in town to fight an ordinary guy like myself who's fighting his appeal to survive. Where is democracy in that? Give me a break.

1730

The British North America Act of 1867 gave the provincial government the authority under the Municipal Act to set aside even the City of Toronto Act. The Toronto act does contravene a lot of provincial statutes or regulations. I'll give you a quick example: It contravenes the Rental Housing Protection Act. If you think I'm telling you a lie, you can talk to Deputy Minister Daniel Burns. I phoned him about it. I am not here to hold back my punches; I'm very serious what I'm here for.

Under amalgamation, it is possible to reduce assessment so people pay less taxes. I can guarantee you that this government which is asking for this, if it's got the muscle, even from 1997 or 1998 can reduce property taxes up to 4% a year, over four to five years reduce property taxes by 20%, because of the waste of all these expensive people we hire. I'll show you very quickly; I'm on a roll here now.

Scarborough and North York, as the gentleman mentioned, have had some reductions and they have done it. If we take all these municipal services we have and we integrate them, we are going to have a surplus. Each of the municipalities presently has about a 30% surplus. If you look at all the surpluses when you put them together, we could accommodate another two million people in Toronto, and therefore we don't have to spend money for infrastructure for the next 10 to 15 years. We've only got to maintain the roads. So what do you want to increase my taxes for? The tenant will get a share. The landlord will save some money. Couldn't beat it.

I'm here to bring out the truth. That's all I'm here to bring out. If what I just said is not true, then I will advise each of the mayors to fire all their planners and engineers tomorrow because they are not projecting where this city should go. If they don't have that extra capacity that I am saying, something is wrong.

When all the services are fully connected and integrated -- take big heavy equipment, for that matter. We can rid of the old ones and we don't have to replace them yet because among the municipalities we will have excess; you know, heavy equipment for the snow and that kind of thing. You can follow the drift of what I'm getting at.

One of the biggest problems we have among municipalities is the difference in utilities, hydro that they sell to you and me and all of us. When all these service utilities are integrated properly under one board, there will be no need for peak demand hydro costs. You guys from out of town, you don't pay high peak demand cost, but in Toronto they kill you with it. It's nearly 20%. When we have a common denominator, that may not be the case. And you know what? We will have one of the best energy conservation processes. Maurice Strong couldn't come up with that, even. We will save energy. You know how? We will be able to distribute it fairly, equally, in a low and high peak way. We can do that. There's a tremendous amount of cost there, unless the commissioners on board remember that too. He's smiling at what I'm saying here. There will actually be 15% to 20% cost savings to residents, in hydro I'm talking about now. I've shifted from taxes and I've gone to hydro now. It's a lot of savings.

There is a very important issue that we have to bear in mind. When you change all these bylaws and you have consistency of laws -- and the charter of rights forces municipalities to do it. I'm surprised these high-priced lawyers they pay don't understand that up to now. We have to get consistency of the law. It cannot be an invalid bylaw every time they pass it and they take you to court to get the court to convict you and take you to the Supreme Court. Who's got money to go to the Supreme Court for $125,000 every week? Nobody has that kind of money, but that's what they do.

Again, what is important is that the municipality is violating your provincial authority that you give them. The last two governments were shifting the ARB and the OMB to the judiciary process, and it's a very interesting shift.

I think there was an article in the press that said that as soon as they decided to replace people at the OMB, the lawyers got nuts, they were concerned because they were going to lose the big bucks. I want to get on with a lot of this.

The Vice-Chair: I just want to remind you that you just have a very short time left. Could you wrap up your comments, please?

Mr Raghubir: In a good partnership for all levels of government I think there'll be a tremendous amount of costs saved and it's the only way we can go.

I think Mel Lastman made a footnote on the CPaC show about the number of tennis courts and what not they have. I will pause for a second and see if anybody has a grasp of what I've just said to pose a question to me.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. You have exceeded the time. I appreciate your coming here this afternoon.

Mr Raghubir: I thought you were going to give me an extra five to prove that Dalton was wrong, that you would give me more than 10 minutes. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you very much.

GARY COLLVER

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

Mr Gary Collver: I wish I could tell you I was as flamboyant a speaker as our last presenter, but I'm afraid not.

I would like to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to present my views on Bill 103. My name is Gary Collver and I am a resident of Etobicoke and a small business owner. My business is located in East York.

I was born in Etobicoke, and in years past I have lived in downtown Toronto, the Beaches, the Annex and the Yonge-Eglinton area. One of the nice things about living and working here is that all these places have their own personalities. The reason they do is that residents have had the tools in their local governments to preserve and nurture the things that make them unique. It's what has made the quality of life in Toronto so good. If you take away these tools, people will have less control over their neighbourhoods and the personalities of those neighbourhoods will disappear.

I believe that with less local input or influence by residents, the way is clear for unchecked development, lax environmental practices and the erosion of services that are tailored to different areas of Metro.

Proposed neighbourhood committees that have no real powers will be unable to do the important job of protecting residents' rights. As these neighbourhoods become less attractive places to live, as social problems increase and as property taxes balloon because of provincial downloading, there will be an exodus from the city and the hollowing out of Toronto will have started in earnest.

Ironically, policies intended to make Toronto a more attractive place for business will have just the opposite effect. These problems will no doubt plague the city after the costs of social programs downloaded from the province explode during the next economic downturn.

This city is just now beginning to pick itself up after the last recession, and to burden it with the costs of amalgamation and the downloading of welfare, public housing and other social service costs will surely halt and reverse that recovery.

The promised contingency fund will mean municipalities will have to come hat in hand and compete with each other to obtain emergency relief. This, in effect, places the control over these programs with the provincial government.

A large cross-section of society, from academics to social agencies to business groups, has said this is totally unacceptable.

I believe amalgamation will also exacerbate the 416-905 tax disparity. Amalgamation, coupled with downloading, will dramatically increase property taxes in the megacity. Faced with larger tax increases, individuals and businesses will flee Toronto for outlying areas, placing even larger strains on the megacity as its tax base shrinks. The downward spiral will be well under way.

As terrible as these ramifications are, I think the thing that bothers me the most about this bill is its assault on democracy both in content and in form. I've always believed that most Canadians understand and respect democratic values. Apparently I was wrong.

Bill 103 fails democracy on several fronts. It takes the most accessible form of government away from the people and creates a large bureaucracy which will be expensive, impersonal and confusing. It will be more difficult for citizens to get answers to local problems. Councillors who must administer welfare, social housing, police, day care, care for seniors and a host of other duties will hardly have time to listen to the day-to-day problems people have in their communities.

One only needs to look at Metro council to see the problems that lie ahead. There will be fewer elected officials but many more bureaucrats, assistants and administrators. I believe that these hearings are an excellent example of the problems with large government. They were not taken to the local city halls so that the people upon whom amalgamation is to be imposed could gain easy access.

1740

The reasons we were given were that there wasn't enough time and it would be too costly. Democracy, it seems, is not in the budget. Mike Harris and Al Leach say that local governments are redundant and expensive. Again democracy isn't in the budget. I think most people would agree that democracy is not the place for government to cut corners.

It is in form that the undemocratic nature of this proposed legislation really becomes apparent. It places elected municipal officials under trusteeship presumably so they won't slip away with the silverware. These trustees report only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, not even to the Legislature. Their powers are retroactive to December 17, when the legislation was introduced. Their decisions cannot be questioned in the courts.

This says to the voters in Metro that their elected officials can't be trusted to do the jobs they elected them to do. They want me to believe that the provincial government knows best what moneys my community should spend, what projects should proceed and what projects should be scrapped. It says that trustees know more about my city than my elected municipal councillors who live in my area, whose children go to the neighbourhood school. Does this really sound like democracy?

A transition team is to be appointed, a team of unelected officials who will report only to the minister. They will set up the new municipal government, award contracts, hire and fire personnel, set budgets, all without input from the citizens of this city or any elected officials. As with the trustees, decisions the transition team makes cannot be questioned in the courts. All present and future municipal employees can be forced to collaborate with the transition team. There is no time limit on the transition team's existence or powers.

Subsection 16(12) states, "On or after January 31, 1998 the Minister may, by order, dissolve the transition team." All this amounts to an extraordinary consolidation of power over the city into the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He will be free to mould the megacity into whatever form he chooses, all without the input or consent of the people of Toronto or their elected officials. I find it very hard to believe that anybody can regard this kind of legislation as democratic.

There has been much discussion recently regarding the validity of the referenda the municipalities are holding regarding the megacity legislation. I have heard Mr Leach say that this issue is too complicated to be framed with a single yes or no question. I would agree that it is a very complicated issue, so complicated that it seems to me reckless in the extreme to be rushing this bill through.

This is especially true given the fact that it doesn't resemble anything that was suggested by the various commissions that studied the future governance of the Metro and GTA areas. In fact, expert after expert has come forward to denounce this bill in the strongest possible terms. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the concept of governing by referendum, I feel in this case the government have left us no choice but to hold our own.

Mr Harris did not mention destroying local governments during the provincial election, and in fact seemed to have the opposite in mind when he stated in the fall of 1994: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger municipalities." I couldn't have said that better myself.

They campaigned on a platform of consulting the electorate on important issues through referenda, yet they refuse to hold a referendum on this issue or recognize the results of the referenda that the municipalities are holding. It's no wonder that people are so confused about what's going on.

I really think that the people of Metro want two things with regard to this issue. First they want information, and I don't mean images of Mike Harris in front of some electrical wiring or in hockey arenas talking about how great things are going to be in a megacity. They want real information. They want to see the impact studies; they want to know about their property taxes; they want to know how they're going to solve their neighbourhood problems with a large megacity government.

Second, they want to have their voices heard on this issue. No one likes to have something forced on them, and the autocratic style with which this whole issue has been handled has resulted in one of the largest grass-roots movements I have ever witnessed in this city. People are very upset, and I don't mean the people I'm sure Mr Harris would regard as the usual suspects, but people who have never been involved in any kind of political movement in their lives as well as a good number of card-carrying Tories.

The government calls its policies the Common Sense Revolution. I suggest that there is no common sense in this bill or the other legislation introduced during mega-week. When you take common sense out of the Common Sense Revolution, you're left with revolution. I don't believe the people of Ontario want this revolution; they never have wanted revolution or extremism. They want a careful government that adheres to traditional Canadian democratic values. Governments have a responsibility to serve all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them.

We give politicians power to govern but not to rule. It is their responsibility to govern with sensitivity, careful thought and understanding of the electorate's wishes and concerns. Democracy doesn't end after an election, it just begins.

I'm here to fight for Etobicoke and I'm here to fight for Toronto. Even though they are separate cities, they are both my home, they are part of my culture and my life. I'm asking you to let this disastrous bill die in this committee. Let's start again, using democratic and consultative methods to solve the problems of Metro and the GTA without destroying the things that make this place special.

Mr Marchese: Our Metro councillor, Mr Chong, I suppose would describe some of what you said as an opportunity to spread fear about amalgamation, that it's emotional hyperbole, that it seems to have evoked near-hysteria, this whole audition of amalgamation, and that some people should take a Valium. What do you think?

Mr Collver: I would certainly agree that there's a lot of fear about this issue, but I think it's fear that's been generated by a lack of information and knowledge about what the ramifications of this bill are going to be. People just don't understand what is going to happen, and that breeds fear, and quite justifiably so.

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

DOUGLAS JURE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Doug Jure. Good evening and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Douglas Jure: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of Bill 103.

I am here this afternoon as a private citizen who resides in Toronto and who lives and works in the village of Yorkville. By way of background, I am a former Ontario civil servant who during his 20 years of service included an appointment as Ontario's senior trade representative in Japan.

I left the Ontario public service five years ago to establish my own consulting practice and I am currently the chief operating officer of a new Ontario-based environmental services company. I should declare that I am president of the St George-St David PC association and that I knocked on almost as many doors as Al Leach did in 1995. Before that campaign I was a key campaign worker for ward 13 councillor John Adams. However, I have never been the Premier's chauffeur.

I support Bill 103 because it is the next evolutionary step in the political and governmental organization required by the residents of Metropolitan Toronto to properly manage the affairs of our community. I do not see it as an expensive alternative to the existing multilayered governments we now have.

During my party's first 18 months in office, the Progressive Conservatives have focused on re-engineering the provincial government by reducing the number of politicians and bureaucrats and focusing on priority services. This reform is part of the Common Sense Revolution's promise "to set an example of cost cutting to be followed by all levels of government and all departments and ministries." That promise, in my opinion, set the stage for Bill 103.

In my opinion there is more to this than just the Common Sense Revolution's promises and the Premier's campaign commitment to be held accountable.

Bill 103 and similar legislation designed to improve government efficiency and effectiveness reflect the changing values of our society. I suspect that a majority of the committee members here today like me are members of the baby-boom generation. Canada's oldest baby-boomers have just turned 50. In our private lives we are recasting ourselves as a generation of savers and investors. Reducing debt, paying off mortgages and accumulating enough assets to support a comfortable retirement lifestyle are our new values. These new values transcend our public values. The Common Sense Revolution effectively articulated our values in the 1995 election campaign. It did not invent them.

1750

We understand that excessive public borrowing is just as harmful as excessive personal borrowing would be at this period of our lives. We have grasped the concept that high public sector deficits beget high interest payments and, most important, we understand that high interest payments generate high taxes and cuts in valued public programs such as health care and education.

We baby-boomers want tax relief; it is the only real income gain we will realize as our retirement approaches. But at the same time, we are demanding better quality and cheaper public services for our taxes. We want value and services for our money, and that demands greater accountability from politicians and their bureaucracies.

A streamlined and accountable system of government at all levels is the only way we can achieve improved services at a reasonable cost. In Metropolitan Toronto, we don't have that now, in my opinion, and it is in this context that I support Bill 103.

I support Bill 103 for five reasons, and they are: It will reduce duplication and overlapping services; it will reduce the size of municipal government, but representation will be enhanced; a unified Toronto government will not cost more than the existing seven municipal governments; it will mean better decision-making; and it will be more accountable and less confusing to residents.

Let me comment in more detail. First, it will reduce duplication and overlapping services. It does not make sense to have seven different sets of rules, seven sets of administrations and seven sets of local councils debating issues when one will do. Furthermore, it does not make sense for seven governments to deliver municipal services which are already largely integrated, with the exception of garbage collection, fire protection, parks and recreation, economic development and libraries.

It will reduce the size of government, but representation will be enhanced. A unified city of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians from 106 to 44 plus a mayor. Each councillor will serve about 50,000 residents, working closely with neighbourhood committees to understand and act on the needs of residents. The new city of Toronto will have community councils. The 44 elected members will be divided into six community councils, each comprised of seven or eight wards. Each ward will have one representative on the council. Each council will select a chair and each chair will sit on an executive committee which will be, in turn, chaired by the mayor.

Each councillor will establish volunteer neighbourhood committees that will let residents get directly involved in municipal government and will be effective in keeping city council aware of local needs, local issues and local priorities. Local needs will be incorporated into official plans and official plan amendments. Municipal council would continue to be the approval authority, having regard to provincial policy. Community councils would make recommendations to council on these matters to ensure that plans reflect the distinctive nature of each particular district, and neighbourhood committees, comprised of community representatives, would provide input to community councils.

Community councils may also be given the approval authority for a number of planning functions such as amending zoning bylaws, making decisions on minor variances, consents, development permits and plans of subdivision within the community. All these responsibilities are important locally. Neighbourhood committees would act as advisory bodies to the community council to ensure that neighbourhood concerns have been considered.

A unified Toronto government will not cost more than the existing seven municipal governments. Senior administrators across Metro Toronto appear to have already achieved parity. Unions have achieved parity for civic employees across Metro. Municipal employees, with the exception of fire and police, are covered by the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Under this legislation, successor rights apply and all collective agreements continue in existence until the length of their term runs out. Furthermore, there is a new discipline in government bureaucracy today in contrast to that of a decade ago. Cost-cutting and privatization are realities that did not exist before.

It will mean better decision-making. The proposed new city council will be able to make better decisions that impact on the long-range growth, development and prosperity of the united Toronto. The new city council will be able to look at the big picture, to create a vision of a unified city to keep it livable, to keep it competitive, to keep it as one of the top international cities. You can't make good decisions when you're fighting with your neighbours, when you're struggling for survival, when the structure of government makes it impossible to get the most use and value out of existing infrastructure and investments. Better decisions for all of Toronto can be made when assets and resources are shared across the city.

Finally, it will be more accountable and less confusing to residents. Residents who know who to talk to about services and other local issues will now have that opportunity. Instead of having to deal with two levels of government -- the local municipality and Metro -- residents will have one. They won't be confused about what level of local government does what. Roads are just one example of the current confusion. If you want to complain about a pothole that needs to be fixed, you first have to figure out whether it's a Metro pothole or a local pothole. Then you probably think you know who to call if the sidewalk needs plowing in the winter. You may be surprised: Even if it's a Metro road, the local municipality may be responsible for the sidewalk. But Metro may be in charge of the street lighting. A unified Toronto government will put an end to that confusion. One council will be responsible and accountable.

Accountability is the point on which I would like to conclude. Accountability means that residents will not have to guess who the politician was or who the politicians were who made the decision or who is responsible for the delivery and cost of a service. Accountability in turn leads to efficiencies and effectiveness that is currently frustrated by shared responsibilities for decision-making and service delivery. If no one person is responsible, then everyone is, and therein lies the opportunity to pass the buck, delay a decision, deny responsibility and ultimately blame someone else. Accountability leads to a transparent system of government where process does not obscure or confuse issues and delay decisions. Residents will know who the players are and that will promote better representation and better governance.

Mr Hastings: Mr Jure, you've focused on some very good rationales for the unified city. I'd like to hear from you, with your unique public-private sector experience in your new growth company, I presume, how this new unified city arrangement can help a company like yours; also, combine that with the most perplexing problem all governments are facing today, that is, the high unemployment of our young people, Generation X. How do you see these things melding together?

Mr Jure: The resources of the city -- for instance, my experience, as I alluded to earlier, in the Ontario government had to do with economic development. The classic case of where there is unnecessary competition in a geographical area has to do with each city and borough in this community having economic development offices competing with one another.

The Vice-Chair: I must interrupt. We have run out of time. Thank you very much for appearing here tonight.

HEATHER BROOKS-HILL

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Heather Brooks-Hill. Good evening, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mrs Heather Brooks-Hill: Ms Chairwoman, committee members of provincial Parliament, my name is Heather Brooks-Hill. I live in Mr Leach's riding. I have lived in Toronto most of my life. My paternal grandparents immigrated to Ontario as young adults. My maternal great-great-grandparents immigrated to Muddy York in the 1840s. My great-grandfather was Brigadier-General the Honourable James Mason, a Roman Catholic Progressive Conservative, a founder of the Empire Club, among other initiatives. He was appointed to the Senate in 1913.

All of my relatives, including my mother, are buried in Toronto. My roots and history are here in Toronto, Ontario. I love Toronto and I love Ontario. I am proud to be both a Torontonian and Ontarian; at least I was until recently.

I am horrified at the attitude of Mr Harris's government for the democratic process. I am shocked by the disregard for the concerns expressed by the people of Ontario about the timing chosen for the introduction of Bill 103, the content of Bill 103, and the series of announcements that included Bill 104 and the downloading of costs of services.

1800

In response, I took the time to do some research. I had several telephone conversations with staff at both the ministry office and the constituency office of my member of Parliament, Mr Leach. I was dismayed by the responses from each.

In both instances, the staff spoke as if the legislation had been passed. There was no understanding or information that reflected the reality of the process. This experience, in addition to the promotion piece sent to all households prior to the holidays, alarmed me. My request for a meeting with Mr Leach was never acknowledged.

At recent meetings, both in Rosedale, Mr Leach was not able to answer the questions from the audience in an honest and satisfactory way.

I'm both dismayed and angry with regard to the experience I've described above. In addition, I am particularly angry about the sections in Bill 103 that invest extraordinary powers in non-elected people, namely the trustees and the transition team. I consider these sections to be non-democratic. Furthermore, it is my observation that traditional efforts to speak and to be heard are not working.

Your version of democracy is unacceptable to me, Mr Harris and Progressive Conservative members of the government. My version of democracy -- ie, accessibility of elected representatives, honest debate, respect for process -- isn't honoured by you.

Democracy isn't working, so here is my recommendation: Withdraw Bill 103 and begin again.

I work as a palliative caregiver. I have worked in the health and education sectors and often the arts. The most productive and satisfying work has always been interdisciplinary. It is in the interdisciplinary paradigm that creative and effective action, service and structure emerge.

This would be a new way of approaching democracy. We could begin now, in time to enter the next millennium, with a freshness informed by the lessons of more than 2,000 years of experience.

I believe in the interdisciplinary approach. This means we must aim for less rigid and more flexible thinking. It requires opening up to new and innovative processes. There are great possibilities and never-before-dreamed-about solutions. It would require acknowledging all parts of each of us, good and bad, embracing and balancing a great deal. This is accessible to all of us, but to do so, our souls must be nourished by beauty, love and respect.

It is my understanding that Parliament will adjourn for several weeks prior to the final reading and vote on Bill 103. Please take time for yourself to nourish your soul in the way that is most healing and rejuvenating for each of you.

There is a precedent role model in our history. I speak of F.R. Scott, 1899 to 1985. Frank Scott's career is unique among Canadians of this century. As a constitutional lawyer, civil libertarian, teacher and poet, he helped to shape Canada's national awareness and culture. Scott's collected poems, recapitulating his life's work, appeared in 1981, winning the Governor General's award for that year. For over five decades, F.R. Scott was a leading figure in law, literature and politics in Canada.

Scott was an interdisciplinary thinker and helped pave the way for the new style of democracy that I see. Between now and the third reading of Bill 103, it is my hope that you will read some of both Scott's poetry and essays on the Constitution.

The decision that is made on the future of my city will surely impact both your children and my children, and your grandchildren and my grandchildren and generations of Ontarians to come.

What are we planting now?

Please stand for the reading of Circle of Freedom.

we rise up

with our shouts and angry cries

We shake our fists at the

empty skies

you are not gods who sit

and give commands

by the grace of the people

you hold power in this land

and we rise up

with our shouts and our demands

and we cast our votes

and we join our hands

in a circle of freedom

stronger than your house

in a circle of freedom

that breaks apart your boast

government by the people

means the people will have their say

and your almighty proclamation

is not the people's way

we will let our children grow

with breath and hope they call their own

we will let our elders die

in a place they still call home

we will not be abandoned to the tax man

and your law

we will stand and raise our voices

in your legislative hall

for the circle of freedom

is stronger than your boast

and this circle of freedom

will break apart your house.

With permission of the poet, Wanda Buchanan.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much, Mrs Brooks-Hill. You can see what we have here. We have a real paradigm. We had Mr Jure, who seemed like a very intelligent, very sensitive man who gave a very good presentation, I thought, and seems to really believe in this proposal. Yet on the other hand you're expressing grave concerns about the fact that this proposal is essentially an insult to your democratic beliefs. Maybe you can talk to Mr Jure through me to explain why you feel this way.

Mrs Brooks-Hill: It was interesting. Thank you for your question. I don't wish to speak to Mr Jure. My husband and myself and Mr Jure attended the same meeting last night in Rosedale. Mr Jure attempted to facilitate a discussion led by Mr Leach.

My concern is with the dismissal or what I feel is the dismissal of my democratic rights. I come from a tradition of Conservative family. I am not a cardholding member of any party at this time. I am concerned and ashamed of the elected representatives in this province. I feel exactly the opposite of most of the elected representatives in my city government and of some in my Metro government.

The big difference for me is that this is the first time I have ever spoken at Queen's Park. I have done a number of community-based activities over the last 30 years and I have never had to come to Queen's Park. The city government has served my needs as a citizen and I have always assumed that democratic rights would be protected by the higher levels of government.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Brooks-Hill, I'm sorry, we have run out of time. Thank you for making a presentation here this evening.

1810

JEREMY CARVER

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Jeremy Carver. Good evening, Mr Carver, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Jeremy Carver: I wish to register my opposition to Bill 103 and to request that you urge your colleagues that it be withdrawn.

In considering which of the many reasons for my opposition to present to you in this brief time, I was torn.

I considered explaining to you the negative impact that passage of Bill 103 would have on investor confidence and therefore on the biopharmaceutical startup company of which I am the CEO. In contrast to Mr Jure who spoke earlier, I see the chaos and the uncertainty that is surrounding this process and the consequences of passage of this bill as being considerably disturbing to the investor community. My company is one that looks for, needs, a predictable long-term financial environment, because we are many years away from having a product on the market. Investors need to realize that they can predict costs over the years. We can't predict because we don't even know what the consequences of Bill 103 will be. But anyway, the board of trade has already made that point, so I decided not to speak at length on that.

I considered also pointing out to you the risk you run of provoking the federal government into using its powers to disallow this bill, because of the danger passage represents to the delicate economic recovery the country is experiencing, but I decided that you wouldn't listen to me because I am not a constitutional lawyer.

I also considered advising you to ask the minister for copies of the legal opinions his ministry obtained before drafting this bill. Even as a layman, I find the bill internally inconsistent and sloppy lawmaking, and I am convinced his ministry has obtained no such opinions. I predict that if passed into law in this form the bill will be tied up in legal challenges for the rest of your term. But again, I am not a lawyer.

However, I am a voter, and my wife and I live in the riding of St George-St David, so I decided instead to tell you all a personal story, the story of how I went to a meeting last night to hear my MPP, the Honourable Al Leach, explain his government's reasons for attempting to legislate one Toronto.

Now, the title "honourable" is an important part of this story. It is a title that is given to cabinet ministers in recognition of the tremendous service they perform for the electorate in accepting the responsibilities of a minister of the crown. In this noble service they deserve our respect and gratitude. They bear considerable responsibility since their public utterances can be construed to be government policy. For this reason, if for no other, they must very carefully prepare their public statements. I therefore went to the meeting expecting to hear a carefully reasoned defence of Bill 103.

Imagine my surprise, my dismay and my disgust to hear the minister lie to his audience in a belated attempt to attribute Bill 103 to David Crombie's Who Does What committee. Now to call a minister of the crown a liar is no small act, so let me tell you more.

Mr Leach -- I am no longer prepared to use the honorific -- started by saying that he wished to clear up the considerable misinformation he feels has been promulgated regarding Bill 103. He started with the Golden report and explained how his government had agreed with the recommendations to form a greater Toronto council, eliminate regional governments and strengthen local municipal governments, all policies I also support.

He went on to explain, using erroneous numbers, how his government could not work out how to redistribute the powers of the regional governments, so he established the Who Does What committee and asked David Crombie to chair it. He emphasized that the 15 members in addition to Crombie were all experienced and knowledgeable concerning municipal issues. He then stated that the Who Does What committee recommended a single city for Metro, and that Bill 103 is simply implementing their recommendations.

Now, for many citizens of Toronto, the recommendations of the Who Does What committee are to be taken very seriously. David Crombie is a highly respected former mayor. I might have been taken in if I had not, just two days before, attended a meeting at which Mr Crombie vigorously denied that his committee had recommended the megacity and carefully enunciated his actual recommendations.

Let me read to you what the panel actually did recommend, from page 17 of the panel's December 6, 1996, letter, delivered 11 days before Bill 103 was tabled:

Recommendation 1: "The panel recommends that the province implement a GTA governance structure based on three fundamental and interrelated imperatives: creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) eliminating the five upper-tier municipalities; consolidations of member municipalities into strong cities; consolidations in Metro" -- note the plural -- "that create a strong urban core for the GTA."

It then says, "The panel agreed that a Greater Toronto Services Board is of overwhelming importance. The panel was unanimous in endorsing the importance of a strong urban core, with views on strengthening the core ranging from one city to four. All were agreed that consolidations should significantly enhance the political strength of the core city within the greater Toronto area."

Recommendation 2 deals with the GTSB, so let me skip to recommendation 3: "The panel recommends that the province mandate the following implementation strategy: Immediately appoint an implementation commissioner who could act as interim chair of the Greater Toronto Services Board. The implementation commissioner's mandate would be to establish the GTSB as a first priority; to develop proposals" -- note proposals -- "for municipal consolidations with a report by April 1997, and to implement the consolidations effective January 1, 1998."

In no way did the Who Does What committee recommend the megacity, so clearly Mr. Leach lied to his audience last night regarding the justification for Bill 103, and he continued to lie about the financial impact of 103. I left in complete disgust.

Let me leave you, the members of this committee who belong to the government, with this request: that you return to your caucus and let the cabinet know that you will not tolerate the campaign of disinformation that is being mounted by Al Leach. Urge your colleagues to break ranks and vote against this abomination called Bill 103. It appears the government cannot defend it except through lies. Is there any wonder that politicians are at their lowest popularity in decades in the opinion of the electorate when their honourable gentlemen behave so dishonourably?

To the opposition members of the committee, let me commend you for the work you have done in resisting Bill 103, and let me urge you to contact your colleagues in Ottawa and raise with them your desire to see them disallow this bill should it ever survive third reading, on the basis that its passage will severely damage the delicate economic recovery that is so essential to the success of the federal government's efforts.

Mr Marchese: Mr Carver, thank you for your presentation today. I have been most impressed by so many presentations that have come before this committee. It's of interest to me to listen to those who support this bill and to those who have values that obviously oppose it.

Those who support this bill seem to have these kinds of values: that we're overtaxed, that we're overgoverned, and they want to see an end of duplication. I'm not sure, but there may be another one or two of these notions. But these are the kinds of values that seem to drive their support for this bill.

What are the values that you have against it that lead you to support local government, obviously?

Mr Carver: First of all, Mr Marchese, in my business we do not feel overtaxed. Obviously everyone would like to pay less tax, but it's much more important for us to be able to maintain the confidence of our investors over the long term, and to recruit internationally, in the world, which we can do very easily to Toronto now because it is such an incredibly vibrant and cosmopolitan city. When we try to recruit people from other parts of Canada and from other countries in the world, we have no trouble in persuading them that Toronto would be a marvellous place to live.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carver, for appearing here tonight.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Madam Chair, may I ask unanimous consent to ask one question of the witness? It was with respect to the last point about the federal government disallowing --

The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Flaherty: I thank my colleagues opposite for that. I'm concerned, sir, with your last comment about the federal government disallowing legislation because this is a federation with a division of powers under our constitution, and it is not for one level of government, be it federal or provincial, to disallow the other government's legislation. I'm wondering what the constitutional basis is for your suggestion that the federal government has any power to disallow legislation by any provincial government in this country.

Mr Carver: I suggest you consult a constitutional lawyer.

Mr Flaherty: Well, I'd suggest you have no basis at all, sir, under the Constitution Act of Canada.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We stand recessed until 7 pm.

The committee recessed from 1821 to 1902.

TORONTO FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee. I'd like to call Mark Fitzsimmons of the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association to come forward. Please begin.

Mr Mark Fitzsimmons: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this evening. I'm here representing the 1,200 men and women who are the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association. As I go through my talk this evening I just want to break it down into three parts. First, I will comment on amalgamation as it is currently proposed. Second, I will discuss some of the concerns I have with the government's supporting data for amalgamation. Last, I will relate to you how amalgamation could affect the fire service and offer some alternatives that I think would be less costly.

Just for perspective, I'd like you to know that as an association we have never been opposed to change provided that there is a demonstrated need for change and there has been thoughtful consideration of the effects those changes will bring, as well as a review of other options that are available. To make changes without reviewing the possible impact those changes will have, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

Amalgamation is the merging of seven major corporations. It involves millions of dollars and it will affect 2.3 million people. It's not a small undertaking by any means. It appears to me that these mammoth changes are being made with little objective study; also there seems to be this "Let's do it and see what happens" attitude. It is unwise to force seven corporations to merge without taking the time to consider the alternatives. It is even less wise to force change without understanding all the effects those changes will have.

If a director of a corporation were to propose that a merger of this magnitude be rushed through based on such limited study, and then claimed without evidence that the merger would be good for the shareholders, in this case the taxpayers of the individual cities, as is being claimed with Bill 103, it is likely that individual would find himself looking for another job, unless the individual was suggesting a hostile takeover, a takeover not based on what was good for the shareholders, again the taxpayers of the individual cities, but was rather a takeover designed to consolidate power of those implementing the change.

The government has relied heavily on a report by KPMG when trying to justify amalgamation to the public. A read through the KPMG report does little to alleviate my concern that the government is acting too fast on insufficient information. KPMG, in the report dated December 16, 1996, produced for the government, takes a great deal of care in adding disclaimers as to the accuracy of the estimated savings.

Just to make my point, I will quote directly from the report. Under the title "Estimates of Savings" we find the following: "Although the limitations of time and access did not permit a detailed examination or verification of the components of spending in the seven municipalities, on the basis of the materials reviewed we can conclude that" -- and then there are several conclusions drawn. Right away they're saying that they didn't verify any of the information and they had a limited time to do the report.

The report goes on to say: "Our analysis concentrated on operating expenditures. We did not try to estimate new capital requirements or the returns available from the disposal of assets made redundant by amalgamation." Understand that this is an area that could involve hundreds of millions of dollars and it hasn't even been looked at. To me there's something wrong there. It doesn't make sense and, frankly, it's bad business.

Under the title "Our Terms of Reference" the report states: "We were not asked to advise upon whether Metro and its lower-tier municipal governments should be amalgamated. The orderly windup of these seven entities was the premise from which this study began." This is hardly what you would call a thoughtful reflection of all the options.

All the options should be reviewed. We should know what we're getting into. We should know what the result of what is being done will be. It can't hurt. It could only help.

Under the heading "Limitations" we find yet another disclaimer which states: "We have relied upon the information provided to us by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and have performed no original data collection or verification against original sources. Our findings are qualified by the limited time available for this study and by our reliance on the information available to us."

I want you to understand I am in no way questioning the integrity of the people who work for the Ministry of Housing who come up with the statistics, nor of the people who prepared the KPMG report. I am sure they did what they could in the minimal time allotted to gather the statistics requested. What I am pointing out is the incompleteness of this study. It is simply a preliminary analysis of what could happen and not a study that changes of the magnitude suggested in Bill 103 should be based on.

I'll give you a concrete example of why there needs to further study and where there are problems with this study done by KPMG. In the section that talks about fire departments it shows the fire department budget as being $92.9 million. They used 1995 numbers but they're talking about $92.9 million. Because of streamlining and cost efficiency efforts that have been made by the city of Toronto, the actual budget for Toronto is $85 million for 1997, so you're out by $10 million already and it's just not accurate. If you're out by $10 million with the fire department, how many millions of dollars are you out on all the other things you've estimated? I can only speak to what I know.

It's also interesting to note that the report states: "If any change in the municipal government results in increased levels of service (possibly as a result of pressures to match the services in the jurisdiction with the highest level) costs could rise." The report goes on to say that they are working from the premise that this will not happen and that service levels will remain as they are now. In my view that's not a very realistic point of view.

It's difficult to believe that people living in the same municipal jurisdiction and paying the same taxes are going to be willing to accept different levels of service. The result will more than likely be one of two things, the first being that services will be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Although the government denies that it is looking at a reduction in service, the report does give service reduction a name, and I'm sure we'll be hearing this a lot: It's called "best practices benchmarking." In other words, if it's good enough for York, it's good enough for Toronto. If services are not reduced, then taxes will have to rise.

1910

Before I go on and talk about the fire department, to the MPPs who are from the 905 area, I have a question for reflection, I suppose. When your constituents come to you and ask you, "When they want to make changes in Durham region, am I going to be consulted?" will your answer be yes or will it be, "No, we're going to do the same as we did in Toronto; we'll do it, you'll like it"? It's something to think about.

I will now briefly comment on fire departments, amalgamation and projected savings. Question: Can the fire departments be improved? Probably; most things can. Does the whole system need to be thrown out and some magical system put in its place? Probably not. Efficiency gains such as the closest firehall responding to fire calls makes sense and is something this association has always been willing to work towards with our management. In fact, there are already mutual aid agreements in place that partially cover this concern. This kind of thing can be done without the need to drastically change the current system. Amalgamation of the fire departments will involve substantial capital costs. The question is, why would the government want to spend millions of dollars to achieve something that can be achieved without incurring those costs?

The final thing I would like to address are some of the premises that have been put forward regarding the fire department amalgamation and our reaction to those premises.

First of all, it has been said that we will save money by getting rid of six fire chiefs and replacing them with one. That's absurd. One person cannot effectively control 3,000 firefighters. The five chiefs who don't get the top job will still be needed. Their title may change, but they will be in the system, and they will be functioning in the system well.

Second: Money can be saved by centralizing training. No, not likely. One instructor can only effectively instruct a base number of firefighters. Therefore, you cannot reduce the number of training instructors without jeopardizing training standards. Besides, can you imagine sending a crew of firefighters from Kipling and Finch to Eastern Avenue for training? They would spend more time commuting than they would training. It just wouldn't work.

Third: Major savings can be achieved by merging border halls and subsequent staff savings. Cross-border responses can be achieved without amalgamation. The staff savings identified in previous reports just won't materialize, as Metro fire departments have already downsized and most of the staff reductions forecast have already been achieved.

The last thing is that dispatch service can be provided by another agency. This is a statement that has obviously been made by someone who has no idea how fire dispatch works. Fire dispatchers don't just simply dispatch trucks; they play an integral role in firefighter accountability, incident command and other important fire ground safety functions. You can't just give them to some dispatcher. They're not dispatchers; they actually have a much broader function than that.

In conclusion, we are looking at a bill that will change the way the largest area in Canada is governed. Before you go down that road, I would suggest you use a little common sense and look at all the options, not just the ones that seemed like a good idea at the time.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Fitzsimmons. We'll have questions beginning with Mr Flaherty.

Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Mr Fitzsimmons, for your presentation this evening. With respect to your 905 area comment, I think I'm the only member on this side from the 905 area; of course, the Chair's riding is all in the 905 area and partly in Durham region. But I think I can safely say that consultations would take place in Durham region before we went further with developments there. In fact, there is a meeting at the town hall in Whitby on March 4 dealing with these types of discussions and these types of issues.

I compliment you and your association not only for your involvement in this legislative consultation, but on other issues I know your association has been particularly involved and constructive in the suggestions you've made. I hear what you say about time for consultation and the necessity to look at the savings issue, and I appreciate those comments, which are of course well taken.

I want to see what I can find out in terms of your expertise, because you're firefighters. The Toronto Fire Fighters' Association is one of the associations in Metro. Do the other fire departments also have associations?

Mr Fitzsimmons: That's correct.

Mr Flaherty: Each municipality has an association. All right. I don't know if you've thought about this, but how would you envisage the delivery of the firefighting service, assuming that the city of Toronto was enlarged?

Mr Fitzsimmons: I'm not here to talk about amalgamation, I'm here to talk against amalgamation. However, if it were to pass, our position would be that there are scientific data of what response times should be, what kind of staffing should be on a fire scene and so on.

Our position as an association would be we would sit down and talk about those sorts of things, as long as we could agree that what we're doing is developing proper delivery of fire service versus trying to meet some bottom-line dollar on a budget. In other words, we've never been opposed to talking about how service is delivered, we've never been opposed to looking at more efficient ways to deliver service, but it has to be based on verifiable scientific data -- National Fire Protection Association, Federal Emergency Management Administration, and so on. There are lots out there.

Mr Flaherty: I don't think there's any question that our fire services here have an excellent reputation. In your conference attendances with other jurisdictions in North America, have you met with firefighters who deal with larger geographic areas than the city of Toronto?

Mr Fitzsimmons: Oh, yes.

Mr Flaherty: So there are delivery models that can be discussed at least, if it were to come to pass that a larger geographic area were involved.

Mr Fitzsimmons: I think the message we would get from the larger jurisdiction is if you ram it through, if you don't thoughtfully consider all the options, you're going to have trouble.

Mr Flaherty: Which takes us back to the importance of continued consultations and discussions, and I certainly have taken your point on that. Thank you for that.

Mr Parker: Mr Fitzsimmons, thank you very much for your remarks tonight. Your association has a long tradition of making helpful, constructive comments to the government, and your presentation tonight is consistent with that tradition. I take your comments very seriously.

I want to pick up on just one of your comments and that had to do with dispatch services. Currently, emergency calls in the Toronto area go to 911. They're all picked up at 703 Don Mills and then they're transferred to whichever service is appropriate to the nature of the emergency. In the case of ambulance calls, the calls are bounced to the ambulance headquarters at Dufferin and Finch, and the dispatch office there takes over, and they can handle all of Metro. It doesn't matter where the emergency is, it doesn't matter where the ambulance is and it doesn't matter where the appropriate hospital is, if a hospital ultimately gets involved. The call goes to 703 Don Mills, over to Dufferin and Finch, and then it's handled right across Metro. Why wouldn't a similar service work equally effectively for fire services right across Metro?

Mr Fitzsimmons: It's something that wouldn't be achievable in the short run because of the different radio frequencies, different procedures, different standard operating procedures. There are a whole myriad of things that would make it almost impossible in the short run, certainly make it impossible to do safely. Like I said, long-term, anything's achievable if you look at it, look at the options, what's good, what's bad, what will work and what won't work. If you don't go in with a preconceived idea and build something from the bottom, sure, you can make things work. Our concern is there seems to be this preconceived idea that's going to get forced on everybody, and it won't work.

Mr Parker: I understand what you say about impressions out there. There are a lot of impressions out there, but let's --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Parker. We've run out of time. Thank you very much, Mr Fitzsimmons, for appearing before us this evening.

1920

FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS' ASSOCIATIONS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Howard Tessler from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, please. Good evening, Mr Tessler, and welcome to the standing committee. I'd like you to introduce both of you for Hansard.

Mr Howard Tessler: That's what I'm going to start right now. My name is Howard Tessler, as you so well stated. With me is Barbara Hurd, who is the chair of our board of directors. I want to thank you for having us here on behalf of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, Canada's oldest and largest tenants' federation.

We want to talk on the matter of Bill 103, legislation which will drastically affect the lives of all Metro residents. However, we wish to address only certain aspects of the bill and how this legislation would particularly harm residential tenants of this city.

Our concerns will centre on the following areas: (1) property standards in the new Toronto; (2) citizen access to political decision-makers; (3) property taxes and rents; (4) social housing and the affordability of housing; (5) democratic control and process.

Barbara will start.

Barbara Hurd: The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations serves tenants throughout Metro Toronto, hence the name. We have answered thousands of tenant calls for help over the years in dealing with problems with their landlords. We have also referred thousands of tenants to their respective property standards departments in order to have the minimum standard bylaws enforced. We are well aware of the different standards existing between the six municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. For instance, North York bylaws see cockroaches as a health problem while the city of Toronto does not. The city of Scarborough notes that a kitchen that is equipped with a refrigerator or stove must "have such appliances...maintained in good repair and working order," section 2.8.4c. The city of Toronto, however, does not mention stoves except in rooming-houses.

We were hopeful that under a unified city there would be a move towards improved building standards so that both sides of Lawrence Avenue, for example, would have the same bylaws on cockroaches. The federation would like to see standards and enforcement improved and not lowered to the lowest common denominator.

The provincial government has consistently stated that amalgamation would reduce the duplication of services. The backgrounder to Bill 103 talks about the 184,300 bylaws among the seven municipalities and how this was a waste of time.

Bill 103, however, does not propose to coordinate these numerous bylaws. Instead it states that all existing bylaws and resolutions of the municipalities will remain in place and in effect for the existing geographical areas. In other words, a cockroach north of Lawrence remains a health problem, while south of Lawrence it is merely a nuisance.

What does change is the political pressure tenants can apply to have bylaws enforced. In our telephone counselling of tenants through the operation of the tenants' hotline, the federation often advises tenants to contact their local councillor about their landlord problems, especially in cases where tenants feel that the bylaws have not been enforced properly. We remind tenants that they are taxpayers who have elected local politicians who work for them. We have countless examples of how this has worked to get needed repairs done.

In the new Toronto, each of the 44 councillors will represent far more constituents over a larger geographical area than is the case now. Will individual tenants have the same access to their councillor as they do now?

Bill 103 also legislates the creation of neighbourhood committees in each ward. In the backgrounder the government suggests that one function of these volunteer-run committees could be to monitor the delivery of services at the local level. These volunteer committees, with their limited resources and authority, cannot hope to provide the same level of services to tenants as a full-time paid councillor and their staff.

Does Bill 103 rationalize or improve property standards for tenants? No.

Does Bill 103 improve the access to decision-makers for tenants in order to improve the enforcement of property standards? No.

Mr Tessler: What I'd like to stress now is the effect of Bill 103's redrawing of the ward boundaries. This will decrease the political efficacy of both individual tenants and grass-roots organizations. I'd like to spend some time quoting from Wendell Cox, an American expert on urban policy. He has studied the experience of amalgamated cities and has stated that the experience is one of decreased influence by individuals and community-based groups and increased influence by special interest and professional lobby organizations. To quote:

"Larger governments are more susceptible to special interests: This is for three reasons. First, special interests have the financial resources to hire professional advocates, such as lobbyists, to learn, understand and manipulate the rigid processes of larger governments. Conversely, individual citizens and neighbourhood groups rarely have the financial resources to hire professional advocates. Second, there are economies of scale with respect to political advocacy -- it is simpler and less expensive for special interests to influence a larger government than multiple smaller governments. Third, the more diffuse voice of the electorate makes larger government more susceptible to special interest influence."

A particular note of concern is the fact that the new boundaries will essentially mean the recreation of what were historically known as strip ridings, which are comprised of both working-class and low-income neighbourhoods as well as affluent ones. The tenant vote, historically much lower than that of homeowners, will have far less influence in wards of this nature.

Hence Bill 103 reduces the access tenants have to political decision-makers through the size and structure of the new Toronto government at the same time as it reduces the possibility of an effective tenant voice during the electoral process.

Barbara Hurd: I'm going to speak now about property taxes and rents. While Bill 103 is silent on property tax, amalgamation of the seven municipalities must be seen as part and parcel of the provincial government's overall restructuring of the delivery of services. The downloading of soft services, such as welfare, social housing, long-term care, public health as well as hard services, such as sewage treatment, water purification and public transport, will result in incredible pressure for a post-Bill 103 Toronto council to raise property taxes in order to provide these necessary services. If property taxes are raised, then tenants will pay higher rents.

Ontario's tenants pay $10 billion annually in rent, $1.5 billion of which is for property tax. Residential apartment buildings are taxed at roughly four times the rate of single-family homes. This has been recognized as unfair by the present provincial government on numerous occasions.

However, the federation wonders whether this government's concerns for tenants is mere rhetoric. The introduction of the Fair Municipal Finance Act during mega-week gives municipalities enabling power to move towards fairness in taxation. Will the new Toronto do so? They will have to raise property taxes to pay for the newly downloaded services.

One alternative would be to cut services. Another would be to cut services in some degree and still raise taxes. Tenants will pay higher rents for less services.

It should be noted that under Bill 96, the new tenant legislation introduced on November 21, 1996, any rise in property taxes will be considered an "extraordinary operating expense" and will not be subject to any limits.

It should be noted that tenants will fare worse than homeowners because of the income disparity between the two. According to 1991 census data, tenants have roughly 55% of the income of homeowners; 37% of tenants have an average income of $21,600. It should also be noted that some 15% of tenants pay over 50% of their income on rent. Any substantial rise in the cost of shelter would lead to a serious increase in the economic hardship of many people. Already we have seen since October 1995 an alarming increase in the number of economic evictions in Metro.

Mr Tessler: We have seen from the above that the downloading of social and public housing along with other services will result in the rise of property tax and therefore of rent. Here we'll look at some of the consequences of the downloading of social and public housing for tenants both in social housing sector and in the private rental market.

The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has stated that the immediate financial impact of this downloading will be $370 million. A recent study of housing patterns has shown that, despite the fact that at present Metro accounts for 36% of all social housing in Ontario, there will be an increase in the need for low-income housing. The combined waiting lists of MTHA, MTHCL, ie, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co Ltd, and Cityhome is now at 40,000 tenants. Many low-income tenants are not consumers of social housing but rent at the low end of the private market.

These two factors come together in showing why a severe crisis in the availability of affordable housing will occur in the post-Bill 103 Toronto. The costs of maintaining social and public housing through municipal property tax revenue will no doubt result in a decline of services to that housing sector. There will be pressure to reduce the ratio of RGI to market value units and to cut all but maintenance and repairs to the bone. Buildings will degenerate and fall into disrepair.

Low-income tenants who have any degree of choice will move out into the private market. Under Bill 96, vacancy decontrol will allow landlords to charge incoming tenants any amount of rent they wish. There will be increasing competition for the lower end of the market, pushing rents upward, increasing harassment of sitting tenants, forcing the doubling up of new tenants, producing overcrowding and an increase in social friction at the same time as landlords allow buildings to fall into greater disrepair than already exists.

At present Toronto does not have American-style slums. Post-Bill 103 Toronto will.

1930

Barbara Hurd: To conclude, we want to talk about democratic process and control. I want to return to the specifics of Bill 103 and have to ask the government and its members why they are creating new levels of bureaucracy, why these bureaucrats have immense powers, are above the law and can veto the decisions of democratically elected councillors.

While Bill 103 is very vague in many of the aspects of the new Toronto, it is very detailed in the powers of the newly created board of trustees and the transition team. The legislation is very careful to point out how the trustees' decisions cannot be appealed, that they are not subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, cannot be sued, and that they are responsible only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Bill 103 is also very explicit in pointing out that, while the trustees and transition team can hire any staff they want, they are to be paid by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

It should also be pointed out that Bill 103 does not state any time limit on the trustees. They can be dismissed only by the minister. The transition team, hired by the board of trustees, become employees of the new Toronto council once it comes into being on January 1, 1998. Hence the new Toronto owes its beginning not to democratically elected, responsible and representative politicians but to omnipotent bureaucrats living off the backs of the taxpayers of this city.

A final note on the democratic process. This government and its ministers have said time after time that they will not be swayed by either the outcome of the referenda to be held on March 3 or the submissions in these hearings. Why should the citizens of the six municipalities believe that the new Toronto will be a thriving, responsive democracy when its founding legislation is so flawed and its founders so anti-democratic?

Tenants account for over 50% of the population of Metro. We are asking the standing committee on general government to reject this legislation and to ask the government to reconsider this shotgun marriage version of amalgamation. Post-Bill 103 Toronto will not be a Fortune 500 city. It will be, in the words of the great urban historian, Lewis Mumford, a necropolis, a city of the dead. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have just about two minutes, Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Is there another jurisdiction that you're aware where there has been such a massive downloading of social housing on to local property taxpayers at the municipal level?

Mr Tessler: I'm not aware of it.

Mr Colle: So there's no model for this. Are there any US cities that have? You know, the huge projects?

Mr Tessler: Actually Chicago is one, I believe. A lot of the federal powers of HUD were transferred to the Chicago Housing Authority. The result of that is massive slums. They're not doing a good job in maintaining or improving the life of social housing tenants.

Mr Colle: Has there been any analysis done on the state of repair of these buildings that are going to be now on to the municipalities?

Mr Tessler: I believe that there was one several years ago.

Barbara Hurd: There's the KPMG-MTHA study, and I understand that there's like $300 million worth of repairs needed for that housing. If they downloaded co-ops and non-profits, they're a little newer, so they're possibly not so in need of repair at this point.

Mr Colle: That was the KPMG report on MTHA buildings and they said there was approximately $300 million of capital repairs needed?

Barbara Hurd: Right. I believe it's $300 million, over and above what they're supposed to be applying to regular repair and maintenance.

Mr Colle: What's the average age of the housing stock that would be downloaded, excluding the co-op housing? Any idea?

Barbara Hurd: As I understand, if we're coming back to Metro Toronto housing, they started building somewhere in the mid-1960s and stopped building by about the mid-1970s.

Mr Colle: How old is Regent Park?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Colle. I'm sorry. We've exhausted our time. Thank you very much, Mr Tessler and Ms Hurd, for appearing here tonight.

TONY ARAUJO

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Tony Araujo. Good evening, Mr Araujo, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Tony Araujo: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to talk to the issue of Metropolitan Toronto governance and Bill 103. My name is Tony Araujo. I own a small testing laboratory that employs eight persons and I've lived and worked in Toronto all of my life. I am not an expert on amalgamation. Over the last couple of months I've watched the amalgamation debate deteriorate into a mud-slinging match where the reality of Toronto history doesn't seem to matter any more.

First of all, I applaud the government's decision to move forward in a substantive fashion on the promise that it made in the Common Sense Revolution document to end regional and municipal duplication and overlap and to reduce the number of politicians. No one, at this late stage, in any of Ontario's hundreds of municipalities should be surprised that this government would move forward on this promise.

Much of the debate to date seems to centre on whether or not enough experts agree on what the most appropriate governance model should be for Metro and whether the process is democratic. Some experts say amalgamation is good -- sometimes. Others say that it is bad -- most of the times.

In 1994 I had the pleasure of reading one such expert report on laboratories in the plastics industry, commissioned by the previous provincial government, whose conclusion, after much intense study and deliberation, was that my plastics laboratory did not exist. Because of this conclusion, the researcher recommended that the government provide $10 million to set up such a laboratory. All that learned researcher needed to do to come a different conclusion was to open up a copy of the local yellow pages to the heading "Laboratories," and there he would have seen our ad. In short, I don't have much time for so-called expert reports. Like statistics, I believe that experts can come to any conclusion, regardless of the actual facts on the ground. And yes, I understand that the government has one such report, the KPMG study. I have as much faith in that one as I have in all the others.

However, the reality of Toronto history is one of continuous consolidations. In 1834 the city absorbed the Liberties; in 1883 it annexed Yorkville; in 1884 Riverdale and so on. Ten such adjustments just in the city of Toronto. The Metro area has also undergone many of the same adjustments. In each case the citizens got bigger government and, in many cases, not necessarily better results. However, when those citizens didn't get the kind of results they wanted, they agitated; they wrote letters, they talked to their councillors and sometimes they even demonstrated until they got the kind of results they wanted.

None of the governance models that has existed in Toronto's 180-odd-year history has been perfect, but it is because of the people themselves that those systems have managed to work. We are not here today in the number one city in the world because the urban engineers in the past designed perfect systems; they didn't. It's the people who have made this city what it is today, not the politicians.

Recent Toronto history is full of examples that show the power of the people over the city and Metro governments. When the Yonge subway was proposed to be extended from Eglinton to Finch in the 1960s, the design preferred by the TTC would have seen 200 homes destroyed and the subway placed in an ugly open cut that would have ruined an attractive residential neighbourhood. The people of North Toronto didn't like that idea very much and fought it successfully, resulting in the present tunnelled system. Their neighbourhoods are intact today, not because of how many layers of government they had, but because their residents cared enough to do something about it.

The Annex wasn't always the vibrant, dynamic neighbourhood that it is today. In 1959 the city of Toronto planning board, the experts, proposed office complexes and apartment towers as the cure for the deterioration that the neighbourhood had been experiencing. If the residents of the Annex had stood by passively and allowed their local government to proceed with that plan, we wouldn't have the Annex today. The people got the neighbourhood they wanted and Toronto is the city it is today because of these many citizen involvements. Each change has benefited some more than others, but the net effect of all these changes is this great place to live.

1940

Did the people in these communities get less democracy after the last 10 annexations? Did democracy suffer in the village of Yorkville when it was annexed to Toronto in 1883? Yes, in a way it did. The local community lost their own representatives, the representatives whose responsibility it was to deal first with Yorkville's problems. In place of their own council they received representation on the Toronto council. Was this better or worse for the people of Yorkville?

And what of the people who lived in the original suburbs of York, the Liberties, or in the communities of Deer Park, Davisville, Eglinton, Forest Hill, Seaton village, Riverdale, Parkdale, Brockton, West Toronto, North Toronto and Swansea? All of these communities lost their own exclusive representatives and instead got representation on a council that in many cases has to take into account the interests of the entire community.

Is that anti-democratic? Are their local concerns subjugated to the interests of the larger majority? Yes, in some cases that's what happens, but today the community of Toronto is much better off because of it. Is that anti-democratic? I don't think so.

It does, however, seem ironic to me that the same people who rail at the Harris government for not "balancing the concerns of all the constituents" are afraid of a governance model for Metropolitan Toronto that does exactly that, balance the concerns of all of Metro's constituents.

I believe this legislation can work, that we can have a better city tomorrow, but only if the people in our neighbourhoods can remain effectively involved. To that end, I believe that Bill 103 should be amended to outline what specific powers the neighbourhood councils will be able to exercise and over what areas. This new avenue of citizen involvement can be a good first step in the preservation of our neighbourhoods and the unique way of life we have here.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Araujo, thank you for your time and your forcefulness in voicing your support which is enunciated, cited in your position.

I need your help. You mention in the first paragraph of your presentation that you've been a citizen of Toronto -- you mean the city of Toronto -- all your life?

Mr Araujo: Yes, the city of Toronto.

Mr Pouliot: Do you own property in the city of Toronto?

Mr Araujo: I rent an apartment at Bay and Bloor.

Mr Pouliot: You rent an apartment. You own a business?

Mr Araujo: I own a business, yes.

Mr Pouliot: You own and operate it, therefore you pay a business tax of course.

Mr Araujo: That's correct.

Mr Pouliot: You're not surprised that the government would go to this extent and decree amalgamation under Bill 103 because you read the Common Sense Revolution, the document you mentioned. So it did not come as a surprise that they would initiate this action?

Mr Araujo: No, of course not.

Mr Pouliot: You mention fewer politicians, with respect, in your presentation. Candidly, did you think they would go this far, this quickly?

Mr Araujo: Candidly?

Mr Pouliot: Yes.

Mr Araujo: No.

Mr Pouliot: So you're actually surprised, aren't you?

Mr Araujo: At the speed at which they've been able to do it? Yes. My experience in the last 10, 15, 20 years of government has been that they move at a much slower pace and many governments don't succeed in actually implementing the plans that they come to government intending to implement.

Mr Pouliot: You would get half of what you hope and asked for, what you wish, and you would get it six years after you voiced your concern.

Mr Araujo: Your government is perhaps the best example in the last five years of a government that came to power with many plans. The agenda for change had some 30-odd things that you planned to implement during your mandate, and I think you may have implemented five. I don't think Ontario is better off because you didn't implement all those planned objectives.

Mr Pouliot: I only had four ministries under the previous regime, but that's a question for yesteryear as you contemplate your future.

Interjections.

Mr Pouliot: Madam Chair, will you please? Mr Araujo, you mentioned fewer politicians, so you believe this is a move to Who Does What, right?

Mr Araujo: I mentioned earlier that I'm not an expert at amalgamation. I don't know all the aspects of Who Does What.

Mr Pouliot: Would you be shocked if someone was to mention this is who sleeps with whom and who pays? The minute you begin to look past the pillow there is a discrepancy here of about $1.5 billion, which is called downloading. Make no mistake about it, this is not revenue-neutral. If it were revenue-neutral, no government, not even those people, would endeavour to be this bold. They would not upset the apple cart. The political risks are too big, so they would piecemeal.

The Vice-Chair: I have to ask you to close off.

Mr Pouliot: I will close off by way of a question. I appreciate you're very adventurous. You have courage in your veins and I hope you won't be disappointed. But be careful, because these people and this minister here, by virtue of Bill 26, will shoot to kill and you will be the victim.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Araujo.

HILARY BELL

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Hilary Bell. Good evening, Ms Bell, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Hilary Bell: Thank you. My name is Hilary Bell. I'm a self-employed training and documentation specialist. I work mainly with financial institutions and high-tech companies in the greater Toronto area.

I am not confusing amalgamation with downloading or money swaps; I am not protecting my job; I am not a union member or even a sympathizer. I'm a concerned citizen, a natural conservative and an active member of the Dundas West Residents Association, although tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf. I want to make five points about municipal governance, point out five problems with Bill 103 and make five related recommendations.

First of all, neighbourhoods are the level at which self-government happens in urban areas and this process is highly informal. As an example, you could take the public debate that is happening around this bill, but I'm also talking about the people who tonight are out, for example, flooding the local skating rinks or meeting with police liaison committees, serving meals in out-of-the cold programs or planning the spring sidewalk sales for their business improvement areas. They haven't been defined, elected or blessed by any bureaucratic body. There's a whole network of these organizations and individuals across the city.

The problem with Bill 103 is that it tries to legislate neighbourhood committees. The appointed transition team is going to more or less define the functions of neighbourhood committees and how their members are chosen. I have bad news for you: Whatever bureaucratic creation comes out of this bill, it will never replace or resemble the passion of an honest-to-goodness group of local citizens with fire in their bellies about some local issue. This clause is an acknowledgement that the amalgamated city is too big, however.

What I recommend in this case is that you forget about trying to appease residents with what is basically a cardboard cutout standing in for the real thing. Delete the notion of neighbourhood committees from this or any other legislation that may replace it.

Secondly, neighbourhoods and their residents get involved in this informal self-government because they perceive that they have the power to shape and influence their own environment. That is because they have real access to the district or subcity of the larger urban area in which they are located.

The problem with Bill 103 is that it takes a very unsophisticated approach to access, to cutting the number of elected representatives who are our primary means of accessing political decision-making. Yes, we now have 106 elected officials. Of these, 28 are glorified administrators at the Metro level, 10 of whom were acclaimed in the last election. That's 37%, for all the number crunchers. We can forget them. The mayor's function is symbolic, not providing access. That leaves 72 councillors, serving 2.3 million people or about 32,000 each. If that is cut to 44, the ratio increases to over 52,000 per councillor. That's a 64% increase and results in a group larger than any current ward in the city of Toronto.

In drafting Bill 103, I believe too much attention was given to the dollars and the popularity of bashing politicians, and not enough attention was paid to other important numbers. For example, how many evening meetings with residents do councillors attend now? Is a 64% increase realistic? Can a councillor handle a 64% increase in community events? How much longer will it take to return constituents' phone calls? If I wait a day now, how long will I have to wait under the proposed amalgamation? How many more administrative staff will a councillor have to hire to handle the 64% overload and -- dollars again -- how much will that cost? Is this planned cut just being penny wise and pound foolish? Will constituents be satisfied to talk to an unelected bureaucrat? Apart from handling neighbourhood issues, under Bill 103 my councillor will have to sit not only on an amalgamated council but also on something loosely defined as a community council.

1950

What I recommend is that you reconsider the drastic reduction in elected representatives in Bill 103. Collect some data that would provide some objective criteria for whether the reduced number of councillors could actually handle the amount of access that their constituents actually demand. If the demand for access is not met, the negative impact on neighbourhoods will be gradual but it will be dramatic. Apathy is not the result of declining neighbourhoods; it is the cause. In simple terms, when no one can be bothered to fix the first broken window, more windows will be broken.

My third point is that the built form of the district or subcity that neighbourhoods access needs to have coherence. It needs to have some common characteristics on which to base decisions.

In making decisions and solving problems, you have to work with what's actually on the ground and the human patterns that exist. Take zoning, for example, or decisions about what to do with old industrial land, or even, dare I mention, parking bylaws. Solutions are dramatically affected by built form. If you don't understand what I mean by built form, take your Perly's map book and compare the street grid on a page from the city of Toronto with a page from Scarborough. Or transfer from a streetcar that runs across the downtown core on to a bus bound for the suburbs. Look out the window. You'll know what I mean by built form.

The problem with Bill 103 is that the proposed single entity tries to merge two very distinct types of built form: densely built, mixed-use, older areas like Toronto, York and East York, and less densely built, single-use areas in the inner suburbs, like Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. Many of you will be familiar with the failed attempt to intensify housing along Metro roads, which came to naught over the difficulty of imposing uniform parking bylaws throughout Metro. This will typify the problems of an amalgamated city.

What I recommend is that this committee strongly reconsider a possible amalgamation to four local councils: one central core of older, mixed-use densely built areas and three councils for the inner suburbs: one to the west, one to the north and one to the east. As Richard Gilbert has pointed out, these inner suburbs have special problems of their own in relation to the outer suburbs. They will not be well served by being bundled in with the city core, just as the city core will not be well served by being bundled in with the inner suburbs.

Fourth, "Current management practice recognizes the fact that decentralized institutions have a number of advantages over centralized ones, and the spread of communications technology is supporting this. Decentralized institutions," and I'm quoting from Reinventing Government, "are more flexible, more effective in problem-solving, more innovative and more productive."

The government insists on repeating like a mantra the highly misleading figure that 72% of the total operating budgets of the seven bodies are already amalgamated, centralized at the Metro level. Actually if you crunch the numbers right, it's about 54%. But there is no evidence to suggest and there are no studies to prove that the hard services that the local councils deliver almost exclusively now can be as effectively delivered by a centralized organization. As Mike Harris himself said, "Services always cost more in larger municipalities."

The problem with Bill 103 is that it is based on the outdated notion that centralized services are delivered more efficiently and more cost-effectively. This contention has not been backed up by an objective study, a study that would be based not on theoretical cost-savings on paper, like the KPMG report, but on actual ability to deliver cost-effectively.

What I recommend is that this committee amend this or any replacement bill to the effect that services will not be amalgamated unless and until an objective third-party study can demonstrate that we will get better delivery of those services for less money than if those services were left unamalgamated.

My fifth and last point: The problems we are experiencing across all six municipalities were well documented in previous reports, like the Golden report -- shrinking municipal tax bases caused by flight from 416 to 905, lack of regional co-ordination on transport and infrastructure, and so on. These problems result from the fact that there is a great big hole where regional coordination ought to be. Metro used to fill this role but it is now too small.

The problem with Bill 103 is that it does not address this issue. Here is a small example we should all be able to grasp: How many of us in this room have had to get off the subway and board a private coach or vice versa while travelling to and from the airport? Maybe you're all in limos.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Ms Bell: Now, how many of you actually believe that amalgamation will solve this problem? Excuse this expression, but the legislation is ass-backwards. I voted for this gutsy, damn-the-torpedoes government in the expectation that it would tackle this most difficult of municipal restructuring problems, what to do about coordination in the greater Toronto area. Instead, it first devised a solution to a problem of its own invention and then imposed it on a group of municipalities that may have some of the best-informed, most involved citizens in Canada. What did you think would happen?

The Vice-Chair: Ms Bell, I must ask you just to give your closing sentences there because we've run out of time.

Ms Bell: All right. I'll give you my final recommendation.

I recommend that you delay Bill 103 until after the legislation has been drafted to deal with the greater Toronto area. At that point, I would like to see you eliminate regional governments, including Metro Toronto, and re-examine the appropriate form for local governments, not only in Toronto but across the GTA.

Thank you for your attention.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

ED FORTUNE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Ed Fortune. Good evening, Mr Fortune, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Ed Fortune: I was born in the city of Toronto and when I was one, my parents moved to North York, where I lived until I was 20. I then returned to Toronto, where I have lived for more than 20 years. I have had the combined living experience of over 40 years of continuous residency in Metro.

I have been a business person for over 20 years. I have capitalized and operated a small business in the city of Toronto. I have transacted business with people all over Metro, Canada and other countries.

I support the program of amalgamation. It will reduce red tape, reduce costs to deliver services, reduce the cost of doing business, and make the elected representatives more accountable to the voters. It will significantly change the political and management structures of the municipality to create a new forum for positive change.

I would be extremely disappointed if the province missed this opportunity to quickly put this plan into action. Amalgamation has been an ongoing plan. It has created something which we term the greater Toronto area, which originated from countless small, semi-autonomous settlements which have grown into each other to practically form one settlement. Creating a larger city of Toronto is a partial acknowledgement of the reality of this situation, and since it has taken almost 200 years for it to happen, the current plan is definitely not premature or hasty.

Looking back in time, when I was a proud resident of what is currently the city of North York, additionally I always wanted the cachet of being a part of the city of Toronto. Today, as a resident of the city of Toronto, if anyone feels the way I felt then, the way I still feel, then certainly amalgamation is the preferred plan. As residents, we have something to contribute to each other, which has very little to do with an arbitrarily defined civic boundary.

With the means of communication we possess, such as radio and television, telephone and computer, we have opportunities to benefit from centralized delivery of many varied services. Amalgamation is another tool for communication by which we will avail ourselves of reduced costs and improved delivery of services such as water, roads, parks and fire departments. With improved communications, voters are better informed and make more well-informed and better decisions on issues which affect them.

2000

I feel that certain political interests at the municipal level have attempted to collect up people who are considered to be disadvantaged. These people have been led to believe that by voting they can create a mandate for these political interests to effect social change at a municipal level. In my opinion this does not mix with the delivery of municipal services. The voters are being misled. If people want a mandate for social change, I feel they must work to get it at the federal or provincial level, therefore I would like to see a broadly defined provincial constituency to deliver social services.

I am suspicious of a system which delivers welfare payments at a municipal level. Welfare is a social program and should be delivered by the province. Some aspects of workfare could concern the delivery of municipal services and so these could be delivered by a municipality. I feel taxation should be modified to facilitate this reality.

Education is also a type of social program. With new technology development, the delivery of education is changing. To remove funding decisions for education to the provincial level is practical and logical. It should foster uniform provincial standards in education. Having school trustees looking after the purse-strings of our educational system is like retaining the same counsel for the defence and the prosecution of the same case.

I am suspicious of educational do-gooders who offer themselves up to control the finances of our education system. I would like a group of people to look at each financial expenditure dispassionately, impartially at arm's length and in the light of the more broadly stated social picture of a provincial or even federal constituency in conjunction with local needs.

In closing, if we can make a distinction between the delivery of social programs and the delivery of municipal services, and with the latter create a forum where all funding and all program decisions can appear on the same table, amalgamation will be a great success.

With all due respect, I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak in support of amalgamation.

Mr Hastings: Thank you, Mr Fortune, for coming in this evening. You say you've been a resident of both North York and the city of Toronto at various times in your life, and it would appear as if you have a good historical appreciation of amalgamation and how it's evolved over the years.

I'd like you to elucidate for us why you believe that if you look back in history all the mayors of Toronto -- with the exception of Mr Sewell, the present mayor and possibly one other, from Allan Lamport, Nate Phillips in the 1960s, Phil Givens in the 1970s, Bill Dennison in the 1960s and 1970s, and David Crombie, who it has been suggested is not for amalgamation but in fact is on the record as being so, and yet we have the historical break point in the last few years -- the leaders of the city of Toronto wanted amalgamation.

We no longer have that trend in evidence. What do you think has led to the change from all those mayors that had that sort of amalgamation approach to the ones of today who are saying, "We don't want anything to do with an amalgamated city"?

Mr Fortune: I don't purport to be an expert in any of these matters and I tried to expunge from my little speech here all inflammatory remarks and that's why it's very general. I was also under the impression -- aren't we running short of time?

Mr Hastings: We may well be.

The Vice-Chair: We have a couple minutes left.

Mr Fortune: Do we? Could you please repeat the question?

Mr Hastings: In the early years of the Metro federation the leaders of Toronto, the mayors I've mentioned, were generally pro-amalgamation. The present mayor, Mrs Hall, and Mayor Sewell in the later 1970s, were the strongest against amalgamation.

Mr Fortune: Wasn't Fred Gardiner, a chair of Metro, against amalgamation? That doesn't really support your theory.

Mr Hastings: No, he was for it as the reeve of Forest Hill.

Mr Fortune: I've heard him quoted as being against it. In fact, I've heard him interviewed on it.

Mr Hastings: He could have been, like Mr Colle, back in a previous life.

Mr Fortune: He was in the same situation you're in now. He had a constituency to report to and he was sensitive to the issues of his constituents.

Mr Hastings: Let me ask you this finally then. You talk about centralization. That's a major concern of a lot of people, that most functions of service delivery will be centralized, that everything will have to be downtown, whether you want to access a skating program or what have you. Do you think that's really necessary or do you think we can have a centralized political decision-making model but a decentralized service delivery model?

Mr Fortune: I don't think the present administration has suggested that we create a specific location for the so-called centralized services. By the same token, in our society today, with the mass communication that we possess, we have tremendous potential for centralization; but at the same time there is also tremendous potential for decentralization. The difference between what we face now and 100 years ago is that this can go on simultaneously.

Mr Newman: I have a quick question, Mr Fortune, if you could briefly comment on the referendum process within the six municipalities, and more specifically within the city of Toronto. Also as a taxpayer in the city of Toronto, how do you feel about your tax dollars being spent to fund one side of the issue, the No side, a side that you do not support personally?

Mr Fortune: I own property in the city of Toronto and I operate a business as well. My feeling about the referendum, bluntly: I voted for a provincial administration that I felt would undertake what I felt was necessary as a voter, as a constituent of Ontario. As far as I'm concerned, the municipality is incorporated under the laws of Ontario, so their force of law emanates from the province or the statutes that the provincial Legislature has enacted. I'm somewhat annoyed that they took my money and launched a No campaign. I haven't looked into that --

The Vice-Chair: I have to interrupt you here. Thank you very much. We've run out of time.

STEWART LYONS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Stewart Lyons, who is next. Good evening, Mr Lyons, and welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Mr Stewart Lyons: As a student and North York resident, I would like to express my position as being wholly in favour of amalgamation. It is my opinion that this government should be commended for at least having the courage and gumption to deal with the duplication of resources that exists in Metro Toronto. To myself it seems clear that Metro does not need seven mayors, councils and 106 municipal politicians. It has been disappointing, to say the least, to watch, for example, North York compete with Toronto for businesses and opportunity or vice versa. That practice is counterproductive, it is wasteful and it must stop. A unified city can work together as one harmonious unit seeking to achieve a more prosperous and vibrant Toronto for all of us.

Police, ambulance service, public works and many other services are already centralized. Currently 72% of municipal spending in Metro Toronto already goes to services delivered Metro-wide -- or 54%, like the other woman said; doesn't make a difference to my opinion. Surely the natural continuation of this logical process will not result in the overnight deterioration of the civic pride that makes Toronto a splendid place to live. I find it difficult to agree with the opponents who would have me believe that the morning after the passage of Bill 103, we will find ourselves living in a post-apocalyptic urban nightmare. Truthfully I feel the changes will be mostly cosmetic, invisible to the average Torontonian, and the absence of frivolous extravagance will not bother any one of us.

2010

In the fiscally restrained 1990s there are new realities. We must look to all areas of government to find savings. The KPMG studies reveal that there is a decent chance that $865 million could be saved over the first three years plus an additional $300 million a year by the year 2000. This fact cannot be ignored, and just because KPMG wants to protect itself by not providing a guarantee does not mean the numbers should be discarded.

Those who oppose amalgamation would argue that as a citizen of North York, I should not have such a strong say in the goings-on in the City of Toronto. That is unrealistic. Toronto is not that geographically large, and no one who lives in the surrounding cities or boroughs actually lives that far from the arbitrary geographical borders of Toronto. I spend a great bulk of my time in the downtown core, as do many other surburbians. We must all take pride and responsibility for the entire city. We must look towards common goals and cease this divisive behaviour.

I don't agree that our communities will suffer as a result of amalgamation. Cabbagetown, High Park, Forest Hill and such have been around a long time and are not defined by the boundaries of their local wards. These communities have survived the formation of Metro council, and I see no reason why they would not survive amalgamation. Additionally the six community councils that will be created by Bill 103 will ensure that local input continues through ward representation and the creation of neighbourhood committees that will be directly involved in the governing process. Also, it should not be forgotten that people create communities, not their municipal governments.

For those who say that this process is undemocratic, I would like to point out that this government stated it would make changes to municipalities in order to find cost savings and that this is completely within this provincial government's realm of jurisdiction. Additionally, no one could be so Toronto-minded as to lose sight of the fact that this government is there to make decisions that help the entire province. Torontonians shouldn't be so selfish as to think they are untouchable. I highly doubt these democracy soldiers would bat an eye if the issue was the amalgamation of Hamilton-Wentworth.

From my observation of those who oppose amalgamation, I have noticed many of them are middle-aged or older. I can appreciate their concerns over what they might lose. However, as a young person I don't have the luxury of being able to concern myself with the short-term future exclusively, nor can I afford to be fearful of change. I have to look towards what I might gain, and not just over the short term but into the far future, long after many opponents of amalgamation are gone. Furthermore I would be so bold as to argue that the majority of young people feel exactly the same way as I.

We taxpayers are currently supporting seven municipal governments here in our city. I submit that this is simply too great a burden to continue. The bureaucracy and inefficiency of our current system, with its 180,000-plus bylaws, is absurd. Rather than working together to function for the greatest good, our city politicians spend our time protecting their turf. Rather than operating as an effective civic machine, this costly municipal hodgepodge is a sluggish weight borne by the citizenry. We need a better system of local government; we deserve a better system of local government. All in all I support Bill 103 for a very simple reason: It makes sense.

Thank you and good evening.

Mr Colle: Just one question: Where in Bill 103 does it say there are going to be six community councils created?

Mr Lyons: I don't have a copy of Bill 103 but I was under that impression from what I've read about it. That's what I've heard.

Mr Colle: Where did you get that from?

Mr Lyons: General reports from people. That's the impression that I --

Mr Colle: It's pretty specific, six councils.

Mr Lyons: That's what I've heard.

Mr Newman: There was a Globe and Mail article, I think.

Mr Lyons: Yes, there was the Globe and Mail. That's one of the sources, actually.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Or my speech.

Mr Lyons: I tend to read the Globe and Mail. I try to avoid the Star.

Mr Colle: You mention how terrible things are in Toronto. If things are so terrible in Metro --

Mr Lyons: I didn't say that things are terrible in Metro. I said there's bureaucracy and waste; I didn't say things are terrible. I said it's a great place to live. It's a vibrant city.

Mr Colle: Why would you risk creating this big bureaucracy when we've been called one of the best places to live? If things had been so mismanaged, why is it such a good place to live? Why is it so vibrant?

Mr Lyons: I'm not saying it's been mismanaged. I didn't say that either. I just said it's a little bit overly bureaucratic. I think that decreasing the number of city politicians from 106 to 44 would only help matters. I don't think it would create a bigger bureaucracy, it would just officially be bigger, but in terms of cost savings it would be less. I think it would be a lot easier to get things done with a smaller council instead of having seven councils in a Metro municipal --

Mr Colle: If you're creating a government the size of Alberta, how are you going to avoid creating one of the biggest bureaucracies of any city government in North America?

Mr Lyons: What do you mean? Because it's 2.3 million people, the size of Alberta?

Mr Colle: Yes.

Mr Lyons: I don't know, there are many cities around the world, and that 2.3 million people is not a completely unrealistic figure. There are cities around the world, and granted those aren't the greatest cities, but that's not necessarily to do with the number of people they have. There are a lot of cities in the world that are larger than 2.3 million people that operate as one government.

Mr Colle: I think Mike Harris himself said, "As you get bigger government, you get bigger bureaucracy and they become more expensive." So if you're interested in saving costs -- oh yes, you also mentioned you didn't like the competition. What's wrong with competition between cities?

Mr Lyons: Don't you think it's a little counterproductive for North York to be competing with Toronto when they're 10 kilometres apart? Why shouldn't Toronto be competing with other portions of the greater Toronto area, or not even the greater Toronto area, just portions of Metropolitan Toronto? It's sort of contradictory. They serve together on one council, Metro council, and all of a sudden they're opposed on every other local issue. I think it's ridiculous that they compete --

Mr Colle: Don't you think what Mel Lastman has done to Yonge Street is proof that sometimes competition is good? As a result of that competition, we've got a city centre in the northern end of Metro.

Mr Lyons: I don't think that's necessarily just because of the competition. I think North York is a good city just because it happened to be turning out to be a good city. He did a lot of good work and it has grown well but there's no need to think it couldn't be a good city under amalgamation. I think it would still continue to be a good city.

Mr Colle: It wouldn't be a city any more.

Mr Lyons: Well, good area, how's that? Part of Toronto.

Mr Colle: Just part of Toronto.

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mr Colle: Okay, and then you said there's something to do with age, that young people favour amalgamation and old people are against it. Is that what --

Mr Lyons: I said "many of the proponents are middle-aged or older." I didn't say everyone.

Mr Colle: What do you base that on, a Globe and Mail article too?

Mr Lyons: No, not on a Globe and Mail article actually. I've watched some of the committee hearings and just from what I've seen on television. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. Rightly so, they're fearful of change; they're fearful of what they might lose. There's nothing wrong with that. That's a good thing. I'm just saying that maybe they're too fearful of change and they're too afraid to try something new.

Mr Colle: So it's older people who are afraid of change. That's why they're against amalgamation?

Mr Lyons: No, I'm not saying that as a general statement. I'm just saying that many of the opponents happen to be older and many of those people happen to be fearful of change.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here this evening.

TONY O'DONOHUE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Tony O'Donohue. Good evening, Mr O'Donohue, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Tony O'Donohue: I've got nine pages, Madam Chair, and I may not be able to get through it all but I'll do my best.

The Vice-Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

Mr O'Donohue: I'm appearing before you tonight as a former municipal politician who served 26 years on Toronto city council and 15 years on Metro council. I'm also appearing before you as a professional engineer with many years' experience in the hard services, particularly water, sewage, transportation, waste etc, which are basic to the operation of municipalities.

I am not appearing before you as a former politician leading a band of rabble-rousers, claiming that we are the only ones with the light who know the way. I am not depending on a monthly paycheque from any local government. That gives me independence and enables me to speak frankly and without a conflict.

I was first elected to Metro and city councils in December 1966. The three-year period before that I had been a works engineer with the then township of Scarborough, responsible for the provision of sewers, watermains and roads for a rapidly expanding municipality.

Goldenberg had just brought in his report on Metropolitan Toronto. It was the first review since the formation of Metro in 1953. His recommendations led to more power for the Metro government. It also gave political control to the suburban members for the first time. This alarmed city politicians. They planned to do something about it. Metro must not be allowed to dominate.

A plan was formulated to fight for total amalgamation. At the first opportunity, which was the municipal election of 1969, Toronto city council placed the amalgamation question on the ballot. We thought that a solid Yes vote would convince Premier John Robarts that amalgamation was the solution.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair: Could I ask for silence in the back there, please. Sorry, Mr O'Donohue.

Mr O'Donohue: I felt good about it as I knew that amalgamation would streamline services, cut down on duplication, waste and red tape. It would make local government more understood, and most of all for the average citizen, it would be easier to use and therefore user-friendly. If done right, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Generally the people knew that an efficient and understandable one level of local government with less bureaucracy was what they wanted. It was not a hard sell during that election. When the ballots were read, 101,163 voted yes and 22,390 voted no, 82% in favour of amalgamation. But that went nowhere, as the Premier turned it all down.

There were some amendments in the intervening years. The last amendment was Bill 29, which was given royal assent in February 1988, and that called for direct election to Metro council. It went through easily without debate, as it catered to the wishes of local politicians. No wonder. It meant more money, more assistance to politicians and more politicians.

2020

City of Toronto councillors, ever wary of Metro replacing them, had one more shot at getting rid of Metro, by placing the question on the ballot in the November 1994 municipal election, and it was a squeaker really for the Yes vote at that time. The thinking of the majority of city council was that Metro was the enemy and Metro had to go. Some councillors were paranoid about Metro. We could see the writing on the wall, that one day the province would wake up and realize that the two-tier mess would indeed disappear. Calling for the elimination of Metro was a pre-emptive strike.

I reluctantly supported the Yes position of the city after attempting to change the wording to call for one level of local government. I eventually concluded that it did not accurately represent my preference and I took no further action during the campaign, but my preference was amalgamation and always has been since 1969.

The financial and operational reasons for amalgamation are more valid today than they ever were. All the major cross-boundary services are now in place. Police, transit and social services as well have been amalgamated. One city government is the logical final step. But the political problems are much different today than they were in the past. Over the years the suburbs grew stronger and the city of Toronto political base declined steadily. It now means the politicians in the downtown clam shell do not have control any more.

Bill 103 is a devastating blow to local politicians. It means that 61 fewer local politicians will be required. That means a savings of $9 million annually for the taxpayers. It now means the survival of the fittest in the November election, a topic which dominates the conversations of all city politicians today. No wonder local politicians, especially those who are vulnerable, are all screaming blue murder and spending our tax dollars to fight amalgamation. No one wants to be made redundant. It is really a matter of losing a well-paid job with lots of frills. It would be difficult now for many local councillors, in this economic climate, to enter the workforce, get a job and make the salaries they now make.

I am disappointed that the amalgamation legislation as outlined in Bill 103 has been twisted by those who oppose it. I recently received a pamphlet in the mail from Councillor Kay Gardner, with the massive headline "Mega-City: Mega-Taxes: 10% Tax Increase in 1998; Save Our City Rally." I found the pamphlet offensive, dishonest and a blatant attempt to misinform the residents. Worst of all, my tax dollars were paying for this, and that hurt.

As a councillor, I used to feel embarrassed to tell an unfortunate constituent about all the procedures to get the simplest request approved or explain why it may not be approved. I have a list of about seven or eight here and I know I don't have time to go through them, but I'll mention two. The first one, the most recent example of municipal malaise, can be found in the different bylaws for smoking in restaurants. Not only is it confusing to patrons but it is a downer for any restaurant trying to run a business. Imagine the confusion and stupidity of six different smoking bylaws. The solution is fairly obvious: amalgamation -- one city, one bylaw.

I'll give another one for the benefit of Mr Colle: the Cross Town Service Station at the northeast corner of St Clair and Bathurst. The St Clair frontage is in the city of Toronto and the Bathurst frontage is in York. The York gasoline bylaw allows the pumps to be open 24 hours a day and the city of Toronto bylaw makes them close at 7. So what happens? They had to remove the pumps on the city of Toronto side.

I have a list in appendix A from pages 6 to 9, two specific examples why the present two-tier system has wasted millions of dollars. The details of the Front Street extension and the western Beaches should be read by anybody interested in cleaning up local politics.

Those who are now vehemently opposed to amalgamation are involved in local politics and work for a local government, mainly the NDP and CUPE. Many others are long-time city hall addicts who have developed their connections over the years. Others depend on the grants and handouts from the system. In these circumstances it is difficult to imagine them going away quietly and accepting the proposed change.

But take away all the rhetoric, and Bill 103, if properly implemented, will be a financial relief for the system users and taxpayers. The success of amalgamation will depend on the hands-on ability of the transition team, and I have some suggestions for that: (1) make sure they are working in the interests of the taxpayers; (2) realize operating cost savings; (3) an amalgamated department cannot exceed the sum total of the capital costs of the individual departments prior to amalgamation; (4) topping up to the maximum wage rate will not be allowed; (5) early retirement packages and attrition should be the norm; (6) the transition team should be in place for at least the first year of the new council.

In conclusion, I would say slowing down the process to escape the November civic election is a ploy which has been voiced by Mayor Barbara Hall and her supporters. Premier Mike Harris should proceed as planned and adopt Bill 103 with a few amendments, but amalgamation should take place as planned for January 1, 1998.

The provincial government should make a commitment on the other downloading proposals for a total review with the objective of making the final package revenue-neutral for the property taxpayer. The transition team should be given the mandate to ensure that amalgamation will save much money for the taxpayer.

Finally, the referendum is a farce. It is a total manipulation by those who want to kill Bill 103. I am sure many dead people will send in their ballots, since the ballot does not require a signature. Even the referendum process is worse than the polling for front yard parking or for a boulevard patio cafe. At least there the voter has to sign the ballot.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly, Mr O'Donohue. Do you believe that Bill 103, the proposal for amalgamation, is as much a transfer of fiscal responsibility as it is a transfer of political representation and responsibility? Do you believe it is both?

Mr O'Donohue: Unfortunately, I think that has been totally confused. Bill 103 has nothing at all to do with services. It simply deals with the political realities of Metro, nothing else.

Mr Pouliot: I see.

Mr O'Donohue: Anybody that reads anything into it other than that is just manipulating the system, and unfortunately this has happened in the so-called referendum.

Mr Pouliot: Without being a cynic and without imputing motives, do you believe that it gives the government, through the auspices of Bill 103, an opportunity to evoke some mechanism that makes it possible, for instance, to make an exchange without revenue-neutrality of responsibility to education?

For instance, the government is about to deliver anywhere between $650 million and $900 million on education. It cannot do it by way of school boards. This will only give them an opportunity for $125 million to $150 million. By having an action directe, a one-on-one relationship with the teachers, since they are the boss now, then they can go to the salary, they can go to the pension plan responsibility of the employer and get the $800 million and $300 million as a sideshow from the city of Toronto.

Mr O'Donohue: I would hope that when that side of the equation is looked at -- and it has nothing to do with Bill 103. Bill 103 stands on its own. Make no mistake about that. But the question of education, social services, that should come out revenue-neutral, and I think that would probably take place over a few years. It won't happen tomorrow. But I don't think the --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt. We've gone past your time. Thank you very much, Mr O'Donohue.

JOHN LONG

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on John Long. Good evening, Mr Long, and welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Mr John Long: Good evening, Madam Chairperson. I would like to take this opportunity to address the honourable members on the provincial government committee dealing with the bill to amalgamate the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto into one city. I support this action as a good idea that is long overdue and the logical conclusion from the original creation of Metro Toronto over 40 years ago.

This is the first time I've appeared in this type of forum. I was concerned that the pro-amalgamation side would not be heard, from early committee hearings, but I've heard that there have been people supporting as well. I will give you the reasons why I support the amalgamation of Metro Toronto.

The region of Metropolitan Toronto is one economic unit. No matter where you are from in the Metro region to the rest of the country and the rest of the world you are from Toronto. It is time that the political reality recognized the economic reality. We need a unified city council that will work together to advance this economic unit rather than working against each other.

2030

I also believe the present boundaries within Metro Toronto do not make sense. It can be hard to tell when one crosses boundaries. In many cases, these boundaries do not correspond to major highways or waterways. Roads can cross differing jurisdictions and be subject to differing policies.

The current boundaries within Metro also do not correspond to neighbourhoods. If one wanted to protect neighbourhoods to the utmost, one would really have to create 25 to 30 cities with populations of between 50,000 and 100,000 each. Does this make economic sense? Some may say so, but I don't think so. I don't believe that neighbourhoods are better protected by four or six cities than by one unified city. I believe they will still exist after amalgamation.

Before complete amalgamation I considered other alternatives such as eliminating Metro Toronto and going to a four-city model. I had some trouble drawing logical boundaries and still having four cities of near equal size. I also had trouble deciding how to split up already integrated services.

Therefore, I concluded it is better to eliminate the six subcities rather than the Metro level itself since I believe that in the areas of roads, public transit, police, fire and emergency services, co-ordination is essential. Removing only the Metro level government in Toronto without any further consolidation would only remove one bureaucracy instead of six and cause more confusion.

I believe it is harder to disentangle currently integrated Metro services than to merge separate city services. The complete amalgamation of Metro Toronto would reduce duplication of services and jurisdictional disputes. Since Metro Toronto is basically urban, amalgamation should not cause the problems when urban and rural areas were merged elsewhere. Many people talk about the Halifax situation. We're not the same. The amalgamated city's area will still be fairly compact and well-defined.

I do not see saving money as the principal reason for amalgamation, but I believe that in the long run it would save money, though there will probably be short-term startup costs. Though the overall number of civic employees at the line level may not be reduced by much, there would have to be savings from the reduction of councillors and administrative managers. Instead of six or seven managers in some positions, you may only have one manager. As well, fewer or smaller buildings would be required.

In closing, I am disappointed by the actions of the mayors, councillors and their supporters on the local councils in Metro Toronto, especially downtown, who are opposing amalgamation. They'd like you to believe that amalgamation would be a major catastrophe. I guess they haven't attributed earthquake or asteroid attack to it; however, there's been a lot of complaints. I don't believe them. I believe many of the people are more concerned about the potential loss of influence and dilution of support they will have in an amalgamated city.

Now I do support the right of these councils to hold their referenda, but I have concerns over the conduct of these votes. I expect the referenda results to be overwhelmingly against amalgamation, whether or not that is the true opinion on this issue. Let's face it, both the question and the method of voting were chosen by the anti-amalgamation side and almost all the advertising being sent to homes is anti-amalgamation. Furthermore, the councils are only financing the anti-amalgamation forces and the collection and counting of ballots is generally being handled by those opposed to amalgamation.

This concludes my remarks. I just want to say I hope amalgamation succeeds. If anyone has any questions, I have other information if anyone wants to call me with any questions, and there is my home address.

Mr Newman: Thank you, Mr Long, for appearing before the committee this evening. I want to focus my questioning on the last part of your presentation and I quote you, "Now I do support the right of these councils to hold their referenda." Should these results be considered binding?

Mr Long: I have trouble considering them binding because of the way the referenda are being held. If you want to have a binding referendum, that would have to be something where both sides should be getting together and agreeing on the question. If there's going to be financing, it should be equal to both sides -- taxpayer financing. There should be No and Yes committees set up; maybe the method of balloting; scrutineers from the pro-amalgamation side should be allowed. None of this has occurred. It doesn't seem to be a completely balanced referendum in my opinion.

Mr Newman: Okay, because you further go on to say: "Let's face it, both the question and the method of voting were chosen by the anti-amalgamation side," and then you go on, "Furthermore, the councils are only financing the anti-amalgamation forces and the collection and counting of ballots is generally being handled by those opposed to amalgamation," but you don't mention how you feel as a taxpayer, that your tax dollars --

Mr Long: I wasn't very happy. I wrote my mayor about that and of course she didn't reply. Well, I shouldn't say -- maybe she will, maybe it's in the mail. I've written all the mayors in fact about this whole method and told them I didn't like the way it was being done.

Mr Newman: You don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent in this issue?

Mr Long: No.

Mr Flaherty: Thanks, Mr Long, for being here this evening. I was interested in your comment about a strong urban core because one of the previous presenters today talked about the Crombie report recommendations in a letter in December about maintaining a strong urban core, "The panel was unanimous in endorsing the importance of a strong urban core, with views on strengthening the core ranging from one city to four." I take it you looked at the four-city option.

Mr Long: I did look at it. Like I said, one of the problems with breaking things up -- if we go to four cities and you're going to get away from Metro, does that mean four police forces, four emergency forces? Do we start breaking everything up? I also have a little trouble with the boundaries. Realistically, if we're going to draw the four-city boundaries, the so-called central boundary I would take all the way up to the 401, but then I think the guys up in North York wouldn't be too happy about that because it would be on an unequal -- that's one thing I had some problems with in the four-city solution.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Long, for coming here this evening.

MAY WILSON

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on May Wilson. Good evening, Mrs Wilson, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mrs May Wilson: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before this committee. I'm in support of amalgamation and I've lived in Metro Toronto for over 40 years and I've got grey hair. I've watched this population grow from around 800,000 people at first, and I'm very proud of what I see today. That may be detrimental in what you may ask me later, but I am proud of Toronto. But we've been prepared to change as we've gone through. We haven't started off without change; we've changed as we've gone through from Metropolitan Toronto.

I first lived in the city of Toronto and then moved to the township of North York, then I went into the borough of North York, and now I'm in the city of North York. This has gone on and things have been changed, and it has not been a problem as we've gone through those changes. I'm not afraid of change. I encompass change because if it has to be and is good for the city, for the Metropolitan area, we should change.

2040

I was privileged to work for eight years throughout the whole of Metropolitan Toronto interviewing in neighbourhoods for York University. During that time, I got to really understand the various pockets of ethnic groups throughout Metro and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was wonderful. I was very lucky to have that experience, to go into the areas of downtown Toronto, to go into the ethnic areas and to meet the people. It was something that was a tremendous pleasure to me. I learned a lot about Metro, and I learned to grow and love it, but I also learned to understand it when I did that. It was an unusual thing for someone to do.

People should not fear because of change. I feel that at this time we need to change again. We now need to move forward and amalgamate.

If I go out of Metro Toronto and someone in New Brunswick asks me, "Where do you come from?" and I tell them it's North York, they don't know where North York is, so I have to explain to them it's Toronto. Then they understand where I come from. The same applies if I go to BC, exactly the same, and particularly if I go out of Canada. I come from Toronto, but Ontario and Canada are my home.

I'd like to see us move forward into an integrated Toronto and go for the 2008 Olympic Games. We tried for the Olympic Games in 1996, but there was infighting at that time, and I honestly don't believe we could have got it, because part of the infighting was there. I would like to see this as part of a unity, to try to move forward with Metro with a goal to go forward as the city of Toronto, between all the municipalities.

I realize that I'm not taking your 10 minutes, but I really felt that by the end of the evening you would be weary of hearing a lot of comments from people. I thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Wilson. Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: I have a question about your desire to get the Olympics here.

Mrs Wilson: It's a goal. I think we should have a goal for Toronto. It would publicize Toronto as a city throughout the world, and I would like to see that. I'm proud of Toronto and I'm proud of Canada, and I think whatever we do in Toronto is important for Ontario and is important for Canada.

Mr Colle: There are cities that have recently got the Olympics that were not amalgamated cities. Sydney, Australia, has 40 municipalities. Atlanta is not an amalgamated city. They still got the Olympics.

Mrs Wilson: That's not my point. I was trying to make the point that by having a goal it would help to integrate everybody. At the present time, with the number of individual councils and the arguments that would go on between them, if we had a goal to work towards, then we would have a much greater chance of amalgamating, because indirectly everybody would have to pull together.

Mr Colle: You're talking about pulling together and integrating people. There are a lot of people -- you disagree with them, obviously -- who feel they haven't been given a say in the future of their city or of their communities; that in fact they've been told by the Premier and by the minister that they won't listen to the referendum results, that they'll disregard them, that the referendums are not to their liking.

Mrs Wilson: Mr Colle, may I interrupt you for one minute? Today I spoke to somebody on the phone, and we had just got our PIN numbers in North York. This lady said to me, "My husband died three years ago, and he has been given a PIN number." Is that a referendum? I spoke to somebody yesterday. Their son got one, and he's not 18. Is that a referendum?

Mr Colle: It's not a perfect system. In every election there are people who perhaps die before or after the --

Mrs Wilson: This is three years ago.

Mr Colle: That's when the provincial lists were out. The referendums aren't perfect, but when you have nothing else, why are you denying people --

Mrs Wilson: You said it; I didn't.

Mr Colle: -- and I think it's funny. Some people don't think it's funny; they think it's very sad they are being denied the right to have a say in the future of their city, whether referendum or not. Unlike you, they feel very upset about being forced to accept this with no other option.

I'm asking you: Don't you think you should appreciate that they also feel that this should not be forced upon them, that there should be consensus and that people should be part of the solution and not told, "We're not going to listen to you"?

Mrs Wilson: I think everybody has been given the opportunity to come down and speak here, just as I was given the opportunity, and I really appreciate that; that's number one. Everybody has been able to go to town hall meetings and they have been able to speak there too, and then you have the opportunity and you've been given the opportunity of the referendum.

Mr Colle: Yes, but the government says it's not going to listen no matter what the results are.

Mrs Wilson: But the referenda, as you know, are not true referenda.

Mr Colle: The government had an opportunity to have its referendum and it refused to cooperate in putting up a referendum because it said: "We don't recognize a referendum in this case. It's too complicated."

Mrs Wilson: You know, there's another thing, Mr Colle, and I'm going to say this straight to you: People are afraid to speak out in support because they're afraid of being barked down by some people.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Wilson, for appearing here this evening.

MARGARET ZEIDLER

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Margaret Zeidler, please. Good evening, Ms Zeidler, and welcome to the standing committee.

Margaret Zeidler: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity. Whether or not one is a Torontonian and whether or not one supports the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto, I believe we must speak out against Bill 103.

Bill 103 isn't so much about amalgamation as it is about the removal of democracy at the local level. I am happy to report that many non-Torontonians are standing up on our behalf because they realize the injustice of what this government is doing to Toronto with no clear mandate.

When I first heard of the plan to amalgamate Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York and East York late last year -- I must say it did come quite out of the blue -- I, like any citizen in a democracy, took it upon myself to become informed on the issues.

Being an architect and a lover of cities, I am terrifically interested in these issues. Cities are the generators of immense creativity, diversity and culture, not to mention the engines of regional and national economies.

So I read the newspapers, I read the reports, as much literature as I could get my hands on. I spoke to as many knowledgeable and wise souls as I could find to become informed on the good reasons for amalgamation. I went to town hall meetings and ratepayer meetings, and I'm frankly becoming exhausted looking for the facts which might indicate that this proposal is a good idea.

This morning, the Premier was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that people are still confused about this process. The insults to our intelligence never cease. We are not confused.

The committee has already heard around 300 deputations and I believe an overwhelming number have been against Bill 103. Many of these deputations have been given by people who are widely respected, in many cases the world over, as leading thinkers and doers in urban philosophy, economy, culture and community.

Yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, when asked by a reporter some weeks ago, was unable to name even one study produced in the past 30 years which recommends the amalgamation of the six municipalities into a single-tiered, large municipality. There isn't one and yet he and other ministers in this government, like my own member Isabel Bassett, continue to go to community meetings and say, "All the studies show this is the right thing to do." It truly irritates me that they believe we, their constituents, are so naïve and simple-minded as to accept this pap with all the hard evidence to the contrary.

This proposal means Toronto will become less accountable, less responsive and more susceptible to special interests, although having watched the performance of this government in the past months, I am not quite sure whether they would consider these failings a drawback.

There are other minuses for amalgamation; I'm sure you've heard about them in the past weeks. Against all this the government has continually cited one overriding pro: efficiency and fiscal restraint. An excellent goal. No one would disagree with this goal.

Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that amalgamated governments are not more cost-efficient. In a study of US cities, it has been shown that the larger the city, the less efficient it becomes financially. In cities with a population of over one million, 21% more is spent per capita than in cities with half a million to a million people. Amalgamated cities fare even worse. They spend 112% more per capita if they are over a million people, versus amalgamated cities between half a million and a million in population.

2050

"Why?" I keep asking myself in light of all this evidence. It could be a disaster for the city of Toronto even if it were carefully and thoughtfully brought into being, which it is not. Why would the government pursue such an obviously bad idea and continue at breakneck speed to ram this untried and untested concept through when there is no hard evidence whatsoever, no precedent anywhere, that we will be able to maintain the quality of life in our city or even save money? Indeed all the evidence points to the likelihood that we will destroy what we cherish most in Toronto: its wonderful communities.

There is an answer to this question, "Why?" The government has a hidden agenda. This bill has nothing to do with making Toronto more financially efficient. I don't believe that this government even cares about Toronto's financial situation. What they care about is that this amalgamation provides a marvellous opportunity to cut provincial funding.

In the past two years they have been unable to come up with the necessary savings within their own jurisdiction to cut the income tax as much as promised, and have come upon this idea as their way to make good on an election promise to cut the income tax in the province by 30%.

Under the guise of efficiency, the government is dumping over $1 billion of its responsibilities on to the municipalities in order to meet an election promise that it is unable to achieve on its own. This bill is really not about amalgamation; it is about a complete contempt and disrespect for democracy.

The bill transfers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his appointees the authority to overrule the decisions of our elected officials, the representatives and municipal representatives we elected just two years ago. It allows the minister to establish the conditions and staff with which the new council will function, with no right of appeal, not even by recourse to the courts.

It gets worse: The bill provides no time limit on the exercise of these powers. The minister may, but is not required to, dissolve the board of trustees and the transition team. If this bill becomes law, it would be within the rights of the minister to subject the elected council of the new amalgamated city to the board and team indefinitely.

I am shocked. This doesn't sound like Canada; it sounds like the workings of the current government in Kenya or the USSR 20 years ago, both of which I have had the heartbreaking experience of witnessing first hand.

To every cloud there is a silver lining. When all this talk of amalgamation began, it became clear that the facts and precedents proved that it would be disastrous for Toronto. The Conservatives were determined to push it through, arrogantly announcing they were not interested in what the people thought. I feared that apathy and inertia, two very powerful forces in our society at this time, would take over. The complete opposite has happened.

I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am to see the extraordinary grass-roots effort that has developed in the past two months, and which is growing by the minute, as more people become informed, aware and ultimately horrified by the facts and the real issues.

It gives me great confidence to know that even if this government does push this bill ahead, these energetic and committed citizens will go forward and take whatever means are necessary to protect their city. I can promise you that I will be there with them doing everything I possibly can to make sure that Toronto is not destroyed and that we are not deprived of our democratic rights.

I respectfully urge this committee to recommend that the government withdraw Bill 103, thereby forcing it to behave in a democratic and consensus-building fashion to gain the mandate of the people of Metropolitan Toronto and then go about studying what the best and brightest minds in this city and around the world are saying on these issues. Or they could just use the Golden report, which was prepared in this way, so that we may build an even better and more prosperous Toronto that will continue to be seen around the world as a model of all that can be good about cities, a Toronto that will continue to be cited in the international press as the best city in the world to live and locate a business, a city that will be safe and culturally vibrant with a strong sense of community and democratic ideals.

Mr Flaherty: Ms Zeidler, thank you for coming this evening and sharing your views about the proposed legislation. I think you said there were no studies that supported the amalgamation concept. I want to raise with you the concept of the hole in the doughnut that we've seen happen in some American cities, where the tax base erodes in the urban core and it becomes that hole in the doughnut, and to go back to Anne Golden's report last year, where she recommended a GTA government with a strong core city, and then the Who Does What Crombie report in December, which recommended a Greater Toronto Services Board and the importance of a strong urban core with one city to four cities.

In that sense I differ from you when you say no studies have supported this concept. It seems to me that both of those studies came to the conclusion that we need a strong urban core, although Mr Crombie's panel would have said somewhere between one to four cities, and they couldn't agree on that. Do you agree with the concept, the need for the strong urban core?

Margaret Zeidler: These reports that you're citing did not come out in favour of amalgamation. They were talking about a larger coordination in the greater Toronto area. This does not address that issue, and furthermore, it takes away the rights of local democracies. Anne Golden --

Mr Flaherty: Do you agree with the concept of a strong urban core as being essential for this structure to function properly so we don't end up with that unfortunate phenomenon of the hole in the doughnut surrounded by wealthy suburbs?

Margaret Zeidler: We are going to end up with a hole in the doughnut if amalgamation goes through, I'm afraid to say.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Zeidler. We've run out of time.

RON FARROW

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mr Ron Farrow. Good evening, Mr Farrow, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Ron Farrow: Thank you very much. I have a shortened reading speech here, so I'll plunge right in. My name is Ron Farrow. I teach politics, not accountancy, at the University of Western Ontario and I needn't tell seasoned politicians that political arguments aren't always arguments between right and wrong; they're very often arguments between two rights: for example, the protection of the environment and the creation of jobs, worthwhile objects but sometimes in conflict. We have to make choices and we have to try to bring balance to our political stewardship, and that's what we have to do, I think, in this case.

I support, with certain qualifiers, the general direction of Bill 103. I came to that conclusion after I read the Golden report and considered the government's apparent response to it. It seemed to me that we had a choice: We consolidate or we fragment. Given that choice, I'll take consolidation. You've heard from Jane Jacobs and Golden: Both would have us return to parochial shells. This is not the kind of thinking that's made this area the envy of the world.

The central point of our Metro and regional consolidations is the fairer sharing of the costs and benefits of the wider community through Metro and regional budgets. Many American delegations have come here over the years who are desperately concerned about their fragmented municipal structures, abandonment and decay of the urban core. They would kill for the ability to adopt those consolidation measures, but they are paralysed by the presence of referendum laws, among other inhibitors.

2100

Then we have that clarion of democracy, John Sewell. "Clarion: a shrill, narrow-tubed war trumpet." This is the same John Sewell who persuaded the NDP government to allow the OMB to make final decisions in planning matters. Professor Michael Keating commented:

"These (planning) matters are inherently political, involving policy choice and the allocation of public resources. They should therefore be entrusted to elected and accountable bodies and not to an appointed quasi-judicial agency such as the OMB."

Sewell's response to this criticism: "Well, people like the OMB." People are fickle, aren't they? John Sewell was the author of this testament to local democracy.

We've heard all sides of the meaning and impact of size and delivery of services. Surely municipal government is more than a service delivery mechanism; it's not an automatic vending machine, an idea that seems to be lost on some of my colleagues in academe. So easily it rolls off the lips, "Bigger isn't better." But bigger is. It seems to me that certainly in Metro Toronto and beyond we are all in this leaky boat together and we should search for ways to have effective, more efficient democratic government, not fragmented and destructively competitive government.

There are many self-appointed experts on democracy. In fact, as a society we haven't argued it through completely. It's a work in progress.

Many people have some serious concerns about the motives of this government, indeed all governments of the western world. Deficits must be addressed, but as they are, the gaps between rich and poor continue dramatically to widen. This, in my view, is the real threat to democracy.

You've heard many conflicting views, but cost will be a function of the final division of functions and responsibilities and the budget choices that future politicians make.

When I was peddling regional government years ago, I was asked a thousand times by local politicians, "How much will regional government cost?" My response, "If I can answer that, we won't need you." The provincial government must be sensitive, however, to the concern about responsibilities they will expect local government to meet. In this respect, I for one will be more than willing to forgive the government if it doesn't keep its promise of a tax cut. Tom Kierans was right. I've heard many complaints about the impact of the tax cut. I have not heard an expressed willingness to forgo it. Government should be more efficient, but it must be more humane. Amalgamation should not be a purge of jobs but rather a blending, and reductions as much by attrition as possible. Cheap government is not necessarily good government.

Here's what I would propose for Bill 103. The government is making a bold move. I urge you to be bolder yet: Move municipal government from a state in which accountability is nothing more than an illusion; recognize that local government is about politics, about choosing between competing claims, associated claims, just claims and unjust claims. To insist that local government should be non-political is like saying politics should be non-political.

We, the governed, need to know who is choosing, who is in charge. In local government we don't know. Let me illustrate. Mr Silipo angrily demanded that Mr Tonks tell the committee the position of Metro council. Mr Tonks was speaking for himself. Mr Silipo apparently doesn't understand that there is no leadership in Metro. Mr Tonks did not have a commitment from his council yet.

To be fair, I must say that absence of leadership is very much a result of the way power and authority are defined in our municipal government. Persisting in the archaic notion that the head of council should be elected at large is not the answer. My definition of real accountability is met when the elected representative is in a position to determine an outcome or result. The mayor has but one vote.

There should be a realignment of the levers of power. I am talking about encouraging parties in local government to achieve a clear understanding of who is in charge.

One cannot simply say, "There shall be parties." Here is how I would see the idea of parties being developed. The mayor should be selected from among council and retain a ward seat. The selection of mayors should be based on a political program, an agenda: Create a collegial atmosphere in policymaking and local political agendas rather than polarizing the mayor and council; put more emphasis on political control over staff.

The mayor should appoint members of council to chair each bundle of services. Those chairs in turn would form the executive committee. This would encourage a more collegial approach and power identification. The chair of each committee would be the spokesperson for the department, not senior staff. This would make it clear to staff who is in charge, not always well established in municipal government these days. This would bring some predictability to municipal policymaking and give people a clearer understanding of who's in charge. As it stands now, the mayor, with one vote, clearly is not.

I urge the government to abandon its ill-advised pursuit of referendum law and really do something for the governed by demystifying municipal government and bringing to it coherence, cohesion and rationality.

In the matter of representation, you might consider increasing the number from 44. This would increase the opportunity for a wider cross-section to be directly involved, particularly if the preferred abandonment of special purpose bodies is pursued. Remember that politicians come cheaper than bureaucrats. I think the government should consider as well having ward boundaries cross the existing municipal boundaries to encourage new political images.

Public participation: Don't force it in the way contemplated by this bill but make information and access more

easily available in a more coherent form of government. Publish meetings and issues to be discussed well in advance, as well as how to participate. In other words, drop the neighbourhood committee idea per se. Let people form their own alliances to engage in public debate. They always have; they always will.

I know the Toronto Star is in favour of election of the mayor. That race would make great copy, but it does nothing for accountability and could result in a mayor who is totally irresponsible. Remember, the mayor's vote in council is not like the Premier's vote in cabinet. There are perhaps a couple of exceptions to this: Mel Lastman and Hazel McCallion.

The provincial government might shrink from the thought of the power that a municipal entity that can get its act together would have. I think the provincial government owes it to the residents of Toronto and the GTA to provide the basis for responsive, responsible and accountable government to face the rising challenges that are before the GTA. The alternative is for the province to be that government.

I've watched participants come to this table and alternately say that you're listening and you're not

listening. I would urge the people who have come to this table to listen to what's been put before this committee.

Among those I've heard I have some personal favourites. I thought the presentation by George Cameron Sloan from the Beaches was marvellous, as was David Domet's from Lakeshore-New Toronto, where I grew up. David Nowlan, a professor from the University of Toronto, I thought had some wonderful points. Norm Kelly I thought summed up the future role of a unified city; you notice I haven't said "megacity." I agree with what Norm Kelly said, that we're working within the boundaries that are already there. We're talking about a unified city. Of course Professor Michael Keating, who is my next-door neighbour at Western, who has not appeared before this committee, had a brilliant analysis of all sides of this question in the Globe and Mail on February 4.

Thank you for listening. You look attentive for this hour of the evening.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. You finished just on time.

This concludes the hearings for this evening. We stand adjourned until Monday, February 24.

The committee adjourned at 2108.