EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1991
LAURAMAR HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT, 1991
CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 May 1991
Election of Chair
Town of Oakville Act, 1991, Bill Pr24
City of North York Act, 1991, Bill Pr54
Eastern Pentecostal Bible College Act, 1991, Bill Pr37
Lauramar Holdings Limited Act, 1991, Bill Pr3
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)
Vice-Chair: O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)
Abel, Donald (Wentworth North NDP)
Ferguson, Will (Kitchener NDP)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton NDP)
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
Sola, John (Mississauga East L)
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford NDP)
Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC)
Clerk: Decker, Todd
Staff: Hopkins, Laura A., Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, it is my duty to inform you that I have received a letter from Mr Sutherland in which he has resigned as Chair of the committee. I therefore must call upon you to elect a new Chair. Are there any nominations for the position?
Mr Fletcher: I nominate Mr Hansen.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Fletcher has nominated Mr Hansen. Are there any further nominations? If none, I will declare nominations closed and Mr Hansen elected Chair of the committee.
The Chair: I would like to inform the committee that Mr Henderson will be a little late coming, so we will put Bill Pr3 down the list. Also, there are some amendments to Bill Pr37 which will be coming later, so we will go on to Bill Pr24.
TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1991
Consideration of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.
The Chair: The sponsor is Mr Carr, MPP.
Mr Carr: Congratulations, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Is Ms Howell here also?
Mr Carr: Yes, she is. I would like to introduce Beatrice Howell. She is the assistant town solicitor for Oakville. As you may know, the purpose of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville, is to enable the town of Oakville to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill in the town.
The Chair: Mr Carr, do you have any comments to make on this bill? Or Ms Howell?
Mr Carr: No, I do not.
The Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant have any objections to the bill?
Ms Gray: The parliamentary assistant is not with us this morning, but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has circulated the bill to all members of cabinet and has received no objections to the bill as it stands now.
Mr Ruprecht: The deputy might quite correctly assume that whatever he says may lead to arguments, and that is why he is not saying much.
The Chair: Are the members ready for a vote?
Mr J. Wilson: Mr Chairman, it seems to me we did one exactly like this for the town of Markham not too long ago. I do not think we should be having these bills come one after another, town after town. I would ask the ministry officials if there is any contemplation of dealing with this within the ministry itself.
Ms Gray: The ministry has been looking at the issue. We are also looking at the experience with the municipalities with these bills as they have evolved over a number of years, as perhaps pilots projects for general legislation. There has not been much experience from the municipalities that we have contacted yet in the actual application of the legislation, but the subject is being studied by a group of ministries -- Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources -- with the hope of evolving general policy on this issue.
Mr J. Wilson: Just out of curiosity, do you know how many municipalities now have enacted these bills?
Ms Gray: I do not have an accurate number, but I believe it is about five or six. Richmond Hill was the bill we dealt with in the fall. Other municipalities include Scarborough, North York, Toronto, and there is an application from the city of Toronto to add to its legislation at the present time. I think there may be two or three others.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1991
Consideration of Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of North York.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza and Ms Light, would you introduce yourselves for Hansard, please?
Mr Perruzza: I am Anthony Perruzza, MPP for Downsview. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on his recent election as Chair of this committee.
Ms Light: My name is Sonia Light and I am a solicitor with the city of North York.
Mr Greco: I am Joe Greco. I am a civil technologist with the city of North York.
The Chair: Does the sponsor have any comments on the bill?
Mr Perruzza: As you can see, it is not a controversial bill; it is basically housekeeping legislation that would enable the city of North York to require people who own multiple residential premises and businesses that abut public highways to cut grass in the municipal boulevards and the public roadways. I do not see it as a controversial piece of legislation, but the city solicitor may want to speak to some of the more technical aspects of the bill.
Ms Light: Basically what Mr Perruzza says is correct. We are asking for authority to require owners of multi-residential buildings and owners and occupants of business premises to cut the weeds to a certain length on adjacent roadway boulevards. We already have authority to require owners of private property to cut the grass and weeds on their own private property, and this is essentially some additional authority that the city would be asking for to require only owners and occupants of business premises and owners of multi-residential premises to cut the grass and weeds on adjacent city property, which is the roadways abutting their property.
I believe the bill you have before you is the bill we originally proposed, and we have some amendments we are proposing today to that bill. The purpose of the amendments is to use more standard language that was used in a previous bill the city of North York received approval for. To use the same kind of definition for the adjacent roadway boulevards, we have changed that wording to say public highways, except for the part that is used for motor vehicle traffic.
We have just changed the definition. In the bill before you, you have the wording "adjacent roadway boulevards," and we have changed that and said instead "public highways abutting their lands, except the portions used for motor vehicle traffic." That is the more standard way of referring to the grassy portions of roadway that are abutting people's property. That is one change.
We have also deleted the words "occupant, of multiple residential premises," because we do not feel it would be feasible to require the occupant of a multi-residential premises to cut the grass and weeds on the adjacent roadway property. I hope that is clear.
Mr Ruprecht: I seem to recall that another municipality asked us to pass essentially the same law for the city of North York. Does the city at present have authority to force home owners to cut their grass, and if they do not, then add it to the municipal tax rolls?
Ms Light: Yes. We have authority to require owners of private property to cut their own grass on their private property to a certain length.
Mr Ruprecht: To the same 20 centimetres?
Ms Light: Yes, to the same 20 centimetres. But what we are asking for now is to require only owners of multi-residential buildings and business premises to cut the grass on adjacent roadway pieces; you know, the part that is not their own property but is municipal property adjacent to the roadway. We want authority to require owners or occupants of business premises and owners of multi-residential premises to cut the grass on the adjacent portion, the roadway portion of their property.
I believe it arose out of a report of the public works commissioner that stated they were having a problem where the property of some of the owners has not been kept up properly. In a previous bill, we did get authority to require the same owners to remove garbage and debris from the properties. We should maybe at the same time have received authority to require them to cut the grass, but we did not. So in a previous bill we do have authority to require these same owners to remove the garbage and debris from the adjacent roadways, and now we are looking for the additional authority to require them to keep the grass in a certain condition.
1020
Mr Ruprecht: I am not sure right now which other municipality in Metropolitan Toronto came before us. Do you know which one or two requested the same thing?
Ms Light: I have no idea. I understand that it may have been Etobicoke that asked for something like this.
Mr Ruprecht: The reason I am asking this question is that it would be just a question of pro forma passing of this particular piece of legislation if someone had the identical piece or bill passed. I do not recall right now who it was or whether there were any differences. Is it possible that we hear a comment?
Ms Gray: I believe there has not been a bill of this exact nature covering grass cutting on the abutting roadway. There have been a number of bills that have asked owners and occupants of business premises to pick up garbage and debris on the adjacent roadways. There have also been a number of bills, following North York's application, to require private owners to cut grass on their own property. The most recent one that was dealt with in that category was Brampton, and that was last year. But this, I gather, is a new application in regard to grass and weed cutting on abutting roadways. I have not found in my research any previous example.
Mr Ruprecht: The reason why this is very useful is because of what Jim Wilson mentioned earlier, that we might get some others coming before us and we could save a lot of time by providing some other mechanism to do this. But I would certainly support it.
Mr J. Wilson: I just have a couple of minor points. "Public highways" -- does that cover all abutting roadways?
Ms Light: What we want are the public highways except for the motor vehicle portion.
Mr J. Wilson: Is "public highways" the legal term for side streets?
Ms Light: "Public highways" is the legal term for the 66-foot -- it includes, let's say, the reserve on either side of a road that we could use for road widening, and that includes the grassy portions. At some point, if we wanted to widen the road, we could use that. The whole thing is the public highway, and we want obviously just to require the owners to maintain the public highways that are grassed.
Mr J. Wilson: What about medians and so on?
Ms Light: That is not intended to be included in here. I think that would be a separate term.
Mr J. Wilson: The way it is worded, I assume it means you cut it when the grass or weeds exceed 20 centimetres and you remove the clippings at all times. In this day and age, it is considered more environmentally sound to have the clippings remain.
Ms Light: We did not want to just say that they have to cut it when it reaches 20 centimetres, but at that point they also have to remove the clippings.
Mr J. Wilson: The government may come along some day and say you cannot have bags of 20-centimetre weeds along the curbside, and you are requiring these people to get rid of these things.
Ms Light: I think it says to remove the cuttings whenever the growth of grass or weeds exceeds 20 centimetres. I do not think we would charge somebody for leaving cuttings on his grass.
Mr J. Wilson: I guess the difficulty is that the subsection is all one sentence, so it makes it a little difficult. But I will leave enforcement up to the municipality.
Mr Perruzza: I remember when North York council dealt with this. I was on council at the time. In the industrial parks, and this was the concern in the industrial neighbourhoods, factory owners were just simply leaving the boulevard portions that abutted their properties; they were letting that grass grow wildly. I think the intent is to just simply have them trim it and keep it neat and clean looking.
If you want to make amendments that would not empower the city to force these property owners to remove the clippings, I think you would be well advised to do that. I do not know exactly how you would do it. I think what the city is concerned with is neat and clean and tidy and forcing the owners to cut their grass. Whatever mechanism you want to employ that would enable that course of action to take place, I think the city would support that and I would support that as well.
Ms Light: The language of this bill has been redrafted to follow the same format as a previous bill that we got, which is Pr31. In that we also said we have authority to require owners of private property to cut the grass and to remove the cuttings. We just followed the same language so that they are all the same.
Mr Sola: On this last point that you just raised, do private property owners have to do the same sort of maintenance of abutting lands if they are unoccupied?
Ms Light: If they are unoccupied?
Mr Sola: Yes. If they have the same sort of abutting lands to highways, if it is a single-family dwelling, do they have to do that?
Ms Light: No. Right now we have a bylaw in effect that requires the private property owners to cut their own grass on their property. With this legislation we are not requiring owners of residential homes to cut grass on the city roadway. Many of them do anyway, but we are only now requiring owners of business premises and owners or occupants of business premises and owners of multi-residential buildings to do this type of work.
Mr Sola: If the intention is to keep the place neat and clean, why would you not make it general for both commercial and residential? You may be coming back here within six months and saying, "Now the commercial areas are neat and clean but the residential areas are not, so we need another bylaw."
Ms Light: I think the problem was with the business premises, and the industrial, as Mr Perruzza mentioned.
Mr Perruzza: The city now has a program where the works department will go and cut grass in the public roadways, I believe, once every four or five weeks. It is a cyclical program and they go around and they trim that grass. I think most home owners, by and large, cut the boulevard portion in front of their properties anyway. I do not think you need firm rules to require them to do that. They usually comply on their own, and the city currently has a program to cut that.
It is the industrial areas, it is the industrial parks. It would cost the city just simply too much money to go into those neighbourhoods and cut that grass. If the factory owners or the people who own the industrial units knew that the city would come every four or five weeks to cut that grass, they just simply would not go out there and do it any more; they would leave it alone. They do not live there, they just go and they work.
The Chair: I agree with Mr Sola there. His point was to cover all these particular areas. Maybe the government would respond on any comments that are made.
Ms Light: Could I say one more thing in response to what Mr Sola said? Under our Bill Pr31 -- and I do not know that you have that in front of you; that was the one that was passed before -- we have authority to require only the owners and occupants of business premises and the owners of multi-residential premises to remove garbage from these. We are not requiring private property owners to remove the garbage from those boulevards. It is also the same thing; we are just requiring the owners of business premises and multi-residential premises to remove the garbage. So we are being consistent. We have already made them responsible for removing garbage from the boulevards and now we are just adding to that. We are not requiring right now that private property owners remove the garbage from the boulevards. In a way, there is some precedent from what we got before.
1030
Mr Ferguson: I think it is important that we all recognize this is North York's bill and we ought not to be expanding it unless it is so requested. If there is a problem, we can come back. I am sure they will be before us again at some point in time with some other matter and if it is a problem, we will just have to deal with it.
Mr O'Connor: I agree with Mr Ferguson there. I was just wondering, if it is in order then, if perhaps I could move the amendment.
The Chair: Yes, I think that is in order.
Mr O'Connor moves that subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted:
"(1) The council of the corporation may pass bylaws requiring the owners of multiple residential premises and the owners or occupants of business premises in the municipality to cut the grass and weeds on public highways abutting their lands, except the portion used for motor vehicle traffic, and to remove the cuttings whenever the growth of grass or weeds exceeds 20 centimetres in height or such greater height as the bylaw may provide."
Motion agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, thank you very much for your committee's support this morning, and thank you for moving this up on the agenda as well.
EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1991
Consideration of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, will you introduce yourself and your two witnesses, please.
Mr Sutherland: Let me say, first of all, it is a pleasure to be on the other side of the chair here. Congratulations to the new Chair.
I am here to sponsor Bill Pr37, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College. With me is William Lech, the solicitor from the firm Lech, Lightbody and O'Brien in Peterborough, and also the Reverend David Boyd, dean of men at Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.
There are a couple of amendments to the bill which I want to propose.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out "chairman" wherever it occurs and substituting in each case "chair."
Mr Sutherland moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out "sections 5 and 6" in the first line and substituting "sections 4, 5 and 6" and by inserting the following section before section 5 of the act:
"4(1) The affairs of the college shall be managed by the board of governors of the college.
"(2) The board of governors shall be composed of 16 governors who shall hold office for a term of two years and until their successors take office and the board of governors shall be constituted as follows:
"1. The president and the executive director of bible colleges of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and the district superintendent of the western Ontario district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the district superintendent of the eastern Ontario and Quebec district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the district superintendent of the maritime district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, and the general superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland.
"2. Three members of the executive of the western Ontario district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, appointed by the executive.
"3. Three members of the executive of the eastern Ontario and Quebec district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, appointed by the executive.
"4. One member of the executive of the maritime district of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, appointed by the executive.
"5. One member of the executive of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, appointed by the executive.
"6. Two laymen, appointed by the board of governors from a slate of nominees submitted by the board of administration.
"(3) No person shall be appointed as a member of the board of governors unless the person is a Canadian citizen.
"(4) No governor described in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of subsection (1) shall serve on the board of governors for more than eight years consecutively, but on the expiration of one year after having served on the board of governors for eight consecutive years, the person is again eligible to be a member of the board of governors.
"(5) A majority of the board of governors constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
"(6) Where a vacancy occurs in the board of governors, the vacancy shall be filled by the same authority that appointed the person whose membership is vacant and the person so appointed shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term of the person whose membership is vacant, but service on the board of governors for an unexpired term shall not be included in the calculation of the eight consecutive years referred to in subsection (4).
"(7) The board of governors may by bylaw increase the number of governors to a maximum of 24 and each additional governor shall be appointed by an executive named in paragraph 2, 3, 4 or 5 of subsection (2) or by the board of governors subject to the following:
"1. The board of governors shall not be entitled to appoint more than four additional governors.
"2. Additional governors appointed by the board of governors shall be laymen chosen from a slate of nominees submitted by the board of administration.
"3. If an executive is to appoint an additional governor, the bylaw shall name which executive shall make the appointment."
Mr Sutherland: I have no further comment. I will turn it over to Mr Lech and Mr Boyd to comment on the bill.
Mr Lech: I gather that the amendments are being distributed to you. The first one is self-explanatory, just substituting the word "chair" for "chairman." The other amendments you probably have in front of you. They have been discussed with legislative counsel and apparently are agreeable.
The bill itself, as originally amended and as subsequently amended this morning, hopefully with your approval, is really dealing with changes in the board of governors and the board of administration of the Eastern Pentecostal Bible College. There are no major changes from the original bill, which was passed by this House in 1983. If you have any questions, I am sure that we will endeavour to answer them. I do not think I need to say anything further. There are minor cosmetic changes to the composition of the board of governors and the board of administration of the bible college.
Mr Sutherland: Sorry, I forgot to bring up just one point. Due to the fact that the amendments, I believe, just came in in the last day or two, the committee will have to provide unanimous consent to deal with the amendments, so on behalf of the people introducing the bill, I would ask that you provide such consent.
Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, I would be happy to move that.
Mrs MacKinnon: Do you need it seconded?
Mr J. Wilson: The amendment you brought forward, when it is outlining who shall compose the board of governors, how is this different from the present situation?
Mr Lech: I will initially answer that by indicating that in the original bill there were 16 governors. There are still 16 governors, but there are certain additional people, who are shown in paragraph 4(2)1 of the amendment, who have been taken out of the previous group of people who comprised the governors, and they are not bound by the necessity of eight-year terms. They are, in essence, ex officio, although the words "ex officio" have been taken out of there.
Mr J. Wilson: With this amendment and the list contained therein, are you dropping anyone from the current board structure or are you just adding?
Mr Lech: The numbers are the same. Are you talking about individuals as such?
Mr J. Wilson: In makeup.
Mr Boyd: The makeup would remain the same, except for the fact that the chief executive officers of our supporting constituencies would remain on the board and not be subject to the eight years and off, so the same number of people, and at this time the same people, would be there on the board of governors.
Mr J. Wilson: I think it is obvious then that your present board has approved these amendments.
Mr Lech: Yes.
Mr Boyd: That is correct.
Mr Ruprecht: I just want you to know, speaking on my own behalf and maybe for some of our colleagues, that we wish you a very fruitful year and thank you very much for coming. I just wanted to let you know that you carry with you some of our hopes and aspirations, so when you go back, present the greetings from the Legislature hopefully to your assembly.
Mr Lech: We appreciate your comments very much.
The Chair: Shall the first amendment carry?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Shall the second amendment carry?
Mr J. Wilson: Just one moment, Mr Chair. Can we take 30 seconds to finish reading the amendment? Having served on a board of governors before, I am rather interested in this.
The Chair: Okay.
1040
Mr O'Connor: Just in keeping with the first amendment changing the word "chairman" to "chair," I would like to move a friendly amendment to this amendment. Whether it is possible or not, I am not sure, but in paragraph 4(2)6, where it says "two laymen," we should perhaps have "laypersons" there.
Mr Lech: I do not think we will have any objection to that.
Mr O'Connor: The same thing in paragraph 4(7)2, "laypersons."
Mr Lech: We have no objections.
Mr J. Wilson: Just a curiosity here in subsection 4(6) of the bill: It seems to me that the way it is worded is that if someone serves, say, one year and then resigns and has to be replaced, the replacement can serve out the term, which is seven years left, plus be reappointed, because under the amendment it would be considered a new term, for eight years. You could have a total of 15 years consecutive or more the way this is set out, as far as I can read it. Are you sure you intended that? If so, why the limitation of eight years in the first place?
Mr Boyd: I think I could answer that question if you look at subsection 4(2). It is the "hold office for a term of two years." The unexpired term relates to that term of two years.
Mr J. Wilson: Okay, thanks. Sorry to show my stupidity.
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
Mr Boyd: Thank you very much for your warm welcome. I appreciate your help.
LAURAMAR HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT, 1991
Consideration of Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Lauramar Holdings Limited.
The Chair: Mr Henderson and witnesses please, or witness, and for Hansard, would you kindly introduce yourselves?
Mr Laker: My name is Benjamin Laker. I am appearing on behalf of Joan Sguigna.
Mr Henderson: I am Jim Henderson, MPP for Etobicoke-Humber.
The Chair: Mr Henderson, do you have any comments on the bill?
Mr Henderson: I would hope that this is a relatively straightforward matter. The company, Lauramar Holdings, I understand ceased to exist a little over a decade ago, December 1980, for relatively routine kinds of reasons. There is litigation pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario, I have been told, that makes it advisable that the company be revived. I think Mr Laker can perhaps fill in some of the details about this a little more directly than I could.
Mr Laker: In his lifetime, James V. Sguigna was the sole shareholder of this company. He died on 26 September 1975. The company had filed its returns up to that time. When he died, apparently it went into default.
This company has an interest in another company. It holds 10% of the shares in a company called Gomilia Properties Ltd, which is now in litigation, and there are funds to be distributed. Lauramar would be entitled to 10% of those funds, and they are substantial. Until the company is resurrected we cannot go forward with the litigation, nor can we expect to get the funds. There is that urgency to it.
I may say that when Mr Sguigna died, he died intestate. Letters of administration were taken out. Mrs Sguigna is entitled to the shares, and those are the facts.
Mr Ruprecht: If Mr Henderson supports this as our colleague, then I really see not much reason to make any objections.
Mr J. Wilson: That is agreed with the other opposition party as well.
Mr Henderson: This day is off to good start, Mr Chairman. I hope it carries on like that.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Mr Henderson: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee.
Mr Laker: I am obliged to you, sir.
The Chair: We have got one more. The clerk has requested to make a report on Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies Inc.
Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee will recall that at our last meeting I was requested to attempt to get in writing from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities a commitment as to a date by which it may be prepared to see the committee proceed on Bill Pr46, the Wolfe Consortium bill. I have now received a letter from the director of the university relations branch and the letter basically states that the ministry cannot at this point commit to a date and would like to see the matter held in abeyance indefinitely.
Mr Ferguson: Maybe we could have a word with the minister. I have received a number of calls from the individual who wants the bill passed. My thought is, why encourage somebody if he is not going anywhere? I think we should deal with the matter. Maybe we can talk to the minister about it and say: "Look, don't hold this guy off for ever. Either say yes or no. That is not particularly fair."
Mr J. Wilson: Mr Chairman, it might give the parliamentary assistant more clout if a motion were put forward in that regard from the committee, that we do not want to see it held in abeyance indefinitely. This would be the second time we have unofficially -- well, officially and at one other time unofficially -- asked the ministry to come forward with its recommendations.
Mr Ferguson: Well, if that will make you happy. I do not think it is going to make the minister sit up and take notice and immediately jump on the matter, but hey, I am agreeable this morning. If you want a motion, I would like to move that we ask the minister to respond forthwith to the application for the bill.
The Chair: Motion carried? Carried.
The committee adjourned at 1052.