WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT, 1995
CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 December 1995
Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport Act, 1995, Bill Pr38, Mr Leadston
Frank Sheehan, MPP
Connie Giller, commissioner of corporate resources and solicitor, regional municipality of Waterloo
Lois Payne, solicitor, city of Guelph
City of York Act, 1995, Bill Pr44, Mr Colle
Mike Colle, MPP
George Bartlett, solicitor, city of York
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)
*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Klein, Susan, legislative counsel
Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone. I wish to welcome you to this meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for Wednesday, December 6, 1995.
Before we call the first bill, just an information item for the committee arising from a request from Mr Hastings. This sheet of paper has been distributed with respect to legal costs for this committee, costs of the legislative research service in providing legal opinions on regulations for this committee. There's a memo on your desk.
Secondly, following the last regular meeting of this committee, our business subcommittee held two meetings, and the business subcommittee can report to the committee at the end of our proceedings today.
WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.
The Chair: I call the first bill, Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport, and I ask both the sponsor and the applicants if they could come forward to the table, please. I would ask the sponsor of the bill, MPP Sheehan, to briefly introduce himself and I would also ask the applicants if they could briefly introduce themselves to the committee.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Mr Chairman, I'm here to speak in favour of this bill on behalf of Gary Leadston, who is the member and cannot attend today. The Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport Act is necessary to allow the regional municipality of Waterloo to take over Guelph's share of that airport. Effectively, what it's going to do is eliminate a special-purpose body and consolidate the management and the operation into the corporate structure of the region. It'll facilitate its promotion and development as an asset to business in that area.
Speaking on behalf of this bill will be Connie Peterson Giller, who is the regional municipality of Waterloo's solicitor and also commissioner of corporate resources; and Lois Payne, who is the city solicitor for the city of Guelph. I will let the ladies do their job.
Mrs Connie Giller: I'm Connie Giller from the regional municipality of Waterloo.
Ms Lois Payne: I'm Lois Payne from the city of Guelph.
Mrs Giller: Basically, as outlined, the requested legislation will abolish the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport Commission and vest all of the assets, as well as liabilities, in the hands of the regional municipality of Waterloo.
The region has been paying about 80% of the cost of both the operations and capital budgets of the airport for many years, while Guelph has been paying a 20% share. We have found increasingly that a large number of resources within the region -- legal, engineering, planning, human resources, finance -- are required to support the operations of the airport, so we felt that we could operate the airport more efficiently if it could be incorporated directly within our administration.
Ms Payne: The city of Guelph supports the position outlined by Mrs Giller. The airport is not directly within the geographic boundaries of the city of Guelph; it is within the region of Waterloo. There's no direct benefit to the taxpayers of the city of Guelph in continuing to participate in the operation of the airport.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? Hearing none, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for any comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): This is a very straightforward act and the government has absolutely no objections to it proceeding. Both municipalities are particularly supportive, and that should be noted.
The Chair: I would ask committee members, are there any questions or comments?
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Just a general question on funding or revenue: Do you currently receive any revenue from either the province or the federal government?
Mrs Giller: There would be some revenue received from the province and the federal government, yes.
Mr O'Toole: Are you familiar with the proposed changes in Bill 26 that would restrict funding to municipal airports?
Mrs Giller: Yes, and in discussions with our engineering department staff -- that would be the department which would be responsible for the airport -- they've indicated that the impact of the reductions would not be of great significance to the operation of the airport. It will be subject to a review, as well as other departments within the region, over the next number of months.
Mr O'Toole: Just on that bottom line, I commend the region for taking that overall coordination of that important part of the region.
What is the overall budget, both the operational and capital type?
Mrs Giller: That is contained within the compendium.
Mr O'Toole: I didn't look at it. It doesn't give me a number. It's not that critical, is it? I mean, it's difficult to get.
Mrs Giller: The total in 1995 attributable to the region was $399,000 and the city of Guelph's share was $77,000; that's the operating budget.
Mr O'Toole: Okay. I guess the future is that they'd still be levied through the regional assessment on the local municipality share?
Mrs Giller: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any further questions to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant?
Mr Shea: Take the vote.
The Chair: Are the members of the committee ready to vote? Following our standard practice, we can collapse sections 1 through to 4.
Shall sections 1 through to 4 carry on this bill? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Carried.
The Chair: I wish to thank the applicants and the sponsor.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Chair, does the PA have a vote on this committee?
The Chair: The question is, does the PA have a vote on this committee?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): The parliamentary assistant is a member of the committee and can vote.
CITY OF YORK ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of York.
The Chair: We'll move on to our next order of business and I would call Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of York; sponsor Mike Colle, MPP. We have the sponsor and the applicants before us. I would ask both sponsor and applicant to briefly introduce yourselves first.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm Mike Colle, MPP for Oakwood. With me I have the solicitor for the city of York, Mr George Bartlett. It is my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr44. The city of York is making an application for special legislation to enable it to establish a tax deferral program for senior citizens who qualify, and I would just essentially leave it up to Mr Bartlett to give the basic details of this bill.
Mr George Bartlett: Thank you, Mr Colle. The details are fairly straightforward. The proposal and the act would enable the city to establish a tax deferral system for seniors who are in receipt of a guaranteed income supplement and who own their properties. The actual amount isn't specified in the bill; that would be left to council to determine. It is a deferral scheme as opposed to some existing legislation which allows an outright grant. Under this legislation, the payments would be deferred until the seniors pass away, but would survive to the spouse as long as the spouse resided in the residence to which the tax deferral relates.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties who wish to comment on this bill? Okay, I would first ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for any comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Shea: It's a standard request which I think is deserving of support. The government has no objections. Precedents: The city of North York and Mississauga being two classic cases in point.
The Chair: I would turn to the committee for questions, beginning with Mr Pouliot.
1020
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Thank you kindly. Good morning and welcome. Well, let's face it, you're the house of benevolence. Who wouldn't appreciate the kindness. This, your gesture of good omen, may be a sign of things to come, for the seniors will need all the help they can get. You, sir, have recognized that through the sponsor of Mr Colle. So it's most welcome.
You've mentioned that if you're the recipient of a supplement, as we all know, you have difficulty to make ends meet. It's competitive out there. So you apply and you qualify for a few dollars more. What about if you're a tenant? Do you have a policy? Miss Jones doesn't own a house, but Miss Jones is 74 years of age and her refuge is a small apartment, and she is indeed a recipient of the supplementary allocation so she can be like the others, she can buy food and pay her rent. But she doesn't own property. Does she qualify under the program, and if not, what is the philosophy why not?
Mr Bartlett: The legislation that we're seeking only applies when the owner is the senior and resides in the property and meets the test. That's the extent of the legislation which council is seeking from the province.
Mr Pouliot: I am not philosophically -- in spirit, who could not be in favour? I share your vision, your request of my colleagues. But with respect, is it not ironic -- and I know it's much easier for me to say this than you, sir -- that a property owner in North York -- I mean, I too read the papers. I live way up north, you see, and my wife and I can only dream of being property owners in this very rich municipality. Yet, if we could not, maybe we would have access --
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Gilles, it's the city of York; it's not in North York.
Mr Pouliot: I mean, it's York. You see, that proves --
Mr Sergio: It's Bob Rae's country.
Mr Pouliot: I've been to Bob Rae's place, and it's a fine location indeed. We were all there; we were all accommodated when we were 74 members.
Mr Shea: Come on, Gilles, cut to the chase.
Mr Pouliot: The thing is, if you're renting, what is the difference? It seems to me that if you're renting in York, your needs would be just as much as if you owned property; in fact, a priori, they might be more so.
Mr Colle: If I could just briefly answer, this is the city of York, and we have very small, modest homes. As the parliamentary assistant, who's a neighbour of ours, will know, these are homes that have maybe 18-foot frontage and they're bungalows, and these are people of very modest means. This is not North York, where I think people are a bit well off. But we don't really attempt to try and solve all problems of inequity here. It's just a start, it's just a small step, because we have a lot of seniors who live in these small homes who would like to stay in them and not move into government-subsidized homes. They want to stay and be part of the neighbourhood, and that's what we're trying to encourage.
Mr O'Toole: I guess my question is a little more directed than my friend Mr Pouliot's. My understanding of this is that it's really allowing the city to take a lien or a chattel against the property. Is there a legal registry of this, it's legally on the title of the property and it's sort of like an accumulated debt until such time as they either sell or pass on?
Mr Bartlett: That's correct. It would be registered on the title in the registry office or the land titles office.
Mr O'Toole: The only question I have is, in the event of these people that are getting on in years and competence, with the Consent to Treatment Act, what if I, for example, contested it? Is there any contestability or is it a legally executed document? What if the person has got Alzheimer's or some early stage of senility or whatever? Who's the guardian on behalf of the property owner? I know you've got three years before the city can actually go in and try to get the property for taxes. So they could be in arrears going into this by a year or two, right? The property owner could be in arrears on taxes for two years before you start this action?
Mr Bartlett: Before we grant the lien?
Mr O'Toole: Yes.
Mr Bartlett: Or before we take action under the lien? Yes, theoretically it's possible that when people apply for the tax credit they may be in arrears of taxes. In that case, the credit would apply against the outstanding taxes initially. From experience, seniors are very reluctant to allow their properties to fall into arrears, probably more so than others. Theoretically, it's a possibility, yes.
Mr O'Toole: My question is just this: With the consent to treatment, there are those powers of attorney over property. In my case, if it was my parents who were in the home and I was the -- do I have any right to contest the decision?
Mr Bartlett: Part of the arrangement is, and what the legislation requires is, that there be an application. A signed document would be registered on title and we'd have to be satisfied at that point in time that the person we're dealing with is competent to sign that.
Mr O'Toole: Who pays the legal fees? The property owner or the city?
Mr Bartlett: The city pays its own legal fees and the registration costs.
Mr O'Toole: So there's no pass-through of legal fees of both parties to register title instruments in formal legal costs to the property owner?
Mr Bartlett: That would be at our expense.
Mr O'Toole: That would be all at the municipality's expense. That's very kind. I like the sentiment of the legislation or bill. I think it says the right things. Anyway, thank you.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Two things of concern: The percentage of the total taxes that you would be allowing them to defer; that would be up to the city, you say, to make that? Is that on a percentage of all or would each property be dealt with under certain circumstances?
Mr Bartlett: The legislation requires that we treat all people who qualify similarly. So it would be a uniform credit to all who qualify. The actual amount of the credit will be determined by council, but in each year, when they --
Mr Rollins: An amount or percentage?
Mr Bartlett: It provides for an amount. It's not tied to a percentage of the taxes; it's tied to a dollar amount.
Mr Rollins: In the event that some of these people are getting older, and in the event that they were to die and leave this property to somebody else who's over the age or is on subsidy, does that thinking still remain that the tax credit carries on or not?
Mr Bartlett: If it's to a surviving spouse, then it would carry on.
Mr Rollins: I understand that, but if it was, say, to a surviving brother or something at that time? Because they could be people you're dealing with who are fairly aged. Like, a person in their 90s could well be leaving their property to somebody who is only 70 or 72 years old and is still in the same circumstances, with probably little or no means of income.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): It would never end.
Mr Rollins: That's right.
Mr Bartlett: It would apply to the spouse only. If the elderly child who received it qualified under the legislation, they could submit a similar application.
Mr Rollins: In the meantime, it would have to be paid off?
Mr Bartlett: Yes.
Mr Rollins: And that payoff period of time would be probably immediately, or would there be any consideration given to those people?
Mr Bartlett: There's no provision for delaying that at that point in time.
Mr Sergio: To the solicitor, just to clarify the last point over there, isn't it, whenever the property changes hands, regardless if it's passed on to a member of the family or it's sold, that then the lien would have to be lifted or the encumbrance would have to be lifted?
Mr Bartlett: Unless it's to a spouse.
Mr Sergio: Unless it's to a spouse, but if the spouse side is gone and the house is sold or passed on to other than one of the spouses, if it is passed on to one of the heirs, members of the family, then automatically that would have to be paid?
Mr Bartlett: Yes, the payment becomes due on any transfer of ownership of the real property.
Mr Sergio: Exactly. I would hope that answers the question.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have just a brief question; I'm trying to find it in the bill, but I can't. When the money is paid back to municipalities, is it paid back with interest or without interest?
Mr Bartlett: No, we're not paying money back. After they pass away, we will be collecting money.
Mr Boushy: With interest?
Mr Bartlett: Without interest.
Mr O'Toole: No, no. Pardon me, Mr Chair; I believe what happens in taxes is the accrual includes interest. The municipality has the right under the act to accrue interest on outstanding debt, be it back taxes or whatever. So that would be an incurred cost by the municipality. Pardon me for interrupting, but that's the way it currently reads.
1030
The Chair: Mr Boushy, did you have a further supplementary?
Mr Boushy: I wonder if anyone can tell me, is this true? Would the interest be paid along with the amount owing? Does anybody know?
Mr Colle: There's no intention of charging interest.
Mr Bartlett: This legislation stands on its own.
The Chair: I'll ask the parliamentary assistant maybe to give us some information.
Mr Shea: In this case, the city of York is not putting interest in. That is the city of York's decision. Some other municipalities might. That is a discretionary factor for each municipality. In this case, the city of York has chosen not to do that, which makes it even, in that sense, more generous for the seniors. I think the city of York should be complimented in that regard.
Mr Sergio: If I may add, this is being done by other municipalities as well, and the intent is that it is not to penalize afterwards, once you're trying to help one of these needy people. It is no help if you say, "Okay, we need $100 now," for whatever reasons, "and a few years later we're going to owe you $200." This is not the intent of the request; this is not the intent of the move on behalf of the various municipalities. It is very minimal. I don't think it would cause any problem for any municipality. It is to help some of these needy people at a very particular time and say, if it's $100, if and when, you owe us $100. Municipalities have been assuming the expenses to register and do all the legal work and stuff like that.
This was born out of, I believe, one of the provincial directives from years ago to try and assist; and it creates some work, if you will, in residential homes and stuff like that.
Mr Pouliot: They can foreclose.
Mr Sergio: They can foreclose; for a measly few hundred dollars they won't foreclose.
The Chair: Should we go on to a new question?
Mr Pettit: I wonder if you can give us any indication of, let's say, on a 1995 basis the total dollar figures that might be involved here in terms of deferral.
Mr Bartlett: Our treasurer did do a report and my recollection is it was anticipated that it be somewhere in the order maybe of $11,000.
Mr Pettit: That's $11,000 total?
Mr Bartlett: Total, if we copied the pattern on the rates that --
Mr Pettit: What might the average property tax bill be in this region, this city?
Mr Colle: About $1,800?
Mr Pettit: So what you're saying is roughly we're looking at five to six households, or what are you saying, if it's $11,000?
Mr Bartlett: No, the dollar amount of the grant or the deferred taxes wouldn't amount to that, the full amount of the taxes. It's a fixed amount which probably could be in the order of something, $600 perhaps, per household. The treasurer was extrapolating from experience in Etobicoke, where a similar grant system is in effect.
Mr Pettit: So it's not the whole tax bill, then.
Mr Colle: It's a fixed portion of it. I know in the North York experience, I think it was Mayor Lastman was explaining one day, many seniors are very reluctant to do this, actually. They don't like the idea of having a debt on their property, so it is not something that they take lightly. That is a controlling factor right off the bat, and that's been the North York experience, I recall.
Mr Pettit: But it's optional anyway.
Mr Colle: Yes.
Mr Bartlett: Yes, they have to apply.
The Chair: Any further questions to the applicant or to the parliamentary assistant? We did have Mr Boushy. You don't have a second question?
Mr Boushy: No. Actually, I'm very much interested, because my city's coming down with the same request in about a month, whatever. I'm really interested to find out if actually the municipality would be paid back. Does such a bill allow a municipality to charge interest on the money owing?
Mr Shea: It's clear in the bill.
Mr Sergio: It's up to the individual municipality.
Mr Shea: This bill does not, but the empowering legislation is discretionary.
Mr Boushy: This bill does not?
Mr Shea: No, this bill does not. As I go through it again, the city of York has determined not to access that section that gives them the right to charge interest. Some municipalities do, like Kingston; others do not. Each municipality may make its own decisions.
The Chair: Thank you for the questions. Is our committee ready to vote?
Mr Shea: Mr Chairman, as we're ready to vote, can I just respond to my distinguished colleague from Nipigon? The inference of his opening and very eloquent comments would leave us with the impression that this may be some new mechanism to respond to some new economic circumstance. As some of us recognize, indeed this provision goes back to at least 1988 and reflects real concern on the part of many municipalities to assist seniors who are in various straits, and I'm sure that's what my colleague wanted to point out, that it goes back some distance for those purposes. Certainly I think we should now vote on this one and help the city of York do what they're doing. I appreciated the comments of Mr Colle.
Mr Pouliot: So we're all speaking, sir, with respect, on behalf of the 20 or so recipients. I did not imply that it was a reverse mortgage of any sort, without interest in this case. I didn't want to take anything away from the benevolence of the city of York.
Mr Shea: No? Oh, good.
Mr Pouliot: I just find it even more difficult to equate to an 18-foot lot.
Mr Shea: Welcome to the city, Nipigon. Now you know how we feel about market value assessment.
The Chair: Thank you for those comments. Are the members ready to vote? Again, following procedure, we would combine section 1 through to section 10.
Do sections 1 through to 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.
I wish to thank the applicant and the sponsor.
I would ask the committee to bear with us for a five-minute recess before our business subcommittee reports. The clerk would like to speak with one member of the subcommittee with respect to a recommendation that we will be making in five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1037 to 1049.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Thank you for your patience. We're back from recess and we are now distributing a report of our subcommittee, essentially a recommendation for your consideration.
At this point I'll read this recommendation into the record, and I would ask the clerk to entertain any questions or explanations on this report of the subcommittee. I quote:
"Your subcommittee recommends that all applications for tax exemptions be reviewed by the subcommittee to determine when they will be scheduled and that the subcommittee will instruct the clerk with respect to their scheduling decision. If the subcommittee is not unanimous in its decision, the applications will be considered by the full committee in the normal course of scheduling."
Motion to move acceptance of the report?
Mrs Pupatello: I move the report.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion?
Mr O'Toole: Can I just get the parliamentary assistant or whoever to sort of give me a handle on what it is we're talking about here in more layman's terms?
The Chair: Yes. I might ask either the clerk or the parliamentary assistant just to flesh this out a bit for us.
Mr Shea: Go ahead. I don't mind talking about it, but go ahead.
Clerk of the Committee: There was a motion passed last week that the subcommittee look at the whole issue of tax exemptions, and I'll let the parliamentary assistant discuss that actual issue. When he's finished, I can discuss what this means procedurally for the committee.
Mr Shea: That was marvellous. I've got to watch you more carefully.
Mr O'Toole: It's that easy --
The Chair: Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: Oh, what a dance. Okay.
Mr O'Toole: That's sort of like what the Premier does.
Mr Shea: All right. I like dealing with professionals.
The issue is obviously one of applications for tax exemptions that come forward to this committee which in the past have given the Legislative Assembly the right and responsibility to decide whether or not to grant tax exemptions which have impact upon lower-tier budgets, both city and regional budgets.
They may or may not have come forward -- I'm speaking of the applications now -- with the approval of all the parties. For instance, a city council may put forward an exemption request that is not acceded to by the region or by the school board and what the subcommittee is persuaded would be more appropriate would be to suggest that the approval for exemption rests with the budget centres involved.
For example, any application for exemption can be granted by bylaw, both at the local and at the upper-tier levels of government and in terms of the school boards. It can now be done in a way that allows the exemptions to be reviewed because if bylaws are passed, they can also be opened and reviewed for reconsideration where necessary or where the council or the school board deems it appropriate.
In many ways it's a suggestion that these kinds of applications really don't need to come forward, probably should not come forward even in an appropriate constitutional sense, and I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is, as we see not only in Bill 26 but elsewhere, attempting to ensure that responsibility and authority for decision-making is moved down into the municipalities.
It puts the municipality in the position of being able to make the clear determination, "Yes, you will be exempted," end of story. They don't have to go on to Queen's Park to get their imprimatur because the city councillors or the trustees are the ones who have to stand before the electorate. They are the ones who have to be responsible for their budgets, and the old-fashioned relationship between Queen's Park and municipalities can go through changes.
In that sense it is probably appropriate to say that unless there is some unforeseen circumstance, many of these applications can be resolved locally by the city council deciding yes, they will or will not. A school board may say, "No, we don't want to," but a city council may say, "Yes, we do want to." There is no conflict there any longer because you may have it going both ways. A city council may exempt, a school board doesn't have to exempt, so at least you know that the applicant is going to receive that portion of the tax exemption that that level has decided to give them.
In that regard, it cleans it up. Instead of coming forward here by saying, "We'll also wrestle with it and determine what's going to happen to your tax base and to your revenue stream," it seems more appropriate to let the local governments make their own decisions and rest with the consequences of those decisions.
Mr Sheehan: Just a clarification. For example, in St Catharines the YMCA is applying for an exemption from a portion of the tax or all of the tax. So all we're going to say is, the city council can make it, but prior to this if we don't do this, they'd have to come up here and get that exemption here?
Mr Shea: Prior to this they could come forward whether they had city council's approval or not. What has been happening increasingly is that the Legislative Assembly has been saying, "Do you have these approvals? Let me see what you've got. Don't even come forward if you haven't got them." But they can come forward. They have a right to come to this committee.
I think what the subcommittee is beginning to say is, "Instead of taking the time of this committee with applications that come forward that don't even carry the imprimatur of any level of the lower governments, that really is just wasting our time and not only is it putting us in a difficult spot, but it is embarrassing even to the other tiers."
Mrs Pupatello: I was just curious about the writing of the report while I moved it. We could have included that information be reviewed and determine whether they'll be scheduled, if they meet the requirements of approval by municipality and approval by school board. Did we not see that it was important to move that? That was really the meat of the discussion.
Clerk of the Committee: This is totally amendable, so we can amend this to whatever you want. It's drafted this way to take in the possibility of giving the subcommittee a little flexibility in terms of what they look at with respect to the various bills.
They may want to change certain requirements that they have before a bill will be scheduled. If we actually put them into the motion, it would tie the subcommittee's hands and require us to come back to the committee. It's just drafted broadly so the subcommittee can decide amongst themselves what they want to look at with respect to every application.
Mrs Pupatello: Is there some kind of a reg written somewhere that will instruct the subcommittee that in fact we're determining that it will go forward if it meets those two things? It's not written anywhere.
Clerk of the Committee: It's going to be at the subcommittee's discretion in terms of what it looks at to decide whether the bill will be scheduled or not.
Mrs Pupatello: I just see we just moved that to the subcommittee level now. The very discussions we have at committee have just been moved to subcommittee. So that's why we decided today that we would determine that it would go forward if it met those two conditions. I assumed that would be part of the condition that we are writing somewhere.
Clerk of the Committee: What we can do is draft a further motion. Once we actually put down in writing, I can meet with Municipal Affairs and put down in writing exactly what criteria it is going to have to meet, we can then pass that at a later date. As I said, it's drafted this way to give the subcommittee a little bit of flexibility.
The Chair: Would that be okay in the interim?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes.
Mr Boushy: I just want to clear my mind. Does the subcommittee, according to this motion, have the power to prevent an application coming to this committee? I just want to make sure.
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to respond.
Clerk of the Committee: I'll explain this motion from a procedural point of view. It seemed to be the wish of the subcommittee that in essence the committee not consider these bills unless they met very specific criteria.
According to the standing orders, if the applicants meet criteria that have nothing to do with upper-tier municipalities okaying things, they have a right to come to the committee. We can't pass any type of motion to tie the committee's hands here and not allow people to go forward if they meet certain criteria.
The only procedural way around this was -- as a clerk, I take my scheduling instructions from the committee or the subcommittee or the Chair, and what this is doing is the subcommittee will review these applications. They'll see if they meet various criteria and then will tell me whether to schedule or not schedule these applicants. These applicants will also be informed in advance what the criteria are.
What's happening now is many of these applicants are incurring major costs. They have to advertise for four weeks in local newspapers, which may be the Globe or the Star. They have to pay $150. They have to pay for the cost of the bill, and it's running into thousands of dollars for an application that may not meet a favourable reception at this committee. We just like to be able to, one step ahead, give people some type of indication before the costs are incurred.
Mr O'Toole: It's a good explanation. I think if we're not delaying the proceedings here, just to educate ourselves, this is a municipal taxpayer, either residential or commercial, or institutional for that matter, that has in last resort the right to appeal to his committee for an exemption. What we're trying to do is set criteria by which they would qualify before they spent any money advertising for public notices and stuff like that the costs that are incurred and then, in the final analysis, this committee may not side or agree with them.
1100
Looking at it from a municipal point of view, and I hope no one takes exception to this, with some of the changes in the omnibus Bill 26 and the municipal lower portion -- who are the tax collector, by the way; they're always the tax collector -- that's really talking about their revenue. I firmly believe that this should be, if the subcommittee's looking at this, referred to that, because we do talk in there about fees, the ability to make revenue decisions being where the revenue problem is, and that varies according to the province. Lots of municipalities have the need to keep that commercial facility, whatever it is, there.
I've sat there and heard and we never, ever granted an exemption, because once you grant one, you're done. You know what I'm saying? What I'm saying is that if that empowering legislation snipped it right there -- it's completely within -- and have some appeal process within that at the lower tier, I'd prefer not to deal with it because I do not feel we should be in the position of stopping revenues, other than provincial, to lower-tier municipalities.
Mrs Pupatello: John, you would have been more comfortable if we had identified the rationale of the restriction to this committee, the approval of municipal --
Mr O'Toole: Yes. Which I'm not familiar with. If there are some external criteria, let's say that there has been some appeal or dialogue at the lower-tier level and still a failure to recognize the exemption, what else do they do? If they came here, I would say, "Look, we're talking about somebody else's revenue here."
Mrs Pupatello: What has happened in the past, which is what brought it to the floor, is that this committee would approve it in certain cases even if the municipality had not granted it, so there lies the inequity.
Mr O'Toole: I would not agree with us overruling the lower tiers' external revenues. It's just not the proper protocol.
Mr Shea: That's what we're saying. That's exactly what we're saying.
Mr O'Toole: Let's hope that we don't necessarily have a screening criterion. Let's be the complete judgement of last resort, absolutely. There should be an appeal process internally.
Mr Shea: But in fairness, that is something that the Municipal Act is addressing right now and it will be coming forward. Having said that, in the interim we have a reality to wrestle with and the reality is that the person who is responsible for the budget should have the say of what happens to the revenue stream and that is indeed the philosophy in Bill 26, that is the philosophy of the minister, that is the --
Mrs Pupatello: That's not correct entirely.
Mr O'Toole: It is. There's a lot of talk about revenue in there.
Mr Shea: It is in the terms of putting the responsibility down.
Mrs Pupatello: Bill 26 deals with 150,000 items, not necessarily all driven by that principle.
Mr O'Toole: Treat each one of those schedules separately.
Mr Shea: In terms of the Municipal Affairs philosophy, that's when we're discussing it.
Mrs Pupatello: But all of that is just frankly -- we're getting into rhetoric now.
Mr Shea: What we're trying to do is get that down so we say: "That's where the responsibility rests. It is your revenue stream. You make the decisions. You shouldn't be going to Queen's Park to ask for it." That's all.
Mr O'Toole: I'd support that approach, if that's what the subcommittee's ultimate objective is.
Clerk of the Committee: I have just one thing, if the committee wants, in terms of amending this to deal with Mrs Pupatello's concern. We could amend the subcommittee report to read:
"In making the decision, the subcommittee shall consider the following criteria: that the organization owns and occupies the property; that the organization must be a registered charity under the Income Tax Act; that the organization must have consent of the upper tier and school board for exemptions on levies; and that the exemption apply to property taxes only and the exemption is granted through a municipal bylaw."
Those are the criteria that the subcommittee looked at. If it's the wish of the committee to actually put that in the motion, we can, or we can leave it out.
Mrs Pupatello: Is the condition always included in the municipal bylaw that it has school board approval?
Mr Shea: No, you can come forward without school board approval, because the current system now allows things now to be processed with somebody approving and somebody not approving, and that's okay. The applicant -- and you and I were talking about that a little earlier, by saying that it may well be at least better you have this than have to wait to try to get the whole thing. That's the way we would still be empowered to do that.
Mr O'Toole: I can't support that. Perhaps, Sandra, you could direct me. Having been both a school trustee and the other councillor part, what happens is if the municipality makes an exemption, they do not pay each tax bill. The boards levy the municipality and pay them the million dollars and then they go about collecting taxes. Any defaults, the municipality takes the hit.
Therefore, what I'm suggesting and I've always thought -- maybe I'm making this more complicated -- is if it's a 60-40 split or a 60-20-20, depending if you're regional -- that's usually the split for the revenue -- then technically all of those should be pass-throughs to the equal partners, meaning if I give an exemption, 60% of that revenue reduction goes to the school board, 20% to the region and 20% to the local municipality.
Mr Pouliot: It's usually about that.
Mr O'Toole: Yes, that's about what it is across the province.
Mr Shea: I don't understand where that's different from what we're suggesting. What we're saying right now is there are four players in many cases, not in all but in many cases. We're talking about the local council, the regional council, the local school board and there may be a senior school board, depending on the municipal structure. Let's assume there are four.
We know what their relationships are in terms of their tax equations, that's no mystery. The fact is if the city council grants exemptions but the upper tier doesn't, if the school boards don't and so forth, then it may be that the applicant gets only that reduction to which the approval has been granted. City council cannot grant approval for the exemption on behalf of the school board or on behalf of the regional government. Each level responsible for its own budget has to give its approval. That's the way it works now.
Mr O'Toole: Well, not totally, but anyway.
Mr Pouliot: On the same subject matter, I often wonder, regardless of administration, how we got into this kind of situation. Was it because some well-intentioned bureaucrat or some politician, or with some politician, wanted to establish their little fiefdom?
I cannot imagine that the Little Angels House of Benevolence seeking a tax exemption would not have the blessing, the acquiescence of both the general purpose, the local government, and of course the school board. We preach for our parish. I was the mayor of our small village for many years. Picture this: that decisions would have been made by others in Toronto and we would lose by way of an exemption our tax revenue. In our case we would have said, "Okay, if you need help, we'll give you a grant, but damn it, you're going to pay your taxes."
You're right, Mr Shea, that you do create, indeed, the precedent. What kind of business are we doing in the affairs of others? I find this very unusual, and I know those things tend to be dated, they accumulate over years, and we can't screen.
The philistine piece of legislation, Bill 26, that reads like the Internet, will no doubt have enough spear carriers to put it over the hill. It is so massive -- I'm learning something here -- that there has to be some good thing in it; not too, too much. But again, no matter how abrasive and how dictatorial that piece of legislation is, maybe somewhere one of the small paragraphs of that kind of documentation will address this.
Mrs Pupatello: You should have heard him yesterday.
Mr Pouliot: Attends une minute, toi. It is an invitation to sin of the highest order. What business do we have -- and now we have to weasel our way until the philistine package gets steamrollered through the House, because if people follow process, which is what we have to live with, they have access to an audience. They come and see us --
Mrs Pupatello: Which they couldn't have done without your change of the rules, just for the record.
Mr Shea: Do we really want to get into this? I'd be happy to engage in this kind of dialogue, I'll tell you, for a few hours, folks.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, any further discussion?
Mr Pouliot: Madame, focus your attention on these. There are more of them than us. But that's a metaphor. Let's focus on the clerk here, who is sort of giving us some devious tools, because we have nothing else to go by. If I fill the criteria, if my Little Angels House of Benevolence fills the criteria, I can come here and seek a tax exemption.
Now what we're saying here is we're going to build in, to bypass the pleasure of an audience, that opportunity, a set of rules whereby you're going to have to go back home and get bylaws approved by all responsible parties, namely, as John said, the school board and the municipalities. Once you have that package here, then you will come here and we still have the discretion of saying: "The committee is busy. Yes, you fill the criteria, we have a statutory obligation to hear you, but you can't get scheduled."
Then you go further than your resolution here, and we appreciate the help, and you say, "Well, really straitjacket until we can see." I'm all in agreement with this. I don't want to see those people, because it's not the right way to go about it. But I want to see the wording. I've signed the first one, Madame. Now I want to see the addition before I sanction that. I have no reservation, absolutely. I don't think we're going far enough. We should mind our own business. We're sending less money anyway to the municipalities. Let them run their own show.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion on Mrs Pupatello's motion to accept this report of the subcommittee? Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk just to clarify.
Clerk of the Committee: Just to clarify two things. The subcommittee also decided there is one application that has been in the works. The applicant has already incurred costs in terms of advertising and would like to be heard next week. The subcommittee decided that, instead of catching that person in the new system, they will be scheduled next week. So you will be hearing a tax exemption next week.
It's also my understanding that we're going with the original subcommittee report at this point. The amendments will be left off for the subcommittee to determine. We're just going with what's in front of you.
The Chair: All in favour on this report? Carried.
The committee adjourned at 1112.