CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 November 1995
City of Nepean Act, 1995, Bill Pr13, Mr Baird
John R. Baird, MPP
Nancy Miles, solicitor, city of Nepean
Susan Jones, manager, bylaw services, city of Nepean
City of Nepean Act, 1995, Bill Pr14, Mr Baird
John R. Baird, MPP
Nancy Miles, solicitor, city of Nepean
City of Mississauga Act, 1995, Bill Pr37, Mr Sampson
Mr Rob Sampson, MPP
Mr Brian Duxbury, solicitor, city of Mississauga
Mr Herb Droogendyk, manager of revenue, city of Mississauga
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
*Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex 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)
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing:
Shea, Derwyn, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Staff / Personnel:
Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. Welcome to our standing committee on regulations and private bills, November 22, 1995.
I would draw your attention to the agenda, and there are agenda items on the back of that one sheet as well. This is our first business meeting, following on the organizational meeting last week.
CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.
The Chair: Our first order of business is Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of Nepean. MPP John Baird is sponsoring this bill and I would ask the sponsor and the applicant to step forward and we would ask you to very briefly introduce yourselves, please.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Hello. I am, as you know, John Baird, the member for Nepean.
Ms Nancy Miles: Nancy Miles. I'm solicitor for the city of Nepean.
Ms Susan Jones: I'm Susan Jones, manager, bylaw services for the city of Nepean.
The Chair: Thank you. I would ask the sponsor, MPP Baird, any comments on this bill, please?
Mr Baird: I'll maybe say just a few words. I'm very pleased, firstly, that the committee is able to consider this bill so early in its mandate, and privileged to be the first two bills to come forward to the committee, and thank all members for that.
It's an honour to bring forward Bill Pr13 for consideration. I have with me representatives from both the legal side of the city of Nepean and from the bylaw enforcement side of the city of Nepean who will give a summary and overview of the legislation.
Ms Miles: I'm here to talk about Pr13, first off, and that is a bill which is allowing the Corporation of the City of Nepean to collect fees for inspections carried out in the enforcement of its maintenance and property standards bylaw.
With respect to Nepean, I just want to give you a brief overview. Nepean's an urban municipality on the border of Ottawa. It has about 113,000 residents. It is essentially residential but with a strong industrial and commercial component. It's not too old in terms of its development and as a result Nepean really didn't have a property standards bylaw until 1984, and at that time the property standards bylaw really only dealt with high-density rental dwellings, because those were the areas of greatest need and greatest risk.
By the 1990s this became insufficient and therefore in September 1994 we passed a more comprehensive property standards bylaw. The greatest area of concern was low-rent dwellings that were reaching their design life and were becoming quite run-down. Because of the increased number of complaints, council also directed the city to embark on a city-wide proactive enforcement program.
From September 1994 until September 1995 we have done that and the city has committed more than $70,000 in resources to the enforcement of the most egregious substandard properties. We're only halfway through the biggest development, just at the notice of violation stage, and of the 700 units, 400 of which are in Nepean, 300 of which straddle on to Ottawa, we've noted 1,500 deficiencies already. So it's a really massive task to get those substandard properties back to standards.
The interesting situation with Nepean is that we share many of these low-rent housing developments with the city of Ottawa. This one in particular, which we are starting off with which is the worst example, is almost evenly split between Ottawa and Nepean. Ottawa has had this special legislation in effect since 1992 and has been able to, once a final order has been granted with respect to the property, fix the deficiencies and if the property owners still won't comply, at that point in time they can go in, reinspect and charge that reinspection back to the property owners as opposed to the constituents at large. So we're not talking about inspections from the first inspection; we're talking about after the final order has been granted.
So we're in a situation where half of the tenants in these housing developments which straddle the border will get the benefit of city of Ottawa special legislation but we cannot deliver that kind of effective enforcement mechanism as well because we're in Nepean and we don't have the special legislation. So that's essentially the purpose of it. We're interested in cost recovery and we're interested in rectifying the deficiency between the city of Ottawa and the city of Nepean.
Those are my main comments with respect to this issue.
The Chair: Are there any further comments from the applicant?
Mr Baird: I just have maybe one point. The city of Nepean is an extremely well-run municipality. For the last 23 years, it's run with tax increases below the rate of inflation. It's a very financially responsible community, and it wants to deal with these property standards issues, particularly in the areas where it affects tenants where the buildings are reaching the end of their lifespan without further upgrading.
So it's a real important issue for us, and I think it's sort of demonstrative of the way a fiscally responsible community can deal with the property standards issue without putting that burden on all property taxpayers, and then deal with these issues.
The Chair: I would ask for further comments.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Good morning, and thank you for the compliment of your visit in this first instance. It's our first time that we have the pleasure of working together on this committee.
What is the government opinion on what is being proposed here?
The Chair: We will go down to the next item. We would ask the parliamentary assistant for any comments on behalf of the province of Ontario.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Which item is this on?
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): We're still on the Nepean private bill 13, and the government has no objections to this private bill. It follows a precedent of the city of Ottawa.
The Chair: Do you have a supplementary question?
Mr Pouliot: Yes, I do have a question in the rotation. I will yield, but I would like to have a question, with respect, directed at counsel vis-à-vis your comments. Are you aware of any objectors or objections for what is being proposed?
Ms Miles: No, I'm not aware of any objections. We have received a number of verbal and I believe one written response in support from a tenants' association.
Mr Pouliot: I'd like, in a broadly summarized form, I will close, because after next Wednesday, it's highly likely that you will need all the flexibility and the money that you can generate. That's all I have to say on this first bill, Mr Chair, and I thank you.
The Chair: Further questions from committee members to either the applicant or the parliamentary assistant?
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Yes, to the solicitor, in this wording that you have for recovering all expenses, why have you not thought of including "all reasonable expenses"? Because sometimes what happens is when you have phraseology such as this that is very, very flexible, you get very imaginative bureaucrats that'll think up expenses that would be more than considered by most people as reasonable.
Ms Miles: I think the city of Nepean wanted to be as consistent as they possibly could with the city of Ottawa's legislation to ensure that we could be equal across the board. I had not noticed that there were any problems with respect to that in our discussions with the city of Ottawa, and certainly, as a cost recovery approach, we wouldn't be seeking to gain any revenue with respect to it, but just to recover our administrative expenses.
Mr Hastings: Is this wording the exact wording in the building standards maintenance bylaw that the city of Ottawa already has on its books?
Ms Miles: What section are you looking at?
Mr Hastings: With respect to default here, where it says the corporation may recover. Is the wording in the Ottawa building standards legislation pretty closely resembling or exactly resembling what you're proposing here?
Ms Miles: It's exactly resembling it. It is a mirror of the City of Ottawa Act, 1993.
Mr Hastings: When you talk about cost recovery, coming from local government, I have seen some examples of zealous cost recovery. The costs that go beyond reasonable expenses for that specific set of activities in inspections, what kind of numbers did you have in mind for cost recovery? On each activity, they would pay $100? Or after three times? Or how were you going to prorate it?
Ms Jones: The cost recovery wouldn't be initiated until the order has been issued and has been confirmed. Once the order has been confirmed, we would begin monitoring our costs, and looking at what the city of Ottawa has done, we would be probably charging on an hourly basis, including cost of materials and staff time, and that's what the cost recovery would be. I believe the city of Ottawa, it's around $90 an hour, and that's what we would probably be looking at in terms of cost recovery, but it wouldn't be to gain revenue; it would just be to recover our costs.
1020
Mr Baird: On that, I think probably the hope is that they won't raise any revenue from this, that it will serve as a deterrent for people, to maintain property standards.
Mr Hastings: I hope that is the actual outcome down the road, but usually something like this, some people become very imaginative and it can become a sort of beyond cost recovery model. I'm wondering if you would consider, aside from restraint by the individual exercising this responsibility, how you would protect the consumer, in this instance the landlord. Imagine somebody speaking up for them for a change. I know it's very unusual around here because they're all considered villains.
Mrs Pupatello: You're not a landlord, are you, John?
Mr Hastings: No, actually I'm not, Sandra.
Mr Pouliot: If you're going to engage in personal comments --
Mr Hastings: We were just talking about a general attitude.
The Chair: Shall I go on to the next question? Is there a response?
Ms Miles: With respect, it would be incumbent on us to exercise restraint, and the city solicitor, to ensure that it was adequately brought to their attention that that would be outside the ambit of the legislation.
The Chair: A new question from Mr Ruprecht.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Before I arrived at this illustrious place, as Mr Shea knows, I was on city council and Metro council, so I have some sense of what's going on. But I'm reminded of some of the phone calls I still get. People still don't differentiate between MPPs, MPs, and city councillors and Metro councillors.
What happens is that on one property the owner will, for instance, keep his or her place well maintained. Two doors down is just terrible looking, ill-maintained and in a state of disrepair. The person who has kept his or her place wonderful will get a notice from the city of Toronto in this regard, saying, "You have not placed your garbage out on time," meaning the person puts their garbage out two hours before the actual date, and the person who owns the building two doors down will not get that kind of notice.
There is, as you probably realize, a possibility here -- and the reason I'm asking this is for clarification on Mr Hastings's point, really. That is, can you give us an honest-to-goodness example of what has happened there previously? You've got trailer parks in here too; I know this will include trailer parks as well. But what has your experience been?
Ms Jones: The experience in Nepean over the past 20 years is it's a beautiful municipality, it's well maintained overall, but what has happened in the last 10 years is -- I can think of three areas in Nepean which have multiple units and are managed by a large rental company, where they have over the past 10 years neglected the property and there has been no upkeep. In 1990 we had one group in Leslie Park -- I'm not sure if you're aware of it -- that got together collectively and formed a tenants' association over the concern of substandard conditions. The property manager had done nothing for maintenance. There were all kinds of problems with respect to getting work done: plumbing, heating, furnaces, things like that.
At the point they collectively called us -- and I recall in 1991 I got a call from the head of the tenants' association -- "We have 600 complaints for you to look at." We couldn't believe this, because normally we were dealing with between 100 and 200 complaints a year. As a result of that, we had to deploy two of our officers on a full-time basis to spend the next year in there to deal with all the problems. We barely touched the surface, because the bylaw at that point didn't cover the things we needed to cover.
This is why we've needed the new bylaw in place; this is why we're looking for this legislation now. We're spending a lot of time in there. We want to get these properties back up to the standard the community used to enjoy. We have property owners who live in single residential homes in this neighbourhood who can't sell their homes, don't want to live in the neighbourhood because of the effect it's had on their property values, and they are encouraging us to be as proactive as we can to get the property up to a standard that it used to be and should continue to be. I don't know if I've answered your question.
Mr Ruprecht: Yes, you certainly have. I'm just wondering, is this a well-known developer throughout Ontario, or is this a local developer?
Ms Jones: It's a well-known development now in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. There has been a great deal of media attention against this particular company, and also the tenants who have been in there. There have been racial outbreaks; there have been many tenants just complaining generally about the conditions. So it has received a great deal of media attention.
Mr Ruprecht: Does this developer have other properties across Ontario or in other places?
Ms Miles: Certainly the property management company does and is Toronto-based and has various different property management properties.
Mr Ruprecht: Did you hear that? Toronto-based. It's disturbing.
Mr Baird: Just on this, if I could speak to it as well, I guess the question that has come down is, who pays for this? Do the property owners who are maintaining their properties and the landlords who are maintaining their properties and conforming to the bylaws? Collectively, should they have to pay for those who aren't? I guess there's a view on the costs associated with these people who are delinquent with their responsibilities under the property standards bylaws that they should have to pay for it rather than the community as a whole, that it's simply not fair to ask everyone collectively to pay for those few -- very few in our case -- which are not fulfilling their responsibilities as property owners.
There are a large number of single-family homes adjacent to one particular townhouse development where, because the townhouses have gone into such disrepair, the property values have fallen there, if they've been able to sell at all. That's a real concern that I'd add to your point as well.
The Chair: A new question from Mr Pouliot.
Mr Pouliot: I sense and welcome the municipal background of some of my colleagues, and standards -- quality-of-life rules and, well, regulations, and at times policies, it matters not whether we believe in the right and freedom, with good wishes, the best success, whether you're a landlord -- mind you, I do prefer when I literally translate the term "property owner." It's less of an invitation to provoke.
I see no evidence that a municipality has ever made money at these things, alas. With the least of the free enterprisers, whenever municipalities get involved and send a bill -- not whenever, but at times; it's not uncommon, I should say -- the recipient of the bill will say, "Well, it's too much," because the mindset has it in many cases that the municipality will offer a service as a way of doing business and consistently, forever, they lose money. Even when they do charge, it's the best bargain around.
Again, the Toronto Press Today, a sign of things to come. We welcome your presence. "Hospitals, schools, municipalities to get more control over spending, raising fees." Not so much spending, raising fees, but give them the tools to defend, and to quote -- I appreciate Mr Baird's concern. In the opinion of the third party, humbly so, let's go on with this bill. We thank you for your presence. Good luck to you. Go back home where you belong, where you are more needed.
Mr Baird: Are you saying that to me?
Mr Pouliot: Not in that tone to anyone.
Mr Bisson: If he didn't, I do.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Just a couple of reflections. Previously having been a local and regional councillor, I'm kind of familiar -- and we in fact did this.
I have a question. In your 1984 bylaw that was initiated, there were no abilities at all to recover any costs?
Ms Miles: The 1984 bylaw was not totally done in compliance with the Planning Act and therefore didn't incorporate many of the protections that were there.
Mr O'Toole: This is very standard across the province.
Ms Miles: Oh, absolutely.
1030
Mr O'Toole: Absolutely. It's done in every municipality and I'm surprised you don't have it. But that's first, so that's clear: It's not there already; you need it.
I guess the next thing is, when you're saying it's proactive, that word is used very selectively. Does that mean that you react to complaints, or do you go out looking?
Ms Miles: We have had in the past an enforcement policy at the city of Nepean which was reactive, meaning complaints-based, unless --
Mr O'Toole: Basically, most municipalities are in the response mode, not the "proactive" mode. That word frightens me. It looks like, "We're going to sort of set this nice Saran Wrap around our community and it's going to look like this." And there are some variances. Whether it's in lawn care or in home care, there are variances of standards. I think you have to look at neighbourhoods that may in one part of town not conform with those standards in another part of town due to income, sociocultural reasons, whatever. So on the "proactive," I'm not happy with the word. To me it's intrusive. It sends the wrong signal. I don't think it disallows you, by striking that word, but it does send to me a confusing signal. So I personally take exception with that word.
I do also respect the difficult task of a bylaw enforcement person having to go out and in fact be the policeman of the community. It's a tough job. And your standards in your own personal life are quite different than those of perhaps the person you're talking to, who is having a dilemma in their life and the eavestrough is hanging off. You know what I'm saying? It's an economic factor.
So good luck to you. Of course, by us endorsing this, you still are as counsel able to fluctuate the schedule and the rigidity of the bylaw itself. They still have control, so I don't have a problem, I guess, in that respect.
I also notice that there is a right of appeal by the owner, a two-week appeal period, which is appropriate. So, in short, I only have some problem with the "proactive." Like, "Let's go and get them. Everybody has to have brick homes," you know, it's not my idea.
Ms Miles: Thank you.
The Chair: I'd ask for a new question.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Just a clarification, if I may. In the background document, on page 17, you talk about a public response and you use the word "aesthetics." Then over on page 18: "Once the bylaw is in effect, the department intends to monitor complaints that deal only with aesthetics and can't be regulated under the bylaw." What's told to me is you're talking about quality of construction and maintenance of the construction. You're not getting into stuff like telling me what colours can go on, or what finish.
Ms Miles: No, absolutely. It's always been Nepean's policy that aesthetics is not an issue that we can govern under a property standards bylaw. We're looking at the big issues. We're talking about roofs, we're talking about furnaces, we're talking about matters of construction.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Having been a city alderman for many years, I know where Nepean's coming from, and a precedent has been set in Ottawa.
There are two questions I have, for the clerk probably. One, what is the procedure now? I'm willing to make a motion if that's needed at this time to get on with the job. Secondly, is there any other city besides Ottawa that has done this?
Mr Shea: I don't think so. My understanding is this will be the second one.
Mr O'Toole: Mr Chair, I would beg to differ. The municipality of Clarington definitely does it. They demolish buildings regularly and collect it on taxes. It's the same thing. They've been doing it for years.
Mr Shea: You're talking about the property standards?
Mr O'Toole: It's empowered under the property standards portion of it. They say the place is in disrepair, it's a vacant building, a developer owns the land and the kids are tearing it down. They just go in and tear it down and put it on a statute.
The Chair: Mr Boushy, does that answer your question?
Interjection: Under the property standards bylaws.
Mr Boushy: That's fine. I would like to have an answer to what is the procedure now to get on with this bill. Do we make a motion to approve or what? I'm willing to do it, whatever --
The Chair: I have one more question: Mr Smith?
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I guess my only question was to counsel. Is there any reason or concern or has the city of Ottawa's bylaw been tested or challenged that would cause you concern to marry yourself with a similar document?
Ms Miles: Absolutely not. In fact, I don't know that it has actually been used to that great an extent. The key to it is the fact that you have the power. Much like many of the bylaws we have at Nepean, we seek voluntary compliance. In most, if not all, cases we get it. It's just in those very rare cases in which we have a very recalcitrant owner that we would use the testing. Sue, did you want to speak to the city of Ottawa, whether they have any experience?
Ms Jones: Just to concur with what Nancy Miles said, I don't think it has been challenged. I don't even think they have charged any fees; it has just been the ability to let property owners know that they will be charged if they don't comply with the order and that they could face additional charges. It tends to get a lot more compliance with deficiencies that should have been corrected regardless.
Mr Smith: I share the same view as Mr Pouliot and Mr Boushy, that perhaps the committee could proceed ahead with dealing with the bill.
The Chair: Thank you for the questions and comments. Are members of this committee ready to vote with respect to Bill Pr13, city of Nepean? I understand a procedure we may use will be to vote on several sections in combination.
Shall sections 1 right through to 7 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble to this bill carry? Carried.
Shall the title of this bill carry? Carried.
Shall the bill in total carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Carried.
I wish to thank the applicants and to thank all parties with respect to this bill.
CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.
The Chair: I now wish to move to the next order of business with respect to Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Nepean, sponsor John Baird. I ask Mr Baird and the applicants for this bill to come forward. I think we can dispense with the introductions.
Mr Baird: I'll again call on Nancy Miles, the solicitor from the city, to give you an introduction, an overview of Bill Pr14.
Ms Miles: All of you have read the compendium, so I'm not going to bore you with the details, but the purpose of this private bill is to enable the city of Nepean to require owners of land to remove garbage and debris and to maintain the lawns, the grass cutting, at a certain height with respect to boulevards abutting their land.
Now, "boulevard" is a defined term within the Municipal Act which relates to the portion of the untravelled highway from the travelled portion to the property line. Therefore, it's the two and a half feet to whatever amount it is that is the untravelled portion of the highway that has been sodded etc.
We have never, ever had a problem with the vast majority of homeowners. They cut their lawn as they cut the rest of their lawn and that's essentially voluntary compliance. We've had a care-of-streets bylaw for 30 years now that has required them to do so. Our legal opinion to the city of Nepean was that while section 308 of the Municipal Act permitted owners to maintain boulevards, it did not give the municipalities sufficient power to require and enforce that requirement. Therefore, to a certain extent, our bylaw has been deficient.
As part of the property standards review, we have incorporated the care of streets and the ability to maintain the boulevards into our comprehensive bylaw and into a care-of-streets provision. What we want to do in this circumstance is once again be able to ensure compliance by having a cost-recovery mechanism if they default so that if the city had to go back and do the grass cutting or, more likely, the debris and garbage that would accumulate more than the grass cutting, then those things would be cost recovery on the owner of the abutting land.
I wanted to bring to your attention that, once again, this arises from the same issue we've had before as being a property standards issue with respect to the multiple unit residential owner or property management company and those commercial and institutional clients which are not complying. Although the bylaw is comprehensive, we're not essentially worried about the man on John Street or whatever who may not take care of its two-foot strip.
If I can just summarize, the essential concern is cost recovery. We'd like to ensure that the offending property owner is the one who is going to be recovering and shouldering the burden of this, much like in property standards as opposed to the constituents at large.
1040
Mr Ruprecht: This is a question and also a comment to you, Mr Chair, and to the rest of the committee. If you check the record over the last five years, we've had city after city, municipality after municipality coming before this committee requesting essentially or requiring "owners of land to remove garbage and debris from the portion of the highway abutting to their land that is not used for vehicular traffic and to cut the grass and weeds on those portions".
I'm wondering, and especially now in terms of efficiency and cost-cutting measures, if this committee can make a recommendation either today, or I'll leave it with you if the committee so desires, to check into this system whereby the city solicitor and city representatives have to come here from Ottawa and Thunder Bay and other beautiful places to visit the city of Toronto, I'm not saying to waste taxpayers' money, but certainly we have these discussions again and again, yet here we find ourselves, especially myself having been on this committee for some time, and nothing's been done and nothing's been accomplished in terms of saving time and certainly taxpayers' money.
I know the counsel has been around for a whole, and will be able to testify to my comments. Having said that, Mr Chair and members of the committee, I would hope that when we're finished today or at any other time, we can put our heads together, whenever you decide, Mr Chair and the parliamentary assistant, and make that kind of a decision to figure out a way of how we can save people from coming down here and making the same request over and over again.
The Chair: Perhaps our business subcommittee could take a serious look at that. Does that make sense?
I would ask the parliamentary assistant, any comments on behalf of the government?
Mr Shea: Let me respond to the last point made by Mr Ruprecht first. First of all, I would be very pleased to carry his comments to the minister. As he knows, the minister is in the process of reviewing the Municipal Act and I would be pleased to ensure that the comments that Mr Ruprecht and other members of this committee make are tabled with the minister for his review; very happy to do that.
In terms of the business before us, the government has no objections, subject to an amendment that the Vice-Chair is going to make and with which, we understand, the applicant is in full agreement. It's more of a technical amendment than anything else about the order of priority of the fees to ensure that they don't sit at the same level as taxes and that they would be collected after mortgages and so forth. It's more of a technical amendment, but not unimportant. With that regard, the government has no objection, subject to the amendment being carried that the Vice-Chair would make.
The Chair: I would ask for the first question with respect to Bill Pr14.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The lands in question, the boulevards: In whose ownership are they?
Ms Miles: They would be in the city of Nepean's ownership. It would be the untravelled portion of the highway. Whatever jurisdiction that might be, say the city of Nepean, it would be in their ownership.
Mr Sergio: I don't know all the facts, so if my question sounds out of place, that's fine. Why doesn't the city look after this property?
Ms Miles: The city, by and large, does look after a good amount of boulevards and travelled and untravelled portions of the highway, but as a convenience, since we're sometimes talking about very narrow strips abutting your front lawn, you cut the grass as you cut the --
Mr Sergio: Oh, are you talking about the boulevards in front of people's houses?
Ms Miles: Yes, that's right, immediately adjacent to the property. For example, you have a sidewalk that runs and then there's a little bit of grass beside it. It's that situation, but it's also the situation where it immediately abuts on a residential street on which there is no sidewalk and it's just a little bit of the untravelled portion, because of course it's not totally paved, that full right of way.
Mr Sergio: In other words what you're saying -- I think my picture is getting clearer -- is that you wish to force homeowners to maintain those boulevards or whatever piece of abutting lands, and if they don't maintain it, you're going to be collecting one way or another, from the taxes or by the courts. In other words, you're going to force homeowners or tenants to maintain it.
Ms Miles: Currently, the registered owners, by and large all of us, cut the grass in front and the whole of the grass. The only thing we're doing is fixing a bit of a loophole in the Municipal Act which does not give us a hammer if they do not, and it makes it very expensive for us to come out and cut one lawn in one subdivision.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, I have another question but I'd like to make some comments at the appropriate time, so if you could put me down to speak, I would appreciate it.
The Chair: Okay. The next question on this bill, Mr Pouliot.
Mr Pouliot: I will need your help, counsel; maybe we can do this together. I have immunity here, which mainly means that you cannot send me a bill for your help, for your counsel.
I'm trying to get to an analogy with some validity, a parallel that has meaning. In our small village where we live up north -- it's an organized municipality actually and I had the pleasure of serving 10 years with their municipal council -- we had a street, well, it was our definition of a boulevard, and from 33 feet from the centre line, as you extend towards the property, was the ownership, if you wish, of the town.
We had usage and enjoyment as property owners, but we had to reciprocate, so we went back to that 33 feet, or the portion of the 33 feet that was on our property. We all thought it was our lot even if it wasn't, and yet it was in intent and spirit. We did the snow on our lot, we seeded our lot, we mowed the grass, and it went both ways. What you're saying is that, in terms of quality of life, if I don't do it, if I draw a line, you come after me, you cut the grass and you send me a bill.
Ms Miles: Exactly.
Mr Pouliot: That's what it says here, no more than that.
Ms Miles: That's right.
Mr Pouliot: I find this commonsensical. Good work.
Mr O'Toole: A question from the committee: In preparation for these kinds of routine matters, for me as a committee person, if as has been suggested by Mr Ruprecht this has come before us before, we should know that, so we can spend less time rehashing. Even though I'm new and need to catch up, we're going to ask questions you've heard for 10 years. I'm sure you'll be bored. The point I'm making is, if we've dealt with a similar action from another municipality, we need to know that as part of our preparation kit. That's first, and it's a point to the committee Chair, if I may.
Secondly, to the representatives from Nepean, there are a couple of things in 1(a), "requiring the owners." "Requiring" is a very action-oriented word. It's not discretionary, it's very specific. I have very great difficulty with it. The reason I say that is it's requiring people to remove debris from the highway, the untravelled portion. Let's say there's a milk carton or a pop bottle, whatever, at the side of the road, I'm required to go on to a travelled thoroughfare and remove the bottle. Good luck.
1050
Anyway, I don't think you should be required to go into the legitimate place of traffic. You may not be, but you're exposing yourself. I think that's unrequired, and I think you should have sweepers and those things to cover to the curbs. If it's not curbed, then make it the ditch, depending on how the municipality is laid out. Could you respond to that?
Ms Miles: Could I just respond. I want to clarify this. In a kind of colloquialism, we often refer to the boulevard as the median dividing two lanes of traffic, and it may be seeded, it may not be. But the travelled portion abutting the highway or the untravelled portion abutting your highway is really the extra grass up to and before your property line on a survey. It's not the median that passes it. So if there's a milk --
Mr O'Toole: I think you should say that. If I read it and I'm new to your town and I'm having my first confrontation -- not that but -- "requiring the owners of land to clear away and remove garbage and other debris at their own expense from the highways abutting the land except the portion used" by the vehicle traffic. It says "highway."
The next one describes it in more detail; (c) is where it's clearly the landscaped portion. Do you understand? (c) tells me it is the boulevard or the fronting and connected property. A boulevard to me is when I have four lanes and a boulevard in the middle separating the four lanes, who cuts that? That should be the town, clearly.
Ms Miles: It does and it is. I guess the difficulty is that there is a defined term in the Municipal Act that talks about a boulevard just being that portion which is immediately abutting my property as opposed to the centre lane or median.
Mr O'Toole: The only question or comment I have is that perhaps the requirement to clear debris from the road -- let's say a bag of garbage falls off a car going by my house, am I required to go out on the road and clear the garbage? That's absurd.
Ms Miles: Not on the road, no.
Mr O'Toole: No, no. And it's sort of on the untravelled portion.
Ms Miles: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: I don't know. I have a problem with that.
The Chair: Mr O'Toole, with respect to your first section, perhaps we can also discuss that at the business subcommittee in keeping with Mr Ruprecht's request. The next question, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: Does the city have any concern about additional liabilities in requiring residents to do any work so that if it is clearing debris and there's some kind of injury, have you considered any kind of spinoff like that?
Ms Miles: We're not particularly concerned with respect to that issue. I believe it has been something that's been reviewed over the past 30 years with respect to the care-of-streets bylaw. It doesn't cause us any concern.
The Chair: Thank you for that concise and brief question. The next question, Mr Rollins
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): That was the same question that I had: Was there any liability on the municipality, particularly when you're demanding that those people go out on the curb or out on that boulevard, as you call it? I would prefer to call it a side boulevard. There's a centre boulevard and a side boulevard, and I think if you put into your terminology, side boulevards, you would be more specific of what your description of the property that you want cleaned up, because a boulevard description says "any portion of the road right of way that isn't being travelled on," whether it be in the middle or the edge or wherever it is.
I'm just wondering what kind of responsibility -- if I were out there cutting the grass and a car jumps the curb and hits me -- physical damage, I'm working for the city. Is there some onus on it?
Mr O'Toole: WCB.
Mr Rollins: I don't know whether we want to pay workers' compensation on that or not. I'm not sure whether we want to cover that under that.
Mr Pouliot: Under workfare?
Mr Rollins: If it's under workfare, that's fine, but is there some responsibility there for that community --
The Chair: Mr Rollins, did you want a response from the applicant?
Ms Miles: I acknowledge what you're stating, and it is an issue that has been brought to our attention before. We really do not feel that it increases the liability of the municipality although, to a certain extent, with respect to the current courts' decisions making municipalities insurers day after day after day, who knows what might happen in the future? What we're attempting to do is decrease our overall costs by lessening the burden on the taxpayer and putting it on the person it should be on, which is the abutting owner. I can't crystal ball gaze and tell you that 10 years down the road the Ontario courts may not consider the municipality an insurer at that point in time, in which case we'll repeal the bylaw.
Mr Rollins: I, as a homeowner, have to have insurance for somebody coming in on my property and being hurt, or anybody else. Therefore, is it not a smooth ball? Does it not go for the municipalities too? I would think that it should. But, as you say, you haven't had that problem, so my question's answered.
Mr Sergio: Just a question or comments, since this seems to be the order, Mr Chair. Did the Nepean council have any public hearing on this issue?
Ms Miles: This was done in association with the property standards bylaw and there were numerous public hearings and open houses that were conducted prior to the enactment. This was always a recommendation within it and in all the drafts of the property standards bylaw. So it was done in conjunction with that process.
Mr Sergio: Are you here then on behalf of the property standards department or on behalf of the council of the city of Nepean?
Ms Miles: Council of the city of Nepean. They made a number of separate recommendations and Pr13 was one and Pr14 was another.
Mr Sergio: But the council did not have public hearing on this issue?
Ms Miles: Yes, they did.
Mr Sergio: They did. Is the city prepared to indemnify homeowners for damages or injuries that may happen while conducting work on the boulevard?
Ms Miles: Frankly, I think it would be an insurance issue, which could be brought up with respect to our property. As Mr Rollins had said, "I, as a homeowner, need insurance." Well, in much the same way the municipality carries insurance with respect to these issues as well. It's just not been an issue that has been raised as yet.
Mr Sergio: Thank you for the answer. I can appreciate what the city's trying to do and I can appreciate Mr Baird for bringing this to the attention of the committee, but I'm not going to support it. I don't think it's supportable. I don't think this committee should recommend it.
I think it is strictly a local city issue. There are too many questions unanswered. I think we would be taking a very draconian attitude towards homeowners when homeowners are continually penalized. They make improvements to their homes and the assessment goes up and taxes go up, and this would be mostly unfair to homeowners, especially when the property is still in the possession and ownership of the city.
Too often agencies conduct work on boulevards, such as hydro cable, gas company, telephone, whatever, and often those agencies leave quite a mess on those boulevards, and then to say it's the responsibility of the owner to go after those agencies to make repairs and stuff like that I find totally unacceptable, to have this added burden on homeowners.
If the city cannot take responsibility and maintain those boulevards, especially when a homeowner -- let's say, they don't work most of them and the houses are rented, the grass is gone. I would find it very hard-pressed to go after a homeowner and say, "Hey, replace the grass on the boulevard," and stuff like that. I think this is a terrible action that this committee would recommend. I can't support it, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Response from the sponsor?
Mr Baird: I guess I would just indicate -- I'm sure the bylaw representative would concur -- the vast majority of homeowners of course accept this responsibility and do maintain with reasonable care that front two feet, in most cases, of their property. I guess the concern is, and this is why I'm supporting this legislation, that for the vast majority of homeowners who do -- we're talking about, you know, cutting two feet of grass on the front of their front lawn -- take that responsibility to sit and watch their next-door neighbour and have to pay -- all taxpayers, including the ones who do, have to pay for someone else to come in and take care of that delinquent property owner. So it's just a matter of fairness for those people who do take care of that small two feet, in most cases, of property.
The Chair: Have you a question, Mr Pouliot?
1100
Mr Pouliot: We can't double-dip on our past experiences as municipal councillors. We're the provincial jurisdiction. Oh, I know, counsel, that you must find it surprising -- you too, Madam -- from time to time to say, "Do I have to go? Is this not archaic? Does this belong under the auspices of provincial jurisdictional capacity?"
You know, this is a day of devolution. I'm not conducting a witchhunt, you see. What is it that can go wrong? What about if you have an access road? What about if, by way of a variance, you allow the utility company to come in and they forget to pick up the spare tire on the ground or whatever? The thing is, no, no; you're right, the three feet of grass that Harry and Jane Smith -- I hope there's no one with Harry -- there must be 10 in the phone book so they'll have to fight it out -- doesn't need three feet of grass because, as a neighbour, I find that our quality of life as a community-certainly mine -- has been impacted and I want to see that the other seven or eight cars that are left, you know, the junk yard, I don't want to see it as a neighbour. So we want to have consistency and quality of life. Well you have the tools to do it. If you have to come to the province and they give you the tools to do these commonsensical things -- Heaven forbid. There's too much of that. Good luck; 1 o'clock flight, the adviser can be there at 12:30, Madam.
Mr Baird: I'm constantly impressed by the good common sense of my colleague from Lake Nipigon.
The Chair: I'll call for the next question; Mr Hastings.
Mr Hastings: The only comment I want to make is I echo Mr Ruprecht's suggestion that counsel of the committee go back and look at -- and Mr Shea as well -- the pattern of this sort of special coming down to this committee to get special dispensation for doing this sort of stuff. If there's a broad enough pattern of different proposals from other cities that could be standardized, then I think we should have the minister take a look at that in the Municipal Act, where you have these kinds of issues arising again and again and again. I think it's a great idea of Mr Ruprecht.
The Chair: I remind you, we will be having a business subcommittee. A question, Mrs Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: Is there precedence for this bill as well, Mr Shea?
Mr Shea: There is indeed a precedent. It gives me great pleasure to tell you it would in fact it be North York -- I'll say that again, the city of North York in Metropolitan Toronto, Brampton, Windsor, Ottawa and York. There's a considerable possibility.
Mr Pouliot: What, the city of North York?
Mr Shea: I'll say that again. The city of North York has this empowerment and I --
Interjection.
Mr Shea: Yes, indeed it does, Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: No, sir. We do not force our citizens.
Mr Shea: I can recall very clearly Mayor Mel Lastman at Metro council talking about this with a great vengeance.
Mr Sergio: With all due respect, Mr Shea, the city of North York --
Mr Shea: Mr Sergio, I was delighted to hear your comments.
Mr Sergio: -- does not force its residents, I can tell you that.
The Chair: Both your comments are noted. Are we still with Mrs Pupatello? You had a supplementary question?
Mrs Pupatello: It just seems it's perhaps oversimplied to consider moving the ownership of the city property to the homeowner with the condition of easement to the city. It will eliminate a liability issue and certainly give additional land to the homeowner but would confirm that they would indeed take care of their own land. It's just a thought, but there's precedence already so I don't think it's needed.
The Chair: A new question, Mr Boushy.
Mr Boushy: I am actually in favour of the bill. The greatest majority of the people cut that portion of the grass anyway. We're only dealing with just a few people. My position is that I think the city has a responsibility to keep the city looking good and beautiful.
With regard to Mr Sergio's point that there's going to be a bylaw drawn up by the city and that bylaw would be advertised and there will be public hearings and the people will have the right to object and the city at that time has the right not to go ahead with the bylaw if there are enough objections -- so it'll be another way for the public to express opposition -- here, all we are doing is allowing the city to come up with a bylaw, and at that stage it could either go through or not. Am I right?
Ms Miles: Absolutely.
Mr Ruprecht: I think it was very interesting the comment that was made between the parliamentary assistant and Mr Sergio, as you just heard. It's not only a question of being fairly well informed, but if we were to do this a bit more efficiently, then we wouldn't have some of these comments to be made. This is just one more reason why it's important to do this in an effective manner.
But, Mr Chair, there's just one other item I'd like to add to my previous comments, if you don't mind, and that is, my comments did not only exclusively speak to this item in terms of garbage removal and grass cutting. There are a number of other items where city after city comes before the committee, and I'm speaking about trying to determine a way where this is no longer necessary.
It isn't just on one item. You should be looking at other items that are in the same category where a whole day -- for instance, if you looked at the city of Nepean today and you asked the question, "Are you taking off a whole day to come to Queen's Park for some of the employees?" the answer would be -- and in some cases they're not taking just one day to come here, in travelling time it might even take two days, which is a total drain on the taxpayer. I guess I'm clear enough to indicate to you that the issue is a bit broader than just one particular item. It should be inclusive of other items as well.
The Chair: Thank you for the questions. Are members of the committee ready to vote? Agreed.
With respect to Bill Pr14, and again following this process, shall sections 1 and 2 carry? Carried.
With respect to section 3, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I have a motion to put before the committee.
I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Default
"3. If an owner of land fails to comply with the bylaw passed under section 1 within the time specified in the notice given under section 2, the corporation may do the work or arrange for the work to be done and the corporation may recover all expenses, including administrative fees, from the owner by action or it may collect them in like manner as municipal taxes."
Just to provide some clarification, the purpose of the motion is to provide a power to recover the amounts owing that is similar to other municipal private bills dealing with grass and weeds.
The amounts under the new section can be recovered in like manner as municipal taxes. This means that the amounts can be administratively recovered through the tax bill but the amounts do not have the priority of municipal taxes. Municipal taxes come ahead of all other claims, such as mortgages.
If there are further questions, I will defer to the parliamentary assistant or counsel for the ministry.
The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry, as amended? Carried.
Shall sections 4, 5 and 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Will do.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Make it so.
The Chair: I wish to again thank the sponsor and all parties connected with this bill.
I will remind you on the back of the agenda we have a third bill to consider.
1110
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.
The Chair: I wish to call the bill on our next order of business, Bill Pr37. I would ask the sponsor, Mr Rob Sampson, MPP, Mississauga West, and applicants to come forward and briefly introduce themselves.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't know how we got to the back of the agenda list, but we'll have to work on that next time, I suppose.
I'm happy to speak to this. First of all, I'm Rob Sampson, and here from the city are Brian Duxbury, city solicitor's office, and Herb Droogendyk, city finance department. Do you want me to speak to the bill now, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I would ask the sponsor for comments, please.
Mr Sampson: This particular bill was first obtained by the city in 1987 and was renewed by the Legislature in 1990. What we're asking for is a renewal of this particular piece of legislation.
One of the larger differences that was drawn to my attention was that this particular piece of legislation as proposed has no time limit, but given that a considerable amount of Queen's Park time and a considerable amount of Mississauga staff time is consumed in renewing this piece of legislation on a five-year basis, it didn't seem appropriate for us to go through those hoops five years from now. So I was prepared to bring forward this bill without the five-year time horizon on it.
I'm going to have my colleagues from the city of Mississauga speak to the content of the bill, if that's okay with you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes. I'd ask the applicants to comment.
Mr Brian Duxbury: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill. The purpose of the bill is to extend a tax refund mechanism that the city uses to provide some limited tax relief for certain groups of individuals in the city of Mississauga, and those groups of people are defined in section 2 of the bill and you see that there. This is simply an extension request. The mechanism has been in place now since 1987 and provides limited relief.
The other technical component of the bill is an amendment to section 8 that would allow the treasurer or his or her designate to prepare the necessary registrations or give the necessary certificates that deal with the tax refund mechanism.
I guess the only other thing I should point out is that this tax refund is financed totally by the city of Mississauga, so it has no impact on any other agencies. Those are my comments, sir.
The Chair: I would ask the parliamentary assistant for comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Shea: The government has no objections to the passage of this bill.
The Chair: I would ask for questions, beginning with Mr Pouliot.
Mr Pouliot: Just a comment to summarize. I appreciate the presentation and you will convey, of course, our salutations, our greetings to Hazel McCallion. To reach legendary status at such a young age is somewhat uncommon.
Under good leadership -- and John, my distinguished colleague, is right -- not all subjects shall be treated the same. I have noticed -- with some envy, I live so far from those large cities -- that Mississauga has been the recipient, has benefited from immense wealth through assessment at the industrial, at the commercial and at the residential levels. It really has mushroomed over the past years, which brings us to this kind of benevolence.
I didn't know, I was not aware, not that I am a judge of character, that Hazel McCallion was the chairperson of the house of benevolence. I was all wrong, because she was in my office -- I had four ministries with the previous administration, and she was in my office constantly making some presentation. In fact I once referred to the distinguished mayor as being so honestly dishonest. She didn't come bearing gifts, but when we parted she was bearing my gifts on behalf of the province.
I'm happy to see that for those who need it the most, you have some stipulation as to what you do if you and your spouse are age 60 and you fill the criteria. I commend you. Again, that's at no cost to the province. These are difficult times, and they are still able nowadays to say, "We will give up to $500 to people who need it the most in recognition of their citizenry within our boundaries." Thank you. I have no more comments. I commend the city of Mississauga. I wish we were so lucky.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mrs Pupatello: Just out of curiosity, really, what is the method of repayment used on these types of loans?
Mr Duxbury: I have with me today Herb Droogendyk, who is our manager of revenue. Perhaps Mr Droogendyk will assist us with that question.
Mr Herb Droogendyk: Certainly. The loans are secured by a lien registered on the title at the time the first loan is given. The total loan amount is repayable at the time the property transfers title.
Mrs Pupatello: Are the $300 and $500 levels that you set out the typical loans?
Mr Droogendyk: We started out at $300 and increased it to $500 in 1991.
Mrs Pupatello: So the loans currently for the 66 outstanding are fairly significant, to total $114,000.
Mr Droogendyk: Right. The maximum as of December 31, 1994, was $3,200.
Mrs Pupatello: If it's not repaid, it puts you in a position to possess the home?
Mr Droogendyk: We've not had to do that. They've all been repaid.
Mrs Pupatello: But putting a lien on the title does, in effect, give you that opportunity. What would you do if the loans couldn't be repaid?
Mr Droogendyk: I don't know what we'd need to do. We've not had that problem up to now. Right now the maximum amount we've allowed is $3,200 over the term of the program, so there's not a whole lot of money to be recovered.
Mr Duxbury: If I might speak to that, the lien is recovered at the time of transfer and normally that would provide the mechanism for recovery, a sale of the property.
Mr Pouliot: Two years down the line.
Mr Duxbury: Yes.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Bisson: Just very quickly. Like my colleague, I'll vote in favour of this, but I want to point out just one thing. I understand what the city of Mississauga is doing here and quite frankly commend you for trying to do something to assist those people who are most vulnerable and most in need of help.
The only point I would make is that I think this is a good example of how really we're in need of better provincial coordination of how you do this stuff, because part of the problem I have with this here is that although it's good for the people that it reaches, it only affects property homeowners. In a lot of cases, we have a lot of people in these categories that you set out under section 2 who happen to be renters, by no fault of their own, who are just as much in need of help.
The only comment I would make is that I think this speaks to the need to have probably this kind of stuff not so much done by municipalities but by the provincial authority through a more comprehensive, universal program of some type. We don't have the money to do that at this point, obviously, but I think I would commend the city of Mississauga for doing what it can but would just say on behalf of a number of other people out there who happen to be tenants that there's nothing in this for them. But anyway, none the less, it's a step in the right direction.
Mr Pouliot: It should apply to landlords so it could trickle down.
Mr Bisson: Maybe we can bring forward a private bill dealing with that, to pass it on to the landlord. Never mind.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions or comments, are members ready to vote on this bill?
With respect to Bill Pr37, shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank the sponsor and the applicants. Thank you for the comments on this particular bill. I declare that order of business closed.
Before we adjourn, any further business not on the agenda?
Mrs Pupatello: I understand, in speaking with one of your members, that there's an opportunity to move the Canadian Niagara Power Co to this coming week's agenda. Is that so?
The Chair: I might ask the clerk to comment.
Mrs Pupatello: So they will be on this coming Thursday.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): The way we schedule is we tend to give people one week's notice, so after this meeting we'll call everybody for next week. They are on the list to be called for next week. I believe there may be some interested parties. Assuming there is no problem with scheduling, they will be on the agenda for next week.
Mr Shea: Just to facilitate the business of the committee and to pick up on a comment made by Mr Ruprecht, I'd like to move that the matter of tax exemptions be referred to the subcommittee to report back before the end of this session and, hopefully, before a first bill in terms of tax exemptions be heard, so we'll have a chance to report back to the committee.
The Chair: A request from the clerk: Could we have that in writing, just to clarify?
Mr Shea: Yes.
The Chair: The clerk could address that now. Is there some background? I'm sorry, Mr Shea, do you want to speak further to that?
Mr Shea: It's simply a matter of facilitating the affairs of this committee. There are a number of items and Mr Ruprecht was referring to one item where there's a lot of ongoing business that's been coming before this committee, month after month, and Mr Pouliot spoke to that as well.
There are ways I think for us to facilitate the business of this committee and get down to some more fundamental issues we should be debating, rather than constantly hearing -- tax exemptions tend to be one of those issues. We all know they come forward from a whole range of places, mostly municipalities, and I think there may be a way for us to wrestle with that and make some recommendations that would be agreeable to everyone, not only in the government but all parties. I would suggest the subcommittee in fact meet, discuss it, let's get on to it and then get down to the more important aspects of business of the committee.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed, if any? Motion carried.
Motion to adjourn? Adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1122.