Legislative Assembly of Ontario

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1996

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

CONTENTS

Wednesday 19 June 1996

Town of Richmond Hill Act, 1996, Bill Pr61, Mr Klees

Frank Klees, MPP

James Sidlofsky, assistant solicitor, town of Richmond Hill

Richard McGee, supervisor of bylaw enforcement, town of Richmond Hill

Lions Foundation of Canada Act, 1996, Bill Pr58, Mr Carr

Gary Carr, MPP

Kathy Graham, councillor, town of Oakville

Ron Brown, executive director, Lions Foundation of Canada

Beatrice Howell, assistant solicitor, town of Oakville

Michael Riley, counsel, policy priorities and curriculum development division, Ministry of Education and Training

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

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Chudleigh, Ted (Halton North / -Nord PC) for Mr Pettit

Lalonde, Jean-Marc (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L) for Mr Sergio

Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND) for Mr Bisson

Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr O'Toole

Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman

Staff / Personnel: Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, June 19, 1996.

Our first order of business is private bill 61, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill. I see both the sponsor and applicants have approached the witness table, and I call on MPP Frank Klees for some brief comments by way of introduction.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I had the pleasure of moving first reading of this bill on May 29 this year and I'm pleased to represent the bill before this committee this morning. I'd like to introduce to my immediate right Mr James Sidlofsky, assistant solicitor for the town of Richmond Hill. With him is Mr Richard McGee, manager of bylaw and licensing enforcement, who will be speaking to the bill. I'll ask them to provide the details regarding it.

Just in brief, this bill allows the council of the corporation of the town of Richmond Hill to pass bylaws requiring owners or occupants of private property to cut the grass and weeds on their property when they are more than 20 centimetres high. The purpose of this bill is that the current process they have to go through is extensive and provides for a great deal of red tape and delays.

I ask that the committee give serious consideration to giving speedy approval to this so that we can move it through the House and get on with cutting some weeds before the fall.

With that, I'd like to pass on to Mr Sidlofsky the opportunity to make his comments.

Mr James Sidlofsky: My comments will be brief. Currently the town deals with the situation of lawn grass and weeds through the property standards provisions of the Planning Act, section 31. The act has a process in place for dealing with property standards matters ranging from things like lawn grass and weeds to buildings that are in the process of caving in.

The process can be fairly lengthy. The first step is to issue a notice of violation under section 31 of the act. Following the issuance of the notice of violation, there's an opportunity for the owner or occupant of the property to contact the municipality and address those issues. In the event that they aren't addressed, an order is issued. The applicant then has two weeks to appeal that order to the town's property standards committee. There is a further appeal process that involves a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division).

Following that, when the order is confirmed on appeal or is final and binding because it hasn't been appealed, the municipality is eventually entitled to enter the property and do the required work. By the time that process has been undertaken, that's approximately two months. In the event of an appeal, the process is longer.

The town of Richmond Hill has some concerns about entering on to private property, so the process we use is slightly different in that we will prosecute under the terms of the Planning Act. That involves the arrangement of court dates, the setting aside of time in the court with a justice of the peace, the use of time by the town's prosecutor and the town's administrative staff to prepare the material for court and ultimately the loss of approximately half a day on the part of the bylaw enforcement officer or, in this case, the property standards officer who would have to attend in Newmarket court to address the charges.

As has been done by six other municipalities in the province, we would like to shorten that process. We're asking that this legislation be enacted which would allow the town to pass bylaws providing 72 hours' notice for the cutting of grass and weeds that exceed eight inches in length. This is consistent with the other municipalities, including North York, Brampton and Etobicoke, that have similar legislation.

The town is certainly not interested in running around with lawnmowers cutting people's grass as soon as it hits eight inches. There is a 72-hour notice period provided for in the draft legislation that will allow the owners or occupants to contact the municipality and make arrangements to cut their own grass if they're inclined to do so, but it will ultimately save time in the court process and in the administrative process in dealing with these problems.

We have received copies of two letters from the clerk of the committee containing objections to this proposed legislation. I'd like to address those briefly. If the Chair wishes, I'd be happy to answer any questions about the specifics of the legislation. Specifically, if the notice isn't responded to within 72 hours, town staff would be empowered to enter on to the property and cut the long grass and weeds and charge the amount spent on that work back to the owner or occupant of the property.

There is an offence section as well in the draft legislation. I believe the committee has before it a motion to strike subsections (7) and (8) of the draft which was introduced to the Legislature. Those deal with instalment payments. That's a fairly technical matter, because the Municipal Act provides for the collection of these moneys by instalments.

The second item that would be deleted is the limitation of the corporation's liability. I understand there were some concerns on the part of Ministry of Municipal Affairs policy staff as to the inclusion of that subsection. The town doesn't object to those deletions.

Three subsections are being added. Two of them create offences -- one for individuals, one for corporations -- in the event that there is obstruction of town staff when they enter on to the property to perform the work; secondly, in the event that there is failure to comply with a bylaw passed under this draft legislation. Finally, there is an amendment in that there would be a new subsection (9) providing that municipalities' rights or duties with respect to highway rights of way are not affected by anything in this private legislation.

With respect to the two letters that have been received, I will deal with those if the Chair wishes me to at this point. If there are questions about the mechanics of the legislation, I'd be happy to address those.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sidlofsky. Mr McGee, do you have any comments before we go to the committee for questions?

Mr Richard McGee: We're not a proactive enforcement agency in Richmond Hill. Our staff is too small for proactiveness. We respond to complaints. This legislation would allow us to deal with complaints and expedite the time frame where we do receive complaints. We're not going to go around and look for grass that's longer than eight inches and then deal with it through this bylaw. We'll only deal with it when we receive a complaint. That's the purpose, essentially, of this act.

The Chair: I thank the applicants. Are there any other interested parties in the committee room? Seeing none, I now ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Mr Shea, for his comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): The request by Richmond Hill that's been put forward by Mr Klees is quite in order. The ministry and the government are quite prepared to accept it with the amendments the deputant has referred to.

For the benefit of the committee, I remind us that a number of municipalities have the same kind of legislation currently. I have citations for North York, Etobicoke, Brampton, Ottawa, York and Toronto, for example.

Our suggestion in the ministry is that subsection 1(7) -- it's more usual for large capital expenditures and not for operational matters of a minor nature, which is why the ministry is saying that should be struck, and you see the deputation agrees to that. Subsection 1(8) to limit liability: The ministry suggests that is better served by the municipal reform initiative that's going on right now and that should be tabled with the House perhaps by the end of this term or the beginning of the next term. That will be brought together as part of the total government administrative initiative in that regard.

The government first of all supports the overall policy thrust of the bill and suggests that we should support it with the recommendation that we delete subsections 1(7) and 1(8) and that we substitute them with new subsections (7) and (8) and (9).

The Chair: I now call for questions from committee members.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have no problem with this act. However, suppose an owner goes and buys 20 acres at the edge of town, away from residential areas, away from traffic. There's only one home nearby, and the homeowners complain all the time that they want the 20 acres cut. Don't you think it creates hardship for the owner of the 20 acres that he has to cut the grass all the time if there's nobody around but one complainant?

Mr Sidlofsky: Generally municipalities have discretion as to prosecutions. I acknowledge certainly that we act on a complaint basis. However, there remains a certain amount of prosecutorial discretion in the process. It may be possible in the case the member has raised to reach some sort of compromise for the cutting of a portion of the property, at least a portion that abuts the one owner who may be concerned about the long grass. I suggest there are ways to deal with that in the context of this legislation.

The complaints we have had are generally with vacant lots in builtup residential areas. There are some rural areas in Richmond Hill. The entire town isn't built out at this point. However, many concerns relate to the one- or two-building lot area that's surrounded by other residential development and is simply sitting there vacant. There are also occupied residences where the owners aren't maintaining their property. Certainly for the example the member suggested, I suggest there are ways to deal with that within this legislation.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Very quickly for the table, subsections (7) and (8) have been struck. Is that correct?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): If that amendment is carried, that would be the effect, and adding a new subsection (9).

1020

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I was surprised when I read Bill Pr61, because I thought the municipality had the full control to have a bylaw in place under the property standards section. In my own town, how we were doing it was advising the owner of the land, not the tenant, that he had five days to cut the grass, and if not, we would send municipal employees to cut it and send him the bill, and if he didn't pay, we'd add this to the municipal tax bill. Isn't that the actual procedure at the present time?

Mr Sidlofsky: The town's procedure certainly is at this time to deal with these matters through the property standards section of the Planning Act, section 31. We are required, though, under that section, to issue a notice of violation. If the notice of violation isn't complied with -- and the owner or occupant does have a certain length of time; it's not specified in section 31, but there is a length of time which must be given to the owner or occupant to respond to that notice. Following that, an order is issued. Ultimately, if an order is issued and isn't complied with, the municipality does have the authority under section 31 to go in and do the work.

To use a larger example perhaps, for a lot with debris on it, construction material on it, the municipality would have the authority to go in and do that work, but under section 31 that is only after a process of the issuance of orders and the opportunity for an owner or occupant to respond to the notice and to appeal the order.

The town of Richmond Hill's practice is to charge individuals once an order has become final and binding. That takes us into the court process. That can be a number of months, even to set a date in court for that prosecution, simply because the town of Richmond Hill is only assigned a certain amount of court time. I believe now it's half a day a month in Newmarket court. That doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for trial open, which means that at the end of the process, it's the next growing season.

Mr Lalonde: When I look at subsection 1(2), "72 hours after the giving of the notice," and at subsection 1(5), "If the owners or occupants have failed to comply," what really scares me is that at times the owner is not aware that the grass hasn't been cut. By the time you get hold of the owner, the owner could get the surprise of getting a bill for having the employees go down to his property to cut the grass.

I had an example just recently on the hydro bill. When a person sold his house, he had a lien on his house that he wasn't aware of at all. In this case, if the owner is from out of town, by the time he gets the notice in the mail that if he doesn't comply with the law the employees have the right to go on his property and cut the grass -- I think 72 hours is a little too short. It should be a minimum of five working days.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Unless there are further questions from the committee, and given what I've heard from the parliamentary assistant and the applicants, I certainly have no objection to the bill, subject to the following amendment, and I would like to put forward a motion at this point in time, if I may.

The Chair: I do have a question from Mr Wood.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As a follow-up from Mr Lalonde, I'm wondering about the enforcement. For example, if somebody's away on vacation for a month or whatever, when he comes back is he going to find that somebody came and cut his grass and he's got a bill in the mail? Or there may be other reasons. If it's properly enforced, I wouldn't have much concern about it. But I'm concerned that if there are battles or arguments between neighbours, all of a sudden somebody's out there with a measuring tape saying, "Here's a chance to retaliate."

It's very similar to bylaws some towns have that the sidewalk must be shovelled so many hours after a storm, and I know for a fact that there is retaliation between neighbours and businesses and one thing or another on that. I'm just wondering if we're going to create a situation of that kind. It sounds nice to be able to say that all the lawns are going to be cut and any abandoned lots are going to be cut and the grass is going to be nice, but what is this going to create in that community?

Mr Shea: I recognize the concerns expressed by Mr Lalonde and Mr Wood. I'd just remind the committee that the 72 hours is consistent with all the other legislation in place for all the other municipalities, so this keeps it right on the stream. And one would expect that municipalities would exercise some degree of sensitivity and awareness to the particular circumstances, and most property standards officers and municipal officers have been pretty diligent in that regard.

The Chair: Are there any further questions to the applicants or to our parliamentary assistant? Hearing none, are the members ready to vote? Okay.

Before we vote, I wish to make note that we have some distinguished visitors to this committee, a delegation of Ethiopian parliamentarians who were suitably introduced previously in the Legislature. We welcome you to our committee.

We are voting on Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the town of Richmond Hill. Mr Smith, you have indicated you have an amendment to section 1.

Mr Smith: I move that subsections 1(7) and (8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Offence

"(7) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

"(a) obstructs or attempts to obstruct an official named in the bylaw or any person acting under the official's instructions in the exercise of a power under this section; or

"(b) fails to comply with a bylaw passed under subsection (1).

"Same

"(8) If a corporation commits an offence under subsection (7), every director and officer of the corporation who knowingly concurs in the commission of the offence is guilty of an offence.

"Highway right of way

"(9) Nothing in this section affects any right or duty of the corporation with respect to any highway right of way."

The Chair: Any discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall this bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report this bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

I wish to thank the sponsor and the applicants, and I now declare this order of business closed.

1030

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada. The sponsor is Gary Carr, MPP, and I ask the sponsor and the applicants to approach the witness table.

I would remind the committee that this private bill was discussed at considerable length on Wednesday, May 15 of this year, and at that time committee agreed to defer this bill to be reconsidered at a later date. This is now the business before us. I'd ask the sponsor and the applicants to again present brief comments on this bill.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The delegation this morning will be coming forward with some information. With us this morning representing the town are Councillor Kathy Graham, Ron Brown, who was here before, as well as Beatrice Howell.

Kathy is going to give us an update of what has transpired. The mayor, unfortunately, had a death in the family and has had to go back to England, but Kathy is very familiar with the situation. What we hope to do today is give you a bit of an update on this situation. We're not going to go through the validity of the issue; Ron did that to some extent last time. But Kathy's going to give some additional information which we think will be helpful to this committee.

Mrs Kathy Graham: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members. Thank you for receiving us this morning. I bring regrets from Mayor Mulvale. However, I'm fairly familiar with the situation, as the institute is smack in the middle of the ward I represent. I will try to be succinct. I realize you have reviewed this previously, so I'll try and get to the crux of the matter immediately.

In a brief background, the Lions Foundation in 1983 was tax-exempt. Ten years later, in 1993 when they began to put on an addition, they went to the assessment board and found that the assessment board was now not permitting such exemptions. This put them in a very difficult position.

I'm sure you know that the Lions Foundation provides a very unique service in providing seeing-eye dogs, special-skill dogs and hearing-ear dogs. They are the only foundation institute of this type in all of Canada. Their success story, as I think Mr Brown alluded to the last time, results in 195 persons no longer receiving welfare assistance, becoming independent and being able to live full lives in our community.

I'd like to point out to you that the town of Oakville and the region of Halton both support the exemption and that the people of Oakville support it as well; there has been no call to the town hall in any indication whatsoever of lack of support for this item.

I would like to focus on two issues I picked up, and I apologize if I'm repeating anything. What I have done is to read the Hansard transcript and try to pick up what I thought were the issues identified previously, and I've picked on two.

Certainly one concern would appear to have been with precedent-setting. I would like to assure you that this is not a service club exemption. This foundation is such, as I say, that it serves all of Canada, but 70% of its clients come from the province of Ontario. They receive support: They have a community-charity partnership that exists throughout Canada, but again mostly in the province of Ontario.

There is nothing that can compare with this institute and it is not solely supported by Lions clubs. Lions clubs supply only 23%; the balance, as I say, is covered by corporate sponsorships.

The other question clearly is the question of the board of education. Linda Glover, the chairman of the board of education, met with the mayor and MPPs on June 10, and it became clear at that meeting that the previous November when the board of education had turned down the application, the board was under the misunderstanding that it was collecting taxes on this piece of property at that time. They have never had taxation from this piece of property. It has always been exempt. That was news to them. They thought they were giving up something. Well, you can't give up something you've never had.

We have time constraints. We have had individual meetings. The mayor has had them with the chair of the board and with various trustees, as well as correspondence. The board of education was in the throes of its budget deliberations and therefore this item has not come back to them for reconsideration.

I understand that you have a handout from the board of education. That material refers to the November 1995 decision; as I say, that decision was made on misinformation that these taxes were presently being collected, which they are not.

I think it's important to note as well that in the overall scheme of things for the board of education, the number of dollars being spoken of is very small, and there's a good partnership between the municipality and the board of education. We are presently seeking at the OMB to have assessment changed where industrial properties are being used for farm land; they are trying to be assessed as farm land when indeed they are zoned for industrial. The board of education, which will not be present at the OMB hearing and will be represented solely by solicitors from the town of Oakville, the board of education alone, if we win that appeal, will receive $200,000 without having to expend any money at all to achieve that. So we do try to work closely.

But we feel very strongly that the Lions Foundation is a very exceptional case, that it deserves the support of the municipality, the region and the province in order to be successful. This morning we would ask you, please, to support Gary Carr's private member's bill.

Mr Carr: I'd just like to add quickly that we've been through this now for quite a bit of time, having spoken with the Lions people. Without getting into too much detail of the worthwhile cause of the organization, this is a bill that very clearly should be passed.

The Chair: I would ask for any further comments from other applicants at this time before we go to questions.

Mr Ron Brown: At this time, I think anything I might say would be totally repetitious.

Mrs Beatrice Howell: I'm only here really to answer any questions, legal or technical questions that could arise.

The Chair: Are there any other interested parties to this bill? Seeing none, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Mr Shea, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Shea: First of all, on behalf of the government we obviously express our condolences to Mayor Mulvale, and we'll hope our member Mr Carr will express that for us and make sure she knows. I know she would like to be here particularly to deal with this issue. It's one of intense interest to her and she deserves a great deal of commendation for that, and it's with sadness we learn of the family difficulties.

As I said the last time we dealt with this, there is no doubt that this is an extremely worthwhile project. I think there's no member of this committee, and it doesn't matter what side we're on, who would say otherwise. It is an extremely fine project. I know our ministry and the government would be puzzled by the reluctance of the school board to recognize that in the way it would normally recognize it in other settings by forgiving or writing off its portion of the taxes. We're puzzled by that.

But the government still continues in its position that the existing motion as it's brought before us has a problem for us. The problem involves the principle of who is responsible for which budget. The issue, quite simply put, is that the municipality is at this point calling upon the provincial government to dispense with taxes that are the rightful domain of the school board to determine. That school board, duly elected and democratically elected, has to determine its position in the face of its taxpayers, its ratepayers, the people who vote the trustees into office, what it will or will not do to exercise its responsibility, the same way that principle applies to the city councillors and regional councillors.

1040

They have determined that this is an extremely worthwhile project and deserves to have its tax exemption granted. That is a position they've made very clear time and time again, and one I personally endorse and support. But the government also is in the position of reminding us that it does not override lightly the rights and responsibilities of elected governments, and the Halton school board is one that, at this point in time, still stands with a motion that says they are not prepared to grant tax exemption for their portion of the taxes on this property.

We have had some rumours -- and I say nothing but rumours -- that have come to us indicating that the school board may in fact be rethinking that position. If that is the case, what is suggested is a series of amendments today that would in the first instance allow the tax exemption to immediately be applied in so far as it relates to the local tax and the regional taxes. In so far as the Halton Board of Education tax portion is concerned, that would be amended and it would be left out, and that would be left entirely in the hands of the school board to determine what it would do in terms of its taxes and whether it would grant exemptions or not.

That amendment would certainly sit agreeably with the government, and the ministry would be quite prepared to support that amendment. At the very least, it would get this matter moving forward and rightfully would bring that last portion of the issue before the school board for its resolution. If there is the support that the deputants' chairman has indicated is there, certainly in Oakville and beyond, and it is an area that I know is to be taken quite seriously because of the good works of this institute, I would suspect the Halton school board may wish to revisit this with some speed.

In short, the government's position is still firm in terms of the principle of accountability of responsibility of budgets at each level. One government should not be capable of dealing with another level of government's budget. We respect the right of the municipality and the region to say they will defer or exempt their portion of the taxes. We also respect the right of the board of education to be diligent and accountable to its ratepayers, who are often one and the same. Still and all, the trustees will have to be accountable for that.

If the amendments are placed and if the amendments carry, the government and the ministry are quite supportive. If the motion stays just as it is right now, I continue to exercise that caution and to advise the committee that the ministry has concerns about it.

The Chair: We now begin a rotation of questions from the committee either to applicants or the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Actually, I wanted to make a statement, if that's all right, Mr Chair.

The contribution the Lions Foundation makes to the people of Ontario and all of Canada has been well documented. I was not sitting in committee at the last meeting. I've been through the Hansard report.

The parliamentary assistant has talked about what level of government is responsible. The fact is that in this particular case the Halton Board of Education, as in some other cases, has not been responsive and, in my view, has not been responsible to the people's wishes.

It's a board that has some problems. In March they fired 572 teachers; in May they hired back 572 teachers. Five members of the board, including the chair, are currently being sued by the taxpayers' coalition for a conflict of interest.

It's a board that failed to recognize the tremendous contribution of the Lions Foundation and the crucial needs of blind and disabled people across Ontario. I believe when they voted on this matter, they didn't even realize what they were voting for. They thought they'd be losing revenue when they never had this revenue all along anyway.

So we have a decision to make, and I can tell you, the members of provincial Parliament from Halton support the town of Oakville and support Mr Carr in his private member's bill. We represent the same people that the school board does. We represent the same people the regional chair does, and the mayor of Oakville. I know the people would agree with this bill and I know they would agree that the school board made a mistake. In the name of these people, in the name of fairness, in the name of fairness to the blind and disabled people across Ontario, I support the bill as originally read on May 6.

In the previous meeting, the parliamentary assistant talked about protocol of the committee and the principle of democracy. There's another principle at stake here, which is representing the people of Halton, which is our duty. They're the ones who pay the taxes, and I believe they would approve of this bill.

I'd like to move now that the committee pass this bill as read on May 6.

The Chair: I have further questions. We won't entertain a motion at this point, because we go through clause-by-clause for amendments.

Mrs Pupatello: I have a quick question. Now that you know the school board is aware that they were not collecting taxes from 1984 through 1994, have they changed their position in terms of support of this project?

Mrs Graham: As I indicated, we met with them on June 10, and they were surprised to discover that they had not been collecting these taxes. I was not present at the meeting but Mayor Mulvale was and she explained to them this issue, and she feels there is a new understanding. We expected that this would go before the board for reconsideration. As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, I believe the board of education meetings now will cease until fall and we will probably not be able to get before them to discuss any kind of reconsideration until then. But the letters that were sent out, the discussions that were had, clearly straightened out the misinformation they had. There was no question that they understood that they were collecting these taxes and were giving up something when indeed they'd never had it. When they voted in November, that was the understanding.

Mrs Pupatello: What is the financial significance between today and the fall in being able to address the school board with this new information? What is the financial difference to the organization?

Mrs Graham: Maybe Mr Brown can help me with this. Having put a new addition on to the school to accommodate special-skills dogs and the hearing-ear dogs, and this is what brought this issue forward in 1993, now a question of development charges etc has come up. I'm not sure, Mr Brown, at this point -- maybe you can help us -- whether you've had to pay those or are waiting in abeyance of those? What is the situation financially?

Mr Brown: Oh, no. They are paid now.

Mrs Graham: So it would be a case of a refund to them.

Mrs Pupatello: A rebate?

Mrs Graham: A rebate.

Mrs Pupatello: As a matter of course, I would be supportive of the bill. I think there is a move afoot that more and more responsibility be put on community agencies like yours to do more with less, and the charity field is becoming much more crowded, your fund-raising capabilities are being strained, and you're going to have to find very many more creative ways to raise money. One of those ways is to lessen your expense, and this hopefully would at least maintain the level of expense in terms of taxes. I would be supportive of the bill regardless.

I would only hope that if it didn't matter, regardless of the outcome of the bill today, the committee might be prepared to receive it again in the fall, giving you the opportunity to go back to the school board -- if the mayor is on side, the kind of political pressure you can exert on those elected officials of the school board. Even if the bill doesn't pass through this committee today, you could come back with it and say you now have school board support. It's interesting that you actually are an educational institution, and the school board ought to give that due consideration when they're deliberating in the fall. But I would be supportive regardless.

Mrs Graham: Thank you.

1050

Mr Len Wood: I agree with about 90% or 95% of the comments that Mr Young has made. We're talking about a training school for guide dogs. I have some of those in my riding, and it makes the people very productive in society, being able to get around without having to have somebody else with them at all times, and they become more a part of society.

I was at the presentation that was made here on May 15. When Mr Carr came over and consulted me about it, I said, "I want to read more." I am disappointed that the Halton Board of Education hasn't dealt with the issue from May 15 until now, because it seems like a very good bill that everybody should be supporting, and for them to stay in the way and send a letter dated June 18, saying that the board does not support the tax exemption for this property, based on information they had that might not have been right, because as the presentation has said, they thought they were getting money and they're not actually getting it -- so for them to continue to take the same position, I would be supporting this bill as is.

Just going back one further, when I said I support 90% or 95% of the comments of Mr Young, maybe the board is retaliating against Snobelen, who created the crisis, and is saying. "We're not going to agree with anything that is going on." Maybe that's it, because we know that we like to blame the school boards for laying off teachers and firing secretaries and cleaners and this and that, but in reality it was a crisis that was created by the Minister of Education, Mr Snobelen. That situation still hasn't been resolved. But the bill is a good bill and if there is a motion to support it as is, I will be supporting it.

Mr Boushy: I would also support this bill. As was pointed out, this is not a service club. We're not going to be having private bills across the province every day. This is a special-needs program and our party is committed to the physically challenged people, to help them out.

I'd just like to point out one more thing. If the municipal council has endorsed this, and the board of education has not endorsed it, it stands to reason that, in my opinion, municipal council has a much broader representation than the board of education with regard to the responsibility for its citizens, including the board of education. They're elected right across, not only to deal with the board of education; they collect taxes for the board of education. They're responsible for collecting taxes. They get the blame if the taxes are high. So if I had a choice between support of municipal council or the board of education, I would certainly support the municipal council because it has a broader representation to the people.

The amendment is quite a bit watered down from the original bill. It couldn't be accepted, as far as I am concerned.

I'll support it.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Firstly, I'd like you to understand that I strongly support your Lions group as a group, never mind your school for the blind; I also support that. But the nature of the organization is not the question here, all right? The nature of the organization is irrelevant. The facts are that the duly constituted body who's elected by the population of your community has the authority to do or not do as it sees fit, according to its bylaws. You accept that, would you, or would you not?

Mrs Graham: Yes, of course.

Mr Sheehan: Okay. If a similar thing developed and we were to come on and try to overrule a decision of the town council, it would be viewed with considerable objection, wouldn't it? Because the territories are clearly delineated in the law and we must respect them.

As much as we would like to support you, I can't, because then we're setting a very serious precedent. The fact that it's the Lions school for the blind training the dogs is neither here nor there; we're setting a very dangerous precedent that the provincial Legislature would in fact overrule and intrude in the affairs of a lower level of government. So I can't support it. I would love to support it; it's a very worthwhile cause. But we're talking about principle, and principle exceeds the worthiness of the cause that you're espousing.

If I understand it correctly, and I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant, Mr Shea, what you're proposing here is to approve the exemption requested as it relates to the region and as it relates to the towns and the various municipalities involved, and if at some point in the future the school board authorizes or requests -- whatever the term is -- the exemption, this legislation, as amended, would in effect facilitate that and there would be no further reason to come back here. Is that correct?

Mr Shea: If the issue is kept very simply and cleanly before this committee, we have a choice of amending or not. If we choose to vote in favour of the bill that's placed before us today, that will mean that we are saying, as you have pointed out, that notwithstanding the comments of the board of education, we have decided that you will provide a tax-exempt status. If we vote against the bill, with all of the kinds of heavy-heartedness that you have pointed out in your comment, it will then leave the status as it is now, with the council and the regional municipality having said they will tax-exempt their portion of the tax base, and it will leave the school board to make its decision whether it will or will not grant the exemption. That would be the effect of voting against the bill today.

Mr Sheehan: What do the amendments achieve?

Mr Shea: There are no formal amendments before us right now.

Mr Sheehan: But the ones that are suggested.

Mr Shea: I know there was some discussion that the deputant might suggest some amendments, but at this point no amendments are put forward. In point of fact, if we vote against the bill, it would be almost as though the amendments had been put; the effect would be almost the same. For that reason, I think the deputant has indicated no need to put amendments forward. You simply decide whether you vote for or against the bill.

We understand the consequences of the vote either way. If we vote in favour of the bill, there is another sidebar to that which I think probably we need to consider, but I'm sure all members have, and that is what the financial impact might be not only on the school board, when it has said it doesn't want to do it, and then in terms of what the implications might be in terms of the school board then turning back to the province and saying, "Is there an impact on our grants from you as a result of that decision?"

Mr Carr: To Mr Sheehan, I think it's important to note that all three staffs originally made recommendations not to do this. Staffs being what they are, they talked similarly to our ministry. In the case of the region and the town, they overruled the staff. In the case of the school board, it simply came forward and they rubber-stamped -- exactly. Without airing our dirty laundry in public, unfortunately that happens too often.

What I would implore this committee to do, and particularly the government members, is to look at the merit of it, because what we would be doing is the same thing. Notwithstanding some of the fine comments made by the ministry, each of us should look at the bill, as I have done, and I've struggled with the same question you have. What we will be doing is allowing a good project like this -- there are severe financial constraints on the Lions Club as it is.

Quite simply, to put in a nutshell what happened, when it came to the school board, the staff said, "This is what you will do," and they rubber-stamped it. To their credit, the chair and the mayor and the elected officials were a little bit more open. Staffs being what they are, they gave the same recommendations and probably the same eloquent -- probably not as eloquently as Derwyn did -- reason for not proceeding. What I ask you to do is look at the merits of it, because I'm like you, I've struggled with this as well, but I want to tell you, having looked at it, this is a bill that should pass.

1100

Mr Sheehan: Can I respond to that?

The Chair: A supplementary question?

Mr Sheehan: I guess so. I just can't let that stand, because the principle is not the worthiness of this cause. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with whether or not we're in favour of training animals that provide a wonderful service. Everybody accepts that. I don't vote against this bill with a positive attitude, but we must respect our laws, we must respect our institutions, and the laws are such that that organization, duly elected, has the right to do what it did, whether you perceive it as right or wrong. It's a duly constituted, elected body and it's not this committee's place to override it, because it's fundamental to the whole system of governance we have in the province. That's why I can't support it, Gary.

Mrs Graham: I just want to respond to a couple of questions that Mr Sheehan put forward. I think we felt we were on the right track. We had an exceptional circumstance, and as the senior level of government we felt it appropriate, since you provide the financial support and basically the rules under which the board of education works, that we should come to you as our course of appeal to have this matter dealt with, in view of the instances that Mr Carr has referred to.

I don't believe the board of education would have a case to come back to ask you about a grant's impact, because as I understand it, in formulating the grants, it's based upon taxation presently collected. They do not presently collect from the Lions foundation, so it shouldn't have an effect on their grant situation.

I really feel in many ways, with all due respect, this is a minor matter that should not have reached the point of this table. Frankly, in view of the dollars involved, the significance to the foundation -- when you look at the dollars that are involved, this particular circumstance should never have taken place. It should not have taken up your time. But we're here because you are our court of appeal and that is why we have asked Mr Carr to put forward this bill and ask for your support today.

The Chair: Just to clarify information on the grant reference, Mr Shea?

Mr Shea: Mike Riley from education I think is the appropriate staff person who has the specialty in that regard. Perhaps I'll ask him to respond.

Mr Michael Riley: Basically, the tax situation would depend on the assessment of the property, whether the property has been properly shown on the assessment roll for a period of years. It's not unusual for properties or parcels of land to be shown as taxable when they shouldn't have been, or vice-versa. I gather -- I'm surmising -- this is what has happened in this case. The point remains that I gather the property does not come within the general exemptions from taxation provided for under the Assessment Act. That, of course, is why you're here today, to seek a private bill to provide in a sense a particular exemption for this property.

On the issue of the grant impact, my information is basically that we're looking at $26,000 per year in school taxes, of which $18,000 -- I use the word "loss" advisedly; you're in a position to determine whether this is a true loss or not. But the loss in taxation would mean that under the general legislative grants, the province would pick up $18,000 of that, and $8,000 would be picked up by the Halton board in terms of a burden resulting from this loss of assessment. As I say, I use the term "loss" advisedly.

Mrs Pupatello: I do think that at the end of the day everyone recognizes that this is a rare instance, and the crux of the matter becomes whether in fact the school board will be losing revenue as a result of this. I think it is arguable -- and whether that's actually going to have to become litigated or not is the question; hopefully not -- that indeed the board is not losing revenue as a result of this exemption. On that basis, even our red tape commissioner could feel comfortable in knowing there isn't going to be a negative impact on that school board because of this rare instance.

On the issue of a higher level of government imposing this kind of outcome on a lower-level or lower-tier elected official, I submit that in the passing of Bill 26, when we discussed the issue of amalgamations, for example, we will have instances where elected officials of towns, townships, cities, villages who do not wish to be amalgamated will be, regardless of what the elected official at a lower level will want, and that will be by the stroke of a pen of a minister at a higher level. So your principles, unfortunately, have already been broken if that's an issue.

But I think, back to this issue, the crux of the matter is that the school board would be in a position to say it will not find less money as a result of this exemption, and that ultimately has to be decided today. That is the issue, and on that basis you could feel comfortable supporting the bill.

Mr Smith: At the outset, having been through the initial committee hearing on this issue, I have to say I'm extremely disappointed that there was not some resolution brought forward locally. I understand the comments you made about time constraints and the board's focus on budgetary problems. I still have a difficult time understanding, in an issue that is as important as this to Oakville and community, how the three parties and perhaps my own colleagues could not have caucused this issue and brought resolution to the matter. From the outset I had some deep concerns about that because I accept the sincerity by which you have made the presentation, and Her Worship, and fully appreciate the merit of the work the foundation does.

As a matter of clarification, I was prepared to make a motion to introduce amendments but, through you, Mr Chair, to the clerk, I want to be very sure about this. In essence, the bill belongs to the applicant, and any amendments I would propose are really amendments of the applicant. I would have to say it's not evident today that the applicants are prepared to introduce those amendments, and from that perspective I have some reservation about introducing those amendments without their concurrence. If that is the scenario, in essence what we are doing is either voting in favour of the bill as presented and printed, or alternatively, voting against it and not accepting it. Is that the scenario we're faced with presently?

Clerk of the Committee: In essence. I'd just like to clarify a few things. Every member has the right to move an amendment. I guess that's the bottom line. In private bills generally, amendments are usually agreed upon between the applicant and whoever they happen to be negotiating with, so in 99.9% of the cases the applicant agrees with the amendments and that's why the amendments are moved. In the rare situation where the applicant does not agree with the amendments, no member is precluded from moving them, but the applicant does have the right, which has happened before, not to proceed any further with the bill because it is no longer the bill the applicant wanted, and it is in essence their bill.

Mr Smith: To the applicants, I assume you've had the opportunity to review the amendments and that in your review of the amendments you're prepared to remain with the bill as printed versus proceeding with the amendments, so you're not supporting the amendments.

Mrs Graham: No. The question of the amendments, when we looked at them -- we feel they don't address the issue we've come here to resolve. We could go back in the fall to the board of education and ask for a formal motion, certainly. We feel that would not be constructive community work because, as municipal elected officials both locally and regionally, as I indicated earlier, there has been a tremendous amount of support for initiatives we have taken in exempting our portion of our right to collect those taxes.

I do not think it would be in the best public relations interest of the board of education to reopen this issue, because I think they would not look favourable in it, but if that were the route we had to go, if we had to go back and do that we certainly would.

To me, in view of the dollars involved here, the simplest route is to resolve it today, but certainly if the committee requires this of us -- we tried to achieve it. May 15 and June 10 we met with them as quickly as we could. We just couldn't get back on a docket, and it would take us until fall.

Our first preference is that today you approve the parliamentary bill as put forward. I'll understand if you feel a referral is necessary, but our preference is that we go forward today.

1110

Clerk of the Committee: I'd just like to clarify one procedural thing also. If no amendments are introduced on this bill and this bill is defeated, the applicant would be required to start the entire process all over.

Mr Shea: I can't let Mrs Pupatello's comments about Bill 26 go without at least having on record a response. Clearly there is a significant difference between amalgamations of jurisdictions --

Mrs Pupatello: Not over elected officials.

Mr Shea: -- and there certainly is a significant difference between that when all elected people involved in such an act are involved versus the issue that's before us today which deals with an internal situation within a municipality. There is a significant difference and that's obvious, I think, to most.

The issue before us today is pure and simple. It is the matter of school board consent, and for that reason I have to put a couple of questions to the deputants. I'm not sure whether Mr Carr wants to deal with it or if the municipality would like to respond.

I think it's important for the committee at least to be apprised of the meetings that occurred between the last meeting of the committee and this one between the municipality and the school board, and was that at the official level or was it at the elected level? Has the chairman of the Halton school board and have the trustees themselves been apprised of the basic principle that guides this committee? If so, how did they respond? How many meetings were held and how did they respond to that concern?

Mrs Graham: I can only speak to the information that was provided to me by Mayor Mulvale. My understanding is that she and the chair of Halton region, Joyce Savoline, and Linda Glover, the chair of the board of education, held a meeting on June 10, and it was at that meeting that the clarification took place that Ms Glover did not understand that they were not previously collecting the taxes. I understand, further to that, that Mayor Mulvale has had correspondence and discussions with individual trustees on a one-to-one basis. I believe there were representatives of the board of education at that meeting at the region, but I'm not positive of that as I was not present.

Mr Shea: So there was about a month between the meeting of this committee before that meeting was held between the mayor and members of the school board.

Mrs Graham: I'm assuming that was the first availability for them to get together. I really am not privy to that diary.

Mr Carr: I was just going to add something. Since this process began we've also had a change in the chair. The chair who was elected was removed, replaced, so we dealt with a previous chair, and a new chair has come in. They were going through the process of the budget which was, needless to say, very divisive, and that's to put it bluntly. During this period of time the politics on the board creates its own dynamics. The group met to bring the new chair up to speed to explain the whole process to the new chair and where we'd been.

When the trustees voted on this they thought they were getting the money and didn't even know they weren't receiving the assessment. They were shocked, and in speaking with some of them -- these are some problems that occur on the board on a regular basis which create some problems that I think Mr Young alluded to earlier.

We've been trying to work through the system the problem we've got in dealing with the chair, and when you speak to individual trustees they say, "Oh, we didn't realize that; we'll support it now." But we can't have one body -- normally how it works is through the chair, whether it's the region or the mayor, who will be able to say, "This is where we're going." Unfortunately I don't think she's in a position to speak on behalf of the board.

Those are the dynamics that were added through this. We've had two chairs through the whole process and the removal of a chair, and that has created its own dynamics on this whole issue.

Mr Shea: I take it from your response, Mr Carr, that there is a sense of surprise at the school board and probably, dare I suggest, a willingness to enter into discussions about this problem, and there is some implication in your comment that you would see some light at the end of the tunnel, that the school board may in fact recognize the value of exemption and might be coming to that position.

Mr Carr: I guess what I was trying to say, the position of some of the members seems to be, "We don't want to overrule the board." My sense of it is, and I shouldn't go out on a limb, they are not going to be upset by this bill passing, because of the problems. I don't say that lightly, to my colleagues who know.

Mr Shea: No, but at that point, let me just ask you to reflect for a moment. If members of the committee would like to preserve the integrity of the board, as we would want, I think, to argue for the integrity of the municipal council in a different kind of issue, what I'm asking you is, instead of us making a decision and making it easy for anybody so they don't have to come to grips with the issue -- you've indicated in your response that there seems to be some movement, there's been a shifting of membership or the executive positions within the board.

It takes me by surprise to discover that the school board was not properly informed of the tax status, and that's for it to resolve internally anyhow. But if that's the case, are you giving us the inference that if you were to defer this matter for a couple of weeks, there may indeed be a resolution from the school board in which the integrity of the principle of local accountability is preserved and we're able to see that the tax exemption I think everybody on this committee would like to grant is in fact met?

Mr Carr: I don't speak for --

Mr Shea: The final point is you wouldn't have to start the whole process all over again by putting it to a vote today.

Mr Carr: I haven't talked to Kathy about it, but the mayor's been through this, we've had meetings, we've had the chair. Our basic feeling is we keep postponing this and keep carrying on and I would much rather -- and I bow to the judgement of the people -- have the vote and make the decision on it here today, rather than prolonging and continuing to go around with this thing. Notwithstanding the fact that it's a great opportunity to have people come down here and get involved in the process, I just think we're spinning our wheels by going back and forth.

Just very quickly to the committee, all I ask you to do is look at the merits of this bill, and when you do that, the proper thing is to vote in support of this bill.

Mr Ron Brown: I listened to all these things and in a simple sort of way I'm wondering if there's such a thing as creating a thinking that -- inadvertently, it was a provincial department that removed the exemption that was in place. Is there such a thing as this committee going back to the town, to the region, to the school board and saying: "This was done in error. It was done with no authority. It's going to be put back in place"?

Ms Graham: I don't know if I can help. I think what the gentleman is referring to is the fact that in 1983, in checking with the assessment board, there was no taxation collected. It came as a surprise in 1993 that indeed the rules had changed and the assessment board was now saying they were not exempt. Had they had knowledge of that, they could have applied for a tax exemption status in advance and would not have had to go through this procedure.

I think what Mr Brown is trying to indicate is that through changes and bureaucratic ability to get things in place at the assessment bureau, they've been caught short. It wasn't their fault. It was an error made really in communication or whatever you want to call it, but they didn't know that their tax exemption had been eliminated in 1993. Frankly, if they hadn't built the building, today they'd still be exempt, and we wouldn't be here either because we believed they were exempt. So he's pointing out that really a very small bureaucratic decision has caused a huge problem. In my view, I think it's blown a little out of proportion.

The Chair: We better go back to questions from the committee. I have a number backed up here.

Mr Young: I just wanted to comment. As a former head of a taxpayers' coalition, I dare say my friend Mr Sheehan would agree that municipal government and government in Ontario is not serving taxpayers as well as they should. In fact, he might agree that we have one level too many.

What we have here is one pool of tax dollars, one tax base which three elected levels of government share. Two out of three, two thirds of it, want this bill passed and want to make things happen. The other one is basically dysfunctional.

We have a school board which is a house divided right now and we're trying to correct the problem. Municipalities and school boards are children of the province. We have 168 school boards, and I bet a year or two from now there are going to be a heck of a lot fewer. We have over 800 municipalities, and I would say the same thing. A year or two from now there are going to be an awful lot fewer. We're talking about big change in the province of Ontario, and we're not going to hesitate to do what's right for the taxpayers and what's right for the province.

This is a small potatoes issue. Let's act on it. With respect, I'd like to request -- we're flogging a dead horse -- can we move to the vote, please?

The Chair: I have two more questions, although you have posed a question to the committee. Are the members agreed that we move to a vote at this point? Opposed? Agreed. I apologize to the other questioners who were backed up.

The members are ready to vote. We are voting on private Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

Mrs Pupatello: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: In keeping with a precedent we set earlier, we'll collapse sections.

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry?

Ayes

Boushy, Chudleigh, Hastings, Lalonde, Pupatello, Rollins, Smith, Len Wood, Young.

Nays

Shea, Sheehan.

The Chair: Shall the preamble to this bill carry? Same vote? Carried.

Shall the schedule carry? Same vote? 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 I wish to thank the applicants. I now declare this order of business closed.

Mrs Graham: Thank you very much. We appreciate the time you've given us.

The committee adjourned at 1123.