CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 March 1996
1092040 Ontario Inc Act, 1996, Bill Pr43, Mr McGuinty
Tony Ruprecht, MPP
Nancy Johnson, solicitor
TD Trust Company Act, 1995, Bill Pr24, Mr Marchese
Charlie Macfarlane, president, TD Trust Co
John Muir, senior vice-president, TD Trust Co
City of Scarborough Act, 1995, Bill Pr41, Mr Newman
Dan Newman, MPP
Jasmine Stein, solicitor, city of Scarborough
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
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Linda Gray, special policy adviser, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman
Staff / Personnel: Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
1092040 ONTARIO INC ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr43, An Act to revive 1092040 Ontario Inc.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. Welcome to our inaugural 1996 meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. This morning we are considering three bills.
Our first is Bill Pr43, and Tony Ruprecht will be substituting for Dalton McGuinty. I'd mention too that we've gone high-tech. I'll ask the clerk to explain.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Our first witness we actually have on the telephone from Ottawa. We thought we would try a telephone hookup instead of requiring the applicant to be down here. There is no standing order requirement that the applicant actually be here, although it is the practice of the committee. This is probably a fairly straightforward bill and there are no objectors, so we're trying this as an experiment. We have the applicant on the line. I would request, though, if possible, that we keep all interjections down because that may interfere with the telephone hookup, and that before you speak, you state your name so the applicant will know who's speaking.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have a pleasant task to perform today. I'm sitting in for Dalton McGuinty, as the Chairman indicated. This is An Act to revive 1092040 Ontario Inc. As you all see, the corporation was dissolved under the Business Corporations Act on November 15, 1994, for failure to pay the prescribed fee for incorporation. The applicant, who is now on the telephone, represents that this failure was inadvertent since he did not receive the notice of default that was mailed to the corporation. I think this may be fairly straightforward, and I'm happy to be here on behalf of Mr Dalton McGuinty.
The Chair: I would ask the applicants to please introduce themselves and present.
Ms Nancy Johnson: Thank you very much. First of all, I cannot hear any of you, so if you are trying to interject, I'm not going to be able to hear you. My name is Nancy Johnson. I'm a partner in the law firm of Burke-Robertson in Ottawa, and this little difficulty began in our office. I thank the Chair and the committee for permitting me the indulgence of speaking to you in this manner.
I would like to address two questions, the first one being, what is our bill all about? I believe you heard that summary. The second question is, why do we need it?
In answer to the first question, the bill is to revive a numbered Ontario company that was cancelled because our firm's trust cheque for $315 payable to the ministry at the time of incorporation was inadvertently unsigned. Our corporate clerk delivered the articles of incorporation to the ministry office in Ottawa and failed to notice that the cheque was not signed. The ministry official did not notice that the cheque was not signed. The ministry official stamped the articles and returned them to our clerk. I subsequently learned that the cheque arrived at our bank and was refused because of the lack of signature. At no time did the bank call us or notify us in any way, again a very unusual situation, because we do a great deal of business with them. They are a few blocks away and we know them on a first-name basis. At no point then was my corporate clerk, our accounting office or I informed that there had been a problem.
The second question: Why do we need a private member's bill? Why can I not simply write another cheque for $315? My client is from Ottawa. He was taking over a restaurant franchise in London which had been failing and he had to move quickly. He was not familiar with London and provided me a head office address as 215 Piccadilly Street in London. That was the address given for the articles of incorporation. Not long after, I began to notice that my mail was being returned to me; in other words, the mail I was sending to my client. I then began to use the name of the actual restaurant and succeeded in having mail forwarded on that basis. I did not realize that 215 Piccadilly Street had numerous units in it.
The ministry then sent a notice to the head office as stated in the articles, giving my client 60 days to pay the filing fees. My client did not receive the notice for the same reason that my mail was not getting to him. Even though it was our trust cheque which started this problem, we were given no notice by the ministry. We understand that the finance or accounting section of the ministry takes the position that only the corporate head office needs to be advised, notwithstanding that it was our name and address on the cheque. The result was that neither my client nor our firm had any idea that there was a problem, nor did we ever receive any notice. Consequently, the 60-day period expired and it was only some time later, after we were filing a routine document, that we were advised that the company was cancelled for cause.
After the 60-day period is over, the legal branch of the ministry has told us, the director of the companies branch has no power to revoke the cancellation order. That seems to be the case based on a 1946 case that was quoted to us. The only way we can revive this company is through a private bill. As you probably know, corporations are creatures of statute and have no independent rights. In the meantime, obviously, my client has acquired tenancy rights under a commercial lease; he's bought a franchise; he has bank accounts, a liquor licence, retail sales tax number, GST number; he's hired employees and acquired assets. If this company does not exist as of its incorporation, all those rights are in jeopardy, all the assets are in jeopardy and all the obligations are questionable. That is why we need this company revived as of its incorporation date. Those are all my comments, and if anybody has any questions, I will try to hear you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Johnson. I will now ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for any comments from our government.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): There are no objections to the passage of this bill.
The Chair: I would now ask for comments or questions from members of the committee.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): From what I have heard from the presentation and from what I have read here, it doesn't cause me to have any doubts on the request. If it's appropriate at this time, I would move approval of it.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Under errors of omission, I think we have a typical case of someone falling into the crack, someone who made what appears to be, in my humble opinion, an honest mistake, and then time and system and "problématique" took over and the can of worms became nothing short of a bag of snakes, because it seemed to escalate and the person was left not being able to operate by virtue of process. While we must have process -- otherwise there would no system -- I think the human dimension in this case readily acquiesces that let's get on with it. It's obvious what has happened. It should not happen, but unfortunately it shall happen again. I thank people on the other end for their diligence and vigilance.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm just wondering if there is a lesson to be learned out of this for the parliamentary assistant, that if we get similar circumstances with other bills, maybe we ought to look at appropriate legislation that would allow the responsible people in consumer and commercial relations or whatever ministry to correct the situation so that you don't have every bill of this sort coming before a committee; in other words, creating a little empowerment in people. It would appear to me, based on the surface of the story and the facts, that is one of the lessons to be learned from this in terms of giving people in the ministries at the appropriate level a little more flexible decision-making.
Mr Shea: An appropriate observation; I'll take that under advisement.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): To the PA, it seemed to be going up the line until one individual within the ministry didn't have the power to revoke that dissolution order. At what level was that?
Mr Shea: I can't answer that one directly. Some of the staff present may be able to give you that answer. We can get that information.
Mr Ruprecht: I'd like to make a comment, but maybe first we could have Ms Johnson off the telephone and pass this. Then I'd like to say something about Mr Hastings's remarks, if you don't mind.
The Chair: Are members of the committee ready to vote? In time-honoured tradition, we would collapse several sections for consideration.
Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
I would ask the clerk for a comment.
Clerk of the Committee: I'd just like to tell Ms Johnson now that she can disconnect, and I'll speak to her this afternoon about how the process continues from here.
Mr Ruprecht: Just a very brief comment on Mr Shea's remark. I'm very delighted that Mr Shea will take this up with his officials, and for Mr Hastings to make a comment was very appropriate. Having been on this committee for a number of years, this comes up occasionally and everybody promises to continue and to make the necessary changes. I was here 14 years ago when this was brought up the first time; I remember it because every administration, at the beginning of its term, says the same thing, but not much happens. You're right, Mr Pouliot. What do we do? We ask for a motion here to empower Mr Shea, because he will be our point man. You've heard that before, right? We're going to place all our trust in Mr Shea to come back here to this committee sometime and tell us precisely what the follow-up is going to be on this question, and then all of us are going to be happy legislators. Is that possible?
Mr Shea: I appreciate Mr Ruprecht's confession and the sins of omission. I will take it unto myself to try and address the question. I have no immediate answers as to how the government will proceed or in what time, but I can give my undertaking to try to do better than we seem to have done in the past.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chair, Mr Shea seems to forget that 14 years ago it was the administration of Bill Davis.
Mr Shea: I remember also the last 10 years as well, but I will try to do better. That is my objective.
The Chair: I thank all parties. Mr Ruprecht, could you convey thanks to the applicant as well.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chair, I will do that.
1020
TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting TD Trust Company and Central Guaranty Trust Company.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr24. The sponsor, Rosario Marchese, is absent. I would ask the applicants if they could please introduce themselves and put forward the bill for consideration.
Mr Charlie Macfarlane: My name's Charlie Macfarlane. I'm president of TD Trust. I'm also a senior vice-president of Toronto-Dominion Bank. On my right is John Muir, who is a senior vice-president within TD Trust. On my left is Jane Stubbington, who is internal counsel for TD Trust, and John Walker, who is counsel with McCarthy Tétrault, who's been looking after this matter for us for some period of time. We appreciate very much the opportunity to address this group.
In 1992 the federal office of the superintendent of financial institutions and Canada Deposit Insurance Corp determined that Central Guaranty Trust Co was no longer financially viable and commenced a search for one or more financial institutions to acquire the businesses of Central Guaranty Trust Co.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank was selected to acquire the major parts of these businesses. On December 31, 1992, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries acquired substantially all the assets of Central Guaranty Trust Co. TD Trust Co, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the bank, acquired Central Guaranty Trust Co's fiduciary business.
The fiduciary business consisted primarily of personal estates and trusts, of which over 1,000 were in Ontario. In addition, there were several thousand Ontario wills in our wills bank. The acquisition of the personal estates and trust business is conditional upon TD Trust being appointed as successor trustee to Central Guarantee Trust.
Ordinarily the transfer of the trusteeship under an estate or trust is accomplished pursuant to a court proceeding under the Trustee Act of Ontario. This can be extremely costly to the trust or estate, which must normally bear these expenses.
It also places a burden on the already financially taxed judicial system. Due to the number of trusts and estates involved, it would be impractical and extremely expensive to follow this procedure. In the past in transactions of this type, special legislation similar to the proposed bill has been passed to accomplish a transfer of trusteeship from one trust company to another. Such legislation was passed for the Montreal Trust Co of Canada and the Royal Trust Corp of Canada.
The proposed bill will provide an economical means of transferring the trusts and estates administered by Central Guaranty Trust Co to TD Trust, and will avoid the need for thousands of court applications to transfer these estates and trusts.
Since December 31, 1992, TD Trust Co has been administering Central Guaranty Trust Co's estates and trusts under an agency agreement. During this time TD Trust has not encountered any complaints in Ontario from the beneficiaries of these personal estates and trusts as a result of its assuming the administration of the estates and trusts as agent for Central Guaranty Trust. Central Guaranty Trust Co itself is insolvent and is in the course of liquidation.
In conclusion, the proposed bill will benefit the estates and trusts administered by Central Guaranty Trust Co and the beneficiaries thereunder by providing a solution to the costly process of transferring trusteeship under the Trustee Act of Ontario. It will also mean that thousands of court proceedings can be avoided, thereby benefiting Ontario's judicial system.
The Chair: I would ask the parliamentary assistant for any comments on the part of the government.
Mr Shea: I think Mr Macfarlane has given a very good, very succinct outline of the issue that's before us. The number of trusts involved, the implications for the court system and the involvement of so many parties make special legislation appropriate. He has spoken to precedent that has enjoyed support of the Legislative Assembly in the past. For that reason, the government supports the motion before us and has no difficulties with it.
The Chair: I would now ask for questions to either the applicant or the parliamentary assistant with respect to Bill Pr24.
Mrs Pupatello: To the parliamentary assistant or ministry staff, is there any reason we would not do this?
Mr Shea: I've not had anything brought to my attention to indicate why we should be hesitant in this particular instance. In this instance, I think Mr Macfarlane has outlined very carefully both the breadth and the scope of the issue that warrants this kind of legislation.
Mrs Pupatello: But would there be any consideration about precedent-setting?
Mr Shea: There have been precedents already in this case.
Mrs Pupatello: So historically there haven't been any problems with the --
Mr Shea: Exactly. The fact that this has been administered since 1992 and there have been no complaints lodged -- in fact, it is my understanding that perhaps the estates commissioner has indeed reviewed this and has had no difficulties with it. There are, as I said, precedents: Montreal Trust, Royal Trust and so forth, so indeed we are following down the same track where indeed we save a great deal of agony for an awful lot of people, a lot of money that would otherwise be spent in the courts and so forth. It is an appropriate act, I believe the government would suggest.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a question to the applicant whose people are before the committee. Just reading through, it says, "The acquisition of the personal estates and trust business is conditional upon TD Trust being appointed as successor trustee to Central Guaranty Trust Co." That's only for being able to deal with the assets within the bank that the individuals are trying to get? Who ends up with the money? That's what I want to know.
Mr John Muir: The situation is that we administer estate and trust accounts as trustee, and the assets in those accounts belong to the beneficiaries of those estates and trusts. That situation doesn't change at all; it's just that the name of the trustee changes from Central Guaranty Trust to TD Trust. The rights of the beneficiaries remain exactly the same.
Mr Bisson: So the problem is that the people who would normally get the money through the will aren't able to because of the previous trust going under?
Mr Muir: No, that isn't the problem. The issue is that legally there is no means of transferring a trust from one trustee to another except either by legislation, which is this route, or by going to the courts and asking the courts to make that change of trustee, unless the trust document itself provides for it. In those few cases where it did, we've already made that change.
Mr Bisson: Just out of interest, you're saying the cost to the individual is fairly expensive in regard to the legal process. How much would that normally cost them?
Mr Muir: A court application, depending upon how smoothly it went through the court, would cost normally in the range of $3,000 to $5,000 for each case.
Mr Pouliot: Good morning; we're delighted to have some major players. How many people would be impacted, grosso modo? It need not be accurate, but would we be talking about 500 people, 1,000 people? I'm talking about the client group, the people whose trusteeship would come under your tutelage.
Mr Muir: There are over 1,000 estates and trusts involved, and each one would have probably three or four beneficiaries involved, so you'd be looking at perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 people would be directly affected.
Mr Pouliot: You've mentioned, so rightly, that there is a cost factor, but in the context of money there's also a time element. Would you acquiesce with me that beyond, and perhaps the most important in this, is the element of time and the human dimension, the anxiety, the trauma of not knowing, and all this is related and could be eliminated?
Mr Muir: Yes.
Mr Pouliot: The precedent has been established, although from time to time, precedents -- well, they seem to always be mentioned. They're an asset because you can have an analogy with some validity, a parallel, but I can assure you, for some members of the committee there's a price to pay. Since those precedents have been established, they've become a burden. They go beyond the guidance; they become an obligation, that if it was done before, why can it not be done now?
But this is unusual, the pleasure of an audience with the VP of Toronto-Dominion, one of our major chartered -- I envy you; if we did half as well as you did, we'd be doing very well. It's good times for trust companies. I have some difficulties with this. I acquiesce with what is being said and of course it will go through; we'll side with the government on this. By the same token, I wish to mention that I have some difficulties, and always will have, with mismanagement. When we're talking about the lives, one of the pillars of retirement for many people -- I mean, outside the political context, people really believe in these things and I think in this case they're in very good hands.
I won't say any more. Let's expedite it. Let's get it out of here.
The Chair: Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, are members of the committee ready to vote? All right.
Shall sections 1 through 9 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank the applicants very much.
1030
CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1995
Consideration of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.
The Chair: Now to the third item of business, Bill Pr41. Its sponsor is Dan Newman, MPP, and the applicant is the city of Scarborough. I ask the sponsor if you have any comments on this bill.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm Dan Newman, MPP for Scarborough Centre and sponsor of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough, on behalf of the applicant, the city of Scarborough. This act will allow the city of Scarborough to restrict the demolition and removal of heritage properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. I am pleased to be the sponsor of this bill in this, Scarborough's bicentennial year. Joining us today is Jasmine Stein, solicitor with the city of Scarborough.
Ms Jasmine Stein: My comments are very brief. The bill which you have before you is modeled on the private legislation of a number of other municipalities, including Hamilton, Burlington, Vaughan, Markham, Oakville, London and Toronto. What it will do, quite simply, is put the city of Scarborough on equal footing with these other municipalities with respect to the ability to preserve Scarborough's heritage resources.
At present, the municipality's ability to preserve and protect its heritage properties and resources is quite limited. Once the statutory time periods have expired, there is virtually nothing a municipal council can do to prevent or restrict the demolition of heritage property. What this legislation will do is give the municipality a greater ability to protect and preserve heritage properties of historical and architectural significance, which the city of Scarborough is committed to preserving, by restricting the ability to demolish a building or structure unless the owner, in addition to waiting the statutory time period, has also obtained a building permit to erect a new building or structure on the site. It will also require the owner to complete the new structure within two years, subject to provisions for relief from that requirement. It will also increase the fines up to $1 million for contravention. It is Scarborough's belief that this legislation will be of assistance in deterring the unwarranted demolition of valuable heritage properties. Those are my comments. If there are any questions, I'd be pleased to address them.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we go to questions, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Derwyn Shea, for comments for the government.
Mr Shea: There is no objection to the proposed application for private legislation. As the applicant has pointed out, there is ample precedent. Many of us particularly who have got municipal experience know that this is really an enhancement of the heritage act. We know that the ministry is currently refining the legislation to improve it, but in the meantime these applications are required. At the present time, the 180-day delay is about the only support the municipalities can look to. So they follow in the step of saying that the next step involves the demolition permit and so forth. The government has no difficulties with the application.
The Chair: Questions to either the parliamentary assistant or the applicant?
Mr Bisson: Just a quick question to the parliamentary assistant: In Bill 20 there were changes made to the heritage act, were there not?
Mr Shea: This particular act is in fact coming forward as a separate bill.
Mr Bisson: But I know there were changes made to the policies --
Mr Shea: This was not particularly affected. That's why they still have to continue it on this track.
Mr Bisson: No. The point I'm getting at is that there were changes. There are changes being made to the provincial policies in regard to the -- I forget the particular policy -- protection of buildings, but I think there was something in the act as well.
Ms Linda Gray: There were changes in Bill 20. The changes in Bill 20 related to the Ontario Heritage Act were of a minor, technical nature. They dealt with notice provisions. The notice provisions were in a similar manner to the changes that were being made to the Planning Act. The changes that are occurring here are in a larger context and are something that the ministry is looking at in the future.
Mr Bisson: Weren't there also changes to the provincial policies?
Ms Gray: There are some draft policy statements that have been released, but again, they do not deal with this issue.
Mr Bisson: Would those policies make it easier for a developer to try to move in on a heritage site?
Ms Gray: I don't have the answer for you on that. I can get the answer for you in context from planning staff who deal with the policy statements.
Mr Bisson: If you can do that.
Ms Gray: Sure.
Mr Bisson: Certainly we'd support the application, because it goes in a direction that I would like to see, which is the preservation of heritage sites.
Mr Hastings: Mr Shea, how does this legislation define heritage properties? Anything over 100 years, or 75? Is there some time frame reference?
Mr Shea: I can't give the exact answer on that one right now, but I'll give you the exact figure out of the act later, if you'd like. I feel like I'm heritage sometimes. It depends on the day.
Mr Hastings: That you're a heritage? We know you are. We're going to preserve you in an act.
My other question relates to how this legislation protects against or balances against the rights of people who want to change the community, because I've seen heritage legislation in the past used as a tool to frustrate development.
Interjection.
Mr Hastings: Imagine that. It might create a few jobs, huh?
Is there any protection in there? How do you define a restriction? How is that considered in the bill?
1040
Mr Shea: Obviously, it is the municipality that is invoking the powers. It is the municipality and its elected representatives that are indeed saying that on this particular site only action will occur that's within the parameters this elected government wants to happen. What is being said here on the part of Scarborough is that it wants the same enabling legislation as other municipalities, to say that you can't -- and I think Mr Bisson was trying to get at this a little earlier -- just simply wait for the 180-day clock to end and then you can roll in and grab the land. They want other kinds of mechanisms to make sure that doesn't happen. Indeed, it puts some onus back on the applicant who wants that land to make changes. There is a place for that to happen, but you have to persuade the appropriate local authorities that what you want to do is reasonable, and if it is seen that the local municipality is not acting, then you have recourse to deal with that in the courts, if there is some obvious direction you can take in that regard. But you can't just wait for the 180 days to end and then say, "Now we can tear down the building or do whatever we want to do."
Mr Hastings: When the heritage legislation comes in, it presumably will take precedence over all these other private acts.
Mr Shea: Yes.
Mr Hastings: Will it mean the end of them or that they just don't apply any more? The provincial legislation will have all the features that would be in common, I would assume, from some of the other specific --
Mr Shea: Linda may want to answer. I would assume that what has been done has been dealt with and that the Ontario Heritage Act will take precedence for any application from that point on.
Mr Pouliot: I find myself in a rather ironic position -- Mr Hastings was seeking balance -- and that was to ask about the opinion of the other players: the developers, the builders and building trades, if you wish. I apologize for not being all that familiar, maybe as much as I should, with Scarborough. I was trying to define what would be of heritage definition, if you wish. Being a product of North America, sometimes we tend to idolize a McDonald's if it's been on the block for more than 10 years, and it doesn't have to be the colosseum. But to each his own. We all value the blend of the glass and mortar and what is a reminder of yesteryear, but I share the same concern, ironically, as Mr Hastings. If there's an opportunity to create jobs, that has to be preserved as well and heritage will not be -- I'm not imputing motives -- used in any other fashion than its pure and true purpose, which is to preserve and through that to remind us of our past, not to deter in any way. Simply put and by conclusion, you won't have hypothetically a dozen people stalling a project by virtue of pleading heritage virtues.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have just a couple of questions I would ask the member from Scarborough. I gather you're celebrating an important anniversary in Scarborough this year. Perhaps you could tell me what that is.
Mr Newman: It's the bicentennial in Scarborough, 200 years.
Mr O'Toole: I sit beside the member in the House and I know just how much he champions the city of Scarborough. I wanted one more opportunity to go on the record to support the city of Scarborough and I'm glad there's that kind of heritage.
But on a more serious note, I have a question, perhaps to the solicitor. Those owners who apply do receive grants under the heritage act to enhance or embellish and improve the building and estate. That's the case, right?
Ms Stein: I believe for designated buildings certain grants are available to undertake certain types of preservation.
Mr O'Toole: So what happens, if a building has received a grant which is in fact taxpayers' money, if the building is then deemed to be eligible to be demolished? What happens to the money that was paid over time to have the bricks redone etc? Is that paid as part of the reconsideration of the designation?
Ms Stein: If the building is subsequently demolished, there is no means of retrieving money that was put into the renovations of the building, that money that's been spent.
Mr O'Toole: Well, that's taxpayers' money that's been spent. To reverse it because it was sold -- I would like to think that would be a consideration. Perhaps staff could respond to that, because I know they're eligible for grants for windows, roof, bricks, you name it; any kind of restoration costs, they're eligible annually for a subsidy, grant. I know of places where they've spent $30,000 or $40,000 to do a slate roof, and then subsequently tear the building down, and it's my money that put the roof on there. I want my money back. Is that somewhere in this thing, or am I prolonging this particular application?
The Chair: Any other comments on that question?
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): According to my experience at the municipal level, I understand there was just an initial grant by the taxpayers, a very small grant, maximum $2,000. The rest is not taxpayers' money, so we're talking, maximum, $2,000 investment by the taxpayers, according to my information. I may be wrong.
Mr Bisson: I just would say that I am in opposition to my own colleague's views in regard to heritage sites. I believe that the community is best situated, at the local level, to be able to determine through the deliberations of councils and the activities of the people in the community what sites should be preserved.
We in our community are a young community; we're 75 years old. I would expect that under the existing act at this point it would be fairly difficult to declare very many buildings in my community, but I'm sure in communities like Scarborough and others there is a net benefit to the community to protect.
In regard to the heritage act, is there a discussion paper out now? I haven't seen anything come through my desk in regard to what the government intends to do on the heritage act.
Ms Gray: There has been a series of discussion papers issued in the past. I'm not aware whether there is something recent, but in the past two or three years there have been discussion papers. They have been before the public. There have been, I gather, a number of cross-province tours in response to that.
Mr Bisson: I know our government had been looking at making some changes to the act. Discussion papers had gone out. I had met with people in my community who were interested in that issue. Is there anything recent, after the election of 1995, new and significant changes to the heritage act being contemplated by the government that I can present to the people in my community who are interested?
Ms Gray: I'm with municipal affairs, as I said, and I don't have the direct answer to your question, but I will phone my colleagues in the other ministry and I will provide you with an answer at the next meeting.
Mr Bisson: That's what I'd like. Thank you.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): The member for Durham East actually brought up what I was going to ask. It is the bicentennial for Scarborough, I believe?
Mr Newman: Yes, it is.
Mr Pettit: On behalf of the people of Hamilton Mountain, we certainly wish you congratulations on that. Based on the bicentennial, could you possibly give me any indication as to how many heritage sites there might be in Scarborough that have been designated?
Ms Stein: Unfortunately, I don't have that answer.
Mr Pettit: Is it 10, 100, 200? Three?
Ms Stein: It is certainly not 100 or 200. It's not a large number, but I don't have the exact number.
Mr Pettit: You mention here in your compendium the City of Hamilton Act, and I can say that the City of Hamilton Act was very beneficial to the local politicians in terms of heritage properties. However, I would caution there that it sometimes creates some infighting, and I wouldn't want to let any heritage-type sentiment get in the way of either the common good or progress. Obviously, I think we still have to look at the progress of the community and not get overly sentimental at times.
Having said that, though, I move that we vote to pass this bill.
The Chair: I have one more questioner: Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: I don't want to prolong it. I just want to add that normally -- I don't know if it's the same for the city of Scarborough -- the heritage groups or departments, if you will, fall within the jurisdiction or under the control of the local municipalities. In this case, they are administered by the city of Scarborough?
Ms Stein: Yes.
Mr Sergio: So they are funded, if there are any funding requirements, by the city of Scarborough as well? I think I know the answer.
Mr Shea: That's a different issue.
Mr Sergio: That's fine. I don't want to prolong it.
The Chair: Are members of the committee ready to vote?
Shall section 1 through to section 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
I want to mention that we inadvertently failed to pass the titles of the previous two bills; I missed that. If it's okay with the committee --
Mr Bisson: Unanimous consent is granted.
The Chair: Maybe just for the record, shall the titles to Bill Pr43 and Bill Pr24 carry? Carried.
Thank you, everybody.
The committee adjourned at 1052.