ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1996
CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 May 1996
Anglo Canada General Insurance Company Act, 1996, Bill Pr45, Mr Bob Wood
Bob Wood, MPP
Frank Palmay, counsel, Lang Michener
City of Brantford Act, 1996, Bill Pr60, Mr Ron Johnson
Doug Wilson, solicitor, city of Brantford
Peter Atcheson, director of planning, city of Brantford
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)
*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)
Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman
Staff / Personnel: Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning and welcome. Our first order of business is Bill Pr45. This bill is sponsored by MPP Bob Wood and I'd ask him to make a few comments.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Perhaps what I might do is introduce Mr Palmay, who is the lawyer for the company, and Mr Fung, who is representing the company. These gentlemen are available, of course, to answer any questions committee members may have.
This bill is required because the company is an insurance company. I don't want to give a lengthy explanation of corporate law to the committee, but it boils down to that most companies would not have to do this because the Business Corporations Act permits you to do it under the Business Corporations Act. A few companies are still governed by the old Corporations Act, which dates back many years; and insurance companies are. If they want to transfer jurisdiction, they have to do it by act of the Legislature. As far as I know, there are no objections to this. It's basically a technical type of act.
Perhaps we could open the floor to any questions committee members may have. We'd be pleased to try and answer questions.
The Chair: All right. I wondered if Mr Palmay or Mr Fung had any comments.
Mr Frank Palmay: We don't. We'd be delighted to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties today? Seeing none, before we go to questions from committee members, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for any comments from the government.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Mr Wood has rightly put the case, very succinctly and in a helpful fashion. This is a common legal procedure, appropriately handled, at least at this time, by private legislation. There is no objection by the government.
The Chair: I would now call for questions from committee members to either the applicants or the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I just wanted to make a short comment, and that is that I trust the MPP from London. He's looked at this. I've heard the comments made by the parliamentary assistant. That's good enough for me. I certainly support this bill.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): A leap of faith, this official recognition for the duke of Dublin. I echo the sentiment, but not with the same fervour. Thank you for your presence. This is the kind of bill -- and it would have been our loss if we had not had the opportunity to meet you, to exchange greetings -- which is matter of fact. Thank you for taking the time to bring it to our attention, and of course we will readily acquiesce. There's nothing to indicate any opposition to it. Thank you, Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: Those were gracious words from the nabob of Nipigon.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It's surprising what one day in the sun does.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments from members of this committee? Are the members of this committee ready to vote with respect to Bill Pr45?
In keeping with the procedure we follow where we collapse several sections together to vote, shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble to this bill carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall this bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Agreed.
I now declare that order of business closed.
Mr Bob Wood: I wonder if I might, before we depart, thank all members of the committee for very expeditious consideration of this bill. We appreciate your efficiency and also, because of my time considerations, putting the matter first on the agenda.
Mr Palmay: We second that motion.
1010
CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr60. I would ask MPP Ron Johnson, the sponsor, for any comments.
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): This particular bill being put forward to the committee gives the municipality, much like a number of other communities, a little more flexibility with respect to how they treat heritage buildings. It would require a particular property owner, somebody who does own a heritage property, to require a building permit before a demolition permit is issued to tear that particular piece of property down.
I'll let the city staff of Brantford introduce themselves and give you their particular view of the impact this bill will have.
Mr Doug Wilson: I'm Doug Wilson, city solicitor for the city of Brantford. With me representing the city today are Peter Atcheson, the head of the planning department for the city of Brantford, and Matt Reniers, who is a senior planner with particular responsibility for heritage matters.
As Mr Johnson ably outlined, the purpose of this bill is to add a little more authority to the city's arsenal in heritage matters and to ensure that heritage buildings which are considered significant are not simply torn down and left as vacant lots.
I understand there is a letter from an objector before the committee. The objector in question, the property of which he's the owner -- the solicitor represents the owner -- was the impetus for this bill, but this is a bill of general application and would apply to all heritage and heritage district properties within the city. I would point out that the property in question owned by this objector was designated in 1991, and the OMB approved the designation in 1993. The property owner in question acquired the property in 1995, knowing this was heritage property.
Other than that, we're here to answer any questions the committee may have and thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Any other comments from the other applicants?
Mr Peter Atcheson: No, we're here to answer questions.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, I might go the parliamentary assistant first and then we'll go to the committee.
Mr Pouliot: I'm seeking clarity.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties? Seeing none, I would ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs.
Mr Shea: We've been through these waters before in this committee and elsewhere many times and we've asked questions. As you know, I tabled with us a few weeks ago some responses from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. There is some general legislation pending, but it's not here yet. It is appropriate that we proceed on this; there is no government objection to it. There are precedents, I remind us again, of places like Toronto and Hamilton and Scarborough and Milton. We've dealt with some of them at this committee. Mr Johnson has appropriately brought this before the committee and the government has no objections.
Mr Pouliot: I'm seeking clarity. I need your help. Formerly the Park Baptist Church, obviously a place of worship, the property, the building is now owned by Jackpots Unlimited Inc. I don't imagine they're Bible printers. What does Jackpots Unlimited do?
Mr Wilson: They own some other properties within the city where they have office uses and some commercial uses. In particular, they own a property which is about a block away from this particular property and which is in need of some parking, in their opinion.
Mr Pouliot: The restoration, if not the demolition -- I see the interior has been significantly altered, has been gutted.
Mr Wilson: What happened was that all the pews were taken out, the organ was taken out, but as to being gutted, it's not particularly gutted. It's the façade that is of interest to the city. Actually, maybe we could show you the property. We've got a picture of it and the district in which it is, because we knew it was an issue. This property is one of the properties surrounding the major downtown park. This whole area is designated as a heritage district because it's important that the whole appearance of that area be maintained. Taking a big hole out of it would significantly affect the heritage district.
Mr Ron Johnson: A little further with Mr Pouliot's comments: You have to understand the importance of this particular building with respect to our downtown core, a downtown core which already has started to deteriorate in areas. This is a very nice part of town and it's something the entire community is very proud of. There's a great deal of concern out there that this particular building will be demolished for a parking lot. That seems to be at least the apparent intent of the owner. The bill, of course, deals on a much broader range, but this was the impetus for that.
Mr Pouliot: You do understand my inclination as a former Minister of Transportation to pave.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Clarifying, have you had any contact with Mr David Clement? Have you met with him? Did you speak to him?
Mr Ron Johnson: Yes, I have. I have had a meeting with the property owner and the lawyer.
Mr Sergio: And you're satisfied?
Mr Ron Johnson: I am perfectly satisfied that this bill is in keeping with being responsible to my community.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Are there any other alternative agreements that can be reached; ie, the zoning designation of the building? Is that an issue where that can be dealt with or changed to allow some incorporated uses?
Mr Wilson: Certainly incorporated uses could be allowed. The problem at the moment is that the property owner is adamant that he's not prepared to negotiate any kind of preservation of the façade.
Mr O'Toole: Even if it's just the façade of the building?
Mr Wilson: That's correct.
Mr O'Toole: Is the whole building designated or is it the exterior only?
Mr Wilson: It's the exterior.
Mr O'Toole: So there's nothing to disallow him or her from dealing with another use, which would be a rezoning issue?
Mr Wilson: No. In fact, this bylaw contemplates that as long as they have an alternative use and are putting up a building, not leaving gaps in the toothwork sort of thing, that's perfectly allowed. We couldn't prevent his demolition of this building were he to have an alternative development plan for the site.
Mr O'Toole: When I was a councillor, I sat for awhile on a LACAC, a local architectural conservation advisory committee, so I have some knowledge. One of the aversions to designation is this very issue that the end control of their building is given away. Does this recognize that dilemma we're in? We're having people designate the property, and now that there are no grants, what's the advantage? Do you know what I mean?
Mr Wilson: Yes. The city of Brantford's policy on designations has been not to designate over the objection of the owner at the time designation is made. We have never designated property where the owner has objected. Whether or not that's a good policy from a heritage preservation point of view is an issue, I suppose, but it's certainly been the policy we have followed to date.
Mr O'Toole: That's important. Usually it's the applicant's initiative, unless you have a heritage district like you have where you may want to complete the whole façade.
Is there anything to alert a prospective buyer of a designated property as to this bylaw, so that upon purchasing they recognize that the building will never have changed whatever's been designated, the roof or the spire, or whatever's been designated? Is that clear on the title?
Mr Wilson: Yes, it is. Not in a heritage district.
Mr Atcheson: Not in a heritage district, but it would be clear on all individual properties that are designated. There's a registration on title as to the elements that have been designated.
1020
Mr O'Toole: This is a case where the buyer was aware that it was designated and that that entailed making application for demolition, which you've denied? He was aware of that procedure going into the thing in 1995?
Mr Atcheson: Yes, this particular district, as Mr Wilson indicated, was approved by council in 1991 and confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1993. The present owner subsequently acquired it, in 1995. It was a well-known district.
The Chair: Are the members ready to vote? We're voting on Bill Pr60.
Again, collapsing sections, shall sections 1 through 10 of this bill carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Mr O'Toole: I want to ask one question before we finally conclude. Is there any other appeal process, like the OMB? Could the OMB overturn this?
Mr Atcheson: There's an appeal to the OMB in the bill. After the building had been removed and the applicant could not build what he said he was going to build to secure the permit, and council failed to give him an extension, there's an appeal on that issue to the Ontario Municipal Board in the legislation.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you for your indulgence. Currently the company doesn't have the permit, right? Theoretically, an accident could happen, a bulldozer could run into it and knock it down. The building is still in place. What if he was to proceed illegally?
Mr Wilson: He would be subject to fines under the bill.
Mr O'Toole: Okay, but the building's gone.
Mr Wilson: That's right.
Mr O'Toole: Theoretically, with this current bill that we're passing, can he still appeal to the OMB?
Mr Wilson: It doesn't change his appeal rights under the existing legislation. All this does is require him to have a building permit application. If we refuse an application, he has a right to appeal.
Mr O'Toole: That's good. Thank you very much. There is an appeal process.
The Chair: If you have any further questions, you may want to chat afterwards. I wish to thank the applicants. I think the photographs were useful as well. I now declare this order of business closed.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Can I bring up some other business?
The Chair: Yes, I'm asking for any new business.
Mr Boushy: For almost a year now, the city I represent, Sarnia, has been trying to apply for a private bill to defer seniors' taxes, part of the taxes, similar to private bills in Hamilton and other cities. But due to downsizing in the administration, there has been a delay for almost a year. By the time they get here, it's going to cost them up to $1,000. This has been the case in every city. When the private bill gets here, I'm sure it'll be approved; it'll be just a matter of a few minutes before it's approved.
The reason I bring this matter up is that I think we're exposing a lot of municipalities to a lot of unneeded costs when we know those private bills are going to be approved. I would like the administration to review those applications that have been approved, probably about a dozen of them in Ontario, half a dozen, whatever, and come back with a recommendation to this committee whether general legislation can be passed by the House giving municipalities the option to do that, their recommendation in that area.
The Chair: Is there anything that can be added to this?
Mr Boushy: I might add that this does not have anything to do with the city of Sarnia. The private bill in Sarnia could arrive any time now. I'm thinking of province-wide benefits rather than just one city. I gave you an example in the city of Sarnia.
Mr O'Toole: I'd be interested in making a comment. I thank the member for Sarnia. I think it's an excellent idea. What would the parliamentary assistant say to amendments to the Municipal Act or Planning Act, or the clerk for that matter? I'd appreciate a report on that too, very expeditious, very responsive to municipalities. They still make the decision themselves.
Mr Boushy: I think the Red-Tape Review Commission would probably look favourably at that.
The Chair: Does anyone have a comment on this? I don't at this point.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): I'd like to clarify a couple of things in my mind from what you're requesting. If that's what the committee wants, part of that report would have to come from municipal affairs in terms of whether it can amend its legislation to deal with these. The other parts are going to be strictly standing order. Anybody will still have the right under the existing standing orders, and our process and the amount of money that kick in will still kick in. I can look at that for this committee and explain what the cost is, whether there is any other way to deal with private bills. But the other part would probably have to come from municipal affairs in terms of whether its changes to the public acts can deal with some of these private bills.
Mr O'Toole: One more comment: I think what I heard him saying was that we had the two or three cases we've dealt with allowing municipalities to forgo the tax in place of a lien. I'd be interested in knowing that and, further, that the parliamentary assistant pursue what amendments to the Planning Act and Municipal Act would be necessary, if that's not out of order.
Mr Shea: When I began my comments -- I don't know if members didn't hear or if I didn't say it clearly enough, but the ministry is reviewing the legislation. It may or may not be part of an overall review of the assessment issue that may flow out of the GTA study. It's a question of how it comes forward. I share the concern that there are a number of private bills that come forward that we may be able to wrap up into a legislative reform that might conclude that, and it might be of some saving for municipalities.
I don't want to mislead the committee. That will not happen in the next week or the next month. I think we've all been around long enough to know how long it takes for legislation to be complete, but there is consideration given to it. I certainly support it, I know the minister certainly would have no objections to it, but it requires time to make sure there are no unforeseen hidden valleys in all of that.
I'm glad the member has raised the question. If we could simply leave it as notice, leave it that way, I will proceed through the normal course of events within the ministry to see if we can find ways to clean that up, as I think we will probably want to do with a number of other pieces of legislation that come before this committee from time to time. We may see a trend of certain pieces of legislation. Where we can facilitate the handling of that legislation, we should do so.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Is there any way we could get from the clerk's office a list of subject matter forthcoming in the next few weeks or months and how long some of the stuff's been in the hopper? I can think of one specific bill that I'm interested in, but I'm not going to mention it; I'm just wondering how many others from the private sector or from municipalities.
My second question is: If some of that stuff's ready, can we sit as a committee one time in the summer or late summer to clear up some of this stuff, if that's possible? Or do the standing orders prevent us from doing it?
The Chair: We have a list, but there's no priority order on this list. I'll ask the clerk to respond.
Clerk of the Committee: At this point I had just mentioned to the Chair that we're not meeting next week because we don't have bills that are ready at this stage. There are probably 40 or 50 bills in my file at various stages of being ready. I could tell you where they are. A number of them are on hold because the applicant is going back to negotiate with the ministries or is dealing with Legislative counsel, or the advertising hasn't been finished. From my office's point of view, everything that is ready, where I have a bill, I'm attempting to get introduced so it can get to this committee. I can give you a list of what's coming up. I can give you a list of the status of what all these bills are missing or where the holdup is.
This committee does have the authority, if it requests, to meet in the summer. If there were bills backed up, that would be something that we would recommend towards the end of June, if we didn't think we were going to manage to finish all our bills before the end of June. What I can tell that's coming up are a number of city of Toronto bills that are quite contentious that will take a few weeks to do.
One thing that happens, though, if we meet in the summer is that the bills still can't go forward for second and third reading until the House comes back, which is often why this committee isn't granted the power to sit in the summer, because it doesn't speed up the process particularly for the applicant. They still have to wait for the House to come back for second and third reading and royal assent.
Mr Hastings: Other than those bills, Lisa, that are dealing with the city of Toronto, are there any other bills that could come on the order paper at about the same time one of those -- I know of a couple you're talking about. Is there anybody who can get caught in the crunch here who will be just about to have their bill ready and they'll end up not getting it heard? Or can we move it to the front of the city of Toronto bills? If there's one or two that are not -- like the one we had from that company in Ottawa that we had the teleconferencing on.
Clerk of the Committee: What we try to do, just to give you a little bit of background, is that probably two or three times a week Linda Gray, Susan Klein and I speak on the phone. We keep running through the list to find out where everybody is in terms of the readiness for bills. When we schedule, we try to put the contentious ones on one day and then have another day where there are no objectors on the bills, and you'll find four or five on that day to clear them through.
What we've done in the past as we've gotten towards the end of June is we've asked for extra sitting days before the House is finished, an extra afternoon or an extra morning, to clear everything out. But what we try to do is we keep looking every week, all three of us, to make sure nothing really gets lost in the hopper.
Then again, if there are some contentious bills and some not, I do tend to go first come, first served. If a non-contentious is in first and ready to go, all attempts are made to schedule it first.
Mr Hastings: This committee has no authority to request that bills that are ready, they get them up and in to us as soon as possible? We have no authority to even make a request, I guess.
Clerk of the Committee: The short answer to that is that the bill belongs to the applicant, and as soon as the applicant tells me it's ready, then it's ready, which is from their point of view. One of the slowdowns in the system is that I then have to go to the sponsor and get the sponsor to agree to introduce it in the House. In some cases there's been a delay in getting the sponsor. If they can't introduce it, we can't get it on the order paper and we can't consider it. There's been a slight slowdown from that part of the system.
Mr Hastings: Sounds like Queen's Park.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot?
Mr Pouliot: The clerk has answered the question I had. It had to do with process.
Clerk of the Committee: I keep an outstanding list of every single bill that's in my file with checkmarks on whether they have complied with the standing orders, and if it's on hold, the reason. I'm quite prepared to send out that list to the committee members this week. If they have any questions on any specific bills, they can look at the list and give me a call.
The Chair: If there is no emergency business, this committee, as has been indicated, will meet in two weeks. I declare this meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1034.