NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA ACT, 1996
YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT, 1997
CONTENTS
Wednesday 11 June 1997
National Ballet of Canada Act, 1996, Bill Pr64, Ms Bassett
Mr Derwyn Shea
Mr Jim Pitblado
Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls Act, 1997, Bill Pr80, Mr Maves
Mr Tim Hudak
Ms Bernice Mowat
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC); parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr JosephSpina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Ms LindaGray, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel: Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): I'd like to call the meeting to order. The meeting is supposed to start at 10 o'clock and we're already late. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the standing committee on regulations and private bills. There are two items of business we have to deal with this morning, namely, Bill Pr64, An Act respecting The National Ballet of Canada, and Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls.
NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr64, An Act respecting The National Ballet of Canada.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): At this time I would like to call the presenter on Bill Pr64. I think, Mr Shea, you will be presenting the bill?
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I am delighted to present the bill and I am delighted to sponsor the bill on behalf of MPP Isabel Bassett, who cannot be with us today. But I have some more-than-passing acquaintance with the applicants and what they are seeking. I wear two hats today. Not only do I have the pleasure of making the introduction, but I'll also be acting as the government spokesman. The PA is not here at present and I will be pleased to make the comments and answer all the questions in this regard.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That means that you and I will agree again.
Mr Shea: I think we're on the same wavelength. We may be able to truncate this entire debate if we are.
I'd like to introduce the deputants on behalf of the National Ballet of Canada, which you know is the premier ballet company of this nation. It is at home in the city of Toronto and receives tremendous support from the citizens of this nation. I am very pleased to introduce to you, from left to right, Bob Johnston, Jim Pitblado and Valerie Wilder. I normally don't start left and go right, but I did on this occasion.
I'm very pleased to introduce them to make their deputation, which frankly is very pro forma. Before us is legislation that is not dissimilar to many others that we've dealt with in the past. So I might turn this over then to Mr Pitblado.
Mr Jim Pitblado: Thank you, Mr Shea. As I understand it, the bill received first reading in the Legislature in June 1996. It is what I would call a permissive bill. It would allow the city of Toronto, Metro Toronto and the Metro Toronto school boards to take action individually -- and hopefully at the end of the day it would be collective -- to cancel the taxes on what is now called the Walter Carsen Centre located at 470 Queens Quay West in Toronto.
We occupied this space approximately two years ago. It was space owned indirectly by the federal government that had sat idle in the condominium building for 11 years. The city of Toronto in effect renounced their right to the space and we acquired it for $1, have refurbished it, and we are asking that we be put on the same footing in those facilities as the Canadian Opera Company at the Tannenbaum Centre, the Canadian Stage in the St. Lawrence Centre, Roy Thomson Hall and indeed the O'Keefe -- now Hummingbird -- Centre, where both the National Ballet and the Canadian Opera Company perform. We are asking for equality of treatment, and in order to allow the municipalities to do that, it's required that there be a bill passed by the Legislature, what I call a permissive bill, to give them the power to do that.
The city has supported us very strongly and has passed a motion to in effect cancel our taxes. We still have to achieve that with Metro and the school board but we're confident we can do so. What we're asking this committee and this Legislature to do is to pass this bill to give us the power to cause the other three jurisdictions to cancel the real estate taxes on that property.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the applicants? If not, do we have any interested parties wishing to make comments? Then, Mr Shea, I guess you're acting as the parliamentary assistant today. Any comments?
Mr Shea: I am. The government has no objection to the application. It reminds the applicant and reminds the committee again that this is subject to whatever future arrangements may be made through Who Does What, the restructuring arrangements and the financial arrangements that may emerge in the future that would affect municipalities in Ontario, the city of Toronto notwithstanding.
We understand also that this is retroactive to 1995, which is subject to determination by the local authorities, whether it be the school boards or the councils. It's up to them to make their determination. This is enabling legislation and it goes no further than that. It allows each jurisdiction to make its own arrangements at that point.
With those caveats, the government has no objections whatsoever to this legislation. There will be one amendment, though, to respond to one aspect that deals with one of the school boards, but it's a very minor technicality.
The Vice-Chair: We can deal with that later on. Do we have any questions from the committee members? We'll start with the official opposition.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): We'll pass for now.
Mr Bisson: On behalf of the NDP caucus I can certainly assure this committee and the presenters that we don't have a problem in so far as what you're seeking is concerned. I just have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. First of all, and I guess it would be to the leg counsel or the parliamentary assistant, are there any other such arrangements in the city of Toronto with any other organization such as what's being requested here? Is this the first such, or are there other examples where this has already happened?
Mr Shea: Oh yes, a number of examples.
Mr Bisson: Such as? Just so that I know.
Mr Shea: I apologize. I can't just dredge names out of my head but there are a range of non-profit organizations, whether it be the Canadian Legion or service organizations, YWCAs. There are a number of agencies such as that.
Mr Bisson: I am just about to get from the ministry --
Mr Shea: In fact, in the last year we've had a number of cases.
Ms Linda Gray: I am Linda Gray. I am with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, coordinator of legislation. Yes, this is correct. There are a number in the city of Toronto. The one that most closely represents the one that is being applied for here I think would be an opera rehearsal centre on the extension of Front Street. They had a similar exemption, I believe, two or three years ago. So there are a number of this nature in Toronto.
Mr Bisson: All right. The question that follows from that is it seems to me the process which these organizations have to go through in order to get the exemption seems kind of onerous, to say the least. They need every time not only to get, in this case, the three levels of government, education and two municipal levels, but they've got to come here as well. Wasn't there some move to try to address that?
Mr Shea: There was, and Mr Bisson does have a good recollection. The ministry had indicated it was going through that exercise to truncate the process, streamline it, and that's why I gave some sense of alert to the committee that with Who Does What, some of the restructuring of the way we do things and try to streamline operations, I would expect the ministry would be bringing forward amendments in this regard.
Mr Bisson: Just for the record and for the proponents here, it seems to me we don't need to have citizens and groups going through the kinds of hoops you're having to jump through to get here. If the policy is going to be that we're going to waive municipal and school board taxes as a mechanism for municipal governments to support your work, that then should become provincial policy. There should be an easier way of doing that.
The only other thing I want to add, and I don't want to get too partisan in this committee, is that I think we're probably going to see more and more of this as both senior levels of government start reducing their transfers and start reducing their support to cultural organizations, which is to me quite troubling because I think there's not only the cultural side of this but there's also the economic side of what it means to our provincial economy, our national economy and the economy of the city of Toronto, the work that people like these here do. I would much prefer to see a provincial policy, one that deals with this issue, but number two, and equally as important, is that the provincial and federal governments take their responsibility and properly fund these organizations so they can carry on doing the work they do.
With that, I will just say that we will support this particular private bill.
Mr Shea: I assume that was a question to the parliamentary assistant and I would be happy to respond to it.
Mr Bisson: That was just a comment.
Mr Shea: Clearly in terms of the cultural funding, I know the government is looking at a number of options that will address some of the difficulties we have faced in terms of dealing with the debt and the deficit, and we're trying to find other ways to ensure that adequate resources are provided for the cultural community.
I want to, though, correct Mr Bisson on one point. This legislation is not in itself waiving the taxes. What it does is provide enabling legislation so that the local jurisdictions may themselves decide whether they will or will not.
Mr Bisson: No, I understand.
Mr Shea: The provincial government is not waiving that tax at all. That's left up to each local jurisdiction.
Mr Bisson: Just one very quick part. I understand -- I read the legislation -- that's what it does. The point I want to make here is that governments in the past stepped in, both federal and provincial levels of government, to support groups and cultural organizations and groups for the arts for a good reason: The private sector wasn't doing it. The private sector only has so much capacity. There's only so much ability on the part of the private sector to fund through charitable means the work that you do.
The other part of the money that you get is obviously from ticket sales. It's a very expensive business and to charge what would be required to offset your costs would be a deterrent sometimes from allowing people to come and enjoy the work that you do. That's why provincial and federal governments got into the business of funding these groups. I'm just saying if we don't do that properly, we're putting groups like this in jeopardy, which would be, I think, culturally a bad thing, but even as important is what it means to our economy.
Mr Shea: Mr Bisson, you will know and I think share this government's concern that in the area of seeking new sources of revenue, part of that was the tax mechanism and it was to find ways to allow 100% donations. It was with some regret that we saw the federal government rolling that back to 75%. We are still continuing to press the federal government to allow that to go to 100%, as just one aspect of finding new revenues for the important areas of arts and culture in our communities. So I appreciate those comments.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. That was a very enlightening discussion between the two of you. Are there any questions or comments from the government side? If not, then Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: I have a comment, and maybe it shows my municipal background more than anything else, or my municipal bias. I'm kind of surprised the government would take such an easy attitude towards this, taking into account the position they have taken with respect to a user-pay kind of atmosphere that they want to create throughout the province. I'm going to support this, but I will tell you, you're opening up a can of worms that once you open it up, you'll never be able to shut it.
What you're really doing is, once the council has implemented a bylaw allowing this to take place, you're giving a perpetual grant to this organization in the amount of the tax of $147,000, or whatever it is, on an annual basis. Once you do that, it is not something that will be approved on an annual basis. Sure, the bylaw can be rescinded and sure, this is a great organization, but so are many other cultural and heritage groups in this province. If property taxes are to pay for the local needs of a community, the actual services that people get on a day-to-day basis -- and that seems to be the direction this government's going with its downloading legislation; whether it's good or bad is not for us to discuss here at this time -- what you're really saying is that certain properties, for whatever good reason, will no longer have to pay their share of the services that are being supplied to those properties.
1020
It's a wonderful idea for the ballet association, for numerous other groups -- we could bring in hundreds of groups like that -- but in effect what you're doing is increasing the local taxation burden on businesses, large and small, and residential property taxpayers throughout this entire province.
I come from a community that is well endowed with arts and cultural organizations and I can well recall, in my time of being on municipal council, we had many of these applications as well on a year-to-year basis and we approved them. But what we've ultimately ended up doing is showing these grants on an annual basis so that the community out there knows exactly who is getting what kinds of special exemptions as a result of certain arrangements that have been made with the municipality.
From the National Ballet association's viewpoint, and I can well understand why they're here, once a bylaw like this is passed at the various municipal levels, or at the school board levels, it's going to stay there and they don't have to, on an annual basis, go hat in hand to Metro council, to city council -- I guess there will only be one council after January 1 -- and to the school boards, saying in effect -- they won't have to go to the school boards either, I guess -- to whichever local Metro council is left and say, "Will you please waive the money or give us a grant for the amount of money that's being waived here?" To me it just seems very inconsistent with the way this government has been operating or is allegedly operating with respect to government funds.
I'll just leave it at that. I'm just issuing a warning. I'm sure Mr Shea has seen this as well in his municipal experience, that once you start this kind of thing -- and they're all for good causes and we all want to help these kinds of causes. I think the cultural and heritage organizations in our communities are extremely important. They are very much an integral aspect of our day-to-day living and certainly ought to be encouraged in whichever way we can. But in the long run, if we're saying that by the mere passing of a bylaw you no longer have to pay taxes, it means that somebody else has to pay more for local services -- as long as we're completely clear on that.
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Gerretsen's remarks were provocative in a positive sense. I agree with his sentiment about how broad the tax base should be to be fair to everyone. But I disagree with him that we are being inconsistent in allowing this body, the National Ballet of Canada, to seek some redress from the local municipality.
We've said all along that local decisions should be under local control and that there are certain matters relating to taxation and accountability that should be determined locally, not by the province of Ontario or by provincial statutes. That is why we are uploading certain aspects that we feel we have to be responsible and accountable for on to the provincial tax base and referring back to municipalities things that should be accountable at the local tax base.
I would say to Mr Gerretsen I share his concerns. If I were a city of Toronto councillor I would voice those concerns because that is, in my view, the appropriate venue for this discussion to take place. If the city of Toronto council wants to order its affairs and tax its citizens in a way that is incorrect or wrong or somehow unjust, they should be the ones who are accountable to the citizens for that and I would encourage them to be so. But I agree with your sentiment.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Just to elaborate, we are facing similar circumstances and we will time after time in this case. I think the tax expenditure part is important. I think accountability is going to have to be brought to bear. As somebody who ran a non-profit organization, I can't overestimate the importance of what measures like this mean. This means ongoing costs are reduced and that has a direct bearing on the viability of any non-profit organization with variable revenue, especially with a dependence on private donations and so on. Therefore, if someone is determined to be helpful, this is a good way to be helpful. However, particularly with an organization of the stature of the National Ballet, there need to be some coherent policies around support for international stature organizations like this that I don't think should be dependent on the whimsy or the ability of local municipalities to provide.
This is a substantive grant. I don't know the overall budget, but I can tell that this would be a substantive amount of money and I think we have to try, in this committee perhaps, to create some locus of pressure for some policymaking around this. We will all want to be in the position to assist important objectives like those of the National Ballet and the other groups we're going to hear from, but we're doing this in a fairly haphazard fashion and I wonder where the province is really going to express its fulsome support.
Municipalities, in my experience, don't really have a lot of choice. They've got a lot of other examples, and if I look at the calendar, we're going to have a lot more groups that will choose, perhaps be influenced by, the existence of this potential exemption to purchase their land rather than rent it because of course there is that problem. Groups that rent land or property or buildings to conduct their charitable, non-profit or cultural activities don't have access to this kind of exemption and still pay their taxes to their landlord, and it simply isn't a consistent means by which we should be doing it.
I'm not advocating at all that we close this loophole or end this practice. I think we should continue it, but we really should come to grips with what it means in terms of support that's available. We are enhancing a variable level of support to different kinds of groups in doing this, those groups that can afford to capitalize their assets rather than rent them.
It's very, very important. It makes a heck of a difference to the ongoing viability, but we need to have something coherent around policy. I don't think we're offering much to the people of Ontario by way of accountability and I don't think we're offering a lot to the non-profit groups except hoops they've got to jump through to get there. I'd like to see if we can't develop some of that perspective, if not in this committee at least through the minister who has represented this most often.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Just to address a comment Mr Kennedy made, the only reason groups like this have to go through the hoops he and some of the others described is because the province historically has taken such a top-down attitude in trying to run everybody's business. Here we are trying to bring the accountability that Mr Kennedy talks about to the municipal level, and the municipal government is obviously prepared to take this responsibility, therefore I have no problem with the province standing back.
The only reason we're being asked to bless this, and for lack of a better way to describe it, is because the province has always taken this top-down approach. We are trying to devolve the responsibilities from the province to give the municipalities more autonomy to better serve and meet the needs of the services within their constituency.
In the case of Toronto, if it's the National Ballet or what's coming up later on from Niagara Falls, then those municipalities are in a position to meet the needs of their constituency and there's no reason why the province should get involved and stick its finger in it.
Hopefully, once we change some of the legislation regarding responsibility, as is in the process right now, then these people won't have to go through hoops and come to a committee hearing like this other than just going to their own city council to seek the approval they require.
I just make my comment in that regard. I think that rather than have a province-wide policy, the province-wide policy is that a municipality has the responsibility as it sees fit.
Mr Bisson: I wasn't going to jump back in again, but after that comment -- we all have our points of view and parties represent different constituencies and different points of view, and I disagree with what you've just said.
As I said earlier, I believe that the federal and provincial governments or senior levels of government do not only have a financial responsibility to make sure these groups are properly funded and do their own fund-raising and the work goes on in communities as far as charitable work is concerned; what is really happening here, in my view, is that it's another example of municipal downloading to a certain extent. You're saying the municipality should be responsible for doing this kind of stuff. Yes, they have a responsibility. I don't say that the city of Toronto, Metro city hall or the school boards don't have some stake in this, because they benefit as well from the activities of these individuals and what they're doing.
But I say again, and I want to put it on the record as the representative of the New Democratic Party, I believe it's important that the provincial government set a policy that does two things: (1) it deals with this issue from a provincial policy standpoint, and if we're going to adopt a policy by which we're going to enable municipalities by their choice to assist these groups by reducing or eliminating their taxes, that's fine, but we should have a consistent policy by which we do that to simplify the process.
(2) I think that senior levels of government have a responsibility. I'm getting concerned that both levels of government, the federal and the provincial levels, and this is not to be partisan, are withdrawing themselves because of economic reasons and ideological reasons from supporting groups such as this that do very important work in our communities. I, for one, don't stand for that and I want to put it on the record.
1030
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? If not, are the members ready to vote? Yes. Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Any amendments to section 2?
Mr Shea: I move that subsections 2(3) and (5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"School board
"(3) If a bylaw is in force under subsection (1), a school board entitled to share in the assessment of the land for school purposes may by resolution direct the city to cancel the taxes payable on the land for the purposes of the board.
"Further cancellation
"(5) When the city receives a resolution of a school board passed under subsection (3), it shall, by bylaw, cancel the taxes directed to be cancelled by the resolution."
Mr Bisson: I have just one question. I'm looking for my copy of the bill. All right. I've answered my question. Under the definitions, "city" does mean Toronto. That's all I wanted to make sure of.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? Carried. Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Mr Shea: We assume 6 and 7 are carried.
The Vice-Chair: We missed sections 6 and 7.
Shall section 6 carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Yes. Thank you.
Mr Shea: Chair, I thank very much the representatives of the National Ballet of Canada, the premier ballet company of this nation, and wish them well.
Mr Pitblado: On behalf of my associates who are here and those who aren't here, I would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all of you for your support. We appreciate it very much.
YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls.
The Vice-Chair: The next bill we have to deal with this morning is Bill Pr80. Mr Hudak, are you presenting on behalf of Mr Maves?
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Yes, I am. I'm joined today by Bernice Mowat, the past president of the YWCA of Niagara Falls, and Sandy McIntyre, the general manager of the YWCA. With your permission, I'd like to read in some remarks from Mr Maves, who regrets that he is unable to join us this morning.
The Vice-Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Hudak: Thank you. Mr Maves says:
"I am pleased to sponsor Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls. This act had first reading on May 29, 1997
"This act would give the city of Niagara Falls the authority to pass bylaws cancelling municipal taxes paid by the YWCA of Niagara Falls. As you will find in the compendium, the group has already received support in writing from the city of Niagara Falls, the Niagara South Board of Education and the Welland County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
"I want members of the committee to know that this bill should not be taken lightly. I don't believe that every charitable group who requests something similar should automatically get this committee's approval. Support should only be given in special circumstances where the group provides an invaluable community service and where this service is in jeopardy because of financial hardship.
"The YWCA provides a much-needed women's shelter in our community, but this operation has been placed in jeopardy by its heavy property tax burden. To assist in its financial restructuring, the YWCA has volunteered to an audit by a private sector firm which has agreed to provide the service gratis. This audit will help the YWCA to find further operating efficiencies."
I introduced the individuals already. Shirley Carr, a board member, was unable to make it today.
That concludes the remarks from Mr Maves, who passes on his regrets that he had another scheduled obligation this morning and has asked me as his neighbour and his colleague to sponsor the bill. I believe Ms Mowat has some further remarks to make.
Ms Bernice Mowat: Mr Chairman, committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of YWCA of Niagara Falls.
The Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls is an 85-year-old charitable organization of concerned volunteers and staff. We emphasize the all-round health and wellbeing of women and children. We do this by providing a welcoming and supportive atmosphere where all women and their families have equal access to programs and services. We accomplish our objectives through linkages with various other agencies.
Our residence is staffed 24 hours a day. Sometimes the counselling in the middle of the night is the most urgent. This is also the time when other agencies, such as the police, come to us for emergencies as most help agencies are closed. Most of our residents are single. Many are teenagers and, thanks to the new government regulations, must attend school to receive welfare. This has enabled us to emphasize training in all areas of life skills: meal preparation, budgeting and personal hygiene. Of course, no drugs or alcohol are permitted on the premises. We lock our doors at 10 pm and the staff answer the bell until morning. For many who have been abused, this security is very comforting.
We have seen an increase in mothers with children. They are helped back into the community, usually within a month or two. However, there are exceptions. Carrie and her son Jason stayed nearly a year and a half, both attending school, and upon completion Carrie was able to find employment, allowing them to move into their own apartment unassisted. That's a hand up, not a handout.
Four years ago, we found ourselves in financial difficulty. We used all our resources and had to make some drastic decisions. We eliminated several staff positions and the board of directors took a hands-on approach to financial management. At that time we asked the city of Niagara Falls to be patient with our payment of taxes, as we were in arrears. That is when the city suggested that we be relieved of paying taxes. That is how this all started. Incidentally, the YMCA has not paid taxes in Niagara Falls since the early 1950s.
1040
However, our mandate differs from the YMCA. Although we do have fitness programs, volleyball, slow-pitch and golf leagues, support for families remains our greatest concern. Our children's programs are linked with other social agencies to be sure the most needy are being served. We run parent training sessions, called Parent Link, which may include behaviour management, nutrition and even quitting smoking, or any need the parents identify. We have integrated handicapped children for over a decade. We also have an adult program for handicapped adults of both sexes, managed by knowledgeable volunteers. This is one of the areas where our residents are expected to volunteer as part of their community outreach training. They also help at the area food bank.
Most of our residents and families are referred from other agencies -- FACS, hospitals, housing help centres, women in crisis, police, school guidance counsellors etc.
I'd like to tell you about a case that we are dealing with at the moment. Karen, not her real name, came to live in our residence, being in the care of FACS. She's a hyperactive, learning-disabled 16-year-old. She is on medication for her condition but is still flying low most of the time. She requires nearly constant attention and reassurance. Karen has been in foster care and is still friendly with her foster mother, but she became too difficult to live with and the YWCA of Niagara Falls has become her home. FACS rules and ours say she has to go to school. School is not a pleasant place for her and FACS has threatened to close her case. We will be left as her only support.
We also work with Niagara College, John Howard and others when requested.
The per diem in the local psychiatric ward is a minimum of $500. Often patients operate a revolving-door plan with the hospital. When the hospital asks us for residential care, it usually requires close monitoring of medication as well as training in other areas of life skills. Our per diem cost before revenue is approximately $31, thus saving thousands of dollars, to say nothing about the savings in human terms. Giving mothers and fathers the supports and skills required for parenting while the children are still at a developmental level makes for a better community, to say nothing of the savings of taxes at all levels of government.
The city of Niagara Falls, the Niagara region, the Niagara school board and the Welland county separate school board all at one time or another have referred people to our programs and agree that we should be relieved of our taxes. These are the links with the community helping itself.
I wish to ask for your support with respect to the proposed legislation before the committee and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Do we have anyone in the audience wishing to make comments? If not, Mr Shea, as the acting parliamentary assistant, do you have any comments on behalf of the government?
Mr Shea: I appreciate the excellent presentation. The government has no objections. Again, I exercise the caution that with the Who Does What exercise and the restructuring of municipal finances there may be changes in the future, whatever they may be. Whatever is decided today is determined by future legislation. But in this regard and in terms of the application, the government has no objection.
Mr Gerretsen: You made a comment to the effect that the YMCA has not been paying taxes in Niagara Falls since when?
Ms Mowat: Since 1953.
Mr Gerretsen: I assume that at that point in time they had similar legislation like this passed, as far as you know.
Ms Mowat: Yes, that's right, except at the time the council didn't know why they weren't paying. They thought it was because they were in a low-rent district, but then when they looked it up they realized they actually had come to Parliament.
Mr Gerretsen: How much are your taxes annually? What are you paying?
Ms Mowat: Between $8,000 and $9,000.
Mr Gerretsen: How many years are you in arrears?
Ms Mowat: We were in two years' arrears at the time. They've held off charging taxes until -- this is retroactive, I believe.
Mr Gerretsen: I know. That's what I was getting at. You only want it to be retroactive to January 1, 1996. The National Ballet association wants it to be retroactive to some time in 1995. I'm wondering why you didn't go back further than that either. The city wouldn't have liked that very much, I imagine.
Ms Mowat: Frankly, we want to do this ourselves if we can. We're charitable but we're responsible.
Mr Gerretsen: I understand.
Just a couple of questions about the residences you operate at the YWCA. I think they're tremendous institutions to provide accommodation for people in need sometimes. I think they're all over the province that way. How many residential units do you have? These are rooms, are they?
Ms Mowat: Yes. We provide for 18 adults at a time. We have extra beds in the room. However -- maybe because I was an only child, I don't know -- the thought of having to share a room with somebody else who's in trouble didn't sit well with any of us at the Y. We have changed so it's a single room. We can take in 18 residents at a time. If a mother comes in with a child, she can keep her child in her room with her.
Mr Gerretsen: Is it only emergency shelter or can a girl or a woman rent a room for a certain period of time?
Ms Mowat: Yes, they can. In the summertime, because it's Niagara Falls, we try to keep a couple of rooms available for transients or tourists. I remember -- probably the only one in this room that can remember this far back -- that at a time during the war this is where the girls came from Quebec to Niagara Falls to work and stayed at the Y. That's not the kind of person we generally get today. Those people have enough money that they usually have their own apartment or something when they arrive. Also, they'd go to a motel now.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm a great supporter of the YMCA and the YWCA and I think if the government feels the way it does, perhaps it should take some of the tax revenue it gets out of that new casino and put it into supporting organizations like yours to make sure that people that are vulnerable are protected.
Ms Mowat: We'd accept it.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm sure Mr Shea will move that as soon as we're finished all the questions.
Mr Shea: You won't live off the avails.
Mr Gerretsen: You've been doing it.
Mr Shea: Don't look at me, kiddo.
The Vice-Chair: We won't get into this discussion this morning.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Who funds your organization?
Ms Mowat: The girls of course pay. If they're on welfare, they pay room and board. We get about $35,000 a year from the United Way. The city of Niagara Falls has been giving us a grant of nearly $90,000, although I suspect that if we get our taxes paid that will go down. That's it. The rest we have to make up every way we can.
Mr Martin: There's no provincial funding at all?
Ms Mowat: No. Well, pardon me, we do have a resource centre for the children that is funded for about 15 hours a week and they help pay for part of the rent. That's the only program. It's a very small program.
Mr Martin: Are you finding that the sources of funding you traditionally have relied on are beginning to dry up?
Ms Mowat: Everybody's asking for help today. We have bingo. We have break-open tickets. We made $450 last weekend on a garage sale. In terms of taxes, that's a lot of garage sales. However, we're working on it.
Mr Martin: We have in our community a growing number of organizations that do excellent work in various and sundry ways that are finding themselves in the same difficult financial position. I know they've been before city council asking for exemption from property taxes because of the pressure that's being put on everybody. The municipalities are having their own difficulties in trying to make ends meet and balance their budgets because of the downloading by the provincial government on to them of the cost of more and more services.
I don't want to repeat what my colleague Mr Bisson from Timmins said awhile ago but we have here exactly the same situation and a government that in this way now is downloading the cost of services that are very valuable and in some instances essential to the wellbeing of communities and the people who live in communities. I think it's unfortunate that we're dealing with it in this way, and again I would make an appeal to the government to find another way of dealing with organizations such as the YWCA and the National Ballet company, and in my community, the Legion and the Marconi Club. There are so many other very valuable and good organisations that are finding themselves in difficulty paying their way and would love dearly to get out from under having to pay their property taxes.
As has been said before, when you do that you then spread the cost of running a community more on to the shoulders of those who are left paying that particular tax. I don't think we can say often enough that that's going to cause us all some grief and difficulty down the road. I'm going to support this because it's the only way we have of forcing this government to do anything to assist groups such as your own and the very valuable work that you do. I would strongly urge the government to take a look at what they're doing and the impact that it's having on the lives of some of the most vulnerable of the people who live in our communities across this province.
Mr Shea: We could now bandy about a political diatribe for the next hour or two. That's not going to be particularly helpful at this juncture because I am more concerned, on behalf of the government and the government caucus, to ensure that we deal with this matter as government has been dealing with it for years, Mr Martin, and that includes when your party was briefly in power. The fact is that there was no change then. There has been no downloading on the YWCA or the YMCA. That's total baloney.
Mr Gerretsen: So you agree there has been downloading on municipalities then?
Mr Shea: I'm concerned that we continue to deal with this and I will suggest to you that the government has indicated it will make a very concerted effort to ensure that as part of the tax restructuring it will be addressing this matter, a matter that probably should have been addressed years ago. But this committee has been through these waters over the last couple of years, saying we've got to get at it. We have assurances from the minister that is being reviewed and we have assurances that will be coming forward in the fullness of time.
In the meantime we continue to deal with this in a traditional fashion. I, like you, would like to see it streamlined so indeed we don't have to go through these hoops all the time, but for today I certainly hope we will indeed do the right thing and approve the legislation that is before us. It carries the support of the local council. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, it was representatives of the local council that suggested this may be the way to proceed and asked the deputants if they would proceed in this fashion so they could give the municipality the opportunity to forgive the taxes. They want to do that. I think it is appropriate for this committee to do that. I'd like to see us get this on the track and vote on it.
Mr Kennedy: Just very briefly, I think it's very important to save hard-pressed, non-profit groups from the risk of excessive political rhetoric, and we'll do that. We wish you well with this and certainly are going to support it. We wish for a better climate in terms of the operations of YW and hopefully we'll hear that this has been beneficial to that.
But we would add our voice briefly: If the government is sincere -- and I have no reason to believe it is not, as Mr Spina and Mr Clement have expressed -- that's the legislation that allows municipalities to deal with this in their communities and it doesn't bring groups like this to have to add the burden of a trip to Toronto and our other discussions to their agenda as part of their operation.
Mr Gerretsen: You didn't come with a lawyer. That's good.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? If not, are the members ready to vote on Bill Pr80? Can I have the authority to collapse sections 1 to 10 under one vote, as there are no amendments? Agreed. Shall sections 1 through 11 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Mr Hudak: Chair, I think Ms Mowat has some final remarks.
Ms Mowat: I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for your time because yes, it's hard getting in here every morning, but you have to do it every day, so I appreciate that very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Since there's no further business, we're adjourned until next Wednesday at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1054.