KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1997
CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 October 1997
Korean Canadian Cultural Association of
Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1997, Bill Pr87, Mr Jim Brown
Mr Jim Brown
Mr Young Lee
City of York Act, 1997, Bill Pr90, Mr Colle
Mr Derwyn Shea
Mr George Bartlett
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Tom Bolton, director of inspection,
Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, MCCR
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 1.
KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. It's after 10, so we might as well bring the meeting to order. The first order of business this morning is Bill Pr87. Mr Brown is the sponsor, so could he and the applicants step forward, please. Mr Brown, if you wish to introduce the applicants or the applicants wish to introduce themselves, we're flexible.
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I'll let them introduce themselves.
Mr Young Lee: Good morning, Mr Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Young Lee. I'm a vice-president of the Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto. To my right is Mr Jun-Kyung Suh, who is the president of the association. I'm very pleased to be here to address the committee regarding our private bill.
The Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto is one of the oldest and the main organization for Korean Canadians in southern Ontario. We represent approximately 60,000 Korean Canadians in the GTA area, and we are a focal point for many of the smaller organizations in the area and serve as a community hub, so to speak.
This bill is really the culmination of an effort for many years to bring forth to the community a substantial community centre representative of the maturity and the growth of the Korean community in general. For many years, we had a smaller community centre at 20 Mobile Drive in the city of North York. A large fund-raising effort was undertaken from the early 1990s, in the middle of a recession, with good support from the community in the middle of bad economic times. With some favourable support from the previous government and also continuing support, I'm happy to say, from this government, we've been able to bring this ambition to fruition.
The community centre is located at 1133 Leslie Street. It was formerly an unused and rather derelict commercial-industrial building, located between Lawrence and Eglinton avenues. We've put in over $1.5 million worth of renovations and improvements to improve the facility so that it's adequate for our needs. The improvements are still ongoing. The centre involves an auditorium, a large meeting foyer, several office spaces and hopefully in the future other classroom areas and other facilities.
We serve to provide meeting facilities, social activity facilities and office facilities for many of the other smaller organizations which cannot support their activities, and we run all kinds of community events, such as the foundation day event last Friday, which many MPPs were able to attend as well as many local politicians, and Caravan in Metro and other such events.
This bill does have the support of the local authorities. I believe a copy of the resolution from Metro was tabled with the application. I also have with me copies of the resolution from the city of North York, which I could distribute to the committee members, if it pleases. It is a bill which is consistent, and there's horizontal equity with other similar private bills with other community groups, notably the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre and the Chinese Cultural Centre.
In discussing the bill beforehand with the clerk and the legislative counsel, I understand there are a few minor administrative amendments that will be addressed, and I can address those later. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Brown for his support; also the office of Mr Dave Johnson and the legislative counsel, Mr Michael Wood; and of course the Clerk's office, which has been of invaluable assistance.
The Vice-Chair: Does anyone else wish to make comments? Do we have any other interested party in the audience wishing to address the committee this morning? If not, parliamentary assistant, do you have any comments you wish to make on this bill?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, and thank you for the presentation and explaining the bill so well. As the committee will be aware, it is a bill quite similar to a number of bills that have been put through this committee in recent months as it relates to the municipalities forgoing the property tax on the real estate that is providing a service similar to services the municipality is in the business of providing. They in fact are providing a community service on behalf of the municipality, and it's deemed appropriate for the municipality to look at forgoing the taxes.
First of all, I want to say that it appears that the criteria set out by the ministry that should be reviewed in making application seem to have been entirely met. This application does meet all the criteria that were put forward to address the issue. But I would point out that the ability of a municipality to deal with that tax exists aside from the private bills to do it through a tax grant, which would be exactly the same as forgoing the taxes, and it would save the problem of going through this process.
I would also point out that this would not deal with the education part of the taxation, and I guess that's really the point I wanted to make, to make sure the applicants understood. The bill that received second reading in the Legislature yesterday deals with property taxation as it relates to education, and it will become a provincial responsibility to fund education even though part of the tax going towards that will come from properties, but it will be a mill rate set by the province on the properties. If that bill were to pass in the Legislature, it would no longer be possible for the local school boards to deal with the exemption of education taxes on property.
I just want to make sure the applicants understand that even though the bill is passed today by the committee, that does not carry the proviso that from here on in education taxes would no longer apply to this property, because the Ministry of Education would have the ability to say, "No, we are not prepared to exempt taxes on certain types of property," and then that part of this bill would become null and void. Having said that and having reviewed the whole application, the ministry does not register any objection to it, and we would put it to the committee to make their own decision.
Mr Lee: Could I just address that? I'm very wary of bringing up anything to do with Bill 160 today. However, I just wanted to note that my understanding from the draft of Bill 160 is that the discretion given to the school board in relation to their portion of realty taxes will then be exercised from that point on by the Minister of Education, and so it would be up to the Minister of Education then. If that's what the parliamentary assistant was referring to, we understand that clearly.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Lee. I'll entertain questions and comments from the committee members. I will start with the official opposition.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): We favour this bill, although, further to what the parliamentary assistant added, there is nothing in this bill which grants a tax exemption; it just gives the municipality the ability to do it. So there is considerable further process which needs to go on beyond here. This is just a preliminary step in actually having the tax exemption, and the applicants are well aware of that. But we do favour this bill.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): This actually is the essential step, not the preliminary step. This is the one that indeed recognizes what the city of North York and Metro have requested on your behalf, both indicating they are prepared to grant exemptions. The parliamentary assistant has given the appropriate caution about the shift in the tax base, and it would be inappropriate to leave any doubt in your mind that there would likely be automatic exemptions in the educational area. One ought to be very clear about that, I would think. I don't speak for anybody other than myself, but there is a wider part to that. I want to say thank you to Mr Brown and to Mr Johnson for giving you the support that they have. I think that's appropriate.
But I want to register again my request with the ministry that they bring forward at the earliest possible moment at least guidelines for municipalities in Ontario in terms of what seems to be the growing number of tax-exempt properties. I know it's difficult for municipal governments to withstand requests for tax exemption. It's not easy when one lives in a community and is trying to adequately serve and support a number of extremely worthwhile organizations and agencies and institutions such as this one. This one is certainly in the same class as many others. I think as the deputant put it, at least in the horizontal linkages, this is quite similar.
But we need to give some kind of a guideline to municipalities, if nothing else, at least in terms of what percentage of their taxable base they might be capable of forgoing, and that at least should be put into the public arena for some discussion. There are some municipalities that may be under greater pressure than others to deal with that. I've been at pains of raising that for the last several years, and I will still continue to raise it and ask that the parliamentary assistant take that request forward to his ministry, asking for some consideration of a guideline. At least it should be done in concert with the finance ministry, clearly, but I grow a little concerned, certainly from the inner city's point of view, that this continues to go on.
I will support without any question whatsoever the application that's before us today. My plea for the parliamentary assistant is not in any way to prejudice this application; quite the reverse. I'm appreciative of its being brought forward, and I'm pleased we're able to respond as we have.
1020
Mr Hardeman: In answer to Mr Shea's comments, I think it partly relates to my discussion about the education portion of the exemption being removed from or the need being removed from these types of bills in the future as the province becomes responsible for education. It will then become more evident that the municipal portion of tax exemption or tax rebate as what might be would become easier to do through the grant system rather than through the bill system.
I think at that point municipalities would not only be able to more clearly define how much of their tax base they were willing to forgo in this method but would also then be in the position to deal with parts of taxes as opposed to total taxation. They would be able to look at their total needs in the community as they relate to reduced taxes for community organizations and give grants on a percentage basis of those taxes as opposed to all or nothing.
I think the new process will lead to a more effective and efficient system as it relates to this matter, but again I would point out that since that is not yet in place, I would personally recommend that we support this application as we have done numerous others for similar good work.
The Vice-Chair: Are the members ready to vote?
Mr Caplan: Mr Chair, are there two motions which were placed here?
The Vice-Chair: There are two amendments, yes. We will deal with them as we go through the sections. Shall I collapse sections 1 to 5?
Mr Shea: We've agreed we can collapse it. Now we'll vote on it, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, exactly. Shall sections 1 to 5 carry? Carried.
Under section 6, we have an amendment. Can someone move the amendment?
Mr Shea: I'll move it.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Shea. All in favour of the amendment?
Mr Caplan: I'm just a little bit curious as to the wording of the amendment, why it goes from "the Metro school board" to "a school board." Wouldn't "the Toronto district school board" be much more appropriate in line with what has already passed through the Ministry of Education in Bill 104? Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell me why the wording is like this.
Mr Hardeman: I stand to be corrected, but I believe the actual naming of the school boards is in Bill 160, yet to be done by regulation. We have used the terms, but the official titles of the new school boards are still in the broader context as we sit here today. I think that's why it relates to the other school board as opposed to actually naming what the new school board will be.
Mr Shea: It would be inappropriate to name at this point in time. It would be presumptuous to anticipate any decision by Parliament.
Mr Hardeman: I believe Bill 160 gives the minister power by regulation to actually name the new school boards. I think it would be presumptuous to put that new name in this legislation.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the amended section 6?
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, could someone read the resolution into the record?
Mr Shea: I would be pleased to move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the Metro school board" in the second and third lines and substituting "a school board."
The Vice-Chair: Mr Shea, I think you said, "the second and third lines." Apparently it's the third and fourth lines.
Mr Shea: I have taken my lead from the clerk for guidance in the wording of that motion. If it is in error, I will re-read it. According to legal counsel's advice, what should the appropriate lines be?
The Vice-Chair: Apparently the proper lines are the third and fourth lines. Is that correct?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): That's correct.
Mr Shea: Is the staff now convinced that is the adequate wording? Do they wish more time to confer on that? Then I will re-read the motion for the purpose of Hansard.
I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the Metro school board" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "a school board."
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the amended motion? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Apparently we have an amendment on section 8. Could we have someone move the amendment on section 8?
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm prepared to move it. Do you wish me to read it?
The Vice-Chair: You certainly may.
Mr Leadston: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Repeal
"8.1 The Korean Canadian Cultural Association Act, 1993 is repealed."
The Vice-Chair: I just found something very interesting. Apparently the amendment on section 8.1 is out of order because it amends an act not already opened up in the bill. We need unanimous consent to discuss this particular amendment. Could you please explain it.
Mr Michael Wood: I wonder if I could provide an explanation as to why this amendment is necessary. We have discovered that the Korean Canadian Cultural Association used to own another property, for which there was an act passed in 1993 granting a tax exemption, but the association apparently no longer owns that property. It would be appropriate, since that act no longer has any effect, to repeal it and make sure that it is no longer on the books. It does not change the legal effect of that act.
Mr Leadston: What's the difficulty?
The Vice-Chair: Don't ask me. That was just sprung on me.
Mr Hardeman: If I could, to legal counsel, I have some concerns. If the previous bill was for the cultural centre and it no longer applies because they no longer own the property, why does it not just become a waste piece of paper? Why does it need to be repealed at all?
Mr Wood: The act remains on the books. It's true it has no legal effect, but it doesn't disappear unless it is repealed.
Mr Hardeman: I'm at a loss as to why we're trying to cloud this bill with an amendment that would seem not to be in order when the previous bill and this bill both apply to giving the municipality an authority that they may or may not wish to exercise. If at this point in time they no longer wish to exercise the authority they received in the previous bill, I don't know why it would become important to any of us or any of the participants to take that bill out of existence. It would seem that it would die its own natural death, never to be used again, but still would be somewhere in the records.
My colleague across the floor here or on the side of the room in charge of the Red Tape Review Commission may have further words to say, that he would like it removed from the records, but I would see absolutely no reason to repeal a bill that has no natural effect at the present time at all, nor would it have any effect in the future unless somebody was prepared to create the same situation where the Korean cultural centre owned the property again and the city wished to exercise its power to go through the same process again. I just don't see the need for this amendment.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): If I understand it correctly, this bill will become a nullity and it is just going to be sitting somewhere on the records, and when we go to that great big reckoner after life, it will still be there doing nothing. All I want to do is tidy up the books and expunge it from the records. It seems like a good idea. It's just one less piece of paper to keep track of or report on. Did I understand that correctly that's all you're doing?
Mr Wood: That is correct.
Mr Sheehan: It only costs us two lines, Ernie, and it's done.
Mr Wood: I could point out as well that in the 1993 act, the act applies "so long as the land is owned, occupied and used solely for the purposes of the association." Well, the association has sold the land, so the 1993 act will no longer have any effect and could no longer have an effect in the future.
Mr Sheehan: Humour us.
Mr Hardeman: I've no objection to humouring Mr Sheehan and giving unanimous consent to have it done. I would just point out, from the point of view of saving paper and not having to chop down another tree, that the fact that the Korean cultural centre no longer owns the property makes that bill totally null and void. All we would be doing with this amendment is adding another piece of paper to the pile to say, "This bill is no longer in effect." I am sure the record will show 100 years from now that the bill at one time was passed and was taken out of effect and it will just include another piece of paper. I'm not sure it's really as important as is being put forward.
Mr Sheehan: Always a pleasure to split a hair with you, Mr Hardeman.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? If not, are the members ready to vote?
We need unanimous consent to introduce section 8.1. Do we have that? Agreed.
Shall section 8.1 carry? Carried.
Shall section 8 carry? Carried.
Shall section 9 carry? Carried.
Shall section 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Yes.
At this point in time, I would like to thank Mr Brown and the representative from the Korean association for their presentation. Thank you for coming here today.
At this time we will take a five-minute recess because Mr Colle, the sponsor of the next bill, is not here at the moment.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: The other one has been withdrawn temporarily.
The committee recessed from 1034 to 1040.
CITY OF YORK ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr90, An Act respecting the City of York.
The Vice-Chair: If I could have your attention, we will bring the meeting back to order. The next order of business is Bill Pr90. In the absence of Mr Colle, Mr Derwyn Shea has agreed to be the sponsor of the bill. Could you introduce the applicant or let the applicant introduce himself, Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I regret that the member is not able to be with us, but I am pleased to take carriage of this bill at this point without any prejudice to questions I may ask. I present to the committee George Bartlett, city solicitor for the city of York, who will answer any questions the committee may have. I will turn the presentation over to him.
Mr George Bartlett: Thank you, Mr Shea. This is a bill being requested by the city of York, and the purpose of the bill is very focused and very specific. The purpose is to provide the city with an additional means to deal with premises that become a problem in certain sectors of the community, primarily residential communities, when they continue to operate and sell liquor after the hours provided for in the Liquor Licence Act and continue to attract customers and have people leaving during those hours and creating a nuisance to the residential communities.
I'm not sure how many of you know the city of York, but in our areas, commercial streets almost invariably abut directly on to residential streets, so we don't have commercial areas that are separate and apart from residential areas. Similarly, our industrial areas by and large are in very close proximity to residential areas. So when an operation continues to operate after the hours provided by the Liquor Licence Act or per conditions attached to a special-occasion permit or a licence, it does create a significant problem in our municipality.
It's a situation that's difficult for the police to address because in many cases these are situations where there are large numbers of people on a premise and the police don't have sufficient forces on duty at particular hours of the night where they are able to go in safety into these premises. So what we're looking for is a means by which a law requiring the stopping of the sale and the discontinuation of the activity can be enforced without the need for enforcement staff to actually enter into the premise, where there could be large numbers of people and where their presence could create a volatile and dangerous situation. This legislation would provide that means.
The legislation would provide that when there is a problem situation, the city could pass a bylaw requiring that licensed premises or premises operating under special occasion permits clear the premise and vacate it of customers at a certain hour in the night and remain clear of patrons during a very limited period of time. Normally it would amount to a couple of hours; clearly no more than three hours. When a bylaw to that effect was enforced, our staff or the police would be able to go to the premise, and just the fact that there is obvious activity going on in it -- customers, noise, any other evidence that the commercial operation is continuing to operate -- would be sufficient evidence for a charge to be laid. We feel that with this additional tool we will be able to get a handle on a problem that has become a significant one in our municipality.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Bartlett. Do we have any interested party wishing to make comments on this particular bill? If not, I would ask the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hardeman, to make comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Hardeman: Good morning and thank you for your presentation. There has been, at least according to my notes, considerable debate between government ministries and the city as it relates to the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem that exists, to be able to enforce the establishments in -- what shall we say? -- the wee hours of the morning. My understanding is that the conclusions reached in this bill were the ones most supportable by all parties to deal with the problem. On behalf of the ministry and the government, we will not be raising any objections to the passing of the bill.
I would just ask some questions that relate not to the government's position, which I've just stated in a very brief way, but I have some personal concerns on the bill as to why and how one decides that there is a different approach needed for different types of businesses. I think you said when you started your speech that we want to be able to deal with problem establishments. Can one write a law and enforce it in a bylaw, and depict certain people or certain businesses for it to apply to, and still consider it to be fair to everyone?
Mr Bartlett: The municipalities have powers that are often applied so that they apply to different situations differently. I recognize that this is giving an additional power to a municipality that will enable them to focus in on areas where there are problems and to deal with that area specifically, and not deal with others that aren't creating problems. That is just the nature of the effective tool we're looking at, but laws very often apply differently.
I guess zoning is the clearest example, whereby we pass zoning bylaws all the time that put different rules on different properties than apply generally throughout the municipality. That's been recognized and those types of laws have been in effect for a very long period of time, and it is accepted as reasonable that a municipality has the power to differentiate in that way. In certain cases, the Municipal Act provisions also authorize municipalities to impose different hours of operations on different premises.
This is a situation that, yes, is going to give council power to zero in on a particular area that is a problem and is going to enable council to pass a bylaw that will affect the ability of people in that area to operate, but because those people are our taxpayers and because they are an important section of our taxpayers, I think we have to rely on the fact that council will exercise that power sparingly, and when the issue has been addressed that has created the need for the municipal action, then the bylaws will be repealed. I think it's the essence of democracy that, yes, we will take action when required, but when the issue has been addressed, the legislation would then be repealed.
Mr Hardeman: Going further on the same issue, I think we've all accepted that governments, and municipal governments in particular in these types of cases, have to deal with the protection of society in general and the orderly conduct of business in their communities. But when you have the ability to enforce a type of law on individuals based on previous occurrences of some type and you apply that differently in different areas of your municipality, I suppose you could define it and make that area very small and it actually could apply to a business as opposed to a number of businesses.
We could have -- and I just put it to you for your comment, for your legal opinion on it, I suppose -- an establishment that has had some problems the last two Saturday nights with some disturbances after the closing of the bar. That is taken forward and dealt with by law in an appropriate manner. They get charged, or whatever it is, for the disturbances and for not having sufficient enforcement on the premises to control the patrons.
All of a sudden the city passes a bylaw that says, "Notwithstanding you being a conscientious taxpayer and a good person in our community, your premises must be closed at 3 o'clock when everyone else in the city can stay open." Why would you, as that individual business owner, not object that all of a sudden you're being penalized beyond what was penalized before? You've already dealt with the disturbances of the previous nights. Now we have the ability to inflict this on individual businesses, different than others. Do you not see that as a problem?
1050
Mr Bartlett: I see it as a concern. I wouldn't say I'd call it a problem. I think you have to rely to some extent on council and the fact that it will exercise its authority with responsibility and with due regard to the rights of the affected parties.
What I would see normally happening in a case like this where there's a problem property that has been identified is that the problem property operator/owner would be given notice that council has concerns about what's happening on the property, that we've received numerous complaints from residents in the area that this premise is being operated in a manner that is creating a nuisance and causing problems in the wee hours of the morning. The person would be invited into committee in council to give input before council acts to pass such a bylaw. After hearing from the individual, council may decide that the action the person proposed to take is adequate to address the problem and may defer taking action until after the person has had an opportunity to correct the situation. But if the action of the operator is such that it doesn't address the problem and these problems are continuing, then at that point in time council would act by passing the bylaw, which hopefully would be kept in effect just as long as necessary to effect a solution to the problem.
Yes, if a council were exercising its power irresponsibly, if it were not having due regard for the rights of a sector of its community and disregarding them, then council could be criticized for that and could be criticized for abusing this power. But that's the nature of lots of powers that are given to a municipality. If the council chooses to abuse it, that's inappropriate, but one hopes and relies on the fact that councils by and large act responsibly and they are accountable to the public for the actions they take.
The Vice-Chair: I will entertain questions from the government side. We'll start with Mr Shea.
Mr Hardeman: If I could, I'd like one comment, Mr Chairman, prior to the questioning. We do have some ministry staff here from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the liquor licensing board, if there are specific questions that the committee members might have on the issue. The appropriate members here would be prepared to answer questions for the committee.
Mr Shea: I'm deeply disappointed that Mr Colle isn't here to answer questions that might appropriately be put to an elected official. I don't want to put the city of York solicitor in an awkward spot trying to give political responses, but I have no other recourse, Chairman, so let me ask a few questions as I go through this request.
Your presentation, George, has been very circumspect. You have chosen your words very carefully and you have I think attempted to present discreetly a concern of your municipality. There is an issue that seems to be behind your words, and it has been masked in an appropriate and sensitive way, but I think it needs to be uncovered at least sufficiently for this committee to understand the depth of concern that brings your council to come to this assembly asking for what some might argue is extraordinary authority.
Can you be a little more precise in giving an example? You have left me, for example, with the impression that there are circumstances in which the police may not wish to be engaged even if lawbreaking is occurring. They may wish not to be engaged or be unable to be engaged. I think you suggested that they may not have sufficient human resources available at the time, given the hours of the day when certain infractions of the law may be occurring. For that reason, the council is requesting this extraordinary authority so that a drive-by ticket, in essence, could be issued. Do I misunderstand what you're asking?
Mr Bartlett: No, I think that's an accurate summary of it.
Mr Shea: So given the lack of human resources, instead of having to go into the precise circumstance and interdict, there at least would be the opportunity for the bylaw to be exercised at some distance with what seems to be at least arguable in court, some evidence that, "I saw people, I heard people," and that would be sufficient to at least take it to court.
Mr Bartlett: That's correct.
Mr Shea: Is it the intention of the municipality to apply this bylaw site-specifically or generically?
Mr Bartlett: The legislation has flexibility in that regard, but I definitely suspect that my council would not intend to apply a bylaw right across the city. I think the intent is that where there are problems, where operations continue on past the time required in other legislation, the legislation would be drafted to deal with those situations. Whether it's by a block or whether it's more narrowly drafted I think is still open, but --
Mr Shea: So it could be site-specific.
Mr Bartlett: Yes. The law is flexible. It could apply to an area of the municipality. It need not apply to the whole municipality.
Mr Shea: I ask you now as a lawyer with considerable experience, do you believe that such a law would at the very least withstand a charter challenge?
Mr Bartlett: To the same extent that zoning bylaws withstand them, and other bylaws that draw distinctions between properties.
Mr Shea: Are there zoning peculiarities in the city of York that I may be unfamiliar with in terms of within the same classification being site-specific?
Mr Bartlett: Yes, we have numerous site-specific bylaws applying to individual properties. I think that's not unique to the city of York.
Mr Shea: No, but I was precise in my questioning in terms of categories. There's category X, which may operate freely within the city of York within the given zoning parameters, but where in fact the city of York is given specific authority to say, "Notwithstanding that generic, this particular site here will be treated differently than all the others within that category." Is there such an example that you could give the committee?
Mr Bartlett: I'm sorry. I guess I'm missing the question. We have general zones in our zoning bylaw, and then overlaid on top of that we have site-specific provisions which deal with individual properties. So despite the fact that a property may fall into a commercial zone, on top of that we do impose other requirements by site-specific zoning that may be unique to that property and may not be the same as other similar operations elsewhere in the city.
Mr Shea: I think we are talking at cross purposes here, so I won't belabour it right now. In this regard, do you have any response from Chief Boothby?
Mr Bartlett: No specific response.
Mr Shea: Have you asked?
Mr Bartlett: We have a committee, a couple of committees in fact, one dealing with one half of the municipality, one dealing with the other half, where we have all the enforcement staff. They get together and look at and address these what we might call problem properties. They would be familiar with the fact that this legislation is going forward. How far up the chain of command that information has gone, I can't speak to that.
1100
Mr Shea: I gather you've had meetings with the LLBO.
Mr Bartlett: Yes.
Mr Shea: There has been no objection raised by LLBO?
Mr Bartlett: There were concerns initially in terms of the way it was worded, but we've incorporated changes to satisfy their concerns.
Mr Shea: Can you indicate for the committee what those changes were?
Mr Bartlett: As I recall, primarily in subsection 2(2), tying it into the fact that we can't by our bylaw interfere with, in effect, the hours of operation that are authorized by the Liquor Licence Act or by a special-occasion permit. So our closing time has to be after the hour by which a premise has to have its tables cleared of liquor under the Liquor Licence Act.
Mr Shea: To your knowledge, are there other municipalities that have this enabling legislation?
Mr Bartlett: No.
Mr Shea: You obviously have been meeting with your counterparts in other municipalities as you prepare for amalgamation. What is your understanding of the status of this bylaw if it were approved, in terms of the new amalgamated city?
Mr Bartlett: If this legislation is approved, this would be a piece of legislation that would continue into the amalgamated city and that council, but it would only apply to the portion of the city that is presently the city of York. The new council could pass a bylaw under the authority of this legislation applicable to the city of York or to a portion of the present city of York.
Mr Shea: The new city of Toronto council could not take it upon itself to expand the existing boundaries of the city of York. Is that correct?
Mr Bartlett: That's correct. It would only apply, just like our current bylaws will continue into the new city, in the territory that is presently the city of York.
Mr Shea: I have no other questions. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: I will go to the official opposition.
Mr Caplan: It seems that the wording in this legislation -- the other committee members were very careful, but my understanding is that this deals with the problem associated with so-called booze cans and their operation in the city and the difficulty that has for local residents, as well as for the city as far as enforcement, and really inappropriate and contrary to the purpose of special-occasion permits and an effective means of enforcement.
My question to the solicitor: In your opinion, does this act have the necessary means for the city to enforce and have enforcement personnel to address the problem they're concerned with, the inappropriate use and consumption of alcohol beyond the hours that would normally be prescribed?
Mr Bartlett: Yes, it does. It can be enforced on its wording by an inspector of the municipality. It can also be enforced by the police, and there are provisions where necessary or where required to gain access to a premise, to get the necessary evidence. There are provisions for warrants.
Mr Caplan: So this legislation goes a considerable distance to addressing a question of community standard in having an effective enforcement mechanism. Given that, we'll be supporting the act.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions?
Mr Shea: I don't have a question, Mr Chairman, but I want to make a comment. The parliamentary assistant would like to get your attention first, so I will be happy to yield for a moment.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, I have another question. It relates to the broader issue of the bill. I think you, sir, explained it very well: that it is to deal with a problem that exists in parts of a municipality and this will be a more effective way of dealing with some of these problems that presently exist. You made it quite clear that you feel it's important that the city can designate the area where the problem is, as opposed to applying it across the municipality, that they need the authority to be able to enforce a problem that exists.
My question would be: Private bills are to give a city authority they would need different from others in the province. Looking at the problem in York, and I have no reason to assume it's worse in York than it is in downtown Toronto or in downtown Salford -- it may be; we don't have any of these establishments in downtown Salford -- would it not be fair to suggest that the authority to do that, if it's appropriate, should be applied to all municipal governments, as opposed to having an authority in York different from all the other municipalities in the province? Is there anything unique about York that would indicate they should have special legislation that would give them powers beyond the powers of other municipalities to deal with a problem that would appear to be possible in any municipality?
Having said that, if it's something that should be applied across the province, should it not be done in just a regular government bill to give all municipal government this authority, if it were appropriate, as opposed to giving it to just one city?
Mr Bartlett: I think your summary of the theory behind private legislation matches my understanding in part. By and large, private legislation is to address situations that are more pressing, perhaps, in one municipality than in another and where for that reason it's appropriate to address it on a narrow basis rather than waiting for province-wide legislation.
However, my experience with private legislation -- I've seen many pieces of it and I have applied for a few of my own -- is that as problems develop, when a municipality finds that the general legislation isn't adequate to address the problem, that municipality will come forward and seek private legislation.
In many cases you will find that other municipalities follow suit a year or two or three later and seek similar legislation. When the need as expressed by these private pieces of legislation is widespread enough and there's perhaps some experience with the legislation to see how it's working and how effective it is to address a problem, at that point the province may step in and make the legislation province-wide.
I look at the city of Toronto, for instance, that has many pieces of private legislation they act under where there are now similar pieces of public legislation that are used by other municipalities. Property standards is a case in point. While in theory the intent may be that private legislation is to be used where there is a local problem that's not widespread, the fact is that it's also used as a means to experiment with solutions to problems and experiment on a smaller scale than province-wide. When the test proves that the legislation is effective, at that point in time my experience is that the province then may move to include it in general legislation.
I just say on this bill that the authority under the legislation is very narrow. It's simply to require that a premise be closed to patrons for a very short period of time, anywhere from one to three hours in the middle of the night. With all due respect, it's not like we're closing down operations and closing down businesses. It's a very narrow authority that this legislation will authorize us to apply, if enacted.
1110
Mr Hardeman: On that, I want to make sure I'm perfectly clear. We are talking about giving the ability to a municipality to close down a premise from a certain period of time during the night, but that applies only if they have a licence.
Mr Bartlett: A licence, or they operate under special-occasion permits.
Mr Hardeman: I would think when a premise has a licence that operates till 2 o'clock in the morning, at that point in time it is no longer licensed until it has the legal right to open again under that licence; that once they close the doors to the cabinet where the alcohol is contained, they can no longer serve it and they obey the rules and they do not serve it. At that point, are they any different than anyone else who doesn't serve alcohol at any time?
Mr Bartlett: You're correct. If they close the cabinet and stop selling, then they're in the same position as any other premise.
Mr Hardeman: But the city would have the power to apply a different law to that establishment than it does to any other establishment that doesn't have a licence the rest of the day?
Mr Bartlett: Yes, the intent being that when a premise with a licence continues to operate and sell liquor and has people in those circumstances creating a problem, we would have the authority under this legislation to apply special rules to them that aren't applicable to non-licensed restaurants.
Mr Hardeman: Let me make sure I understand. A premise that is serving alcohol beyond their licensed hour is restricted now; that's against the law now. We don't need to change anything to be able to enforce that part. What you're suggesting is that it's going to be the vacating of the property -- a totally different action is going to be required of an establishment that was licensed previously and the licence is now closed from 2 o'clock until noon the next day, and during the time they're not licensed, they cannot do what other businesses can do with their premises.
Mr Bartlett: That's correct. This is focusing in on a specific group of premises that have in some instances created a problem for the municipality. I don't think anyone would say that this will address the entire problem in the city of York, but this provides a tool which will be able to address, hopefully, a significant part of the problem. When we are able to design a tool that will deal with the other part effectively, we will. But at this point in time this is the only tool we've been able to come up with.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to say, Mr Chairman, I will be supporting the legislation but I have some concerns as to the narrowness of the implication and that it's not necessarily fair to everyone. But I agree that maybe for the greater good it's an appropriate piece of legislation.
Mr Shea: I think Mr Sheenan also wants to also ask a question for a moment, so if you'll let me defer --
The Vice-Chair: Gee, you're awfully Christian-like today. You're passing the buck on to everybody else.
Mr Sheehan: Is there no law right now, like I think Mr Hardeman was saying, that under the licensing of the LLBO or LCBO or whatever the heck it is we're talking about there's nothing that precludes occupancy as long as they stop serving alcohol at the time specified on the licence, then the occupancy of the building can continue after that for any length of time?
Mr Bartlett: Under general law, yes. There is provision in the Municipal Act whereby a licensing authority like Metropolitan Licensing Commission can impose or restrict hours of operation. I believe that extends beyond simply hours of sale. It can restrict the hours of operation of the premises, but to do it on a premise that's creating a problem, there it can only be exercised after a lengthy process involving a show-cause hearing.
The difficulty there that we're trying to counter with this legislation is the one mentioned earlier. To take action there, the enforcement staff, the police, have to get into the premise. When you have a large number of people in a premise, for the police to do a raid, first of all they won't go in unless they are sure they can go in in safety, which means they have to go in with a fairly sizeable force, which for practical reasons means that in most cases they are unwilling to go in. So the operation continues with no effective enforcement.
Mr Sheehan: Effectively what can happen is that I have this premise and I'm licensed to sell alcohol till 2 o'clock, but there's no effective way of getting at me and say, "Frank, you have to have your people out of there." They can stay there on the premises all night if they choose. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Bartlett: That's correct. Unless they've been convicted of something and there's a show-cause hearing and then their hours are restricted.
Mr Sheehan: Then you could get in --
Mr Bartlett: Then you have to get in two times: first to get the evidence to prove that they're selling liquor when prohibited, and second, after the condition has been imposed, you have to get in again to establish that they're again selling.
Mr Sheehan: Can we ask the LLBO or LCBO: "Can you comment on this? Is there nothing in your book of laws or regulations that can deal with this issue?"
Mr Hardeman: Tom Bolton is the director of inspection for the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and may be able to answer your question.
The Vice-Chair: Could you please state your name for the record.
Mr Tom Bolton: Tom Bolton. The Liquor Licence Act along with the regulations are very specific as far as the time for the commencement and the cessation of the sale and service of liquor. Once the prescribed hour, which is 2 o'clock for licensed premises and 1 o'clock for special-occasion permits, is breached, then the board or the act makes no provision for what happens with the premises subsequent to the legal sale other than that they have to have all signs of sale and service cleared by 45 minutes after the hour of cessation.
Mr Leadston: I'm prepared to support this bill, but just a couple of comments. Is it possible, Mr Bartlett and the licensing individuals, for you to provide me and the other members of the committee with an update, perhaps in six months or sooner, as to the effectiveness of this piece of legislation. My sense is that the problem has probably been created by your zoning laws, in having this type of establishment in such close proximity to a residential community.
I'm sure Mr Colle in the municipality and the councillors could have orchestrated a very large group of residents appearing here this morning to talk about some of the experiences they've encountered. My sense is that I'd like to see an analysis of the bill after it's been in effect for a period of time to see what kind of effect it has had -- I'm sure other municipalities are encountering the same types of problems within a residential community in close proximity to some of these establishments -- to see how it would impact down the road with other municipalities.
Mr Bartlett: The only concern I'd express with that is the six-month time period. With the election, with the new city of Toronto council it may some months before -- six months.
Mr Leadston: Within in the next year, then.
Mr Bartlett: Sure.
Mr Leadston: I'd appreciate having an update.
Mr Bartlett: That would be fine. I can undertake to provide that.
1120
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions.
Mr Shea: I was not passing the buck, Chairman, I was just simply deferring to my colleagues to allow them ask some questions as well. Now I will hit you with the buck and carry on with a series of questions. My question goes to Mr Bolton. You're with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario?
Mr Bolton: Yes, sir.
Mr Shea: In Bill 26 there were some new provisions to change the Liquor Licence Act, were there not?
Mr Bolton: Could you give me more specifics?
Mr Shea: Sure, I could be very specific. There was contained in that bill an element of what I refer to as "salt the earth." Here's what it does. Up until now, municipalities and neighbourhoods that are just absolutely outraged by individuals and organizations that have -- let me be very blunt -- trashed neighbourhoods have been the minority, but they have created serious problems for the liquor licensing authority and for the neighbourhoods because of the behaviour of patrons. It would be very difficult to deal with that in terms of getting at the liquor licence. The fact is that even if a process has started to show cause, you may find that even before you get to the conclusion of the hearings, the licence has suddenly transferred. It goes a number of different ways and it's very hard to get your hand on who is doing what and how to get control of that.
Bill 26 simply made sure that everybody understood that the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario now had authority to not only deal with the individual who is named on the licence but also had the authority to salt the ground in where that licence was given for up to two years. They could say, "No licence at that location may be given for that period of time." Are you familiar with that provision?
Mr Bolton: Yes, sir.
Mr Shea: That's a fairly draconian piece of legislation. At least it gives some measure of protection to neighbourhoods that have been battered and bruised. Has it been employed at all in the last year, to your knowledge?
Mr Bolton: I stand to be corrected, but as far as I know, that particular section of the bill was not proclaimed.
Mr Shea: I'd be really interested if that's the case. Is that your knowledge?
Mr Bolton: Again, sir, I don't have the piece of legislation in front of me. We have not, to my knowledge, applied that particular section.
Mr Shea: Oh, this is interesting.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Hardeman, can you enlighten the committee?
Mr Hardeman: No, I'm sure I cannot enlighten you. I'm not aware of whether it was or wasn't. My question was whether it was even part of Bill 26. I believe it was a different bill that we were referring to.
Mr Bolton: I'm familiar with the section that Mr Shea is referring to.
Mr Hardeman: I'm not aware. I don't know whether staff has any, but we will get that for you, Mr Shea, if it'll be of some help.
Mr Shea: It did not go through your ministry, I say to the parliamentary assistant, but it was part of the omnibus.
Mr Hardeman: Okay. Then it just goes to show I was paying particular attention to that part which referred to --
Mr Shea: I know exactly what you were paying attention to, Mr Hardeman, as was I, but I can tell you on the other hand there were other sections.
Having said that, notwithstanding whatever act or whatever bill it was in, the fact is that legislation was, to my knowledge, proclaimed. I am a little astonished by the reply that it may not yet have been either, to your knowledge, proclaimed or it has certainly not been enforced. That troubles me because there is some remarkable support there for neighbourhoods that are facing this.
Let me pass by that for a moment and respond to this bill that's before us today. I can only assume from my own municipal background that this is a desperate plea by desperate people who are facing some extraordinary circumstances and I understand that. I understand the delicateness with which the solicitor comes forward and approaches this. I am not convinced that he is coming forward enthusiastically shouting and screaming. He is representing his municipality openly and fairly and I think with a degree of due diligence, but I suspect that he, as well as I, understands that this may be a piece of spaghetti waving in the wind if it gets into a whole range of constitutional challenges and so forth.
Still and all, I will support it with a number of reservations only because at least if it's something more to offer to a community that is feeling besieged by the kinds of booze can operators who we know operate not just in your municipality but in other municipalities, then maybe here's a chance to see this legislation working. If it doesn't work, then I think it needs to be visited very quickly, because it has parts to it that trouble me. For example, although you and I have spoken at cross purposes on this, I still think it is too site-specific and that troubles me. It is not just analogous to the zoning situation. I think it's much more than that.
I want you to understand that when I give my support to this, it is because I am very supportive of neighbourhoods, I am very supportive of the kinds of turmoil created by the bad operators. They are in the vast minority, but they make just unconscionable demands upon the licensing authority in terms of enforcement, upon the police department for enforcement. They drive neighbourhoods to total disruption and despair.
I know it's awfully difficult to walk that fine constitutional to respect individual rights and corporate rights and at the same time deal with bad operators, but for that reason I wish you would find that information about "salt the earth," because your response to my questioning, I say now to the liquor licensing authority, troubles me.
I am equally concerned about this potential for drive-by ticketing and everything that may involve. I don't say that lightly. I know exactly what you mean. I am the last person who would want to place our enforcement officers in harm's way, and by going into large crowds -- we understand what you're saying, yet I think the court will have some questions about evidence and procedures and so forth that I think you as a lawyer would understand far better than I.
In terms of the intent of the bill, I understand it and I support it. I wish we had had some comments from the police or evidence that there had been other discussions with law enforcement as well as with the LLBO, but to this degree I will give my support with those reservations. I think Mr Leadston raised a good point, that if somehow it were to be revisited a year or so from now, we might take a look at it and see if there's a way to refine it, improve it or repeal it, whatever. I think that would be a worthwhile enterprise.
I will support the neighbourhoods in the city of York, but this is not a bill that I approve lightly.
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest to the committee, on the issue of monitoring the success or lack thereof of this bill, that the committee must remember that we are either going to approve or not approve of giving the city certain authorities. This committee was not set up to be a monitor of the success of that. It would have to be done based on notifying the individual members as to what is happening within the city of York. The committee's opportunity to discuss this matter further would be if another municipality came forward requesting similar authorities. I suppose it would be appropriate then to ask whether there were other examples that have been used in the past and whether they were successful or not successful. It would be very difficult for this committee to monitor the success or the failure of this individual piece of legislation.
If I could also ask, and I think it relates to Mr Shea's question about Bill 26 and the reference to the licensing: There was a lot of discussion on the section of the bill I was particularly involved with, the municipality powers of licensing. I just wanted to ask whether that section was your reference as it relates to liquor licensing. I'm not aware of anything in Bill 26 that actually deals with the liquor licensing board and the licensing of liquor establishments. Although municipalities were given increased powers to monitor and license all business establishments, it was not related directly to liquor licensing. In fact, it would prohibit them from the serving of alcohol. They would be able to license other functions in that same establishment but not license the alcohol.
Mr Shea: The parliamentary assistant is helping me remember -- it is now coming back and I don't think it was Bill 26. There's another bill and I can't remember the bill right now and I apologize for that. In the bill I can recall the precise wording but I just can't dredge it up for the moment for the committee. I recall it being there. You can be sure I'll know which bill it is within about 20 minutes.
Mr Hardeman: I would like to assist the member and say he can find that out even before the 20 minutes are up. The item I referred to was the general licensing powers in Bill 26 for municipalities, and the item that the member is referring to is from the Liquor Licence Act, which was put forward after Bill 26 to deal with that issue.
Mr Shea: I'm not even convinced of that. I think there was another one as well contained in another act, but wherever it is, I know it exists.
Mr Hardeman: I think that would explain the issue, as the answer to your question that it had not yet been proclaimed. I don't believe there were sections of 26 that were not proclaimed, but it may very well be so in other acts, that there are sections that have not yet been proclaimed.
Mr Leadston: I was not suggesting to the parliamentary assistant that this committee act as a monitoring board. I had asked on my behalf personally for an update with respect to this bill because I can see it has applications in other municipalities, particularly in areas within my region. I'm rather interested in knowing what effect it has had within the residential community and the effect it has had on the businesses and comments from the law enforcement agencies that are involved. So it's not a monitoring situation that I'm asking for on behalf of this committee; it was a personal request. I assume the other members of the committee, if they're interested in the interests of their communities, would request the same information.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for clarifying your point, Mr Leadston. Any further comments? If not, are the members ready to vote on Bill Pr90?
Shall I collapse sections 1 to 8? Yes. Shall sections 1 to 8 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? Thank you.
I would like to thank the applicants and the sponsor, especially Mr Shea for pitching in for Mr Colle today, and last but not least all the staff. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1132.