CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (LICENSING COMMITTEE), 1997
LANSING CO-OPERATIVE NURSERY SCHOOL ACT, 1997
CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 September 1997
City of Hamilton Act (Licensing Committee), 1997, Bill Pr65, Mrs Ross
Mrs Lillian Ross
Mr Lorne Farr
Mr Steve Dembe
Lansing Co-operative Nursery School Act, 1997, Bill Pr88, Mr Turnbull
Mr David Turnbull
Mr Aldo Forgione
Ms Sandra Sasso
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 Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1013 in committee room 1.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to bring the meeting to order. The first order of business is that we have a get-well card for the Chairman, Mr Barrett, circulating around the room, so I would like everyone to sign it, please.
The other piece of business, which is not on the agenda today, is that Mr Ruprecht last week mentioned about the committee looking into why we do business the way we do it. I would like to inform you that we are in the process of looking into this matter and we shall report probably within the next two to three weeks, if that's satisfactory with you.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Can I respond to that just for a minute?
The Vice-Chair: You certainly may.
Mr Ruprecht: I think that's wonderful news. I would expect, when the report comes down -- can we call it a report, or is it simply going to be statement of intent?
The Vice-Chair: I don't know exactly. I don't think it'll be a report, because I'm not one -- I've got the chairman of the red tape commission over here -- for more documentation. But I'm sure there will be a discussion paper that the committee can discuss to see which way we should proceed and how we can tackle this nagging issue that the committee has faced over the past number of years.
Mr Ruprecht: I really appreciate that. I also know that the members of this committee who have spoken on this issue in the past, including Mr Shea -- at least he has made some comments on this issue -- will be very happy that finally something will get done. I'll pass on my congratulations to everyone who's interested in this.
The Chair: We have dedicated staff.
Mr Ruprecht: Great. They should be thanked too.
CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (LICENSING COMMITTEE), 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.
The Vice-Chair: The first bill that we will be dealing with this morning is Bill Pr65. The sponsor of the bill is Ms Ross, so could Ms Ross, along with the applicants, step forward. Ms Ross, you can introduce the bill and also introduce the applicants, please.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm very much in support of Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton. It streamlines the licensing process for the city of Hamilton and provides more accountability through the committee structure.
With me today are Lorne Farr, the solicitor for the city of Hamilton, and Steve Dembe, manager of licensing. I'd like to turn it over to them to explain the bill.
Mr Lorne Farr: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, this is a bill to deal with the licensing committee of the city of Hamilton. This licensing committee was established by a 1978 special bill of the Legislature. At that time, it was set up so that the actual issuing of licences would have to go through the committee. Also, the committee was made up of three members, currently two members of the public and one member of the council. So it's a very special type of committee that's not made up of all members of council.
I understand that our council believes the use of citizens on the licensing committee has been quite effective and has certain advantages, and so the city of Hamilton would like to continue that but streamline our licensing committee legislation. The proposed bill would create up to a five-member committee with, again, at least one member of council on it.
The use of citizens on the committee causes a problem under the Municipal Act in that, under section 105 of the Municipal Act, committees of council can deal with certain hearing matters which this committee would be dealing with. Unfortunately, because there are members of the public on this committee, we wouldn't come within the legislative enactment of section 105. So the purpose of this bill is to deem the new licensing committee a section 105 committee. This would give certain procedural and administrative protections to those applying for a licence.
The other part of the bill is again, as I said, to allow the staff of the city of Hamilton, if you comply with the licensing bylaws, to issue the licences right away. Currently, if you comply with the licensing bylaws, we must still now send your application to the committee to be issued, and that takes some delay. So we're trying to streamline the issuing of the licences.
Mr Dembe is the manager of licensing. I don't know if you have any further comments on the issues.
Mr Steve Dembe: I don't think so. I think Mr Farr has put it correctly. This will certainly bring us into a more streamlined, more up-to-date and more efficient system. Staff will be able to issue the licences which comply, as he has pointed out. Appeals for any licence that has been recommended for denial or refusal would, on appeal, go to this committee. There will be probably less work for this new committee of council, but of course the fairness will be there for applicants who feel they have been aggrieved to still appeal the decision of staff to the committee.
Refusals of licences will be based on criteria approved by city council. That's something we're developing now so that there will be clearer guidelines for staff to approve licences and to refuse to issue licences, with the final appeal going to the committee.
The Vice-Chair: Do we have any other interested party wishing to address the committee on this issue? If not, I would ask Mr Hardeman, the parliamentary assistant, for his comments.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): First of all, I think the applicant would be aware there's been considerable discussion with the ministry about the need for this type of bill. I think the legal position from the ministry is that the provisions in Bill 26 could accommodate this request. Obviously, the legal staff at the city of Hamilton have a somewhat differing opinion and believe this does require a bill to deal with it.
Recognizing that the province has absolutely no concern with doing it, since we feel that it could be accommodated by Bill 26, we have no disagreement with the policy direction and we register no objection with this and recommend that the committee proceed with granting this bill to accommodate what the city of Hamilton requires.
1020
The Vice-Chair: At this point in time, I will entertain questions from the different parties. I will start with the official opposition.
Mr Ruprecht: Thank you. I pass my comments.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Martin?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have no questions either. It seems that the city of Hamilton have made their case and it certainly makes sense to me that you be allowed to go ahead with this. There's nobody who has come before us to object and the ministry seems to be approving of it, so I will have no questions or comments or objection either.
The Vice-Chair: On the government side, Mr Sheehan.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Is this the only authority you have for this licensing committee?
Mr Farr: The 1978 act is the authority for the special licensing committee made up of members of council and members of the public. Probably many other municipalities just use members of council, totally members of council, to do a licensing committee. If that was the way the city of Hamilton was doing it, we would not need a special act, but because we're using members of the public on the committee, that's what requires a special act.
Mr Sheehan: The prior act gives you the permission or gives the committee the right to issue the tickets? It doesn't have to be covered off in here? Because it's not mentioned in here, the right to issue or decline to issue --
Mr Farr: The 1978 act was specifically that the licensing committee had the actual power to issue all of the licenses. The actual issuance of licences had to go to them.
Mr Sheehan: So all we're doing is just changing the composition of the committee?
Mr Farr: To that degree, and also deeming it to be a section 105 committee under the Municipal Act. What happened was, section 105 of the Municipal Act came in after the 1978 act, so in the 1978 act there's a lot of the same type of language dealing with procedural rights and appeal rights. There is some difficulty in the language they used; it's not as clear as the 105 language. So we believe there would be advantage to making it clear that it's a 105 committee.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions? If not, Mr Hardeman has one more comment.
Mr Hardeman: Just one further comment, and it relates somewhat to Mr Sheehan's question. I would point out that the request to change the private bill that presently exists for Hamilton is not changing provincial legislation, so there is no precedent being set. It is just solving a problem that was created by the city of Hamilton's private legislation.
The Vice-Chair: Are the members ready to vote? First of all, can we collapse sections 1 to 6 under one vote? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 to 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
At this point in time, I would like to thank the sponsor and the applicants. Thank you for coming.
LANSING CO-OPERATIVE NURSERY SCHOOL ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr78, An Act respecting Lansing Co-operative Nursery School.
The Vice-Chair: The next order of business is Bill Pr88. The sponsor is Mr Turnbull. Could Mr Turnbull and the applicants come forward, please. Thank you. I'll let you introduce the applicant.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Chair, I'm sponsoring Bill Pr88, An Act respecting Lansing Co-operative Nursery School, on behalf of the constituents of the Attorney General. The applicants with me are Sandra Sasso, who is the president, and representing the applicant is Aldo Forgione, the solicitor. I'll turn it over to Mr Forgione to explain the bill.
Mr Aldo Forgione: Thank you very much. Best we explain the nature of the applicant. The applicant is a company that was incorporated in 1957 with letters of patent without share capital. It is a registered charity, a non-profit organization. It has been an institution in Willowdale, in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, for more than 40 years. There is more about the applicant that I would want my friend to talk about.
I also want to talk about the nature of the property. They moved into this new location in 1995. They -- "they" being Lansing -- had operated a nursery school out of an older, run-down building down the street. As part of a redevelopment initiated by Tridel and coordinated by the city of North York, there was a deal reached where this new building at 80 Church Avenue would be constructed by Tridel and provided to Lansing nursery school for its purposes. So there was a little bit of a land swap that occurred. Unfortunately, the tax bill was not swapped, and the new bill for the property is approximately $10,000. The property can only be used by Lansing, and only for the purposes of a nursery school. If it ceased to be used by Lansing, the property would revert in ownership to the city of North York.
So there are several issues. The new legislation that was passed by Queen's Park earlier this year deals with current value assessment. The term, as it's been defined in new legislation, contemplates an open market for a property. When you're dealing with this right of reversion, it's debatable whether or not this property has any value, because it can only be occupied by Lansing and only used for nursery school purposes.
I'd like to pass it over to Sandra Sasso to speak about the nature of Lansing and its history so you can appreciate the unique nature of the organization.
Ms Sandra Sasso: Good morning. I want to mention that Lansing is a cooperative nursery school. The philosophy behind that is that parents volunteer their services to help the teachers during the course of the school year. There is very much volunteer service throughout the whole community. At the beginning, when Lansing was established, the community supported and volunteered through helping us with fund-raising and purchasing things like toys for the school and volunteering their services, as well as helping us build. We had an architect as well who came and volunteered his services to help construct the school.
We are the only cooperative school in Ontario that owns its own property. This is unique for the school because we do not receive any direct grants from the municipal, federal or provincial governments. So all the money that goes into the school for enrolment is used for the school solely.
I want to reiterate that at the school we need a lot of volunteer services from the community. Our community will be sorely lost if we indeed have to close the school down, because presently we only have 20 children enrolled, which means we cannot afford to have to pay these taxes that have been accumulated over the past few years. We were not expecting our taxes to surmount up to $10,000. Our previous taxes were in the amount of around $2,200, which means that we have had an increase of over 450% with these new taxes, and the school is just not readily able to pay these taxes. So I'm hoping that something can be done to help us in that respect.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Do we have any other interested parties wishing to address the committee? I don't see anyone, so Mr Hardeman, do you have any comments?
Mr Hardeman: There are a couple of quick points I would like to make. First of all, I think the committee should be aware, and I'm sure are aware, that this is a different type of application than we've seen in the past for this type of bill. In the past, the bills have related to community recreation and cultural services that municipalities were asked and were expected to provide and were being provided by others. For that reason, it was felt appropriate that they should have a tax exemption.
Approving this bill would in fact be setting a precedent, a first case where this function, such as a nursery school or day care centre, would be exempted from taxes. The minister doesn't believe that would be an appropriate step to take at this time.
First of all, leading to the requirement for the bill, as opposed to a grant: The municipalities presently have the ability to give a grant to replace the taxes. If the city wished to have this property tax-exempt, to accomplish the same thing does not require the bill. They could charge the taxes and then immediately give the taxes back to the applicant. What they don't have the power to do is to give back the education tax. Although they can give back the amount of the education tax if they so wish, they do not have the power or the ability to forgo the education taxes.
1030
The Ministry of Education feels that it would be inappropriate to give the municipalities the ability to forgo those taxes, recognizing that the province has taken the approach that the funding of education will be controlled by the province. There will be a set mill rate on the municipalities, and beyond that the province would be funding it out of income taxes. So the ministry does not feel it appropriate that the local municipalities should be in the position to forgo education taxes.
One of the other points I would like to make is that the province's position -- as I said, in the past they have not granted these types of bills, or none has been approved. In the policy direction that our province has taken in the last assessment bill, there is a section that allows the Minister of Finance by regulation to exempt certain taxations as they relate to commercial properties. Certain functions that occur in commercial properties, non-profit organizations and so forth, the minister can by regulation exempt from taxation.
But what's interesting in the bill is that one thing that is not included, that cannot be exempted from taxation by regulation, is excluding land use for the purpose of day care centres. I would point out that I think a nursery school and a day care centre would be a similar type use. Though they are somewhat different in function, I think from a land use policy they would be a similar type use. The government's position has been that we should not have those exempt from taxation. If they require that and they should have that relief, it should be given in a grant from the municipalities to overcome that position.
I think those are fairly well my points on the reason we think the committee should consider not supporting this bill. I do have a question. My information doesn't report whether the region, the upper tier in Metro, and the school board actually sent in resolutions of support, or whether it was just that you asked for their support.
Mr Forgione: With respect to receiving support, we have received a resolution passed by the city of North York. We are in the process of obtaining a resolution from Metro. Councillor Norm Gardner's office has initiated a motion that apparently will be heard on September 24. It has been seconded by Councillor Caroline Di Giovanni.
With respect to the board of education, we have had a discussion with the board of education. Ms Judi Codd, who is part of the executive of the board, has provided her personal support, but we have not been able to obtain a motion or a letter of support from the board of education or the union, so we're endeavouring to do so.
Mr Hardeman: I just wanted to add to that. For the committee's information, there have been a number of requests of a similar nature that have either been denied or deferred because the required support was not present at the table when the discussions were taking place. I would point out that the taxes we're talking about, the majority of those taxes, at this point in time do not have the municipal support to require the forgiving of those taxes.
I would also point out that in this bill it is a request to allow and to forgive them back to 1995, as opposed to just future taxation. I hope the committee would take those points into consideration.
The Vice-Chair: Questions from the committee members? I'll start with Mr Martin this time.
Mr Martin: I'll be supporting this bill. I want to be on record as expressing tremendous support for anybody who in this very difficult time of transition is able to find a way to continue to provide day care services. Non-profits are a good example of how people can come together cooperatively to provide for each other what sometimes they can't provide individually. At a time when there is less and less money coming from government to support that kind of activity, where a community of people have been able to come together and provide a service to each other that becomes less a drain on the larger public purse, I think we should be willing to support that in whatever way we can.
I sense an urgency in this from you as you come before us or else you would probably have waited to have all those official documents in place. I don't see any letters of objection to this in front of us, so that certainly allays some of my anxiety and fears around it.
I'm supportive of what you're doing. I'm supportive particularly of the cooperative nature of what you're doing. If we as a governing body can lend you some relief, some extra ability to continue to do that, and indirectly in doing that lend some relief to the parents who belong to this cooperative and contribute to the educational process of the children who will come to your centre, then I would be more than happy to do this.
I have no difficulty setting a precedent of this sort, particularly in the environment that's out there today for a lot of these kinds of operations, day care centres, particularly non-profit, cooperative day care centres, as they struggle to find ways to provide the kind of service you do to families who in some instances, I'm sure, wouldn't otherwise be able to afford them.
With those thoughts on record, I will be supporting this bill this morning.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. I'll proceed on the other side, the government side.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have a number of questions. Just a preliminary thought: I recognize the comments of my distinguished colleague from Sault Ste Marie. He makes in some ways a grand gesture, eliminating taxes that are owed to other levels of government. I'm not quite as quick to that, but I do understand the significance of the service that's provided.
The issue that I think is far more serious and important for us, as I'm sure the sponsor of this bill understands -- I have consummate respect for Mr Turnbull who understands the nature of the tax base and how it's structured, so I approach this with a great deal of caution because I hold Mr Turnbull in very high regard. He understands this issue with all its intricacies. Nevertheless, I have some questions to ask and I think even my distinguished colleague Mr Turnbull would understand why I have to at least pursue some questions here that are serious that flow from my comments to my colleague from Sault Ste Marie.
We are involved with the unravelling of a tax base. I recognize that this is a most unusual request that's before us for a whole range of reasons. In all of this, as I try to find if there's any culpability in this, I find my attention turning to the city council of North York rather than anything else. That's where my real concern rests, and the parliamentary assistant quite rightly pointed his attention to things that could have been accommodated some time ago, just simple grants in lieu which would have resolved this matter. Many of us who have served on municipal council for years know exactly how that can be done. To kind of dodge the bullet is surprising.
May I just ask, the parliamentary assistant correctly pointed the committee's attention to the fact that your request also involves retroactivity. Would you please advise me, what is the total amount of annual taxes currently on the property?
Mr Forgione: The current amount of annual taxes is in the range of $10,000.
Mr Shea: It is $10,000.
Mr Forgione: It is $9,600.
Mr Shea: Annually. This goes back to 1995, so we'd be talking of something in the range of about $30,000 for forgiveness.
Mr Forgione: Approximately $25,000 at this stage because we moved in in June 1995. Initially, we were seeking exemption under the Assessment Act. If I can speak about that matter, the background to our being here today was a variety of bureaucratic discussions.
1040
Under the Assessment Act, there are hundreds of thousands of organizations in Ontario that get exemptions from taxes, organizations such as Lansing that are charitable, organizations not like Lansing that are religious, and there are quite a few government organizations. We could have set up the property and put it into the ownership of the city of North York with a lease to Lansing, but continued the same process that was there before. Lansing owned the property and it will continue to own the property indefinitely until it ceases to continue operations.
Under the Assessment Act, there were three paragraphs in section 3 we discussed with the assessment commissioner. The most appropriate would have been a seminary of learning, whether or not Lansing Cooperative Nursery School qualified as a seminary of learning. There was quite a bit of bureaucratic debate going back and forth and it was determined that probably the better way to do it, rather than leaving it in the hands of the assessment commissioner, would be to make an application for a private bill. The city of North York and the council of the city of North York fully supported that and that was their recommendation, and they imposed a variety of conditions if we were to obtain passage of this bill.
Paragraph 4, paragraph 6 and paragraph 12 in the Assessment Act, either one of those was very close to falling within that jurisdiction, wherein if we would have been interpreted as being covered by those provisions, the assessment commissioner would have automatically given us an exemption.
Mr Shea: I appreciate your response in terms of the Assessment Act. I understand it reasonably well and I appreciate your comments. I will ask for comments later on the word "may" be eligible for exemption. I reflect upon that word with more than interest. To have pressed this nursery school as a seminary of learning I think may be pressing the envelope beyond its capacity, but let's press on because I'm less fussed about that than I am about the role of North York in this.
We now know we're talking about retroactivity. We're talking about going back to 1995 and it's taken till 1997 for this matter to come before us or to go anywhere for that matter. At this point, it is, let me assure you, very clear it was only a few weeks ago that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was asked to take up the issue of forgoing its portion of the taxes. Is that correct?
Mr Forgione: That is correct.
Mr Shea: It was only a matter of just a few weeks ago that the board of education was asked to take up the issue of forgoing its taxes.
Mr Forgione: We had had prior discussions in early 1997.
Mr Shea: It's indicated to me that on or about July 8 you gave your formal request to the board to consider.
Mr Forgione: That's true. A formal request was made.
Mr Shea: Has the Metropolitan school board been approached?
Mr Forgione: No, they have no.
Mr Shea: Thank you. At this point, all I have before me anyhow as a matter of the committee is a suggestion that the North York council would like us, in lieu of doing a grant in lieu, to do a private bill, and you've indicated in your response that there is a series of terms and conditions they've applied to their agreement to letting you get a private bill. Are those terms and conditions laid before the committee?
Mr Forgione: The terms and conditions were part of a resolution that was passed. I'm not sure if they're in as part of the compendium of background information. I don't believe they are, so I don't believe it is before your committee. But the conditions, and indeed the bill itself is drafted in a very flexible manner. It deals with issues such as non-distribution of capital profits to the members, which is a very important aspect of Lansing. If Lansing ceased to operate, there would be no distribution of the capital profits of Lansing to its members. It would just revert to the city of North York.
Mr Shea: So it's the usual wind-down of a cooperative and ensuring that the assets flow back to the corporation of North York or what will then be the city of Toronto?
Mr Forgione: Exactly. There are also some restrictions on its use and payback of any property taxes that were exempted improperly. So if it's determined at a later date that Lansing did change its use, there would be a clause regarding payback.
Mr Shea: Thank you. That answers most of my questions.
I think the parliamentary assistant has made the government's point clear and I'm persuaded there's a lot of merit in that. I am troubled because there is a part of me that supports what my distinguished colleague from Sault Ste Marie spoke about in terms of the importance of day care service in our municipality -- I know that also is on the mind of your sponsor -- and my difficulty is that I don't want to do the wrong thing for the right reason. While this is an important act, I think the parliamentary assistant has pointed out some serious concerns, this being as unique as it is, that somehow I think the city of North York has got to meet its responsibility. It owns the property. It has allowed you access to the property for the provision of a service.
I must confess I am at a loss to understand why the council would not have taken the step that any other council would have done, to have said, "Yes, grants in lieu," instead of driving you on to the Legislative Assembly for a private bill, which is absolutely bizarre, to say the least. Once it's on, it's on, and all tangled up, and so forth. This could have been resolved a couple of years ago. The sponsors and the supporters of the centre would not have been put through any of this awkwardness. In fact the city of North York could give you relief within a week if it chose to do so. I'm going to support, aside from that -- I have a real concern about the unravelling of a tax base. I am more concerned about allowing local municipalities to make the decision of who they will exempt and what will be exempted.
I have great respect for the authority and responsibility. The only area I have always said I'm concerned about in this committee is particularly ensuring that municipalities have a cap on the maximum amount, because there is tremendous pressure on local politicians to exempt and exempt, and I understand that and I respect that. I think somehow we need some comfort there is a cap, so that whatever you do, it has to be done within that envelope. You can't go beyond that. Every time you exempt, it means everybody that is paying taxes now pay more. That's what you really do. You have to be very careful how you weave this.
This is not to make any comment at all, negatively in any way, shape or form about the service you're performing. I'm now dealing in terms of municipal government and the structures of assessment, and what's involved in that regard, so the best I can do is support the recommendations of the parliamentary assistant. If I hear arguments around the table that would persuade me to defer this matter, to give you time to come in with all the letters in hand from all the principals saying, "Yes, we will forgo the taxes," I could be pressed to the wall a little bit for that, but I confess I would be pressed to the wall to even support it then.
I am offended beyond belief that the city council of North York would put you in this position and that this would not have been dealt with before this time. That has not done you a great service and it certainly doesn't do us a great service here. I won't prolong the matter but I will support the parliamentary assistant's comments. Thank you.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Just a couple of questions on your financial situation: How many students actually attend the nursery school, or how many children do you have there?
Ms Sasso: We can have up to 40 children in the school. Presently we only have 17 because when JK came into effect the school lost a lot of students going to the regular public school system. Our enrolment is quite low this year. We're hoping that we will bring our enrolment up by the middle of the year.
Mr Gerretsen: How are you funded? Are you primarily funded privately or are you funded by government in one way or another?
Ms Sasso: We're primarily funded privately by parents, by enrolment fees. We don't receive anything otherwise from anyone.
Mr Gerretsen: What's your annual budget on a year-to-year basis?
Ms Sasso: Our annual budget is around $47,000.
Mr Gerretsen: Is this your major debt, whatever you owe in outstanding taxes?
Ms Sasso: Presently -- sorry, can you rephrase that question?
Mr Gerretsen: Do you have any other major indebtedness other than what you owe in the outstanding taxes?
Ms Sasso: No, we do not.
1050
Mr Gerretsen: Those are all the questions I have, Mr Chair. We will get an opportunity to discuss this later on, will we? No? If not I'll just put in my two cents worth right now and indicate that I don't see what the problem is, quite frankly.
If this is a government that believes in giving greater powers to local municipalities, as it has been saying through its downloading legislation and through other pronouncements that have been made over the last couple of years, then why should it not be up to the local municipality to decide who they are going to exempt or who they are going to give grants to? It's made to sound as if this is a fait accompli if we pass this bill. All this bill does is give the local municipality permissive legislation to exempt the taxes that may be owing.
I have some difficulty with respect to the outstanding taxes. I think whatever the rules of the game were back in 1995-96 ought to be respected. This may give some hardship to the organization but those rules can be changed, and once they change, let the local municipality decide whether there should be any further tax indebtedness owing. I honestly don't see why we're even dealing with these kinds of matters by way of a private member's bill. The ministry could do itself and all of us a big favour and also really live up to its pronouncement that it believes municipalities are true partners in the governing of this province by giving them the outright authority to determine whether taxes in particular situations should or should not be.
I realize the ministry people will say that ultimately a municipality could forgive everybody's taxes and only have one person pay the tax load for the entire shot, for the entire municipality. That's obviously never going to happen. There's going to be enough of a public outcry if these kinds of things are incurred in situations which are totally unwarranted. But we've made exemptions here before for group homes, and for other institutions.
I would prefer to see a situation where the government, and I think we talked about this before, would come up with a recommendation that in a certain series of endeavours, local municipalities have the complete power and authority to either impose taxes or not. This is one of those perfect examples. I support this bill for the strict reason that I believe municipalities ought to be given more individual powers to decide these things. These things are much better decided at the local level where there's an understanding of the particular services that are being given, than us sitting around a table here at Queen's Park, quite frankly.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Gerretsen. I know you were a bit late today. However your colleague, Mr Ruprecht, brought up the same point with regard to --
Mr Gerretsen: We always think alike, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: I'm glad to see there's consistency. I informed the committee that we would have the opportunity to deal with this issue as a committee in the very near future. I'll proceed with Mr Ruprecht.
Mr Ruprecht: I'm trying to be helpful to Mr Forgione and Ms Sasso, but what concerns me quite a bit is that the request that is before Councillor Gardner right now -- if I understood you correctly, you're saying that the councillor right now has made a request to the municipality of North York in terms of these taxes. Is this correct? Where is it at in terms of the exemption that concerns Councillor Gardner and North York?
Mr Forgione: Councillor Gardner, in a motion seconded by Caroline Di Giovanni, will be passing a motion to exempt Lansing from property taxes for 1996-97 because that was all they could do within their power, as it was explained to me.
Mr Ruprecht: They will be doing that, but they haven't done that yet because the council hasn't met at a certain time.
Mr Forgione: Exactly. We were unable to get on to the previous meeting and we needed to provide more documents for Councillor Gardner.
Mr Ruprecht: I too am very sympathetic to you and agree with Mr Gerretsen's point earlier, but what concerns me is precisely this whole idea of process here. I don't even know, as Mr Shea said earlier, how in terms of process this application comes before this committee without having gone through some of these steps you've got to go through. While we're sympathetic with you, the process is really part of the problem, and that's why I'm really glad staff is going to make some recommendations and you're going to approve them, I understand, next time we meet, so that this doesn't happen again.
I think what happened here behind the scenes is almost as important as what happens in front of you. Most of us have reservations in terms of this process when the exemption of the school board hasn't been nailed down, and certainly you're only in the process in terms of the municipality of North York. I would think that you would have had a greater chance, to be helpful, if those two levels would have been negotiated with, and then come before this committee.
In addition to all of that, of course, we're right now in the process of working out how this should come before the committee, or whether in the future these kinds of items should even come to the committee, because the government might be able to say either yes or no to you, or give the power, as Mr Gerretsen says, to the municipality to do it directly.
The Vice-Chair: I am informed the applicants were aware of the process. However, they decided to proceed with the bill itself, just for your information. Mr Martin, you had your hand up.
Mr Martin: Just to maybe shed some light on why we find this group before us today, I know I've sat here and listened to other groups come forward, and it seems we get more and more of them all the time, from municipalities looking for this kind of an exemption.
Municipalities are becoming inundated more and more with requests of this sort, as non-profit charitable organizations find themselves under the gun in their communities because of the impact on them re their ability to raise funds, because services that used to be provided by government are no longer provided by provincial government, or the amount of money going to those services has been reduced to such a point that they are now out there competing for that charitable dollar, so it's becoming more and more a competitive field.
Some organizations that were getting by with the little bit of donation that they get and the contribution from the people participating are now finding themselves in a position where they can't and they're becoming quite desperate. Municipalities are becoming quite desperate about this as well because they know, as Mr Shea has said, that their ability to provide even the basic services they have traditionally provided or are mandated to provide is now in question because of the download of this government that's happening. Everybody is being squeezed.
I would suggest to you that perhaps the reason we're getting more applications of this sort before this committee is that municipalities and others are beginning to come to the realization that it is this level of government that's causing the dilemma they're confronting, that's imposing on groups such as this and the municipalities the kind of financial concern they're facing now that they didn't face five or 10 years ago. That's why this is before us and that's why it is appropriately dealt with here, given the present context of legislation and regulation.
I would suggest, given the conversation we've had around the table here this morning, and would make a motion to the effect, following up on a suggestion by Mr Shea, that we defer this until we hear from the two government bodies that are now dealing with this, possibly passing resolutions in the next few weeks, and that we bring this back before us at that time, and that we perhaps, out of respect to the issues raised by Mr Shea, ask those levels of government to appear and explain to us why it is we find ourselves dealing with this, so that you might have a more supportive audience and perhaps some other people to support your request.
We might be more aware of the reasons behind the situation that this non-profit cooperative day care finds itself in, and might at that point have the benefit of the resolutions that are passed by these levels of government in front us so that we could vote accordingly.
I would move a motion of deferral until we have those resolutions.
1100
The Vice-Chair: Mr Martin has moved a motion of deferral on this particular bill. Is there any further discussion?
Mr Shea: May I ask a question of the parliamentary assistant?
The Vice-Chair: Certainly.
Mr Shea: I'd like his response to that, because I know there are a couple of points here. Again, it involves the issue of exemptions. Mr Gerretsen's comments notwithstanding, the fact is that grants in lieu have been a long-standing right and responsibility of municipalities right now, and the local municipality hasn't done it. So his thundering about the importance and significance of local government is meaningless. The fact is that government has sloughed it off and it has left this organization in a very awkward crack. I think it would have resolved it a long time ago if they had dealt with it themselves.
Setting that part aside, I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant for comments about the possibility of deferring this matter. Does the parliamentary assistant believe there is any merit in deferring it? Does that give the government time to respond to any other issues that are outstanding here? I suspect it may be difficult, given what we are faced with at this point, but can I have his comments?
Mr Hardeman: The concern I would have with supporting a resolution for deferral, first of all, relates mostly to the applicants. I would suggest from some of the discussion we've had that there are alternatives to this bill that should come into play, such as grants in lieu or something like that from the local municipality. I would point out to the applicants and to the committee that a deferral would stop that from happening. You would go back to the city and say: "We've proceeded with the bill. It has come before the committee and it has been deferred." The city would then take no action and your taxes would keep building. In subsequent appearances, the retroactivity that is being proposed in this bill would become greater and greater.
I think the reason we would give a deferral would be to get the motions of support from the school board and the upper tier. I would point out that as of January 1, the school board would in all probability not be in the position to give that approval to start with. So if we're looking for a deferral that would last beyond the three or four months, it would be highly unlikely that one would get a motion of support from a school board that would carry the weight that says they could forgive provincial taxation.
So a deferral, in my opinion, would not serve a useful purpose for the applicants. Obviously, one can defer the issue and come back to this type of discussion two or three months down the road, but I think in the facts as they are before us now, it would be unlikely that those requirements that are being referred to would be achieved.
I would point out that I have a list of some applications that have been deferred in the past for exactly those same reasons, because they did not have the required support. The listing I have goes back to three and four years ago that they were before this committee with that deferral and they have not been back. I can reasonably assume that either they decided they didn't want the tax exemption or they were unable to get that local support.
Mr Gerretsen: There may be another reason as well.
Mr Hardeman: There may be numerous reasons. The only reason I point that out is again for the benefit of the applicants. If it's going to be two or three years, it would delay the decision of the grant from the city to help defray the cost of your taxation. So I think if a decision is going to be made on this issue, it will serve the applicants best to have a decision made today.
Mr Gerretsen: I always believe in being straight up and honest with applicants when they come before you. Over my years in government I've seen too many applicants simply deferred for the wrong reason, giving applicants hope where there isn't any hope. I guess the real question that has to be asked of the parliamentary assistant is, is the ministry likely to change its mind if two resolutions come in from the necessary local government and the local school board supporting the application? Will you change your mind? If not, it would just be making these people try to believe something that isn't happening. Let's be straight up front with them.
The Vice-Chair: Do you wish to reply to Mr Gerretsen?
Mr Hardeman: I do, and I would point out that I'm not in the position to suggest that the ministry or the minister would not change their minds if evidence came forward that would require them to do that. All the information that is before us today and any policy decisions that the government has made take us in the direction that the government believes the appropriate way to deal with these matters is grants in lieu as opposed to tax exemptions. So I would suggest that even though the resolutions came forward, the ministry and the minister would seriously consider still advising the applicants that it should be done through the grant process rather than the tax exemptions.
If I could just quickly go on with a couple of other points I would like to make on some of the discussion that has taken place, I want to reiterate that the government is not opposed to this type of function and is not suggesting that the organization is not doing good work, nor that they should not receive a grant in lieu of the taxation that they're paying from the city. The government believes that this is an inappropriate way of funding the organization, as opposed to giving it direct and up front. I think the city, if they support it in this way by resolution, should take those same tax dollars and just give them back to you. If they feel it is appropriate that they give you the exemption retroactively, that's the same purse that they are going to take it out of if they gave it to you in a grant.
As it deals with Mr Gerretsen's comments about local autonomy, I think the province has been very consistent and still is. We believe it should be local autonomy, it should be local decision-making, it should be your city that decides whether you should get that grant or should not get that grant. But your city councillor should not be making that decision on behalf of the region and your city council should not be making that decision on behalf of the board of education. Local autonomy applies to everyone, not just to certain individuals who make decisions on others' behalf. The upper tier too can give a grant in lieu of the taxation, so again they should be asked for that same consideration and it should be done in that process.
The grant structure will allow the municipality to do exactly what they're asking for in this bill, and I would advise the applicants to proceed on that route.
Mr Gerretsen: Just as a matter of information, subsection 4(1) specifically states, "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...." In other words, the way I read this private bill, it is up to each individual body that currently shares in the tax revenue in that municipality, whether it's a school board or whether it's the local municipality, whether for their purposes this particular situation should be exempted.
Mr Shea: I just said that.
Mr Gerretsen: I don't think you quite said that.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your comment. I'm not going to allow discussion across the room. Mr Martin, you had your hand up.
Mr Martin: I just wanted to say that I agree with the parliamentary assistant when he says that no level of government should be making decisions for another level of government. That's why I'm asking for this deferral: to wait and see what those other two levels of government have to say. I don't think you're suggesting for a second that this group shouldn't be before us here, that this isn't an appropriate route for them to take. I don't think you're saying that. At least I hope you're not.
The other thing I'd like to say is that I think it's unfair for the parliamentary assistant to assume or presume on behalf of the applicants that they would, first of all, not come back, or that they would have some difficulty with a month or so extra retroactivity. They may want the opportunity to go and make sure they have those resolutions and bring them back here and make that further argument. So I'd like to ask the applicants if they would like to respond to that question and I'd also like to ask the member who has sponsored this bill if he's in support of a deferral.
Mr Turnbull: As I stated at the beginning, this applicant comes from the Attorney General's riding. I've always taken the position with respect to anything that goes on in my own riding that if an application comes forward, I will vet it and I will express my opinion. I feel that it's inappropriate for those people who live in an area which is represented by a cabinet minister not to have the opportunity to be able to bring forward private bills. For that reason, I make a principal point of saying it's inappropriate for a member to express an opinion upon matters pertaining to other areas that they don't represent, other than in a general sense.
1110
Mr Gerretsen: So are you supporting this or not?
Mr Turnbull: I have sponsored it and I have explained my position, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Martin: I'd like to hear from the applicants their position. Mr Forgione, if I could ask you?
Mr Forgione: If I could speak on the issue of deferral and municipal support, the reason we're here, the issue of deferral comes into play because of the fact that effective January 1, 1998, the corporation of the city of North York will no longer exist. We've received support from the municipal level. Mayor Mel Lastman, councillor John Filion and a variety of other councillors have offered their support to us. So we do have local support for our proposal.
They have advised me -- "they" being the legal department for the city of North York, and maybe this advice is incorrect -- that the grant cannot be provided at this date due to the transition legislation passed by this government. That is the reason we're not getting a grant. Maybe if this deferral will be granted so we can clarify that -- parliamentary assistant, I appreciate your recommendation -- we can make further inquiries into whether or not a grant is available, because the city of North York would definitely provide us with a grant to offset the existing taxes if they're in a position to do so. They have indeed provided us with an indication that they would support us in any event.
If it is a condition of obtaining a deferral that we apply to the city of North York for a grant, then I am prepared to accept deferral. If it's just an issue of passing us off and not dealing with us for a few years as our tax bill escalates and as nursery schools in the area are closing -- and indeed there are three or four schools that we know of that have closed this year. As our tax bill increases and increases and there's a threat now of a cutback to our grant to pay for the teachers effective 1998, deferral may just mean the end of the school unless it's dealt with in the next couple of months. Part of me says we are prepared to accept deferral if it deals just with the issue of grants, but if it's just a blanket deferral, we're not prepared to accept it, because it would mean the end of the school.
Mr Shea: Sorry. Would you just repeat that last sentence? You're saying if it's just a blanket deferral, you won't accept that; and you want a decision made right now?
Mr Forgione: No. We will be able to obtain the support of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, we believe. With respect to the Toronto Board of Education, I'm not sure whether we will obtain their support before January 1, 1998. After January 1, 1998, their support won't be very relevant.
Mr Shea: So your comment was that a blanket deferral doesn't do you any good. Deal with it now; make your decision now or not. That's what you're essentially saying.
Mr Forgione: No. If you're prepared to give us a deferral so we can canvass whether or not a grant would be available from the city of North York, if that was a condition of the deferral, we would feel that's appropriate.
Mr Shea: Let me respond to a comment made earlier, just a few moments ago, that perhaps placed the intentions of the parliamentary assistant under some scrutiny. I would rise to challenge that. I think the parliamentary assistant has outlined the position of the government very clearly and very precisely. I don't think there's any presumption on the part of the parliamentary assistant, nor is there any such intention. I think he's trying to be very clear about the position of the government.
I am overwhelmed by the response that someone would suggest that the transition legislation has precluded the giving of a grant. I will try not to guffaw. I will try not to fall over laughing. I will try not to say how silly that is. To suggest, for example, that the transition legislation precludes that is just patent nonsense. The legislation is very clear for anyone who understands that. If any expenditures are within the budgets -- you know as well as I do there was a great outrage about the possibility of controlling expenditures by municipalities, and indeed the government said: "Fine. You carry on. There will be an oversight. We can advise the taxpayers if there are untoward expenditures, but the fact is that it is your right to spend it."
Indeed, if you read some editorials in recent newspapers, including the Toronto Star, they have thundered and thundered against local councils for expenditures of all sorts, including dipping into their reserve funds, and we've seen that going on in the last few months. The kinds of concerns the government expressed in the amalgamation legislation are in some measure coming true. The government stepped aside from that -- reluctantly, but stepped aside out of respect to local decision-making, and we've seen some awesome results.
Anyone trying to tell you that it is the transition legislation that is creating awkwardness for the giving of grants, please look them in the eyes and ask them to pause and pray for five minutes. The fact is that that is simply untrue. To the best of my knowledge, if it is within its budget particularly, they have capacities to do line movements within budgets and so forth. To say they have no capacity to give grants in lieu is just simply untoward.
The final point I want to raise is that what really troubles me is that I have a bill before me in which you may or may not fit anyhow. I understand your argument that you do fit within the categories. I challenge that, because I don't think that's clear. I think that's not clear from what's before us. That's a concern I have, and I made that in my opening comments.
The second part to it is that I am deeply concerned about the fact that your application only went before Metropolitan Toronto and before the local board of ed. You said the Toronto Board of Education; I assume you mean the North York Board of Education. I assume you mean that, from what documentation I have before me, unless we're dealing with two different municipalities.
Mr Forgione: It's the Toronto Board of Education.
Mr Shea: The Toronto Board of Education. Well, you just opened up another can of worms for me. I now have to pause and say, you've asked the North York council to exempt you, but you've applied to the board of ed of the city of Toronto for exemption?
Ms Sasso: Just to North York. Judi Codd is North York; she's councillor for North York. We've also asked for Marguerite Jackson's support. She is the director and secretary-treasurer of the North York Board of Education.
Mr Shea: I appreciate all of that, and with all due respect, it doesn't matter to me who was asked. The fact is, what is before me, the documentation before me, says North York city council has said this will be a good thing and so they gave you the Martha Stewart imprimatur and said, "Go forward and see if you can get a bill passed."
The clerk has put before me documentation saying that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto received notice on or about July 8, 1997, just a few weeks ago. This has not exactly been in the works for two years. The Toronto Board of Education received notice on July 8. That is what's before me -- not the North York Board of Education. There's nothing talking about an application to the Metropolitan Toronto school board as well, which is also a funding body.
I must confess I am troubled because you are asking even for a deferral, and information before me is not accurate. There is a real question about whether you fit into this or not, into the definitions. There is some concern on my part about the fact that there was such late application. I know that you may be troubled about the timing of the new and better city of Toronto, but I confess I will not be driven by those timetables. I will be driven to do what is right.
Maybe I can pause for a moment and just ask -- I know your sponsor wants to speak, but let me first ask if the clerk can please explain to me why I have a documentation before me that says an application was made to the Toronto Board of Education.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): That was the information supplied to us by the applicant. That's their compendium. I don't produce that document.
Mr Shea: Thank you. I have no further comments.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Shea, I have two speakers, the sponsor and Mr Gerretsen, briefly. One comment that I would also like to make with regard to the motion from Mr Martin on deferring the bill is that I think members should also consider that fact that if the House rises, it may delay the process impact on the process.
Mr Gerretsen: First of all, I always appreciate the thunder from the member for High Park-Swansea. Well done.
Look, we've got a practical problem here. We've got an organization that has an indebtedness of $30,000. They have presumably approached their council and their council is saying to them, rightly or wrongly, Mr Shea: "Because of the transition rules, we cannot give a grant. You've got to go by way of a private bill."
That's why they're here. All they're asking for is permissive legislation so they then have the legislation to go back to the appropriate school board and the appropriate council and say, "Will you pass a bylaw implementing this act?" This is just permissive legislation. We are not cancelling any taxes here on behalf of anybody. It just allows them to follow the process through by the end of year to make it happen.
1120
If we're going to delay it in any way, shape, or form, then in effect we have killed their request. Let's be very blunt and up front about that. The question we have to answer to each one of our own consciences is, do we agree they should have permissive legislation so they can take it the next step and get the necessary resolutions passed, which may or may not be passed by the appropriate local council and the school board?
That's all they're asking for, to allow them, to straighten out their financial situation as far as the taxes are concerned, by the end of the year; obviously by the end of the year it's going to be a totally new game. They will have to appeal presumably to a new Metro council and they may have to appeal directly to the province at that point in time, since the province will be totally involved in the education funding.
Why do we with all sorts of clouds and mirrors make it more difficult for them? Let's give them the opportunity to go back to their local council and their local school board to get the necessary resolution passed. It's up to those two bodies whether or not they will actually pass the required resolutions. If we somehow stall this, let's be up front with them and say, "Look, we don't believe in your cause."
I think that's the way we ought to deal with it. Let's pass this private bill so they can get on with their lives and make the necessary applications and let those two bodies then decide whether or not they will go along. Any other kind of dealings with this matter here today will mean this particular application, as far as they're concerned, is dead, and let's be up front and tell them that.
Mr Turnbull: Unfortunately I have to leave to go to another meeting. I believe we can cut to the chase in this matter. The question should be asked, "Even if the applicant were to come back, if there was a deferral granted, with agreement from the Metro school board, the North York school board and Metro itself to this, would the government feel it appropriate, in view of the new funding arrangements, to grant such an application?"
If the answer is no, it probably serves the applicant better to be told that now by the parliamentary assistant so that they can get on with their life and go back to North York, which does in fact have the right to grant the grants in lieu, which they could have done prior to coming here. A simple answer to that will probably resolve whether a deferral would be useful.
Mr Hardeman: I would agree with Mr Turnbull that I think that is the most important issue we're dealing with here. I would point out that in Bill 149, which is presently before the Legislature, there's clear indication that the province does not believe this is the appropriate way to deal with the taxes on day care and child care centres. When Bill 149 is passed, and this bill came before this committee, it would be in my opinion out of order because it would be in direct contradiction to what government policy will be. I would point out that is not government law today. Bill 149 has not been passed.
But I do envision that by the time a deferral was to come back here, that would be the law and those would be the criteria that would be used to judge the application. On that point I agree with Mr Gerretsen when he said, "Why don't we tell it like it is?" I'm not trying to discourage the applicants from requesting and accepting a deferral and coming back. I'm just saying that as I see the application, your chances of success are not improving as time goes on. The option the government is supporting, grants in lieu as opposed to tax exemptions, I think should be pursued as quickly as possible and as opposed to delaying it through this bill for a period of time and then asking for the other grant.
I would also point out the question was asked by the applicant about the transition and I think Mr Shea covered it. There is a maximum amount the council presently can deal with, unbudgeted amounts they can spend. The amount is well in excess of your total tax bill. Not being a lawyer, I would deem that they would have every ability under the present structure to deal with a grant-in-lieu situation in your situation, that they would not require this bill nor would they require the approval of the transition committee. I think it's stretching it to suggest that they cannot make a decision, that this body would have to make it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. Mr Martin, you have the last question. I'll give you a minute, please.
Mr Martin: Are you cutting off political debate?
The Vice-Chair: I think we've had a fair amount of debate. We've gone well over one hour on this particular issue.
Mr Martin: I think the applicants have gone to tremendous trouble and difficulty and work to be here today, and to not give them a full hearing and allow those who want to speak perhaps on their behalf to put our thoughts on the record is --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Martin, I take strong objection to the statement you've made. I think everyone around this committee room this morning has had a good opportunity to address this particular bill. I want it straight on the record that I have given everyone in this room equal time, whatever they wanted.
Mr Martin: Except that now you're bringing the hammer down --
The Vice-Chair: I think we've been well over an hour on this bill.
Mr Martin: -- which is in keeping with the course of this government over the last two and a half years and that's unfortunate.
The Vice-Chair: What is your question?
Mr Martin: I would just like to say a couple of things. I would hope that Mr Shea was not lecturing the applicants here about their understanding of the process and what they've done or not done or mistakes they've made. I would suggest this process at Queen's Park is a rather confusing and big and intimidating one for anybody to participate in. I know myself, after seven years, there are moments when I find it somewhat inhibiting re my ability to freely express myself and follow the proper process, and in that way be effective in at least going the limit to have my concern addressed or my questions answered.
Perhaps the applicants today, perhaps somebody else, made some mistakes in terms of the information that was presented, in their haste to resolve a problem that was on their shoulders. I think, Mr Shea, if like me you've been involved in charitable work and belonged to an organization where debt has become a huge problem, you do anything in your power to try and get yourself out from under it. Sometimes you go up five or six blind alleys before you find one that's open and gives you some relief at the end of the day.
It's difficult, particularly in today's environment, as you try to keep alive something that you feel is very valuable to you and to your community and to the parents you work with, and you see around you other operations such as you're running falling by the way, you do everything you can to try and save it and give it some life and keep it going.
I just want to say to the applicants that I appreciate the sincerity and effort you're making to try and find some resolution to the very difficult problem you confront. I am going to vote to allow you some more time, if that's what you need, to explore some other possibilities, to make sure your documentation in front of this committee is in fact correct, that you have a full presentation of what you want.
If you can get some advice from somebody else out there, if you can come back here and make some further arguments, the parliamentary assistant has already said they're not going to presume to make a decision today as to what they would say then, because you may come up with some other angles or avenues or letters of support that might convince the parliamentary assistant and this government and the members opposite that you have a case.
I'm going to continue to support a deferral so that you have that time to correct any mistakes you may have inadvertently made and to get in place, out of the conversation we've had here today, the appropriate documentation so you can come back and make a full presentation and a full appeal to this committee.
That will be my final comment today, Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to have made it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin.
1130
Mr Shea: Could the parliamentary assistant advise where we are in terms of revisions to the Municipal Act?
The Vice-Chair: Certainly.
Mr Shea: There has been discussion in this committee for the last year or so about changing this series, this litany of applications, as you know, so that local councils would not have to seek or encourage organizations to seek redress through private bills. Could you tell the committee where we are at this stage as a revision of that act?
Mr Hardeman: My understanding is that there will be an introduction of a new Municipal Act some time in the fall of this year. How it relates to tax exemptions of course is still part of the debate and part of the discussion as we are preparing the document.
Mr Shea: But the minister is aware of the discussions of this committee and the issue that's been raised increasingly, that this is likely the sort of bill that no longer really should need to come to this committee if you find a way to enable local governments to deal with this matter on their own, within certain parameters. I gather that is something the minister at least is giving consideration to.
Mr Hardeman: I would point out to the committee member that the issue again relates to grants as opposed to tax exemptions. If we're talking about tax exemptions, which would be an exemption to a provincial policy, it requires this type of function. If we're talking about grants, that municipalities are allowed to, or are given the authority to give grants in lieu of taxation, the present Municipal Act allows that and there's no reason to believe a new Municipal Act would not allow municipalities to do similar things.
Mr Shea: Clearly it begs a couple of other questions. Are those that are currently subject to relief going to be grandfathered or will they all be subject to municipal review? That's something obviously I would think --
Mr Hardeman: I'm not in a position to speak on that.
Mr Shea: No, of course not. It's something the Muncipal Act discussion would have to reflect upon, but it will be a difficult decision for the government to take. The other question is, will you confirm, and maybe it's the clerk who can advise, that even if this committee were to say no today, there's nothing to preclude this applicant from making a further application?
Mr Hardeman: My understanding, and we'll let the clerk answer too, is that there's absolutely nothing that prevents anyone from making an application on any issue at any time.
Mr Shea: And if the application were armed with all the associated documentation that it's supposed to be armed with as it comes forward, it could indeed come forward at any time, armed with all that documentation?
Clerk of the Committee: If the matter is settled today, hypothetically let's say it was defeated, if they wanted to come before the committee again, yes, they very well could, but they'd be starting with the process from stage one.
Mr Shea: In your experience, Mr Clerk, what is the backlog you're wrestling with right now?
Clerk of the Committee: We probably have four or five bills that are fairly close to finished that could come before this committee in the next little while. Again that's subject to when the House rises, how many more meetings we'll have.
Mr Shea: So you're not exactly overloaded. The world is not overloaded in your regard, so there could be accomoation done on this if this applicant were to meet all the requirements. Thank you very much.
Mr Hardeman: One quick comment: As we discussed the resolution for deferral, and I think Mr Martin pointed out his reasons why he was suggesting the deferral, to get the appropriate resolutions in support of the bill, I would point out that in my presentation when the bill started that was not the top criterion of why I was speaking against the bill. It was not those resolutions that my major concern when I presented, shall we say, our side of the story. I did not know whether you had the resolutions or not. To tell it like it is, I would not want to suggest that a vote for a deferral will cause an approval when you come back with resolutions. It would start a whole new discussion, so I don't want to leave the impression that is what this whole hearing hinged upon.
Mr Shea: Could we refresh our memory about the central argument made at beginning of this presentation?
Ms Sasso: I know this is very confusing. The problem with our school is because we are volunteer parents. I am a parent this year; I have two of my children there. We pass on this information to the next parent who is coming into the school. I can appreciate what you're saying, Mr Shea, why are we presenting this all of a sudden right now? We haven't just presented it all of a sudden now. This process has been going on for years now, but maybe because of bad advice, and this ring-around we're going through, like circles right now, with all these presentations, we haven't been given the proper advice. That's why we are here at present, because we've been told this is the place to be, "This is the place you need to go to," so I can respect everyone's decision here.
Mr Forgione: With respect to retaining the services of a lawyer, it just occurred this year. Previous discussions were through the city of North York,and the city of North York tried to guide Lansing and its executive committee in a direction. The city of North York is the one that referred us here.
There are several issues that I think are important. We're speaking about some pending legislation and it's not the policy of the existing government to provide such exemptions. But sections 3 and 4 of the Assessment Act are still in place and the truth is that there are hundreds and thousands of organizations in Ontario that are exempt from payment of property taxes.
I must be straight with you that we're one of the best organizations in terms of the facilities we provide, the services we provide. If it was denominational in its slant, in its teachings, Lansing would have obtained an exemption under section 3. But the fact that it's non-denominaional is hurting it. The fact that it's a nursery school -- it's being treated as though it's a day care, but it's not a day care; it's actually a school process and it's teaching preschoolers. All these things are hurting Lansing.
Lansing is unique. Lansing is unique in many ways. It owns its own property, which is the only nursery school we know of that owns its own property. So if it's an issue of setting a precedent by passing this legislation, you won't be setting a precedent because, once again, it is unique in that nature.
The bill itself is flexible. All you're really doing is permitting the municipality to make a decision. You're passing it down to the municipal level. It's permissive legislation. The municipality can append whatever conditions it believes are appropriate. Indeed, in its resolution passed in 1996 approving an exemption for Lansing a whole series of conditions were appended to it. It's anticipated the same kind of conditions would be appended to any future bill that was passed.
We have to realize that we're asking for a political solution. We're not asking for a bureaucratic solution and going to the assessment commissioner and speaking about an exemption because bureaucratic solutions can be overturned and subject to the whim of process. The problem and the dilemma facing Lansing is a political problem. It was at the urging of the city of North York and the politicians, and Mayor Mel Lastman and Councillor John Filion, and that's why they feel some liability on this issue. It was their urging that the new location be built for Lansing and Lansing move into it, so we're looking for a political solution to a political problem.
To refer it back to some bureaucratic level, we're just going to run into more roadblocks and time will run out on us and Lansing will eventually cease to exist. It has been an institution in Willowdale for 45 years and it's on its last legs. If we weren't desperate we wouldn't be here. I think that's an important issue.
In terms of deferral and where we go from here, I think you have to realize that the cost to get to this stage for Lansing was several thousand dollars in terms of advertising, in terms of retaining counsel, in terms of having all the distributions to the government and municipal level. They've already spent a couple of thousand of dollars just to get to this stage. For them, it's quite a bit of money because they just rely on parent contributions. To strike it down and to anticipate us coming back again is unbelievable.
If we could defer this, it would be better than total rejection. That would allow us the opportunity to canvass whether or not a grant would be available. But even on the issue of grants and annual grants, there is the cost associated with having to make an application for a grant on an annual basis and having to retain counsel or some advisers to do that because the parents, as skilled as they are, are not professionals. They rely on the opinion of other professionals and politicians. It's expecting a lot for an organization such as Lansing, which is cooperative and parent-run, to have to make annual applications to the municipal government.
This bill would pass over the obligation to the municipal government. Now that they have a lawyer who can negotiate some kind of an arrangement or resolution with the municipal government, we can put it in place for a long time to come and they would be able to operate without having to incur additional costs on an annual basis. There are a variety of reasons.
I know the bill before you is not supported by the proper resolutions. If it's necessary, we can get the proper resolutions. We believed we were under time constraints and we wanted to deal with this issue prior to January 1, 1998. Possibly we received some improper advice. If it's necessary, if the alternative is to reject our bill, then our proposal would be to allow some time to defer. Let us canvass whether or not we can obtain a grant. I think that's the proper way to deal with it. So the applicant would be in support of a deferral, if it means rejection, but obviously we would seek your support preferably.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We'll proceed on the vote on Mr Martin's motion, which is that Bill Pr88 be deferred. All those in favour of deferral? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
We'll proceed with the vote on the bill itself. Is it the wish of the committee that we collapse sections 1 to 11? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 to 11 carry?. Those in favour? Opposed? It's defeated. It's not carried.
Shall the schedule carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion does not carry.
Shall the preamble carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion does not carry.
Shall the title carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion does not carry.
Shall the bill carry?
Mr Gerretsen: Can we have a recorded vote on that?
Ayes
Gerretsen, Martin.
Nays
Hardeman, Ross, Shea, Sheehan, Vankoughnet.
The Vice-Chair: The bill does not carry.
Shall I report that the bill be not reported in the House? All those in favour? Opposed? The bill is opposed.
Before we adjourn I would like to thank all the sponsors and applicants and the committee members, and last and certainly not least, all the staff. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1143.