Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex L)
Mr David Young (Willowdale PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1012 in room 151.
The Chair (Ms Frances
Lankin): I'd like to call the meeting to order. My
apologies to all of you who first attended at the other room. We
had a bit of a technical problem so, as you know, we've relocated
and appreciate your patience with the slight delay.
SUBCOMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION
The Chair: I
understand that there may be a motion with respect to
subcommittee membership, Mr Dunlop?
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Yes, Madam Chair. I move that Mr Coburn
replace Mr Young as a member of the subcommittee on committee
business for the standing committee on regulations and private
bills.
The Chair:
OK, thank you. Is there any discussion on this motion? None?
All those in favour? Opposed?
Abstentions? Thank you, that's carried.
HARBOURFRONT TRAILER PARK LTD. ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr1, An
Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd.
The Chair:
If we can move to the business agenda of today, the first bill
before us is Pr1, An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park
Ltd.; the sponsor is Mr Dunlop. Mr Dunlop, would you like to
introduce anyone from the applicants here today?
Mr Dunlop: I
would like to introduce Mr Peter Deacon, the solicitor for
Harbourfront. I'll go back and join him.
The Chair:
Mr Dunlop, do you have any introductory comments you would like
to make as sponsor?
Mr Dunlop:
Oh, I think it's going to be straightforward, Madam Chair, and I
think Mr Deacon can do a brief description of it here.
Mr Peter
Deacon: For the record, my name is Peter Deacon. My law
firm is Deacon Taws of Midland, Ontario. Mr Edward Ferski is the
applicant requesting the legislation.
The Chair:
On behalf of the applicant-please be seated; we're very informal
here-would you like to make any comments about the bill?
Mr Deacon: A
couple of very brief comments. First of all, I would like to
thank Mr Dunlop for sponsoring the bill. Mr Ferski's business
actually is in the Parry Sound riding of Mr Eves, and because of
his position in cabinet it wasn't appropriate for him to sponsor
the bill, so we asked Mr Dunlop to step in and he very kindly
did. Also, I'd like to make a comment about how appreciative we
are for the help of the staff from the committee clerk's office
and legislative counsel. They've been extremely helpful in the
whole application process.
The problem that arose
requiring the legislation is that my client owned a corporation
which had substantial assets. He wanted to change the name of the
company to Harbourfront and apply for articles of amendment and
file that. At the same time, he was required to file what's
called a form 1 with the ministry to indicate the current
information for the corporation.
In fact, nothing had
changed-there was one director, one shareholder, one officer, and
everything was the same-but in completing the forms he didn't do
it correctly, and after back and forth with the ministry, he
thought he'd had it straightened out, but in fact he'd been
served with a notice to appear at a hearing to remove the
charter. He didn't attend, and the end result was that the
charter was revoked and the company disbanded. He's now in the
position of having to apply to this committee to have the
corporation reinstated as if it had not been disbanded.
It was a misunderstanding
between him and the staff. It's not a question of blame. In my
submission, it's simply a question of correcting a problem and
allowing the business to continue on as if there had been no
interruption.
I'm happy to answer any
questions that anybody may have.
The Chair:
Just before we ask if there are any questions, are there any
interested parties to this application who are in attendance? I
ask Mr Coburn, the parliamentary assistant, if the government has
any comments on this bill.
Mr Brian Coburn
(Carleton-Gloucester): No, Madam Chair. All things have
been satisfied. As far as we're concerned, the director has been
identified, the fee has been paid and it now meets all the
criteria laid down.
The Chair:
Thank you. Are there any questions from committee members?
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I know the case is
pretty straightforward, but I think one of the things we must
address-whether we address
it today or at another time separately as a committee without any
witnesses or anything-is that sometimes in cases like this things
fall through the cracks, miscommunications of the government. As
you know, the government is very interested in reducing or
cutting out red tape. It seems to me this case is classic example
of red tape, if I read it correctly, in which case there is
correspondence back and forth, the parties thought they were on
the right track and all of a sudden the letter comes back saying,
"No, this is revoked." There was no intermediary understanding
that this could have been resolved outside of this committee, I
think. Whether we discuss it now or in committee separately, I
leave up to you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Gill. What I might do is ask Mr Coburn, as the
parliamentary assistant, to take that under advice. As you know,
there have been a number of pieces of legislation-there are some
before the House now which would have an effect on this overall
piece of legislation we're dealing with; in the past, there was
one that was passed which put things such as failure to pay
registration fees-which have eliminated the requirement to bring
a private bill before this committee. There are still some
aspects within the bill that the government and the Legislature
at the time felt were important. This may be an example of one
that is or isn't, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant could
take your concerns under advisement and, if he sees fit, I'm sure
he'll advise the government. Mr Coburn?
Mr Coburn: I
would be happy to do that, Madam Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you. Are there other questions from committee members or
any interested party? Mr Dunlop, did you want to say
something?
Mr Dunlop: I
just want to thank the clerk and the counsel for the help they've
given on this as well. It's been a pleasure working with you.
The Chair:
Are the members ready to vote? This is a straightforward bill.
You'll have to bear with me. This is the first time I've chaired
this committee, so I'm going to follow the script here and make
sure I get it right.
We're dealing with Bill Pr1,
An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd, sponsored by Mr
Dunlop.
Shall sections 1 through 3
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? Carried.
Thank you. I think we say
thank you to Mr Deacon and we appreciate your attendance here
today. The bill will be reported to the House this afternoon.
Mr Deacon:
Thank you very much.
1020
TOWNSHIP OF NORTH KAWARTHA ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr8, An
Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of
Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of
North Kawartha.
The Chair:
The next bill on our agenda is Bill Pr8, An Act to change the
name of The Corporation of the Township of
Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of
North Kawartha. Mr Stewart is the sponsor. Your applicants are
here with you, Mr Stewart?
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): Yes.
The Chair:
Welcome. Have a seat. Mr Stewart, would you introduce the
applicant's representatives, please.
Mr Stewart:
It is my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr8. With me is the warden of
Peterborough county, Ms Elizabeth Tanner, and also the CEO of the
township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos.
I have just one comment on
this, if I may. This has come about because of restructuring
within Peterborough county a couple of years ago, and albeit that
it is in Peterborough county, I'm doing this on behalf of the
Honourable Chris Hodgson, because these three townships are now
in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.
When you see all these long
names, this is why a lot of them have to be changed, because we
get a little tongue-tied. I'm going to ask if either one of these
folks would like to say a few words.
Ms Elizabeth
Tanner: Thank you. I'm also the reeve of-
The Chair:
Could you identify yourself on the record again.
Ms Tanner:
I'm Elizabeth Tanner, reeve of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos and
warden of Peterborough county. I want to thank you for your time
this morning. Actually, the clerk is going to speak to this issue
at this time.
Ms Dorothy
Walke: First of all, I would like to thank Mr
Stewart-
The Chair:
Sorry, once again, can you identify yourself on the record.
Ms Walke:
Dorothy Walke. I'm the clerk of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos. I'd
like to thank Mr Stewart for presenting our bill and doing it on
behalf of Mr Hodgson, and I'd also like to thank Ms Klein, from
legislative counsel-I realize she's not here-and her staff for
the help they gave me; and Ms Stokes, the clerk, for the
assistance she gave me in the preparation of and working through
this bill.
As Mr Stewart has alluded to,
this bill came about because of our amalgamation of
Burleigh-Anstruther with Chandos township, or Chandos township
with Burleigh-Anstruther, whichever way you want to perceive
it.
Back in 1998, we sent out a
questionnaire to all of our ratepayers. In that questionnaire, we
asked, first of all, if they would like to change the name of the
municipality. If they said yes, we asked that they give us an
idea of the name they would like to see it changed to. If they
said no, that was fine.
We took those names that were
presented to us, and there were a number of names, and an
independent committee went through the names. They were assessed
on the easiness of how to put them together with the township, the flow, as well as how
they fit with our area geographically and so on. We narrowed it
down to six names, and among those names was the original
Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos, again giving the ratepayers an
opportunity to vote on the name that it was originally, and the
township of North Kawartha.
As a result of that vote, the
township of North Kawartha received 498 votes and
Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos came next, with 394. The total number
of votes submitted was 1,297.
The Chair:
Thank you. Is there anything else?
Mr Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-James Bay): What was it, 50-some-odd
percent?
Ms Walke:
Yes. Almost 50%; of 1,297, 498 voted for North Kawartha.
Mr Bisson:
And that was the highest. Among those other names-
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, if you could hold your questions, we'll be getting to
questioning in a minute.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you very much, Chair.
The Chair:
You're welcome.
Mr Bisson:
You're very, very assisting.
The Chair:
Any time I can be of assistance to you, I'll try.
Reeve, is there anything else
you wanted to add to the presentation?
Ms Tanner:
Actually, we felt the first response we received wasn't fully
reflective of all the ratepayers in the municipality, and that's
why we've had to come for a special bill, because the
restructuring order did allow for a name change but we simply
didn't have the time to petition our ratepayers to find out what
their feelings were and get back before the deadline in order to
do the name change through the restructuring order.
The Chair:
OK, thank you. Now, I have no indication of any interested
parties attending today. Are there any?
Seeing none, Parliamentary
Assistant, any comment from the government?
Mr Coburn:
No. This is the only process available to change the name now,
and the ministry has no objection.
The Chair:
Thank you. Committee members, any questions?
Mr Bisson:
She answered my question.
Interjections.
The Chair:
It won't be the first time.
Are the members ready to vote
on this? This is Bill Pr8, An Act to change the name of The
Corporation of the Township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The
Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha, sponsored by Mr
Stewart.
Shall section 1 carry?
Carried.
Shall section 2 carry? I
understood there was an amendment that was to be put forward. Let
me ask again: Section 2, Mr Dunlop?
Mr Dunlop: I
move that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "Any
reference in a general or special Act" at the beginning and
substituting "Any reference in a general or special Act or in a
regulation, bylaw, agreement or other document".
The Chair:
Mr Dunlop, would you like to explain the purpose of the
amendment?
Mr Dunlop:
I'd like to pass that on to the legal counsel, please.
The Chair:
I'll ask legal counsel, then.
Ms Laura
Hopkins: The amendment is a technical legal amendment in
order to make sure that references in agreements and other
documents as well as in bylaws and legislation to the former
names of the municipalities are read as the new name of the
municipality. It's just a technical change.
The Chair: I
understand, counsel, that the applicants were made aware of this
and there were no objections for purposes of the goal of the
act.
There is an amendment before
us, moved by Mr Dunlop. Is there any debate or discussion on the
amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended,
carry? Carried.
Is there any debate or
concern with sections 3 or 4?
Shall sections 3 and 4 carry?
That's carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much. We
appreciate your attendance here today with us.
TOWN OF PICKERING ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr7,
An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of Pickering.
The Chair:
The next bill on our agenda is Bill Pr7, An Act respecting The
Corporation of the Town of Pickering, sponsored by Mr O'Toole. Mr
O'Toole, if you could take a seat and invite your applicants to
join you, and perhaps you could introduce them to us.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. It's
a pleasure to be on this side of the table for a change. It'll
probably be a lot more harmonious.
Madam Chair and members of
the committee, respectfully, I have with me John Reble, who is
counsel for the town of Pickering, and Mary Howarth, who is the
municipal law assistant. We have regrets from Bruce Taylor, the
clerk of the town of Pickering.
The proposal is to give the
town of Pickering greater authority in regulating activities on
public highways under its jurisdiction. I should point out that
similar legislation has already been passed in other
municipalities. If passed, the town would be able to create
bylaws "regulating or prohibiting the selling, offering to sell
or displaying of any goods, merchandise, products, refreshments,
foodstuffs or flowers on public highways" under its
jurisdiction.
1030
Importantly, Bill Pr7 would
also give the town new enforcement powers. An authorization bylaw
officer would now be able to remove, take and store items sold
on the streets of
Pickering if they are in contravention of the town's bylaw.
From my discussion with the
clerk, Mr Taylor, and the town solicitor, and from my own
personal experience as a councillor in the region of Durham, it
is my understanding that this bylaw is in compliance with other
overriding laws or bylaws. The bill would simply give the town of
Pickering a greater degree of control over activities on its
streets.
Committee members may be
interested to know that Pickering has experienced difficulties
with flower vendors who come in from other areas of the province
on weekends and set up shop on busy intersections. Clearly, this
has become a safety issue inasmuch as, as an activity, it draws
crowds. Parking becomes a problem as well. As well, there is an
important issue of the town having to deal with itinerant
vendors, which makes enforcement very difficult. It hurts many
other small businesses which are supporting their local
communities.
In summation, I am pleased
to sponsor this private member's bill on behalf of Minister Ecker
as well as the town of Pickering, and I ask the committee's
indulgence to help the bill proceed quickly.
If there are any questions,
I am sure Mr Reble would be certain to answer any technical
questions, with your indulgence. That's the end of the
remarks.
The Chair:
Mr Reble or Ms Howarth, did you want to add anything at this
point in time?
Mr John
Reble: Thank you very much for hearing us. First of all,
I'd like to thank Mr O'Toole, the member for Durham, for
sponsoring this bill; and also the work that legislative staff
have provided to us in working this through.
I really have only one
comment to make, and that is that Mr O'Toole indicated that
similar acts have been approved for Mississauga, Brampton and the
city of Toronto over the past 10 years. Our understanding is that
it has enabled them to carry out enforcement procedures in a much
more efficient manner. Those acts do allow a confiscation of
motor vehicles; our act does not. We took that out. We felt that
was somewhat arbitrary and unnecessary, especially in our
conversations-Mrs Howarth spoke with counsel for those
municipalities and felt that the confiscation of vehicles for
these vendors was something that was not required. Some of these
people are new Canadians. They are there representing a
corporation which is really profiting from this activity, and it
was deemed to be unfair, unjust and unnecessary to include it. We
simply are asking for the additional ability to confiscate the
goods that are being sold, issue a receipt and return them if
requested.
The Chair:
I have no indication on the agenda of any interested parties to
this application or this bill. Are there any? No.
May I ask the parliamentary
assistant if the government has any comments?
Mr Coburn:
No. We have no objections to this with respect to this
legislation enabling Pickering to achieve what they would like to
do.
The Chair:
Committee members?
Mr David Young
(Willowdale): If the parliamentary assistant can assist,
we've heard counsel describe one of the distinctions that exists
between this proposed act and the legislation that exists in
other municipalities. Are there other distinctions beyond the one
that has been described here today regarding the confiscation of
automobiles or vehicles generally? Are there some other
distinctions between this proposed legislation and the existing
legislation?
The Chair:
Mr Young, your question was to legislative staff or-
Mr Young:
To staff or the parliamentary assistant, if they can assist.
Mr Coburn:
I don't know exactly of any other distinction-maybe staff can
respond to that-but I would point out that it is being addressed
in the draft of the new Municipal Act. It has been a concern
raised by a number of municipalities with respect to the
confiscation of goods within the-
Mr Young:
What do they do in the Ottawa region?
Mr Coburn:
They have a bylaw that permits it.
The Chair:
Just for clarification, Mr Coburn, you're suggesting that with an
amendment to the Municipal Act, the government's intent is to
have a common provision that would give similar powers to all
municipalities.
Mr Coburn:
That's correct.
Mr Young:
I'm not sure if there's additional information being brought to
the table.
Mr Coburn:
Excuse me, I must correct the information I gave you on the city
of Ottawa. It's a permit system that they have.
Mr Young:
That's fine. Thanks very much.
The Chair:
Are there any further committee members?
Mr Bisson:
I'm just curious; I'm wondering if legislative counsel can answer
this. Is this the first municipality to ask for these powers? How
have they been dealing with it?
Ms
Hopkins: Not to my knowledge. I think there have been
two other municipalities that have asked for these powers, but as
the applicant explained, this municipality is asking for powers
that are slightly less than what the other two
municipalities-
Mr Bisson:
What was the outcome?
Ms
Hopkins: Can you help me?
Mr Reble:
Yes. Brampton and Mississauga both have this legislation. Ms
Howarth has communicated with counsel there. Ms Howarth, would
you care to-
Ms Mary
Howarth: I have spoken with the enforcement officers in
the three municipalities that have asked for a similar bill and
had the bill approved. Brampton's was approved in 1997. I was
informed by the enforcement officer that just in the first six
months did they use the confiscatory powers. They've never
confiscated a vehicle. But using those powers seemed to work and
after that the threat alone, the fact that they could say, "We
have this power in our bill" has greatly reduced the problem of
the flower sellers.
Mississauga reported the same thing. Their bill was
approved in late 1994. They have not confiscated any goods since
January 1995. Again, a warning is given the first time. The usual
part I tickets under the Provincial Offences Act have been
issued, but the warning alone has seemed to eliminate the
problem.
Those municipalities are
very similar to the town of Pickering in the sense of the kinds
of roads we're talking about and the safety aspect of people
pulling over and impeding the free flow of traffic. That alone, I
was informed, has worked. Also, Mississauga told me that they
once hooked up a vehicle and the person said, "OK, I'll leave."
They hooked up an ice-cream vendor and that took care of
that.
The Chair:
Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr Gill:
Despite all these bylaws, I live in Mississauga and I see all
kinds of vendors there. I see the corn or husk sellers-
Mr Bisson:
We call it husk because it's hardly corn.
Mr Gill:
That's right. You would know, being from a rural riding. Also
some of the others-flowers. Of course we need these regulations,
but I don't think they're being enforced. I see all kinds of them
in Mississauga itself. That's just as a comment; I wanted to
address that.
The Chair:
Would you like me to pass that on to Mississauga city
council?
Mr Gill:
They're aware of it.
Mr Reble:
In some instances they may not actually be on the road allowance.
They may be off the road allowance. Of course, it's enforced by
complaint as well.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for that. Are the members ready to vote
now?
Mr Young:
We are.
The Chair:
Definitively said by Mr Young.
The Chair:
Bill Pr7, An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of
Pickering, sponsored by Mr O'Toole. There are five sections I'm
going to be dealing with. Are there any concerns that anyone
wants to raise with respect to any of them?
Shall sections 1 through 5
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? OK.
Thank you very much. Thank
you for joining us here today. I appreciate that.
Mr
O'Toole: That was very hospitable of you.
The Chair:
Just don't get used to it, John.
PEMBRIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr13,
An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company.
The Chair:
The fourth bill on our agenda today is Bill Pr13, An Act
respecting Pembridge Insurance Company. The sponsor is Bob
Wood.
Mr Wood, if you would come
forward. Please have a seat and introduce representatives of the
applicant you have with you today.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I would like to introduce to the committee Mr Jim
Harvey, who is vice-president and the chief financial officer of
Pembridge Insurance Co, and Paola Turner, who is their legal
counsel.
I'd like to thank very much
everyone who has been involved in this process, all of whom have
been very helpful to us as this bill has been prepared and
presented to the Legislature.
As members will be aware,
when an insurance company wants to migrate from provincial to
federal jurisdiction, as the law now stands it has to be done by
a private bill, which is the reason for this bill today.
I understand that the
ministry has no objection and, as far as we know, there are no
other objections that we're aware of, and I'd like to recommend
the bill to the committee. We would be pleased to answer any
questions there may be.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Harvey or Ms Turner, do you have any comments that
you would like to add?
Ms Paola
Turner: I would just like to thank Mr Bob Wood for
agreeing to introduce the bill and thank the committee for taking
the time to hear us today.
The Chair:
Thank you. I have no notice of any interested parties with
respect to this bill. Are there any here today?
Seeing none, may I ask Mr
Coburn, the parliamentary assistant, are there any comments from
the government?
Mr Coburn:
We have no objections to this, so there are no questions of this
legislation.
The Chair:
Are there any questions or comments from committee members?
Mr Young:
I don't have any grave concerns about it, and perhaps it's a
reflection of how new I am to this process, but what is it that
compels this particular insurance company to request a change of
status from provincial to federal?
Mr James
Harvey: We own two insurance companies, one of which is
legislated federally, and Pembridge is a new acquisition to our
group of companies. It's governed provincially, and we don't have
the experience with the provincial legislation and it's much
easier for us to have the two companies under one
jurisdiction.
Mr Young:
What sort of insurance does this company provide?
Mr Harvey:
Property and casualty insurance.
Mr Young:
Commercial general?
Mr Harvey:
No, not general insurance. Just to private individuals, home and
auto insurance.
Mr Young:
I see. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Are there any other questions or comments from committee members?
No? Are the members ready to vote?
This is Bill Pr13, An Act
respecting Pembridge Insurance Company, sponsored by Mr Wood.
There are four sections. Are there any comments or concerns with
any of these sections? No?
Shall sections 1 through 4 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? Carried.
Mr Wood:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you for joining us today.
At this point in time, as
there is no other business listed on the agenda, is there any
other business coming forward from committee members?
Mr Young:
I could move adjournment, if it's appropriate, Madam Chair. I
want to be on the record in some fashion. May I have the
privilege of moving adjournment?
The Chair:
You can have that privilege. All those in favour?
Mr Bisson:
I'm opposed.
The Chair:
All those opposed? Mr Bisson wanted to be on record as well.
Carried. The meeting is adjourned.
