Municipality of West
Perth Act, 2000, Bill Pr25, MrJohnson
Mr Bert Vorstenbosch
City of Toronto Act
(Traffic Calming), 2000, Bill Pr2
Ms Mary Ellen Bench
Mr Andrew McBeth
City of Toronto Act
(Tax Deferrals), 2000, Bill Pr9, Mrs
Mushinski;
City of Toronto Act (Graduated Tax Rates), 2000, Bill
Pr11, Mrs Mushinski;
City of Toronto Act (Tenant Protection), 2000, Bill
Pr12, Mrs Mushinski
Ms Mary Ellen Bench
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
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)
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1000 in committee room
1.
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH ACT, 2000
Consideration of Bill Pr17,
An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of
West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West
Perth.
The Chair (Frances
Lankin): I call the meeting to order. The first item of
business before us is Bill Pr17, An Act to change the name of The
Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of
the Municipality of West Perth. The sponsor is MPP Bert Johnson.
Mr Johnson, welcome. Would you like to introduce the applicants
who are here with you and say a few words?
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): I would, please. Ladies and
gentlemen, as the member for Perth-Middlesex, I'm delighted to be
here this morning to sponsor Bill Pr17, An Act to the change the
name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The
Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth. I'm also pleased
that municipal representatives from West Perth could be here this
morning and speak to the standing committee. This morning I'm
joined by deputy mayor Bert Vorstenbosch, also the chair of ROMA,
the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, and Mrs Patricia Taylor,
clerk-treasurer. I know they will be able to answer any questions
you may have. Thank you for your time this morning. I'd like to
ask if Pat or Bert have statements. They don't think so, so if
you have questions I think they would like to get on with
things.
The Chair:
Perhaps one of you might just quickly outline the details of the
bill for committee members.
Mr Bert
Vorstenbosch: The reason we asked for the change from
"township" to "municipality" is because we are three rural
municipalities and one urban municipality, and we felt that
"municipality" would identify the three rural and urban much
better than "township," which we are now. We did get one letter
that wasn't too much in favour of it, but when we explained the
fact that we weren't taking away the rural designation, we were
just adding "municipality" rather than "township" to the whole
thing, she kind of agreed that "municipality" was a better word
to identify all of West Perth.
The Chair:
OK, thank you. It's pretty straightforward. Are there any
questions from committee members? Is there any debate between
committee members? I think not. As I said, it's pretty
straightforward.
Are committee members ready
to vote then?
Bill Pr17, An Act to the
change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth
to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth, sponsored
by Mr Johnson, MPP. Are there any amendments that members want to
put forward at all? No? OK.
Shall sections 1 to 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? It shall be done.
Thank you very much. Sorry
that formality meant you had to come all the way down to Toronto
to see this through, but we appreciate your attendance in case
there had been any questions. I will be reporting this bill back
to the House this afternoon.
Mr
Vorstenbosch: Thank you very much. We always enjoy
coming to Toronto, especially to Queen's Park.
The Chair:
Just make sure Bert takes you lunch, OK?
Mr
Vorstenbosch: We will. We'll eat our best.
The Chair:
Committee members, I'll just indicate that we're waiting for the
sponsor of the next group of bills, so at this point perhaps
we'll take a five-minute recess.
Mr Brian Coburn
(Ottawa-Orléans): Madam Chair?
The Chair:
Just before we do that, yes, parliamentary assistant?
Mr Coburn:
It's been indicated that the sponsor will be unable to attend. I
would seek consent to continue without the sponsor.
The Chair:
Is there consent to continue without the sponsor? OK, we can
continue then.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 2000
Consideration of Bill Pr2, An
Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The Chair:
The next item before the committee is Bill Pr2, An Act respecting
the City of Toronto (Traffic Calming). Marilyn Mushinski, MPP, is
the sponsor, and with the committee's agreement we will continue
in her absence. The applicant, the city of Toronto, is
represented today by Mary Ellen Bench, counsel. Ms Bench, with
you today is?
Ms Mary Ellen
Bench: Andrew McBeth of the city's traffic division.
The Chair: Do you have any opening
remarks with respect to the bill?
Ms Bench:
Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. In
June 1994 the former city of Toronto obtained special
legislation, Bill Pr43, that allowed the city to impose traffic
calming measures, including 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits
within the former city of Toronto. That legislation was
considered to be on a trial basis and had a sunset clause and the
legislation expired in 1996. It was renewed for a further
three-year term and again expired then in 1999.
The purpose of today's
application is to ask that that legislation be reinstated in the
city of Toronto and extended to the new boundaries of the city of
Toronto post-amalgamation. The legislation has been very
effective in terms of dealing with traffic issues through
neighbourhoods in the city.
Mr McBeth has a technical
report establishing the benefits of that which can be
distributed, and he will be prepared to answer questions with
respect to the studies that have been undertaken in terms of that
legislation. The traffic studies do confirm the need for the
legislation, and accordingly the city is asking that the
legislation apply to the entire city of Toronto as incorporated
on January 1, 1998, and that the city be permitted to pass bylaws
to designate streets that have traffic calming measures in effect
and to designate streets as having 30-kilometre-an-hour speed
limits in these areas. Because of the lapse in time, we're also
asking that the legislation be grandparented. However, as
drafted, we recognize that there is a concern with the
grandparenting in the sense of offence provisions. An amendment
has been proposed, which we've agreed to, that will eliminate
that concern. We can advise you that there have been no efforts
whatsoever to enforce this in terms of charging anybody, so it's
not an issue at all.
We can distribute the traffic
studies, if you wish.
The Chair:
Yes, if you would give them to the clerk of the committee,
please, they can be distributed. Mr McBeth, would you like to
address at all the papers being distributed so committee members
are aware?
Mr Andrew
McBeth: With some discussions with Mr Terry Short from
the Ministry of Transportation, who is here today, I think more
than a year ago, we decided that technically it would be useful
to study four streets that had 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits
and traffic calming. We decided what those streets would be. They
represented a variety of traffic calming measures in the city.
Subsequent to that meeting, we reviewed those four streets for
traffic speed and traffic volume, and we've reported on those
studies in this paper. The other thing we did was to look at the
collision history on those streets to see if there's been a
reduction in collisions.
We found that the traffic
speeds reduced significantly. Typically, 10 kilometres per hour
was the average speed reduction on each of those streets with
traffic calming. It depended a little bit on what kind of traffic
calming as to how extensive the speed reduction was.
With the collision analysis,
we found that prior to the implementation of traffic calming on
these four streets there were 12 injury collisions over a
two-to-three-year period. For a comparable period after the
traffic calming was installed, there were seven injury
collisions. So we've reduced the collisions from 12 to seven. But
we recognize that it is rather a small sample-it's only four
streets, it's only two or three years-and I think perhaps the
jury is still out. But at least the evidence appears to be in the
right direction, a reduction from 12 to seven.
1010
In addition to demonstrating
that the traffic calming has been effective in reducing the
speeds, it's our position that that should be reinforced by an
appropriate speed limit. Rather than just having a warning sign
that says 30, we're saying that a regulatory sign that says 30
kilometres is required, and most of the traffic is doing less
than 30 kilometres per hour. We've actually got better compliance
with the speed limit on these streets than most streets that have
a 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limit.
At this point, that's
probably all I need to do to capture the summary of the report.
I'm very happy to answer any questions.
The Chair:
Ms Bench, the amendment that you're hoping will be moved
essentially deals with the period after the existing bylaw
expired and before this act comes into force, saying that no one
would be guilty of an offence during that period of time, even
though there have been no charges laid during that period of
time. It's for charter purposes?
Ms Bench:
For charter purposes, it clarifies that fact, yes.
The Chair:
Is there a committee member prepared to move this amendment?
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I move that section 6
of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Prohibition
(2.1) Despite subsection (2),
no person shall be found guilty of contravening the bylaw if the
contravention occurred after June 26, 1999 and before the day on
which this act receives royal assent."
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Gill. I will have you read that into the record one
more time when we come to the section for voting.
Is there any further comment
from the applicants?
Ms Bench:
No.
The Chair:
Parliamentary assistant, are there comments from the
ministry?
Mr Coburn:
We have no objections to this bill. Mr Guilfoil is here from MTO,
and they have no objections to the bill or the amendment.
The Chair:
Are there any questions from committee members?
Mr Gill: I'm
wondering if such a move has been undertaken before. Is there any
place else in the city where this has happened or has been
granted?
Ms Bench:
The former city of Toronto had this legislation as far back as
1994, but it was considered to be on a trial basis, so it had a
three-year limit to it. That's the only experience we've had with it, in the former
city. Because it's worked well, we're hoping to reinstate it and
expand it to the new city.
Mr Gill:
These four streets were chosen according to what criteria?
Mr McBeth:
There are a lot of streets with the 30-kilometre-per-hour speed
limit, probably 30, 40 or 50 streets. Of the streets we chose,
two had speed humps on them. One of them was the Balliol Street
demonstration traffic calming project, which was part of the
reason for the first legislation back in 1994. The traffic
calming has been in place on that street for six years now. The
other street had what's called a chicane, where there's a road
narrowing on one side of the road immediately followed by a road
narrowing on the other side of the road, so that to drive it you
have to meander through there; and that's another way of calming
traffic. There was a variety of techniques that we wanted to
test, and as I say, we discussed this with our colleagues at the
Ministry of Transportation to ensure that this would be a
representative sample from a technical point of view to
demonstrate the characteristics and effectiveness of traffic
calming. But there were many more streets we could have looked
at.
Mr Gill: Is
this in agreement with the residents of the streets? Is it driven
by them?
Mr McBeth:
Yes, it's resident-driven, and we go through a process with
residents. In fact, we have a polling requirement. To put in
speed humps, for example, which is one of the treatments that's
perhaps most commonly seen around the streets of Toronto, we
require 60% of residents to vote in support, 60% of those who
respond to the ballot. The ballots are usually very well
responded to, much better than a municipal election. People take
a great deal of interest in the events on their streets,
particularly if there's a proposal for traffic calming, which
does come from, usually, a neighbourhood street committee who
work with traffic engineering staff to develop a proposal, a plan
for that particular street. It's that plan that's circulated
among the residents so people know what they're voting for. We
require 60% support in order to go ahead with that.
Mr Gill: And
you had 60% support?
Mr McBeth:
Yes.
Mr Gill: And
40%, I suppose, said no?
Mr McBeth:
When I say 60%, I mean 60% of valid polls cast. They get a yes or
no vote. If there are spoiled ballots, we don't count those in
either case, but typically there are very few spoiled ballots.
It's usually yes or no, I want this or I don't want this. That's
the question: do you support the proposal? Do you oppose the
proposal?
Mr Gill: I'm
surprised that such a high number said no. It's a good measure, I
think.
The Chair:
Are there any further questions or comments from committee
members? No?
Are members ready to vote,
then?
Shall sections 1 through 5
carry? Carried.
Section 6: Mr Gill, you've
indicated an intention to move a motion. Would you read that into
the record, please?
Mr Gill: I
move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the
following subsection:
"Prohibition
"(2.1) Despite subsection
(2), no person shall be found guilty of contravening the bylaw if
the contravention occurred after June 26, 1999 and before the day
on which this act receives royal assent."
The Chair:
Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended,
carry? Carried.
Shall sections 7 and 8 carry?
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? It shall be done.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TAX DEFERRALS), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (GRADUATED TAX RATES), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TENANT PROTECTION), 2000
Consideration of:
Bill Pr 9, An Act respecting
the City of Toronto;
Bill Pr 11, An Act respecting
the City of Toronto;
Bill Pr 12, An Act respecting
the City of Toronto.
The Chair:
The next item of business before us. We have Bill Pr9, City of
Toronto Act (Tax Deferral); Bill Pr11, City of Toronto Act
(Graduated Tax Rates); and Bill Pr12, City of Toronto Act (Tenant
Protection). Again the sponsor is Mrs Mushinski, MPP, who is not
here, but with the committee's agreement we will carry on in her
absence. There is agreement? Thank you.
The applicant is the city of
Toronto, again represented by Ms Mary Ellen Bench, counsel. Ms
Bench, could you introduce who's with you today.
Ms Mary Ellen
Bench: With me today is Ms Giuliana Carbone, who is the
director of revenue services at the city of Toronto.
The Chair:
It's my understanding that you would like to present these three
bills together to the committee as a package?
Ms Bench:
Yes. I think it's easier that way.
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Ms Bench:
The next three bills basically were passed by city council
request at a special meeting held on July 21 and 23, 1998, which
was when council determined how to best implement current value
assessment in the city of Toronto. There was a fourth bill, Pr10,
which has been withdrawn because of a timing issue, but these
three bills resulted from that discussion.
The three bills are somewhat
related. They are a little bit different in terms of the relief
they're asking for.
Bill Pr9 is requesting
authority for the city to provide for deferrals of property tax
for all low-income homeowners in the city of Toronto and that
that be made retroactive to January 1, 1998, when the current
value assessment came
in. It is also asking for the right to defer or cancel or
otherwise deal with assessment-related tax increases borne by
low-income seniors, as a way of addressing the needs of that
group of citizens in this city, many of whom tend to be
property-rich but cash-poor. That was a concern that the city
recognized and wanted assistance and the ability to assist
residents in.
I would also note, in respect
to this matter, that this is not a new concept. In the former
cities of North York, the borough of East York, and the city of
York, similar legislation existed that allowed for tax relief for
low-income seniors. What the city is requesting here is that the
current legislation be expanded so that we're able to provide
this kind of relief for low-income seniors and, in terms of
deferral, for low-income persons in the city in general.
1020
With respect to the next
application, Bill Pr11, this application again relates to the
implementation of current value assessment. Council has requested
that the city be able to establish bands of assessment for the
residential-farm class of properties in the same way they're able
to establish those bands of assessment now for the
commercial-industrial. So instead of having one property class
tax class for residential, we'd be allowed to have three property
classes and set different rates for them. Council has seen a
benefit, again as a result of their discussion on the current
value assessment implementation, to making that request.
With respect to all three
of these applications, the city has not received any objections
to these applications and would hope that they would be
supported.
The final application, Bill
Pr12, is part of the implementation and the legislative changes
introduced when current value assessment came in. There was a
requirement in the Tenant Protection Act that of landlords
received a decrease in their taxes as a result of current value
assessment of 2.49% or greater, that was required to be passed on
to tenants. Less than that was not required to be passed on. In
the city of Toronto, because of the large number of tenants and
the impact this has had, council again, as part of its
discussion, has requested that that legislation be amended for
the city of Toronto to allow any tax decrease to be passed on to
tenants so that tenants receive the benefit. Council has
indicated that its concern is that the tenants are such a huge
group of the population in the city and they're taxed higher than
single-family homeowners, so they would like them to get whatever
relief is possible to be passed on to them.
Those are the three
applications and council's reason for the request. If you have
technical questions, Guiliana and I would certainly be happy to
answer them for you the best we can.
The Chair:
Has the parliamentary assistant to the ministry any comments?
Mr Coburn:
The government is opposed to Bills Pr9, Pr11 and Pr12. Basically
these private bills would treat residents of Toronto differently
from the residents across the province of Ontario. Our view is
that if this is something that should be dealt with, it should be
dealt with at large right across the entire province and should
be brought forward in the appropriate manner to the minister. On
that particular basis, we are opposed to all three.
With respect to Bill Pr9,
to provide something under an enriched tax relief program
retroactive to 1998 would cause an increase in the tax burden of
other taxpayers in the residential-farm property class to offset
the cost of targeted relief.
In respect to Bill Pr11,
the assessed value of residential property already recognized the
characteristics of a home's value in the assessment methodology.
The myth that it increases property taxes on higher-assessed
homes because of implied increased ability to pay is not
something we support.
In short, because it is
site-specific, so to speak, and not taking into account the
residents across the breadth of the province, we're not in a
position to support it.
The Chair:
Thank you. Committee members, are there any questions or
comments?
Mr Pat Hoy
(Chatham-Kent Essex): The parliamentary assistant has
answered the question that I had, that this does seem to be just
for one city in the province, and I can understand your concern
about that. Is there any indication from the government that you
would be amenable to providing these kinds of deferrals or
considerations for lower-income persons across the province, so
that Toronto can avail itself of this type of action, as well as
other cities and towns or villages?
Mr Coburn:
If it was brought forward in a proper format so the ministry
could analyze it and then respond to it in the proper context, it
is something that certainly the minister would take a look
at.
The Chair:
If I might, I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. In
the current value assessment legislation, were there not
provisions for municipalities, for example, to set caps on the
implementation or the increase, for example, in
commercial-industrial tax rates that gave a discretion to
individual municipalities?
Mr Coburn:
That's correct.
The Chair:
How does this differ, then, in terms of giving a discretion to an
individual municipality with respect to deferral or spreading the
tax voted on in a different way?
Mr Coburn:
It would have to be looked at in more of a global perspective
across the province rather than making a decision based on the
parameters around one specific geographic area, for one reason or
another. If it's brought forward in the proper format, there
could be some in-depth analysis applied to it so it could be
debated in the proper format.
The Chair:
Any further questions or comments from committee members?
Mr Hoy: I
have one, at least one. In terms of Bill Pr11, a municipality
would have its classes. It was my understanding that that was
allowable, that municipalities could create classes for the
purposes in Pr11 through previous legislation.
Mr Coburn: The mitigation tools
with respect to graduated tax rates was respective only of
business and industrial-commercial properties and not in the
residential sector. The assessed value of a residential property
already recognizes the characteristic of the home's value with
respect to the marketplace. By imposing graduated tax rates on
residential properties, that would penalize at a disproportionate
rate the higher-assessed homes, without a supporting
justification particularly, such as the size, the ability to
achieve economies of scale, as in the case of business
properties.
The Chair:
Ms Bench, did you have any other comments you wanted to place on
the record?
Ms Bench:
The only additional comment I'd like to place on the record is to
reiterate with respect to Bill Pr9's tax relief for low-income
persons and the comments of the committee members that it should
be a global rather than a local thing is just to remind the
committee that it has been done locally before. It was done in
North York, East York and York, for example, within the confines
of the current city. It's something that maybe would be good to
do in a global context, but there is precedent for doing it on a
local basis as well.
The Chair:
Are committee members ready to vote?
OK, we will be dealing
first with Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto,
sponsored by Mrs Mushinski, MPP.
Shall section 1 carry?
Hearing no "yeas," that is defeated.
Shall section 2 carry? It
is not carried.
Shall section 3 carry? It
is not carried.
Shall section 4 carry? It
is not carried.
Shall section 5 carry? It
is not carried.
Shall section 6 carry? It
is not carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
It is not carried.
Shall the title carry? It
is not carried.
Shall the bill carry? It is
not carried.
Shall I report the bill to
the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill not be
reported to the House.
The Chair:
Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by
Mrs Mushinski, MPP.
Shall section 1 carry? Not
carried.
Shall section 2 carry? Not
carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Not
carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Not carried.
Shall the title carry? Not
carried.
Shall the bill carry? Not
carried.
Shall I report the bill to
the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill be not
reported to the House.
That's very arcane
language, you know.
Bill Pr12, An Act
respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by Mrs Mushinski,
MPP.
Shall section 1 carry? Not
carried.
Shall section 2 carry? Not
carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Not
carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Not carried.
Shall the title carry? Not
carried.
Shall the bill carry? Not
carried.
Shall I report the bill to
the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill be not
reported to the House.
I appreciate your
attendance here with us today. These matters will be disposed of
in the House this afternoon.
Are there any further items
of business from committee members? No? Seeing none, I declare
the meeting adjourned.
