Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

CONTENTS

Wednesday 15 May 1996

Committee Business

Lions Foundation of Canada, 1996 Bill Pr58, Mr Carr

Ann Mulvale, mayor, town of Oakville

Ron Brown, executive director, Lions Foundation of Canada

Beatrice Howell, assistant solicitor, town of Oakville

Douglas Gates, town solicitor, town of Oakville

City of Toronto Act (Traffic Calming), 1996, Bill Pr54, Ms Bassett

Isabel Bassett, MPP

Dennis Perlin, city solicitor, city of Toronto

Andrew Koropeski, department of public works and the environment, city of Toronto

City of Toronto Act, 1996, Bill Pr55, Ms Bassett

Isabel Bassett, MPP

Dennis Perlin, city solicitor, city of Toronto

George Millers, department of public works and the environment, city of Toronto

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)

*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)

Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)

Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L) for Mrs Pupatello

Lalonde, Jean-Marc (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L) for Mr Sergio

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste. Marie ND) for Mr Bisson

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman

Staff / Personnel: Michael Wood, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Everyone will have a copy of the agenda. We have three private bills slated. As well, we will be considering, time permitting, the first report on regulations in the latter part of this meeting.

As the first order of business, I would ask our clerk to briefly explain the summary sheet that's before committee members with respect to past private bills.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): I was asked at the last meeting to provide a summary of all outstanding private bills and their status. What I've provided you on the long sheet in front of you is the status of all outstanding bills. I want to explain how you read it.

The first column is obviously the name of the bill. To comply with the standing orders, every applicant must do five things: pay a fee; provide a statutory declaration with respect to advertising; provide a compendium of background information; provide a draft bill; and provide the name of the sponsor. If any of these applications are missing checkmarks, it means they've yet to comply with the standing orders.

In addition, there's one category, "OBJ," which really shouldn't read that; that should read "Interested parties." That is a note to myself about whether there are other interested people who will be appearing on the bill. If you happen to note down that somebody has complied with all the standing orders, you then go to the notes column and it will either give a date that it's scheduled for committee or there will be some comment on why they complied with the standing orders but are not yet ready for either introduction or committee consideration.

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

The Chair: Our next order of business is to consider Bill Pr58. I would ask the applicants to approach the witness table, please. I do not think the sponsor, Gary Carr, MPP, is present. We will continue at this point without Mr Carr. I would ask the applicants to very briefly introduce themselves and then we would entertain comments on your application.

Mrs Ann Mulvale: In the absence of Gary Carr, maybe I can lead the delegation. My name is Ann Mulvale and I am the mayor of Oakville. On behalf of the community and the town council, I am very grateful for this opportunity to appear before you this morning. I would introduce to you Mr Ron Brown of the Lions Foundation of Canada, and Beatrice Howell and Douglas Gates of the town of Oakville's legal department. It is our preference at this point to have Mr Brown initiate the discussion with you this morning.

Mr Ron Brown: I wonder if at this time, by way of information for the people hearing us, we could show you a very short video on what we are all about.

Video presentation.

1020

The Chair: Thank you for showing that video, Mr Brown. Would you have some opening comments with respect to the bill?

Mr Ron Brown: Yes, I do. The situation we are facing at this time I'd like to lead up to by giving you a few things that have happened to us on the way.

Originally, in 1983, this was started as a dog guide school for the blind only, and since that time we have successfully graduated 246 teams. That has happened since our first class on January 8, 1986.

In 1988, we became aware of the hearing-ear dog program in a town to the west of us. They were operating on government wage subsidies and had not made any plan to become self-sufficient. Late in 1987 their funding stopped and, through a lack of business management, they went insolvent. We chose to take over the program because we felt it was very worthwhile, and since that time we have kept all our staff in place and we have graduated 190 hearing-ear dogs.

In 1991, a further development took place and we entered into Special Skills Dogs of Canada. These dogs are trained to assist wheelchair users, epileptics and many other specific needs that come along. To date, we have graduated 56 people in that program.

In 10 short years, we have developed three programs and graduated 514 teams. This has been done with absolutely no government assistance. The only privilege we have enjoyed was the tax exemption on our property. This was spearheaded by then-Premier Davis and the honourable member from Halton, Jim Snow.

Currently, our graduate base is 70% to Ontario citizens and our funding base is provided 47% by Ontario citizens.

In 1993, we started to realize that we were lagging behind in our demand for dogs. We entered into a strategic planning program and the results showed us that our output must increase by 300%. This is to say that currently we are producing 60 to 65 teams per year combined in all the programs and by the year 2001 we need to be producing 200 teams. Expansion plans were developed and I am pleased to say that as of February 1 a world-class facility, the only one in the world training all three programs, began operation.

Today there are two other schools in Canada, one accredited, dealing with the blind only. There is a school in the Ottawa area that graduates about 25 teams a years. It's a privately owned charitable entity itself. The other is in the east end of Montreal, does not have federal accreditation and is 75% funded by the Quebec government. I was told recently that their funding has been removed and most of their staff have been let go, so I don't know the status of that school now.

This request for reinstatement of our tax exemption is being made for many reasons. We have currently a waiting list of 142 people for dogs at this time. When our development plans are complete in the next year and a half, our full-time employment of staff will increase from today's number of 23 to 48 by 1998. This will be with no subsidies from any government.

To date, our graduates have gained mobility, independence and safety, and my best figure at this time says that 197 of the 514 have come off the welfare rolls and gone into the labour force as productive, self-sustaining taxpayers.

The cutbacks by both provincial and federal governments, which incidentally I happen to agree with but which may be too little too late, have had a whiplash effect on small charities like ours. These cutbacks have caused the likes of universities, hospitals and those types of projects that were relying very heavily on subsidies to now raid the markets of the small charities. The interest of those markets previously taking place in small charities was really our only saving grace. The introduction of video gambling will be a great boon to charities, but unfortunately for small charities, the government has named only high-profile charities as benefactors.

In closing, I wish to stress the point that our current taxes are $42,500. With the addition we have just completed, it's anticipated that our taxes will be in the $90,000 range. This is all taking place on a property that originally was a public school and had never been a tax-producing property. In the qualification clauses of the act, we do not qualify in one of the six sections. That section states that the exemption will only be granted on entities that are permanently funded or supported by public funds. I'm told "public funds" means government funding. I submit that if public funds are received, making tax exemption a benefit, then are we not looking at double-dipping?

This is penalizing unreasonably a charity that is producing employment, relieving welfare rolls and not asking for government funding. In cold, hard numbers, we operate under voluntary contributions. Our clients are not charged for the service we provide, but we do operate in one phase under a sponsorship setup where for a donation of $6,000, which is tax exempt, a person, group, corporation or anybody can sponsor a blind person to receive a dog.

Ladies and gentlemen, having the tax exemption removed is really not a gain for the government, but rather, on the basis of $6,000 per team, is denying 15 people per year from obtaining a dog, thereby having a direct effect on employment and cutting back the potential of welfare payments being relieved.

I'm asking you to give us your consideration and consider our plea on behalf of a service we are trying to provide and do our very best without relying on government subsidies and government support.

I would at this time like to express my thanks publicly to our member, Gary Carr, who is presenting this bill; to our mayor, Ann Mulvale; and to the legal department in the town of Oakville, Doug Gates and Beatrice Howell. The interest and the sustaining support they have shown us is beyond what should normally be expected. Thank you very much for your indulgence at this time.

1030

Mrs Mulvale: I'd just like to focus on why we are here. We're not here to ask you to direct provincial money that you are the stewards of on behalf of the one constituent and the one taxpayer to this operation. We're not here to convince you of the value of the work that is done at the Lions Foundation. I think the video and the recipients speak eminently well. Also, you may have experience within your own ridings or within your own circle of friends or families of people whose lives have been empowered by the work of the Lions Foundation. We are here today, and I particularly, on behalf of the people of Oakville to ask you essentially to get a genie back in the bottle.

When the Lions Foundation came before a site plan hearing of my town to ask for expansion, we tried to find a way, if it was registered really as a school, to exempt it from development charges. In doing so, we opened a can of worms that exposed the fact that during their entire operation they had never paid municipal, regional and school taxes. The people of Oakville -- and we incidentally, because of our assessment base, pay the largest share of the regional tax levy, of the board of education's tax levy, in addition to the residential taxes that fund the operation of our community -- had unwittingly, but nevertheless with great joy, invested in the operation of the Lions Foundation. I have yet, ladies and gentlemen, to receive one complaint from the citizens of Oakville on the journey that we began immediately to try and find a way to put back the tax exemption status of this tremendous foundation and its work.

Potentially, this foundation provides a service to the constituents in each of your ridings. Potentially, it finds a way to lessen the dependency of people on the ministries of the province that you administer. Potentially, it provides a way for members of service clubs and people convinced of philanthropy in your riding to support and empower people to retain dignity; for some, as Ron has indicated, to return to the workforce. It is an incredible facility, one that we proudly embrace as a community. Many of the people who foster these pups are Oakville residents; overwhelmingly, they're Oakville residents.

Members of the Lions service clubs from across this province, and indeed this nation, have volunteered to make this a reality. The one word missing from that video in terms of who empowers them is "government." Yet indirectly of course the people of Oakville via their residential taxes -- and yes, the people of Halton -- had done just that. But again, let me stress that I've yet to hear a complaint from the 127,000 people of Oakville who pay, because of the assessment base we have, the greatest share.

We believe, and we submit to you, that the emerging philosophy of government doing less and looking for the people to respond to the needs of their neighbours dovetails very much with the work of this foundation. I'm here today to ask on behalf of the people of Oakville that you do not demotivate the work of this foundation, that you assist the people of Oakville to continue, but now with knowledge, to support the work of this foundation that allows people to realize the potential they have following an illness, either at birth or something that has happened through diabetes or an accident. You saw and heard the people on the video.

I understand that bureaucrats have no choice. The staff of the region of Halton recommended that council not support this. The representatives of the people of Halton, by a large majority, agreed to journey with the people of Oakville and support this bill, to say: "We want to find a way to put that genie back in the bottle. We want to find a way to continue to be a positive force for the Lions Foundation as it empowers challenged people."

Ron has put it into precise figures in terms of the cost of a dog and, if they don't raise those moneys to pay the taxes that can be now collected, what that will mean in terms of fewer dogs delivered to challenged people. I am here to seek your help. Gary Carr immediately -- and Gary would have spoken to that this morning -- and I believe Terence Young also, our other representative in Oakville, would have articulated their experience of constituents speaking to them of their support to find a way to continue to support an agency that lessens people's dependency on government.

The people of Oakville want to continue to walk their talk by supporting this group. It is money we have never collected; it is money we have never assigned. We are prepared as a community to continue to provide this support, recognizing it empowers people far outside the boundaries of our town, our region and indeed this province. We ask you to exercise the choice you have, not to embrace the report of the bureaucrats that says, "Do not do this."

We ask you to remember this is a very special situation. It's virtually unique. It is unlikely to occur again. This group has never paid these taxes in the past. There is a wish from the community that contributes the most that they not pay those taxes. There is a buy-in from the region of Halton. There is a great deal of empathy from the school board, but they embrace the report of their bureaucrats. I don't believe, in doing so, that they polled their constituents or that they heard their constituents. They merely embraced that report.

As the mayor of the community, I believe I have heard my constituents and I'm here speaking on their behalf today and I'm asking you to find a solution to the dilemma that we, the council of Oakville, quite innocently created when we asked a question to see if we could assist the foundation.

I appeal to you to exercise the choice that continues to keep this organization not reliant on government funding and recognizing the challenging times of generating new charitable dollars. I ask you not to take away, by not acting, their ability to fund those extra dogs rather than pay taxes to the municipality, which is saying, "We are prepared to continue to forgo them." Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Mulvale. Further comments from the applicants?

Ms Beatrice Howell: Yes. My name is Beatrice Howell. I'm the assistant town solicitor at the town of Oakville. I just want to go through a very brief history of how this matter came before me and how I got involved in it.

In 1983, the Lions Foundation acquired the property from the town of Oakville. In 1984, they received a tax assessment and filed a notice of complaint on the basis that the Lions Foundation was a philanthropic institution and should be exempt under subsection 3(12) of the Assessment Act. The objection was accepted by the regional assessment office and a new assessment was issued exempting the property. This material can be found in appendix C of the material that we filed.

In 1993 -- this is almost 10 years later -- the town, as was alluded to by Mayor Mulvale, inquired into the amount of development charges payable with respect to the expansion of the facilities. At this point, the assessment office, doing an about-face, advised that the exemption could not be supported.

For 1994 the property was assessed at almost $42,000 and for 1995 it was assessed at $42,474. On March 30, 1994, the council of the town of Oakville directed that staff proceed to prepare this application. The Halton school board in November 1995 did not support the application. However, regional council voted to support the application for exemption in January of this year.

We believe that the case of the Lions Foundation is quite unique. Because of this mistake by the assessment office in 1983, the foundation has been exempt from taxation and has been operating on this assumption for nine or 10 years. Because of this, we are of the opinion that the subject organization does not create a dangerous precedent. Secondly, it would not create a new exemption as such. It would confirm the unique status of the organization in Oakville and in Ontario and Canada since it benefits everyone and Oakville is attempting to look beyond its parochial interests in this regard.

The key point I want to make here is that had the Lions Foundation been rejected for exemption in 1983, they would have at that time applied for special legislation and very likely they have gotten it because of the rules and the spirit towards these sorts of institutions at that time. Therefore, to deny this exemption at this time works a real injustice.

Looking at the Assessment Act and the sorts of exemptions that are available, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Lions Foundation seems to meet all of the criteria under paragraph 12 of section 3 of the Assessment Act except that it is not supported in part by public funds. This is the one criterion that they do not seem to meet.

1040

What must be regarded in this case is that it is in fact a good thing that the Lions Foundation is not funded by public funds. It is something that should be encouraged rather than penalized in these times of diminishing public funds. Therefore, we would like to argue that it is not desirable to impose this criterion at this time on the foundation.

Lastly, one final point I wanted to make is that the exemption from taxation has been granted in the past to lesser organizations. This perhaps was seen by the ministries as a loophole or floodgate, which they have decided to plug up at this time of fiscal restraint. But the Lions Foundation should not be caught by this rather new net, since it is so worthy and so unique in Ontario and Canada, and has this unique history of having had the tax exemption for so long. We are requesting that the committee take a creative and sensitive approach to the Lions Foundation.

The board of education has not supported the application for exemption, and they are concerned about their diminishing income as well. However, there are just two points I would like to make here about this. First of all, the board has never had this source of income in the past from the Lions Foundation; and, secondly, the amount of the exemption, as a percentage of just the supplementary tax levies that the board will receive from Oakville alone, is 0.14%, and this is just the supplementary levies which are mostly based on growth that the board gets from the town of Oakville. So it is a drop in the bucket to the board of education, and we feel that it is not justified.

Those are all the comments I would like to make at this point.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Howell. I will now ask the parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, MPP Derwyn Shea, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Her worship makes an impassioned plea, and I can relate to it, certainly as a former member of Lions Club. I don't think anyone can deny the good work, the impressive work that's being done in this facility by the Lions Club.

The issue, unfortunately, goes beyond the good works, and it is one that the issue has come before this committee on more than two or three occasions during the past year, and I'd just remind us of this again in a moment, that the bill before us would exempt the Lions Foundation from property taxes so long as the land is owned and occupied by the foundation, and we understand that.

I was a little taken by the figures of 40-some-odd thousand dollars. My understanding is -- and the mayor might wish to indicate if I have the wrong figures -- that, indeed, with the region-wide reassessment has been reduced as something in the order of $23,400. But whatever the figure is --

Mrs Mulvale: There is -- you're quite right, sir -- an issue of impact of regional market value, but they are not taxed yet on the expanded facility. We're trying to --

Mr Shea: No, that's right. I'm trying to say, with the exception of that expansion --

Mrs Mulvale: Yes.

Mr Shea: -- that's the portion that's out. The town of Oakville's portion of the tax bill is about 26%, and the region's share is about 13%. That leaves the school board's share at about 61%, and that's something that the government is more than a little conscious of. The foundation was advised that since the board did not support the request, the proposed bill should be amended to exclude the school board's taxes from the exemption, and I am of the understanding, even at this moment, that the solicitor has not agreed to amend the bill according to the government's suggestion.

You will recall, Mr Chairman, that the committee has been following a very clear protocol that argues that the body bearing the tax burden should make the decision, and indeed both the local and the regional governments have agreed to forgo their tax portions. That's good news certainly for the Lions Foundation, but the education boards have not agreed to forgo theirs.

In response to our requests from ministries, I advise the committee that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance do object to the bill in its current form right now but are agreed to withdraw their objections if the bill is amended.

The Ministry of Finance would like the assessment to remain on the assessment roll, and that's obviously something that's always of great advantage even to the municipality, at least to see what the assessment is, particularly the amount of assessment that's been forgiven. It would therefore support a tax write-off.

Education would like the bill amended to ensure that the school board grants its approval before its taxes are written off, and that's in keeping with the policies this committee has been wrestling with.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs objects to the Lions Foundation's request for private legislation, mainly for these reasons: first, that the ministry objects to the principle of property tax exemptions and would prefer that municipalities provide a grant to the organization, and indeed that is an option open to the town of Oakville. It could indeed grant a gift in lieu of whatever the school board's taxes are; second, the bill reduces the tax base of the Halton Board of Education without the board's approval.

For that reason, the bill in its current form is not one that the government is prepared to support. Three ministries have indicated no support. They have recommended, and I would strongly recommend -- but it's in the hands of the deputants and I'd like to see them work through an accommodation that a deferral would be one thing in order to give them a chance to in fact bring in amendments that are in keeping with bills that have come through this committee certainly in the past year, and more, for that matter -- that the bill should provide for the exemption of the municipal taxes only, and because it would not be feasible to administer an assessment exemption unless it applies to all levels of local government, the bill removes the provision to deem the exemption an assessment exemption and instead provide for a tax write-off.

If those amendments were in place, certainly the government would have no further objections and the three ministries involved would withdraw their objections. But in its current form, I am required to advise this committee that the government represents now the objections of three ministries.

The Chair: We now call for questions from committee members to either the applicants or the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just have a question and I have some comments to make. I was going to ask what was the objection of the Halton school board, and the parliamentary assistant gave some explanation of that. What is the percentage there? Is it 61%?

Mr Shea: It's 61%.

Mr Curling: And the municipality has 26%?

Mr Shea: Yes, 26% and --

Mr Curling: And the region has 36%?

Mr Shea: Thirteen percent.

Mr Curling: Oh, 13%. So from the initial point of view you're losing anyhow, because if the body making the decision is the Halton school board, you're dead in the water from the beginning, it seems, the way this is set up. Is that so, Mayor?

Mrs Mulvale: I would defer to Doug Gates, other than to restate the point I tried to make twice: The people of Oakville, because of their assessment base, pay the greatest share of the board of education and they are not objecting. I'm merely suggesting the trustees have not given them that opportunity. But the town solicitor, Mr Gates, has a point.

Mr Douglas Gates: Yes, I'd like to respond and just make two or three points. One is that the ministry has had the same objection for perhaps a year and a half now to this bill. Basically, it goes to the 60% share of the Halton board, but Ann Mulvale is correct that at both the regional level and the local level the politicians have had the foresight to proceed on this road to attempt to see this exempt.

1050

The thing is, it should be of some concern to the committee as to the position in which it puts the Lions Club, because what the type of legislation that's proposed by the ministry would do is that every year or every second year -- I think it's every year -- there would be a vote at the Halton board and they would never know from one year to the other how many dogs would be able to be provided, depending on the vote that year, the funding level to the schools that year and all the rest of that. So it is a very precarious and unfortunate situation.

The other thing here is, though, I think the ministry's greatest concern was this fact that the floodgates would then open again to complete exemptions and it appeared that that door had been closed. But what I would remind the committee here is, first of all, this situation came about because of the government's assessment department finding on the same facts in 1983 that they are exempt and in 1993 finding that this organization is not exempt.

Had they found originally that they were exempt, I am certain the Lions Club would have been here in 1984 with a similar application, and at that time there was no difficulty in granting a complete exemption, and in fact many much less worthy organizations were given complete exemptions from tax, both in Oakville and in many other municipalities.

So what we have here are two points: (1) We have this history that is unique to this organization of never having paid tax; (2) We have an organization that is important not just to Oakville, not just to Ontario, but a Canadian organization that's important to all of Canada. It makes it extremely unique and you're not likely going to see that again. So the committee should not be afraid of a precedent here.

Mr Curling: Thank you for clarifying this. I'll just make some comments now, because I want to say it's a tremendous presentation you all have given. The work of the Lions Club is unprecedented, the things it does. By your video and by your presentation and the support of the mayor, it's tremendous. I'm one who believes the government should be doing more, and more efficiently. I don't believe the government should be doing less, because usually the saying is that we should be doing less.

The fact is that it's to give the power to the people and to the organization to be more effective. On one hand, I'm hearing that the government is cutting off some of the supplies and support of funding, and in the meantime, when the organization is certain itself to take on this role, you have been restricted by all kinds of regulations and all kinds of rules why the ministries won't do this, and why that won't do this, in those directions.

Therefore, you're caught in this kind of bureaucratic nightmare, a political mire of things. The people of Oakville are saying, "Go ahead," the ministry over this side in some place locked away is saying, "Oh no, we can't afford to do this." In the meantime, your hands are tied. You have all the ability to carry on the services which the people need, very important and very effective services to the people.

I'm saying that I and my party will strongly support this legislation, this private member's bill, because we see it as something giving power to the people to do the work. In the meantime, the government has changed the rules since it's been in power. They've changed the rules about how funding should be done and now I'm hearing that we can't do them because we have rules here that restrict you to carry on the purpose you're intended to do. I personally will support it and I know my colleagues are in strong support of the tremendous work you are doing, but the government has cut off the funding.

One last point: Of course the board is concerned that if it's giving up this kind of funding it may not want to do that for its own selfish, maybe important reasons, because they need money to run the school boards. In the meantime, the government has refused to pass on that kind of funding. I think if one can resolve that, if that's the only thing to be resolved, maybe you will be able to get the support of the board. The board has told you yes, but the government here is telling you no, because they will not pass on any more funding to the school board. So I will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Shea: We're out of order in the case of bouncing back and forth, but I will indeed engage Mr Curling in that nonsense and hyperbole. The fact is I'm astonished that he misunderstands what this issue is about. The fact is we are dealing with a duly elected school board that has said no. It is the taxes, it is estimates that it has to raise, and it has said no, it will not in fact give up that money.

I find it quite offensive that a member of this committee would try to lay the responsibility for that upon the backs of the bureaucracy in any of the ministries. There are three ministries that have said no. They have said so consistently, and, I might point out to the member, not just with this government.

So let's be very clear: You can't grandfather a past mistake. If it is a mistake and it has come forward, you find a way to get through it, and indeed some suggestions have been made how to do it. Other applicants who find themselves in the same position have indeed responded in a fashion that we've held out as an option for the deputant.

The trustees are as duly elected as is the mayor, as is her council, and they stand before the people of their constituency and they will have to stand and explain why they are not prepared to forgo the 61% of their revenue. Let them make the case and I would hope that my colleague to my left, politically and physically, will go forward to the school board and explain to them why he thinks they should give up their money and should accede.

Mr Curling: You explain to them, you've got the money.

Mr Shea: I have also pointed out clearly -- and I do appreciate the significance of this issue and the good works that this facility represents -- that in the first instance if there is no determination to withdraw the bill and amend it, as others have done in recognition of the responsibilities and the authority of the school board, then I would think the council -- the council of Oakville at least -- might very well elect to make a grant in lieu which would make up the difference, something in the order of some $14,000, whatever that is, not including what the new assessment would require for the expansion part. That is certainly an option that is before the council of Oakville and it could do that even at this moment.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I just want to reiterate much of what the parliamentary assistant has said: A very excellent presentation and I'm very supportive of the concept. Obviously, I think everyone in this room is. I think it really comes down to a matter of the decision process, the duly elected functional responsibilities of people.

We in government sit and listen as we get accused of being dictatorial -- I've heard the word "draconian" -- overriding the local public will. In my view, to overrule those duly elected would be an error in judgement. It is a local problem. We don't need to redirect the boundaries of Canada to deal with the problem.

A case in point, if I could point it out: I'm from Durham East, and one of the municipalities in my riding, Bowmanville, part of Clarington, has a Lions Club which provides a great deal of service for blood donor clinics, senior citizens' activities, and indeed I was the liaison on that committee when I was a member of council. They do exactly as the PA said, annually have a grant in lieu of taxes, equal to the taxes actually. That's the formula. I agree with the point made that it provides a rather fragile revenue stream, but today revenue is fragile for all of our partners. So it's not new.

I just want to ask a couple of very specific questions, if I could, Mr Brown. What's the budget of the facility? You provide a wonderful service, but you have a budget, I'm sure.

Mr Brown: This current year it's $1.85 million.

Mr O'Toole: Is there any other, to your knowledge, provider outside of Ottawa and Montreal, perhaps private sector provider of the --

Mr Brown: Providing the dogs?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr Brown: Not in Canada, no.

Mr O'Toole: Not in Canada. So they're not available?

Mr Brown: There are 11 schools in the United States, but their input into Canada is decreasing rapidly.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, because yours are free. Well, they're not free; they're $17,000 each, aren't they? That's what it costs.

I think it is a local decision and I can understand the demand would increase; specifically, as the price goes down demand increases, and it is a local decision. I can't support, although my heart tells me if I was a local trustee I would gladly support it with a grant in lieu of taxes. That's really the place the decision should be made, not have the Queen, the Lieutenant Governor have to intervene to solve this in an order in council.

1100

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I just want the parliamentary assistant to examine some of the statements that he has made towards me, about my comments being nonsense and stupid. I'm an elected member here. I respect the parliamentary assistant and his presentation, and we can debate it in a very intelligent manner, but I totally take offence to the fact that he feels that I am stupid and my remarks are nonsensical.

Mr Shea: Mr Chairman, it's funny, I don't think I used the word "stupid" once. I would never use the word "stupid" towards a --

The Chair: The word "nonsense" was used. I'd just like to leave it at that, recognizing that word was used.

Mr Shea: I would never call him stupid; not for a moment.

Mr Curling: What did the parliamentary assistant say?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Did he say he was sorry, or what?

Mr Shea: I'm sure I wouldn't call and I didn't call my colleague stupid.

Mr Ruprecht: What are you going to do about this now?

The Chair: I just indicated that I recognize and I regret that the word "nonsense" was used.

Mr Ruprecht: So you're going to do nothing? All right, let me ask my question. I'd like to get some clarification from the parliamentary assistant on an item, but while he is talking, let me make some other comments in the meantime.

While I'm somewhat sympathetic, we have to tighten our belts and to some degree this is part of the outcome of this kind of policy. We're finding ourselves in the strange position that this has all been based on what's called an ad hoc policy of the province. Why is that? It's because we have people coming in here from all over the province requesting tax exemptions. Most of them that I've been hearing have been very worthy of this tax exemption, and in the majority of cases we have, in the final analysis, granted them a tax exemption.

Today we hear from the Lions Club. Obviously we all agree that their work has been fantastic; nobody would quibble with that. What will be our position? If our position is simply to say that we will rest the decision-making powers with the municipality alone, or in this case the school board, the problem will not go away. In short, there will be other people and organizations coming to us asking for tax exemptions. I expect that what we need to do is clarify the provincial position. It cannot be done on an ad hoc basis as we have proceeded in the past.

We have previously decided that we would like to streamline the process and examine our policies to see that we don't have everybody coming down here to make presentations to us. This falls, to some degree, in the same category, that if the policy of the province were clear and unequivocal, then we wouldn't have to hear these kinds of deputations.

Previously we've had many organizations in the city of Toronto that also have had tax exemptions and that do not have a provincial-wide basis, as this Lions Club does. We heard today that indeed the service they are providing goes beyond the boundaries of the municipality. That's clear, isn't it? Where is the fairness here? If we have an organization that is providing services for most of Ontarians, or for that matter, since there are no exceptions, for all Ontarians, should their request not be considered?

I suppose to the parliamentary assistant in a way, I'm sympathetic to some degree to the tightening of our belts. Obviously, we have to go through some exercise in doing that, and while not everyone in the opposition shares that experience, to some degree I share that here. I expect that somehow it may not necessarily fall within the context of all committees to make this decision of clarification but -- this goes to the parliamentary assistant -- he may want to take this to the ministerial level or we may decide to do it ourselves at the committee level. Somehow we should probably get on with the business of clarifying it so that we don't have these deputations coming to us from all over Ontario.

I have to ask one more question: If the parliamentary assistant, Mr Shea, has recommended that -- I guess that is the position of the government. If this bill were to be withdrawn and amended, I'm not sure whether this would be perceived by the deputants as stalling or tabling it. In the final analysis, that may mean the death of it because it would draw things out for years. I don't know who's got the answer to that, but that could be looked at as another favourite technique just to kill this thing dead in its tracks. I don't know that and I'm not here to cast any shadows of doubt on this but I'd like to have this clarified: Specifically, what would it mean if this bill were to be withdrawn and amended, how much time would that take and what would the process be after that? I'm not sure who could answer that, but Mr Shea might be able to shed some light on it.

The Chair: I think there was a comment from Mayor Mulvale.

Mrs Mulvale: Mr Chairman, if I might just say, the people who need these are not partisan; the dogs are not partisan; we don't perceive this to be a partisan issue. We appreciate the courtesy that all members of this committee are extending to us.

It's part of our journey to try and correct an issue that is of no one's creation, and our legal counsel has clearly defined how, if this had gone a different journey in the 1980s, we don't believe this would be an issue before you. We don't think this issue is being created because of a change in government now or a change in government four years ago. We are here to try and articulate our case, and I'd like to clarify that this is not a Lions Club; this is a Lions foundation. It's a very different situation here. I don't want to confuse the issue with what may have happened in one of your ridings.

We would obviously take the discussion under advisement. I can assure you we will find a way. We believed, in consultation with our provincial member, there was a way, an option this committee could exercise recognizing the uniqueness of the case. We consider our time this morning an investment and we will continue to journey, on behalf of the people who benefit from a Lions Foundation, to find a way. We're not looking for another level of government to absorb the cost. We're looking for some means, some creative tools to continue historic support.

The people of Oakville, because of our assessment base, pay the largest share of the education bill for the people of Halton, and the regional councillors, some of whom have been trustees, clearly understand that. Support from regional council crossed all lines, all boundaries, and we were delighted with that. We will continue to wrestle to find a solution. We are not defeatists.

My solicitor has one further comment in terms of the procedure we will follow, but I do not want this issue to become -- maybe I'm naïve -- a partisan issue. We came on behalf of the people of Oakville for a solution. We will continue to journey towards a solution.

1110

Mr Gates: Two things: In terms of council direction to staff and to the mayor, we're here to ask for the exemption entirely. I think if we were to receive something less we would accept that because that's the will of this government, but our goal here, and the reason we have taken two years and it's been a huge fight all along the way, is because we want an entire exemption.

The other thing is that I think this government, more than any other government, should be aware that the reason this does not qualify as exempt under the Assessment Act is because it gets no government support. If it were more reliant on this government, it would be exempt. It's ironic and completely the opposite direction that you'd expect.

There is one further thing in terms of assessment issues in the local municipality that you may not be aware of. I act on behalf of the local municipality, and we are scheduled for a six-week Ontario Municipal Board hearing, starting at the end of May, on an assessment matter. This assessment matter deals with industrial lands and whether they should qualify for an industrial farm exemption.

The point I wish to make is, there is $200,000 at issue that is the board of education's money this year, so they stand to lose $200,000. Who is taking the fight for the board? The local municipality. The board is sending no lawyer; I'm there representing the town, and they take what comes out of that. This is just a pittance for them.

The Chair: Further to Mr Ruprecht's question, I'll ask the clerk for a response.

Clerk of the Committee: In terms of the timing and the options that are open with respect to this bill, obviously the committee could pass the bill today. If the committee were to defeat the bill today from a procedural point of view, the bill would be dead, and if this applicant wanted to proceed they would have to start anew with a fresh application, which would be heard at the earliest between September and December this year.

This committee has the power to amend the bill here and now. This committee in the past has taken the view that they don't tend to amend bills over the objections of applicants because applicants always have the right not to proceed with amendments they don't agree with. The committee also has the power to defer this bill, which would keep the bill alive so that something could be worked out between the ministry and the applicant and there would be a good chance that it could be reheard before the end of June.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): A question to her worship: You're asking us to overrule the school board's decision. If municipalities, local councils, give you a grant, not in lieu of taxes, just a straight-out grant from their budget, wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? Wouldn't they actually be taking money from school budgets and giving it to you?

Mrs Mulvale: I understand we would have to fund the total share on the municipal. Let me say, sir, the issue is not them giving money back. They have never collected this money.

Mr Boushy: If local councils give you a grant equal to what you're asking for, wouldn't that be overruling the school boards and giving you their share as well?

Mrs Mulvale: I believe we only have power to grant from our revenue that we generate. If we wanted to grant in lieu of ours and the region's, but if we wanted to give a grant on behalf of the school boards, we'd have to fund it. We couldn't debit the money we transfer that we collected on their behalf to meet their levy.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Pursuant to that, Mayor Mulvale, what are the chances, however, of trying to establish an agreement or an accord with the Halton board to permit them to provide their portion of the 61% or the grant in lieu of? Have you explored that situation with the chairman of the Halton board?

Mrs Mulvale: I've talked with both chairmen of school boards plus the regional chair as we tried to broker a process parallel to the advice of our MPP on how best to proceed, and given the support we had from the region, we decided we would proceed in this way to stop the issue of granting in lieu and the vulnerability that would be annual. In essence, this foundation has never had to go cap in hand to the school board, to the region, to the town because they were given a ruling that gave them an exemption. It's really quite unfair. It was not their fault that this is being reconsidered and that they've lost that exemption.

We are trying to maintain the status quo and we believe the uniqueness of this case, the compelling argument of this case warrants that special consideration, notwithstanding the changes of views that may have followed since then. The error, if there was an error, was made by the assessment people years ago when this foundation commenced its operation. I don't perceive, by the people of Oakville's viewpoint, that it was an error. Let me reiterate, and I don't want to frustrate this committee, I have had no complaints, and there's been a very public process with what we are here to request you to allow us to continue to do. We're asking you to confirm the status quo. We're not asking you to give provincial dollars and we're not asking you to say, "Yes, it's a worthy cause"; we're asking you to give us a vehicle to confirm the status quo. Overwhelmingly the people of Oakville are behind this request of this committee.

Mr Hastings: I thank you for your comments and I'm ultrasympathetic to your cause. However, I have a major problem with no supporting data here, a letter, at least, from the Halton Board of Education chairman that says: "We can't give you the money. We're not allowed to, whatever the background, but we agree in spirit with what the town of Oakville is trying to achieve." Furthermore, why have you not got any supporting letters from the other municipalities -- perhaps this is more directed to Mr Brown -- whose Lions clubs have participated in programs or whose citizens have been beneficiaries of the vital assistance that vision-impaired people have received? If I could get that kind of stuff, that would help me be more empathetic to your situation.

Mrs Mulvale: Sir, if I might, the region of Halton comprises four municipalities -- Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills and Milton. The regional council by a substantive majority elected to represent those three other municipalities in concert with Oakville and passed a resolution in support of this. The issue that often adds to the confusion of having local Lions clubs speak in support keeps putting this issue into the context of a service club exemption. It is a foundation that is empowered by a great deal of service clubs of the Lions persuasion for sure.

We believe strongly; we did not expect anybody to want proof that the service you've seen so clearly on that video was in question in terms of the empowerment of people. If you need that, we will certainly get you those letters. The Lions Foundation has them on file. We felt that the resolution of a regional council representing four municipalities, one of whom was bringing forward this bill, and the service given to the community and to the people was self-evident, so we didn't paper you to death. We believe in saving trees if we can.

Mr Hastings: My additional question is not necessarily related to your four municipalities in Halton region but to adjoining municipalities in the greater Toronto area that probably have benefit. The argument's been made that obviously we have constituents who have been or will be or are beneficiaries. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Mrs Mulvale: We'd be pleased to provide that material. We did not provide it from other municipalities because they do not contribute to the funding of the exemption we're seeking to maintain.

Mr Hastings: What is the Halton Board of Education's position? A total outright refusal in terms of assisting you?

Mrs Mulvale: They have, one to one, some real support for the spirit. As you've articulated, you'd like to hear that, and I can tell you that assuredly. The problem is that they knew likely what the report from their bureaucrats would be and they embraced it. Rather than get into a lengthy debate, they embraced that recommendation.

At the region we had a similar report. Who is not going to say yes to a new revenue source, initially? When we debated it at the region and in conversation with the then chair of the Halton board -- because the public board chair has changed -- there was empathy, there was a desire to help, but there was a realization, when that bureaucratic report hit the table, that they would choose not to deal with it, and we were able to effect a very substantial change at the regional level. The question is, should I speak before the board of education? That was an option. I did not wish to get into that sort of thrust as it was revenue they had never collected.

Mr Hastings: What is your position regarding the outcome? If we vote against this today, you're dead in terms of the foundation. Are you prepared to look at a deferment until we have straightened this out?

Mrs Mulvale: I obviously haven't officially caucused with the delegation from Oakville and certainly the Lions Foundation. I was conscious of the direction that Mr Shea was giving and conscious of the help the clerk was giving in terms of time frame. We do not want the issue to die. If a deferral keeps it in play, how quickly could the item come back if it were deferred?

Clerk of the Committee: There's a good chance this could come back before the end of June, before the end of this sitting.

1120

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I'd like to support you, I really would, but the school board is, as has been stated, a free-standing legislative body with rights and it would be absolutely foolish of this group to fly in the face of provincial law, notwithstanding our goodwill.

I suggest to you, as Mr Shea has said to you, that this is not like squatters' rights. Just because somebody made a mistake eight years ago or 10 years ago, it doesn't grant you rights. The law is the law and has to be obeyed as such.

The place to put the political pressure is on the school trustees; that's my first thought. The second thought is, if you don't accept a deferral, then what are your thoughts on accepting some of the amendments? As I heard Mr Shea mention, it is possible to amend the resolution with a proviso that would allow the school board to attach to it after the fact.

Mrs Mulvale: Sir, my initial reaction, with the advice of the clerk on the time frame, my belief is we would accept the deferral and then we would investigate the wisdom of my appearing at the school board. We can certainly provide the supporting documentation Mr Hastings has requested. That's not problematic for us at all. My belief would be that we can best keep this journey in play in the most positive way by accepting the deferral, seeking your indulgence in coming back in the time frame the clerk has alluded to, and if at that point we have not got buy-in from the school board or some new information that might assist you in justifying why you could, notwithstanding that non-support, yield to the original request, we would look at making an amendment to allow the provision of the write-off from the town and the region.

The Chair: I have a procedural question from Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: I'm just wondering if we'd have to put a motion of deferral on this. That's the case? I'll second it.

The Chair: We have a motion and a seconder before us. All in favour?

Mr Hastings: Before you vote, deferral and execution of disposition of this issue by the end of June?

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to clarify if that was part of the motion.

Clerk of the Committee: Just in terms of clarification, when I alluded to the fact that we could probably get it done before the end of June, next week is constituency week; the week after we're looking at three city of Ottawa bills; the week after that we're probably looking at another two city of Toronto bills if we finish their city of Toronto bills today. There is nothing scheduled for the last two weeks. Of course, if the committee instructs me that this is to be rescheduled before the end of June, it will be rescheduled before the end of June.

Mr Hastings: And I would, Mr Chairman, advise that this committee reschedule it before the end of June.

Clerk of the Committee: So the motion would read that this bill be deferred and be reconsidered at another committee hearing before the end of June.

The Chair: I ask again, all in favour of this motion? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.

Mrs Mulvale: Mr Chairman, if I might extend thanks from the delegation for the courtesy and for the wise counsel we've received, we look forward to being back before you in that time frame with a means to achieve the end you all want, and I appreciate the courtesy.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments and for the video. I now declare this order of business closed.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Our next order of business for the standing committee is Bill Pr54. Would our applicants approach the witness table. The sponsor is MPP Isabel Bassett. I would ask MPP Bassett for some very brief remarks and then for the applicants to briefly introduce themselves and proceed with comments on this bill.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I'm Isabel Bassett and I've been requested by the city of Toronto to introduce Bill Pr54, the City of Toronto Act, 1996. I'm pleased to support this legislation as I believe it will provide the city with the opportunity to complete its pilot program in this innovative area of traffic management.

I understand that many resident groups in areas across the city are actively participating in formulating traffic calming plans for their neighbourhoods. Hopefully, the extension of this legislation for a further three-year period will allow for a number of such plans to be implemented. This will afford the city a variety of data to be used for a more comprehensive review of these initiatives.

The city solicitor, Dennis Perlin, is here to provide the committee with further background information in support of the city's application.

Mr Dennis Perlin: Thank you, Madam Bassett. Mr Chair and members of the committee, I am city solicitor for the city of Toronto. With me is Andy Koropeski, the director of infrastructure planning and the transportation division, department of public works and the environment for the city of Toronto. With Andy is Andrew Macbeth, from the department of public works and the environment, who is specifically involved in these types of projects working for Andy.

In June 1994 we were here before this committee, in another forum, with respect to the city's original traffic calming application for special legislation, which was then Bill Pr43, the City of Toronto Act, 1994. The original application was to address the city's lack of authority in general or special legislation to impose a 30 kilometre per hour speed limit in areas where the city was implementing traffic calming measures. As you know, the general power is 40 kilometres, the normal limitation, but with traffic calming measures, to be able to impose a 30 kilometre per hour speed limit.

Traffic calming measures, for some people who may not be familiar with them, involve a number of temporary or permanent alterations to the public highway such as the narrowing of the roadway by widening the boulevard or by the installation of traffic islands. You can see the blown-up picture. I think you also have in front of you a colour photograph submission we've done on the Balliol traffic calming project in the city, the particular pilot project. I think you have the smaller copy of that particular blow-up with the narrowing and the traffic islands.

Other measures that we have done in certain other areas of the city involve changes to the surface of the road, the intended impact being to modify driver behaviour, make the neighbourhoods more pedestrian-friendly and slow down the speed of traffic through the various neighbourhoods.

At the time of the city's first application, the staff of the Ministry of Transportation were opposed to a blanket enactment with respect to the 30 kilometre per hour speed limit, and so the two-year limitation. That expires on June 23, 1996. At the time of the original application the ministry was considering whether this legislation should be made a general piece of legislation available to municipalities across the province or whether it was a particular issue for the city or certain other municipalities and should be treated as such.

I'm advised by the ministry staff that there has not been enough data collected to date with respect to the particular Balliol project and analysis respecting the first two years of the city's pilot program, including its other measures, to support a recommendation for an amendment to general legislation.

In light of the pending expiration of the existing legislation, the city is again here. The preference obviously was to remove the sunset clause and just allow us to keep going without a time limitation. However, as a result of communications between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and the Ministry of Transportation staff, it appears that a further sunset clause of three years has been agreed upon at the staff level, subject of course to your approval.

Other than the change to the sunset clause, the only other one that's in front of you is to allow -- in the original bill there was a special sign provision with respect to having to provide for the signs, and so we had very complex schedules attached to the bylaws before council that showed where each sign was and surveyed. What we're asking for is the removal of that. I understand again there's agreement to that, and that it will all be done according to the Highway Traffic Act, as you would see any other speed limitation sign put up and done according to regulation 615.

1130

I know you're pressed for time, so I'll just leave it at that. We believe this is legislation that enhances safety and also has contributed to the city's environmental program, and we would ask you to approve it. You have the handout on the Balliol Street traffic calming project and Andy and Andrew can answer any technical questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. Before we go to further questions from the committee, I would ask the parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, Derwyn Shea, for any comments you have for the government.

Mr Shea: First of all, to thank Mrs Bassett for a succinct presentation, an insightful one, and to thank Mr Perlin for his comments. The government has reviewed the requests and it has no objections.

Mr Boushy: I wonder if we could entertain a motion to approve rather than go on; it's a straightforward motion.

The Chair: I have a question from Mr Hastings.

Mr Hastings: I wonder if either Andy could answer this: In terms of impacts on the environment, what kind of air emission studies have you got? How does this traffic calming actually reduce air emissions, if it does; and if it doesn't, how does it impact the neighbours on the streets who are affected one way or the other by those air emissions? Have you done any studies actually?

Mr Andrew Koropeski: Yes. We did a great variety of technical monitoring as well as surveys. We did door-to-door surveys of residents up and down the street that would be affected.

In terms of the environmental impacts, we did some fuel monitoring surveys. We had a van equipped -- we did before and after -- with equipment that measured fuel consumption which would equate to emissions. The reduction in fuel consumption was somewhere in the range of 20% to 30%. The reason that happens is essentially by constructing the road in this fashion, it regulates the speed of the vehicles and you get a more uniform speed which means you don't have the stopping and starting and the spread between the highest-speeding driver and the lowest-speeding driver on the street.

Mr Hastings: My experience with some traffic calming measures in other municipalities involves the construction of more stop signs. What is your experience when you have a traffic calming situation -- not necessarily this one -- where there are more stop signs involved if you have complicated intersections? Is there an increase, the reverse when you have more stop signs?

Mr Koropeski: Yes. The principle of this is to design the road such that it encourages a more uniform speed. When you have the stop signs, what you're doing is constantly slowing down and accelerating, slowing down and accelerating. That actually does contribute to higher fuel consumption and more emissions.

Mr Hastings: All the city of Toronto's traffic calming generally have this design and fewer street signs, fewer stop signs?

Mr Koropeski: This is really a pilot program to test this concept and it's the first one that was actually implemented in the city. We've got a few more coming on stream this summer but, like I say, with the extensive monitoring that we did, it is appearing to be quite successful in that sense.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'm concerned as to how the speeds are being enforced. Do we have cruisers out there enforcing the speed limit and the amount of people who have been charged? I will go one step further. In some areas I see the narrowing of the street. Some areas have speed bumps installed so that if you're going more than the 30 kilometres an hour, you wouldn't be able to do it with the speed bumps there or you'd be doing damage to your car. I just want to know if you have comments on those two things. I don't know the particular area and I don't recall driving through that area, so I'm just curious.

Mr Koropeski: They're actually not speed bumps installed. What is done at certain locations is there's a gradual rise in the grade of the road and it levels off and then it falls. It's more gentle than a speed bump. That, combined with the different surface treatments of the pavement -- as you can see in the photo in the package as well as the blow-up here, the inner sections are actually paved with concrete brick pavers. That gives the impression. The other aspect is, as you can see, the narrowing of the road. All those factors combine to give the drivers an impression of a roadway that isn't conducive to speeding.

I mentioned the extensive monitoring we've done. The Metro Toronto Police Service has been part of that. They're very enthusiastic about this type of approach with the actual physical changes to the road and the lower speed limit, because what in effect happens is those changes make the whole thing more or less self-regulating, like you mentioned. It's not really advisable for a driver to go much more than that limit or else they could do some damage. So they're enthusiastic, because it saves on their resources in terms of not having to have the cruisers out there and put the radar enforcement in place as much.

Mr Len Wood: With the amount of reduction that we're seeing happening all across the province in municipalities, cities, whether they be police forces or school boards or whatever, my concern was how much of the resources the city of Toronto is going to require to put cruisers out there when there's crime that has to be controlled as well. Are you going to be able to dedicate one or two cruisers to keeping the speed down below 30, when there are only so many resources there for the police forces to fight crime?

Mr Koropeski: Because of the design of the road, it's actually very supportive of that. You don't need the actual police enforcement; the design really regulates itself, without that level of actual personnel out there in the field.

The Chair: Are the members ready to vote on Pr54, An Act respecting the City of Toronto?

Shall sections 1 through to section 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? Agreed.

I wish to thank the sponsor and the applicants for their presentation.

Ms Bassett: We have another presentation, Mr Chair.

The Chair: A separate bill?

Ms Bassett: Yes.

The Chair: That's correct, and I now declare this order of business closed.

1140

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr55, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Pr55. The sponsor is Isabel Bassett, MPP. I understand the applicants are approaching the witness table and I ask MPP Bassett for comments before the applicants introduce themselves and provide us with comments.

Ms Bassett: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr55, the City of Toronto Act, 1996. This legislation would operate to allow the city of Toronto to expropriate certain rights of way over city-owned lands which were previously reserved by provincial statute to the owners or occupants of lands abutting the lands known as St Patrick's Market and St Patrick's Market Square. It's my understanding that the city needs to acquire all private interests in these lands so that they may be dedicated as public highways.

Mr Perlin will present this bill, and I would respectfully request that your committee, after consideration of his proposal, recommend that the Legislature pass Pr55 in its present form.

Mr Perlin: Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee, with me at this point I have Ward Earle, who is a solicitor in my department who has worked with me on the preparation of the materials, including the compendium that you have, and Mr George Millers, of the department of public works and the environment, who can answer any technical questions you may have concerning the present and proposed use of the lands affected; that is, the public lane and public highway lands around St Patrick's Market. For those of you who may be familiar, it's on Queen Street West, just west of McCaul in the city.

Previously there were certain rights of way, which are indicated on schedule C to the city's compendium, really all of the hatched lines that you see -- and you have a blow-up, the easterly 10 feet and the westerly 10 feet. Those are really the hatched lines. What you see is a portrayal of how the St Patrick's Market and St Patrick's Market Square actually look, but we have to clean up some of the title problems that remain, and the hatched lines on the west 10 feet and on the east 10 feet are what we are talking about today.

What happened was that these lands were deeded to public use in 1837. However, the original deed had a restriction that required they only be used for public market purposes and would revert to the grantor who dedicated them to the city if it was attempted to be used for any other purpose.

In 1909, an application was made under the Quieting Titles Act to remove this restriction and declare that the city was the owner of the lands "in fee simple and possession in trust for the use and purpose of establishing, keeping and maintaining a public market," but there were no residual rights. Those were gone in 1909. But when that was done, to get out of the abutting lands on either side, on to McCaul Street or on to John Street, what you had to do was travel all the way down to Queen at that time. Renfrew Place wasn't available, so to get out of their properties, people had to go down the lane all the way to Queen Street. Right now, people don't need that. The only ones who require it are north of Renfrew; they go down and can go out Renfrew Place.

But in 1947 that was the only way to go; since 1909, it was all the way down to Queen. It was decided, however, at that time by the city that it wanted to use all of this property from Queen Street West to the very top for something more than just a market, perhaps also a playground, perhaps also a parking lot that would be used to serve the market. In 1947, there was a City of Toronto Act passed by the Legislature, section 5, which vested in fee simple to the city, free from any trust, in terms of the trust being for public market only, so you could have a playground or you could have a parking lot, but still leaving the land subject to a right of way in favour of the owners or occupants of the lands abutting the eastern limit of the lands and a right of way abutting the western limit.

Over time, however, the lands have evolved in response to the needs of the area and now are essentially used by the public for pedestrian and vehicular access purposes. Indeed the portion south of Renfrew has been redone with decorative paving and certain installations such as benches, lamp standards and trees. The areas north of Renfrew adjacent to the St Patrick's Market Square, are used for vehicular access and as a result there are concrete walkways and curbs that have been installed.

Given the present use of the lands, city council now believes it's appropriate that they be dedicated as public highway so as to allow the city to institute appropriate traffic and parking restrictions on the travelled portions and ensure that these lands fall clearly within the Municipal Act with respect to the determination of rights and responsibilities.

As a technical matter, these lands cannot be dedicated as public highway until such time as any remaining private interest in the lands is extinguished. Because those remaining private rights of way were by way of statutory grant, the 1947 legislation, we are here because we cannot even proceed under the Expropriations Act.

What is in front of you is a bill to allow us to proceed under the Expropriations Act in order that we may have those lands put into the public highway purpose and dedicated as public highway. We asked originally, because of the way it's all been set up and the lack of, really, the use of these laneways any further by people who are on either McCaul or John as requiring it, to just allow us to extinguish those rights, but the preference was to have this matter proceed under the Expropriations Act. What's in front of you is simply a bill that would have these lands being able to be expropriated in the normal course under the Expropriations Act.

The Chair: Further comments from the applicants? Hearing none, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs for comments.

Mr Shea: Once again, a very insightful and helpful presentation by both Ms Bassett and Mr Perlin. I have a question, just before I make a comment, of Mr Perlin, who is a font of all knowledge. When the subject lands were originally deeded, were they deeded to the town of York or the city of Toronto?

Mr Perlin: That's a good question. I'd have to check on that; I'm sorry.

Mr Shea: Well, take that under advisement. Having said that, the government has absolutely no objection to this request.

The Chair: I now go to questions from the committee to either the parliamentary assistant or the applicants.

Mr O'Toole: Just a quick one. The green space north of Renfrew, is it going to become a street? An open street right on St Patrick all the way from Queen to Stephanie; is that it?

Mr Perlin: Because I don't want to disappoint Mr Shea on this one, it was deeded to the city of Toronto, so we have clarified that.

Mr Shea: Let the record show you required additional counsel in that regard.

Mr Perlin: Mr Millers can explain to you, Mr O'Toole, how it will --

Mr George Millers: The green portion has been developed as a current city park. It's been landscaped.

Mr O'Toole: It's a park today.

Mr Millers: It's a nice little park, landscaped. There's vegetation there and it can be enjoyed by everybody. All the work's been completed. That is a little parkette in the centre of that block.

Mr O'Toole: What you're saying is, it's not going to be a street; it's going to stay as a park.

Mr Millers: No. The streets are on either side of the park.

Mr Sheehan: The blue lines going vertically are road rights of way?

Mr Millers: Yes. Those reflect the portions that we would like to dedicate for public highways.

Mr Sheehan: What are they now?

Mr Millers: City-owned property and subject to the rights that were explained.

Mr Sheehan: Do the people who own property on either side of those blue lines currently drive their vehicles up those blue lines and access their property?

Mr Millers: Yes, they do.

Mr Sheehan: What are you going to do to them if you are granted these rights?

Mr Millers: Then we can officially -- to extinguish --

Mr Sheehan: I know what you can do officially. My question is, what's going to happen to this access that these people now are guaranteed?

Mr Millers: In practical terms, there's no change. They have access --

Mr Sheehan: Then why do you need the change?

Mr Millers: So that we can implement the Highway Traffic Act and the city traffic bylaws and so on. Right now, they're lands owned by the city used for highway, subject to a right of way, but we can't dedicate them officially for highway purposes.

Mr Sheehan: I appreciate all that nice stuff, but my concern is we're going to give you an authority and there's nothing to say you walk out the door and you could shut that street or expropriate those people, or you're going to extinguish their rights of way, and then they will have no access. What guarantee are you going to give those people who had this access all these years? How are you going to guarantee their rights?

Mr Perlin: Well, a couple of ways. If we were to do that, which isn't the intention of city council -- the intention of city council is just to have it dedicated so we can put no-parking restrictions, laneway controls in terms of speed which can't be enforced right now by virtue of the limitations we have. It's simply public land, if you like, with rights of way over it, but really it functions and it's important for those people getting in and out for us to be able to control it like any other laneway in terms of blockages and speed etc.

Yes, we could advertise once a week for four weeks; we could close it once it was a public road. If we were to do that, though, we've got to find alternative access for those people and make sure they have alternative access. Also under expropriation, if we do injurious affection, if we damage the value of their property, we will have to pay.

Remember, you're still leaving it under the Expropriations Act, so whatever we do (1) we're subject to the requirements of the Municipal Act in terms of alternative access, and (2) if we take anything from them we'll have to pay compensation.

Mr Sheehan: I don't have a lot of confidence in the Expropriations Act. Very few people ever won that argument. My concern is that you say it's your intention to guarantee access. Where is that set out in some other legislation that would guarantee that for those people?

Mr Perlin: It will be governed by the public highway requirements of the Municipal Act.

Mr Sheehan: What did you say?

Mr Perlin: The public highway requirements of the Municipal Act, the same as any other street that we have in the province. We can't close it without providing alternative access or getting the consent of the abutting owners.

Mr Sheehan: That's in the act without the consent?

Mr Perlin: Yes. They have to have alternative access.

The Chair: I have a final question from Mr Hastings.

Mr Hastings: Mr Perlin, is this right behind the art gallery, or south of the art gallery?

Mr Perlin: South, yes.

Mr Hastings: And the green part already?

Mr Perlin: Green is already a park; yes.

Mr Hastings: Reduced to its essence, this is really the city's left hand expropriating the right hand, isn't it? You already have the usage, you just don't have the title clearance on it.

Mr Perlin: That's one way of putting it, yes.

Mr Hastings: There's no way you'll be using a user fee here, I guess. I'll move the bill.

The Chair: Are the members of this committee ready to vote? We're voting on Bill Pr55, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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? Agreed.

I wish to thank the applicants again for their presentation on this bill and declare this order of business closed.

This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1153.