Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

UNIVERSITY OF ST JEROME'S COLLEGE ACT, 1996

ONTARIO PLUMBING INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION INC. ACT, 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

SUBCOMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

CONTENTS

Wednesday 16 October 1996

University of St Jerome's College Act, 1996, Bill Pr72, Mr Wettlaufer

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer

Dr Douglas Letson

Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association Inc Act, 1996, Bill Pr67, Mr Cleary

Mr John C. Cleary

Mr John Gunn

City of Toronto Act, 1996, Bill Pr66, Ms Bassett

Ms Isabel Bassett

Mr Steve Ellis

Ms Sylvia Watson

Mr Joseph Staszewski

Subcommittee substitution

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

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

*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

*Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

*Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

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

*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

*Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Mr E. J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

*Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)

*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)

*Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

*Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance /présents

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Ms Lisa Freedman

Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, October 16.

Before we go into our agenda, for members of the committee I would like to introduce Tom Prins, who will be the new clerk for the committee. I think we are all sorry we will be seeing less of Lisa Freedman, who has been clerk of this committee to date for this session.

UNIVERSITY OF ST JEROME'S COLLEGE ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr72, An Act respecting the University of St Jerome's College.

The Chair: Looking at our agenda, we will stand down the first order of business. Our next order being Bill Pr72, I would ask our sponsor, Wayne Wettlaufer, MPP, and the applicants if they would please approach the witness table. Mr Wettlaufer, you may want to say a few words by way of introduction and we may ask our applicants to say a few words as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): The purpose of the bill is to change the structure of the board of directors of the university. In the past the board had a majority membership made up of Congregation of the Resurrection priests, and the congregation has decided that they do not require a majority membership. I'll defer to Douglas Letson, the president of the university, and to Michael Deane, the solicitor of the firm representing the university, for any further comment.

Dr Douglas Letson: Mr Chair, I simply point out that the bill was changed in 1986 in order to provide the majority membership. Times have changed dramatically. The Congregation of the Resurrection feels it appropriate that the university have its business conducted through lay administrative control.

The only other change involved in the act, there was a provision in the 1986 act that provided for a seat for the School Sisters of Notre Dame. The act is proposed to be amended to provide simple ex officio representation from the provincial superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection and the president, but to eliminate any other reference, specifically to the majority of priests and to the presence of the School Sisters of Notre Dame.

The School Sisters had run a women's residence on campus. With their depleted numbers, they have moved out and the university has bought the residence and so there isn't any structural reason for their presence any longer.

Both the Congregation of the Resurrection and the School Sisters of Notre Dame are supporting this change to the bill and it has been appropriately moved through the board of governors at the University of St Jerome's College.

The Chair: Are there any other comments while we have explanation? Are there any other interested parties with respect to this private bill? Seeing none, I ask our parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Mr Shea, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Mr Chairman, there is no objection to the bill. Mr Wettlaufer has given a very quick overview and an appropriate one. It's essentially housekeeping, and it's an attempt to modernize the representation on the board. As has been pointed out, the chair for the School Sisters of Notre Dame is being changed, along with the membership, from the Congregation of the Resurrection. It's allowing the board to simply reach out to a broader base for its representation. There is no objection whatsoever to this.

The Chair: Are there any members of the committee who have any questions or comments on this bill?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I just want you to know that the reason I'm voting for it is because Mr Wettlaufer has looked at this in detail. He has come before us and made his recommendation, and that's why he's getting my support.

Mr Shea: The trust of the member in Mr Wettlaufer will be noted.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): What provisions are made to ensure that there's a good mix of community membership on this board and that the community is represented in all its diversity?

Dr Letson: The intent, Mr Martin, is to provide for extended community membership. We have a board committee which is meeting and has been meeting for many months now. It is being chaired by Frank Clifford, whom I think many members of the House will know, since he is the one who brought in the design with respect to the teachers' college in the province. He has been much involved in education. He's chairing this committee of the board, and it is the intention of this committee to provide for broad representation, and they would be written into the bylaw.

The Chair: Seeing no further indications for questions from the committee, are the members of this committee ready to vote?

We are voting on Bill Pr72, An Act respecting the University of St Jerome's College, sponsored by Mr Wettlaufer.

Following our procedure and collapsing sections 1, 2 and 3, 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 this bill to the House? Agreed.

I wish to thank the applicants for this. I now declare this order of business closed.

ONTARIO PLUMBING INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION INC. ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr67, An Act respecting the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association Inc.

The Chair: Bill Pr67 is sponsored by MPP John Cleary, and I ask him and the applicants to approach the witness table, please. Mr Cleary, you may wish to say a few words and perhaps ask the applicants, by way of introduction, to make a few comments.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I'm pleased to have Mr Gunn and Mr Hamel with us today. I'll just make a few remarks first.

I am pleased to be here today to sponsor Bill Pr67, An Act respecting the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association Inc. To explain how I became the sponsor, about a year ago, in November 1995, a resident of my community, Mr Albert Parthenais, came into my constituency office to discuss the certification of building officials as outlined in the bill that was passed in the Legislature about three years ago. It was introduced as Bill Pr40 by Mr Tony Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, and it had royal assent nine days later on December 10.

In going over the bill with me, Mr Parthenais indicated that a similar bill for plumbing inspectors would be of benefit to everyone: plumbers, inspectors and people requiring the services of the trade. Mr Parthenais stated that although the plumbing association has had a voluntary certification program in place since 1976, a program which has been successful in certifying over 375 plumbing inspectors, the association felt that official accreditation from the province would heighten general public awareness of the skills required for plumbing inspection and encourage those people involved in the trade to continually upgrade their skills and training.

Shortly after the meeting, I referred Mr Parthenais to the clerk of the committee so that he could properly proceed with applying for the legislation. Some months then passed without my hearing from Mr Parthenais, but during this time the association was working with the clerk of the committee as well as legislative counsel in drafting appropriate terms for this bill. Mid-last month I received a draft of Bill Pr67 with notification of when and where it would be put forward on behalf of Mr Parthenais and the plumbing association. I must admit that I had no part in the contents of the bill. I am merely the sponsor of the request of my constituent Mr Parthenais. To date, I have not heard one complaint about the bill.

With that brief introduction of the bill, I turn the table over to the actual applicants of the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association and their legal counsel. My last comment is just to note disappointment that Mr Parthenais could not be with us today, but he is ably represented by Mr Gunn and Mr Hamel, who are seated at the witness stand.

The Chair: I ask either Mr Gunn or Mr Hamel for comments.

Mr John Gunn: My name is John Gunn and I am with the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association. We at the association are seeking this legislation which will grant the exclusive use of the designation "certified plumbing systems inspector" and the initials "CPSI" by its qualifying members.

We wish to identify those members who qualify as competent inspectors, who have proven capabilities in the enforcement and administration of the provincial codes dealing specifically with plumbing. Our association also has concerns that the identity of the plumbing inspector is gradually diminishing due in part to the incorporation of the plumbing regulations into the Ontario building code. This bill will certainly provide the catalyst to show that special education and training are needed for an inspector to competently carry out plumbing inspections.

Foreshadowing the fact that other associations are certifying inspectors in different disciplines, plumbing is a specialized field in the building industry requiring same to be installed by certified tradespersons. Therefore, we feel it would be fitting that the inspector be as knowledgeable as the installer.

Since 1920 the association's members have diligently served the people of Ontario to bring about plumbing regulations that have provided a safe environment. Through our certification program, we have educated our members at seminars, meetings, conferences and by the distribution of a bimonthly bulletin containing technical information. Since 1975 our members have asked that we promote the status of the plumbing inspector with the provincial certification. This bill, we feel, is the last step in that promotion.

The Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association is a legally constituted, non-profit association comprising individuals employed as inspectors or officials by municipalities and government agencies who enforce and administer the Ontario regulation respecting plumbing to ensure the health and safety of the general public in Ontario. The enforcement of a minimum provincial plumbing code, part 7, under the Ontario building code is a function required of every municipality in Ontario.

Unfortunately, there are no regulations or standards established by the province to establish the qualifications, competence and ethics of inspectors and related officials who are responsible for implementing the requirements of the plumbing regulation under part 7 of the Ontario building code and the Building Code Act. Yet these individuals are expected to approve the work of the certified tradesperson, individuals who have spent thousands of hours learning the plumbing trade, including numerous weeks in trade school learning the plumbing regulations and plumbing techniques.

Because there are no provincial qualifications required for an individual to enforce the regulation of part 7 of the Ontario building code, the general public has little assurance that their health and safety and investment interests are being taken seriously.

1020

The Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association is sponsoring the designation "certified plumbing systems inspector" in order to identify those inspectors and officials who have successfully completed a program based on education and experience that will provide a degree of assurance to the general public that plumbing systems inspected by qualified individuals will meet the requirements of the Ontario plumbing regulations.

Although it is not the association's proposal that only certified plumbing systems inspectors be allowed to practice, a private bill is proposed to restrict the use of the designation "CPSI" for only those qualified in order that they will be uniquely identified. The association also includes members from manufacturing sectors, certified plumbers, plumbing apprentices, professional engineers, architects, engineering technologists and plumbing instructors from community colleges, all of whom work in close liaison with the plumbing inspector.

If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gunn.

I would ask if there are any interested parties to this bill. Seeing none, before I go to committee questions, I would ask for any comments from our parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, Mr Shea.

Mr Shea: There is no government objection to the bill. It's a very straightforward bill; once again, a designation of titles. There have been 20 such bills since 1985 in this regard and most members of this committee will know the designations and have been involved in many of them. No concerns have been raised by any outside agency in terms of this application, and so, as I say, the government has no objection to this proceeding.

The Chair: With respect to comments from the committee, I know Mr Hastings and then Mr Martin have questions.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mr Gunn, could you tell us whether your organization is actually going to propose in the future a more formalized system of education, since I take it from your remarks you're grandfathering all the folks who are in this trade already.

Mr Gunn: Those who are classified as a class 1 plumbing inspector by our existing certification program will be grandfathered to CPSI. We are making arrangements to have the education in place so that those who do not qualify will be able to be educated to qualify for CPSI. Both through the Ministry of Housing and through our own organization, courses are going to be provided for the plumbing inspector to upgrade to the designation of CPSI. It will be available, yes.

Mr Hastings: Will that be allocated to any specific community college or will it be more on a distance-learning operation?

Mr Gunn: It will be done more through the Ministry of Housing and through our own organization for educating the plumbing inspectors, as it is right now.

Mr Hastings: My second concern relates to the representation on your organization. Certain individuals have come to me with respect to other organizations that are colleges in fact, and --

Mr Gunn: Community colleges, yes.

Mr Hastings: No, colleges dealing with the professions. One of the concerns they have raised with me is that a board of directors -- I don't want to get into the details of the specific profession -- has become to a great extent dominated by its professional staff; and secondly, there doesn't seem to be any clear consumer representation on this organization in terms of how they handle consumer complaints.

Does this bill that you have proposed anticipate how you can deal with that sort of situation? Will you have a specific complaints-handling process put into effect through the bill or through regulation if there are customers who are not satisfied with the work undertaken by members of your group, so they can be reported out to the public? How you will handle the whole consumer profile situation is what I'd like to know.

Mr Gunn: We have an organization of sponsors who are representing the private enterprise and they work hand in hand with our association. We will definitely be carrying on that between manufacturers, mechanical contractors associations, the community colleges and so on. We work hand in hand with them and if there are any complaints you're talking about, then I'm sure that would filter back through us and we would be able to deal with it at that time.

Mr Hastings: Are you planning then to set into operation a specific way of handling complaints from members of the general public, should they arise in the future?

Mr Gunn: We certainly could. If you feel that's necessary, then we could have that drafted into our bylaws.

Mr Hastings: Perhaps into the bylaws or your code of ethics might be a good suggestion.

Mr Gunn: Yes, sir.

Mr Hastings: Because there are many organizations that get established by this Legislature and the consumer complaint procedure gets bogged down.

Mr Gunn: I see.

Mr Hastings: I'm not saying yours is, I'm just anticipating from past experience what I've seen occurring in at least two colleges that deal with our professions in this province.

Mr Gunn: Right. I'm sure we can make arrangements to have that taken care of.

Mr Martin: This is a very important piece of business that we do here in that plumbing, where we used to think of it as a system that carries water, is now a system that carries a lot of different substances into buildings, into homes, gas and other things.

Mr Gunn: Natural gas and so on, yes.

Mr Martin: It seems to me that it would be really important that we put our minds to setting up a system that would make sure that whatever is done under the guise of plumbing and professional plumbing be the best, and we set up something like what you're proposing here today.

I just have a couple of questions, because I'm not sure how broad your scope is here. I know there is residential and building plumbing considerations. There's also industrial plumbing, and on the industrial side of things, certainly there is potential for some really difficult circumstances to arise if the job isn't done right.

Mr Gunn: Yes, sir.

Mr Martin: I know from talking to and working with particularly the plumbers and pipefitters' union in the province, they've raised concerns about the qualifications of people actually doing that work and the actual inspecting of that work when it's done.

Actually, there are three questions here. How broad is the scope? Is this plumbing and pipefitting across the board?

Mr Gunn: Provincial.

Mr Martin: I mean industrial as well as residential?

Mr Gunn: Yes, sir. Everything built on private property.

Mr Martin: The second question then would be, how much dialogue have you had with the plumbers and pipefitters?

Mr Gunn: Local 46 or all across the board?

Mr Martin: Across the board, yes, provincially.

Mr Gunn: We have good communications with Local 46, as well as the Mechanical Contractors Association. We have a representative of the unions sit right on our executive. They're there at our monthly meetings, and we've had good communications with them. We also have support from the local unions. They have supported us. We've had no union that has been derogatory about it, so we don't see a problem.

We understand what you're saying. The biggest problem we have is from the contractors who are saying about unqualified inspectors, and this doesn't just mean in the rural areas, it's in different areas where there are inspectors who are inspecting plumbing whose qualifications are not up there. This is what we're trying to give the municipalities the opportunity to even put in their job descriptions that when they are hiring for a plumbing inspector they can ask for a CPSI, and then they will know they are getting a qualified plumbing inspector when they hire one.

Mr Martin: Then to follow up on Mr Hastings's question -- at least I think it was him who asked the question -- regarding the training, there certainly from time to time arises some question about who in fact does the training and who does it best.

In my community, the plumbers and pipefitters have their own shop where they do training, the community college does training, and it's all overseen by the government that provides a good chunk, not all of it. The unions themselves provide training money and so does the industry provide training money, but together that money gets spent and we get training happening.

You are going to be, and you already are, I'm assuming, bringing people together around that question --

Mr Gunn: Yes, we are.

Mr Martin: -- including the unions?

Mr Gunn: We know that the unions provide training and the community colleges provide training. Presently, the Ministry of Housing has an introductory plumbing inspection course. It's a basic course. It would probably take a plumbing inspector through your basic house. They don't have anything for what you were talking about, for education for larger commercial-industrial buildings, but we have had meetings with them, and they have promised us that they will have a course by September 1997, which will be an intermediate course, and by September 1998, an advanced course for plumbing inspectors, so then we will have the introductory to plumbing inspection, an intermediate course in plumbing inspection and an advanced course, which will take us right up through backflow prevention put out by the Ministry of Housing, as well as the OPIA. Right now we are running our own courses, an upgrade course for plumbers to try to educate the plumbers, which makes our job easier too.

1030

Mr Martin: What about your relationship with, for example, the propane and gas industry? Again, that's a question that's come up in my jurisdiction. There are plumbers who want to become certified in installing that kind of a process, and there seems to be always some tension between the industry itself and the plumbers and pipefitters and the actual guy or woman who wants to get involved. Will you, within this, be able to oversee that and make sure there's a standard set that regulates, whether it's the industry itself going out and hiring its own and limiting access to that kind of work to their own people as opposed to opening it up to participation by plumbers and pipefitters from a union shop or some other private company that does that kind of business?

Mr Gunn: Our scope of work that we inspect is all pertaining to plumbing, which is water in, waste out. When you get into the gas, a gas fitter, that's a specialized trade of its own.

Mr Martin: So it's not a part of this?

Mr Gunn: No, it's not. Of course, plumbers also can be gas fitters and they can also have their certificate to work on medical gas as well as being a plumber-pipefitter, but we are specializing right here in the plumbing aspect of it. We are not getting into the gas end, because that's not our field of expertise.

Mr Martin: How do you propose to regulate the possibility of -- I guess I'll ask the question; I think I know the answer -- people coming in from out of jurisdiction and plying their trade? Is that a problem for you?

Mr Gunn: No. If they were to come in, we will be operating on the point system, and when you reach a certain level of points, both through education and through experience, then you will qualify for a CPSI, and if somebody coming from another province comes in, if they have their interprovincial certificate, we would accept that as being the same as a C of Q for Ontario, so then they would have to work on the point system by their education and by their experience to see if they would qualify for the designation of certified plumbing systems inspector. But we wouldn't have a problem with people coming from other provinces as long as they could qualify.

Mr Martin: Okay, because that has presented itself as a bit of a problem from time to time, a contractor being hired, say, out of British Columbia coming into Ontario to do a job and the folks here saying that the plumbers they're bringing with them are not as qualified as the plumbers that we train and prepare here in Ontario.

Mr Gunn: Yes. That wouldn't enter into this. That would come more under licensing, which is more of a municipal affair, done by the municipalities, whether they license their contractors or not, but that wouldn't have anything to do with enforcement.

Mr Martin: So what you're saying is whether the plumber is from BC or Ontario, at the end of the day, you've got to inspect it?

Mr Gunn: That's right.

Mr Martin: And the inspectors are qualified according to the criteria laid down by your association?

Mr Gunn: That's correct.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): On page 2 of your report, you say, "Unfortunately, there are no regulations or standards established by the province to establish the qualifications, competence and ethics of inspectors and related officials." If that's the case now, then who controls that? How do you get to be an inspector? What qualifications do you need?

Mr Gunn: Right now, a municipality can advertise for a plumbing inspector. Every municipality has to have a plumbing inspector by law. If they don't have the finances to hire a qualified plumbing inspector, they can make the building inspector, the dogcatcher, whoever -- boom, "You are also the plumbing inspector," and he will be called out and it's his job to go out and look. Most often, the plumbers on the job know more than the inspector who's coming out to inspect it, and this is a lot of them.

Mr Pettit: So you don't necessarily have to be a qualified plumber?

Mr Gunn: No. Just --

Mr Pettit: It could be anyone off the street type of thing, the way it is now?

Mr Gunn: Exactly. Anyone off the street can inspect it, but it's a law that you have to be a licensed plumber to install it. You have to have your certificate of qualification in your pocket to work as a plumber, but the inspector coming out to inspect it can be anybody, as long as he's appointed by the municipality.

Mr Pettit: So someone within a municipality can take John Smith out of his office and say, "Go check the plumbing at this construction site."

Mr Gunn: Exactly. That's the way it is right now.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): How are other trades inspected now, say, electricians? Who does the inspection?

Mr Gunn: Ontario Hydro inspects for electricians and every municipality has its own building officials to inspect buildings. So there are three delegations of inspection -- plumbing, electrical and building -- in the construction trade.

Mr Sheehan: Is roofing separate or is that in building?

Mr Gunn: That's covered by building.

Mr Sheehan: Following on what Mr Hastings was talking about on the consumer, your board seems to be comprised of an executive only. Is that correct? There are no board members other than the executive set out in subsection 3(2)?

Mr Gunn: We have our board members, but we also have affiliate members. We have our sponsors' association, we have our advisers, we have a representative from the Ontario public health and, as I said, from the local unions, the Mechanical Contractors Association. They come to our meetings. They are affiliate members, as well as our executive.

Mr Sheehan: Is what you're proposing, the governance, going to be comprised only of executive members and that's it? There will not be a board of directors?

Mr Gunn: We have our executive board of directors.

Mr Sheehan: In subsection 3(1) you say, "The affairs of the association shall be managed by the executive," which is "president, vice-president, immediate past-president, secretary, treasurer, bulletin editor and such further number of persons...." Maybe I have some direction elsewhere here. Is it the custom on these organizations to have a board of directors or is it the custom -- can you get away with just specifying an executive constitutes the board of directors?

Mr Gunn: I think that's the way we operate, that the executive does.

Mr Sheehan: I am concerned then that we are giving you self-governance but there's no provision in here on your board for members of the public, of non-professionals, if you will. Why is that? We're giving you self-governance. Most of the self-governing bodies I am aware of always have a provision for a proportion or percentage of the board members to be non-practitioners. I'll speak directly about the insurance brokerage business. We had a board of 12 but three of them had to be non-brokers. Why is that? Where is the protection for the public in here?

Mr Gunn: We do have provisions in here for such further persons as determined by the bylaws of the association.

Mr Sheehan: I understand that, but we're giving you statutory authority and I'd like to see the provision built right in.

Mr Gunn: Okay. I'm sure we could have that covered in our bylaws too, sir. We could have that, so there would be provisions made for --

Mr Sheehan: How do we go about making sure that happens? Chair?

The Chair: To make this kind of an adjustment I think I would defer to the clerk.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): To make a change like that you're going to have to move an amendment to the bill.

Mr Sheehan: Would the Chair entertain such an amendment, and do these people have enough time to think about it?

The Chair: We often have amendments to bills. I don't know whether we would come up with the appropriate wording.

Mr Sheehan: I have another problem with this proposal, and maybe you can address both of them. Section 11 on page 3 seems to give this organization immunity from any acts. I'm wondering why we would want to give that kind of immunity. It's kind of a statutory immunity. These people are dealing with processes where -- I guess there's a classic illustration going on up in Richmond Hill right now. Somebody didn't do something and they're talking about a major problem with a building. I think that since this group will be in a position of power and have authority, they should be responsible for their acts and we should not be giving them immunity from liability in this act.

The Chair: Mr Shea, you had a comment?

Mr Shea: Mr Sheehan, you will know that that is an authority that's given in every instance. You will know, for example, that this is the coverage for officers in the executive in an association and it's given to everybody the same way. It's not granting them the kind of immunity that you may lead people to believe is being given from any other legal process. It's strictly in the execution of that office, and this is the same kind of coverage that's in every piece of legislation of this nature, to my knowledge.

1040

Mr Sheehan: With respect, I do not recall such an exclusion in the act that governs the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

Mr Shea: Do you have it with you? I can't recall it either.

Mr Sheehan: I don't have it with me. I just happened to spot this now and I'm kind of surprised by the thing.

Mr Shea: I would be surprised if it didn't have something in there somewhere for the executive. You might have an unusual one.

Mr Sheehan: No, I don't know why we would give this immunity. I think people who stand on boards should be responsible for their actions. Now, I accept the exception you're making, that that was a specific act of a department.

I don't think anybody who sits on a board should be immune from prosecution for errors or for negligent acts. If they want to protect themselves, then we'll make provision. I think there is provision coming forward in some of the changes right now to allow non-profit organizations to buy liability insurance and also to indemnify the board members, but I have a problem, and maybe the clerk can do a quick research up in the library to find out if there's similar on RIBO, which is my only reference point. But I am not in favour of giving anybody this immunity.

The Chair: Can we go on? There are two more comments and then we can come back to this.

Mr Sheehan: Fine, yes.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Do you feel once this bill is passed that you are going to bring any hardships on municipalities by making them have duplication of inspectors?

Mr Gunn: No. It will give them the opportunity when they are making out a job description for a plumbing inspector to ask for this, which would mean they are getting a qualified person. It just gives them the opportunity to ask for it if they choose to.

Mr Rollins: Okay. So after this comes into effect and the next time around when a municipality needs to rehire somebody for a building inspector -- I know in rural Ontario there are a lot of building inspectors who are, as you said, dogcatchers, and they have other duties at the same time. Does that tie them up to the point where they're not going to be able to have that individual? Will they phase out that qualification?

Mr Gunn: No. It just gives them the option of asking for a CPSI if they are looking for a certified plumbing inspector. So it gives them the option, but they are not committed to do it.

Mr Rollins: If my municipality doesn't choose to have a person who's qualified with these initials after them, are the tradespeople going to say, "Heck, that fellow isn't qualified so we don't listen to him"?

Mr Gunn: No, sir. It just gives them the opportunity to have that written in their job description if they choose.

Mr Rollins: If they choose. Okay then, thanks.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Just a comment more or less, Mr Chairman. I would like to congratulate the member for bringing this forward. I think it's going to bring some improvement in the profession of the plumbing industry and business.

Just one comment with respect to the concern that the member has on the immunity of the members. He didn't mention negligence. The clause in here does not make any mention of giving them immunity if they are found to be negligent in any matter whatsoever. Therefore I don't have any concern with the clause as it is. I believe they would be responsible if they are found negligent in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities. It only says if an act is done "in good faith." But if it is proven that this is done not in good faith, then they are being negligent in the discharge of their duty and I would say they are fully responsible. So I have no problem with the clause and I have no problem with the approval of the bill.

Mr Hastings: Mr Gunn, another matter that came to my attention when I went through that bill the other evening relates to the concern that Mr Martin raises regarding folks coming from other jurisdictions, other provinces, that you could have some sort of an equivalent point system to measure whether they have the technical proficiencies as you lay out the course. Hopefully you'll take it over in the next few years. But my major concern relates to how you will handle the whole issue of access to trades.

The Honourable Marilyn Mushinski is most concerned in her area -- and the government as a whole, in a sense -- regarding how we deal with access to trades and professions for folks coming from other parts of the world. I have a large, multidiverse riding and I must have had at least six meetings in the last year reflecting this concern from people from other parts of the world. It didn't necessarily deal with your trade but I could see that it could possibly arise as you get more newcomers coming to this country.

How will you measure out or equate if they have any education in this field from technical colleges from other parts of the world? There seems to be a tremendous blockage, in the professions at least, that you must rewrite the whole exam or start again. They hardly give any points of equivalency for recognition for education in technical fields from other parts of the world. I'm wondering how you would deal with that issue, even though it's not part of the bill.

Mr Gunn: The Ontario Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act would have jurisdiction over that, where a person coming from another country would have to apply to them to be able to write the certificate of qualification for the province of Ontario. If they could show that they had come from another country where they were a licensed plumber, they would have to take courses to learn our codes so that they could be knowledgeable in the way that plumbing is installed according to our plumbing codes in Ontario.

Mr Hastings: That's my precise concern, that we are saying that in effect it doesn't matter how much experience and how much education you have from other parts of the world; it's completely or nearly irrelevant. You must take our standards. I'm just wondering whether we're being somewhat inflexible in that area.

Mr Gunn: I don't think so. I just came back from the World Plumbing Conference in Chicago. I was there and I was talking to plumbing contractors from all over the world. If it did one thing, it really opened my eyes because we sort of figure that the way we do things is right. Being a plumber who grew up in Ontario and went to school in Ontario, I figure that we've got our way and it's the right way. After talking to these people from different countries, it just surprised the hell out of me the different ways they go about doing things.

When you get somebody coming from New Zealand and they want to come over and be a contractor or a plumber in Ontario, I feel it's their obligation to make sure they are brought up to date on our codes. Otherwise, if they go out and try to do things according to the codes of New Zealand, it's just not going to work. They're not going to get their jobs passed. It's to their benefit too to upgrade themselves -- not "upgrade"; that's the wrong term -- to educate themselves in our way of doing things.

Mr Hastings: So you believe they would have to undertake an examination.

Mr Gunn: Yes, they would have to write their certificate --

Mr Hastings: Written and practical?

Mr Gunn: Under the Ontario Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, they would have to write an exam to get their C of Q in plumbing.

Mr Hastings: And start over?

Mr Gunn: They wouldn't have to go back and start as a first-year apprentice, no. They would have the opportunity to write their licence. But to write their licence is a three-hour exam and they would be obligated to take courses.

Mr Hastings: Thank you for dealing with that.

Mr Shea: Chairman, to expedite matters, and we've had a chance to do some consultation here as the deputant has been responding to questions, Mr Sheehan and I probably are both right but coming at it from different ways.

In terms of private legislation, I think it's probably more correct that Mr Sheehan's right, but you don't see often the kinds of immunity clauses that we see here. You'd see that more in the public bills that come forward, and that's the sort of thing we're much more familiar with. In that sense, if Mr Sheehan felt strongly, he might simply move to strike section 11, for example, and we could simply vote on that or not. That would be a simple matter and it doesn't seem as though it would wave any red flags with the deputant, as I look at them.

The second part to that deals with the first issue that Mr Sheehan had raised, and that concerned the mix of the board or the executive, however you deal with that. I am reminded that where the province is structuring agencies, it often places this kind of mix in place in the legislation. But where they are self-regulating and they assume upon themselves a responsibility for the self-regulation, the composition of their governing body is left to them to determine. So it's not one that the government would step into in that case. If it's a public bill, that's a different matter again.

Mr Sheehan: I get the distinction, yes. It's a fine hair you're laying down there.

I'd prefer, when you're giving self-governance -- and I notice they build in provisions. If they discipline one of their members, there is an appeal process externally. Perhaps that could be sufficient, but they do deal with an awful lot of business that comes on the public, and I don't think they should be allowed to do it all on their own. I don't think it puts an inordinate amount of pressure on them to provide this.

I can tell you from my experience on the RIBO board that the input of people -- we used to call them the lay members -- was very beneficial and very helpful in the deliberations. I have to defer to what you're saying, what the practice is, but my preference as a legislator with some experience in self-governance is that the public interest is best served and there's greater transparency if there is a non-practising member on the board.

Mr Shea: In response, Chairman, it would seem as though the deputants don't have a particular problem with that philosophy either, at least as I watch them respond to your comments earlier. They have indicated they have some interest in responding to that suggestion by way of bylaws, regulations instead of the legislation.

Mr Gunn: Certainly.

Mr Shea: If it means to accomplish that by deferring this and going back and coming back to the process again, that's a matter you may want to wrestle with for a moment and decide, or if they want to take some undertaking now with some kind of amendment you want to put on the floor, Chairman, I leave that in your hands. I must say, in terms of the government, I'm less fussed one way or the other in that regard. I want to speak more clearly about the other one and make sure we were clear about how you might want to deal with section 11.

Mr Sheehan: I would prefer if section 11 were just dropped.

Mr Shea: But an amendment, then, in that regard would simply be made; you would move that that should be omitted.

Mr Sheehan: Right. I have no quarrel with what you're proposing. I'm just fine-tuning.

Mr Gunn: Sure, I understand.

Mr Sheehan: I think the clerk was drafting an amendment that may work. I don't know. Where did she go?

The Chair: I suggest there's a bit of work being done here. I recommend a three-minute recess, and we may want to photocopy some material. Back in three minutes.

The committee recessed from 1053 to 1101.

The Chair: We will now proceed with a clause-by-clause discussion of this bill. However, before we do that, I wish to ask our clerk for a few words.

Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Lisa Freedman): When we do clause-by-clause on this, there appears to be a preference from at least one of the members to strike out section 11. A motion to strike out section 11 is technically out of order, so we will do clause-by-clause. We will still put the question, "Shall section 11 carry?" and if people do not want it to carry, you simply vote against the section when we get there.

The Chair: Are members of this committee ready to vote? We're voting on Pr67, An Act respecting the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association Inc., sponsored by Mr Cleary.

Shall sections 1 through 10 carry? Carried.

Shall section 11 carry? All in favour of having section 11 carry, please raise your hand. All opposed? Defeated.

Shall sections 12 and 13 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report this bill to the House, as amended? Carried.

I wish to thank the applicants and declare this order of business closed.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr66, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Our next order of business, Bill Pr66, is sponsored by MPP Bassett. Ms Bassett, if you would very briefly make some introductory remarks, I would ask the applicants to introduce themselves after that.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Good morning to you and to the members of the committee. It's my pleasure today to introduce to your committee Bill Pr66. This legislation is required in order to clarify the authority of city of Toronto council to pass bylaws to prohibit or to regulate the fees that may be charged by municipal law enforcement officers appointed by the city council to enforce bylaws of the municipality. The legislation clearly sets out that council has the authority to prohibit or to regulate these fees, including the ability to set the amount of the fees and manner in which they may be collected.

Sylvia Watson, the acting city solicitor for the city of Toronto, and Councillor Steve Ellis are also here to present this bill. I would respectfully request that your committee, after consideration of their proposal, recommend that the Legislature pass Bill Pr66 in its present form. I understand that Ms Watson will also be assisted as necessary by members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service and the transportation operations branch of the city works services department.

Mr Steve Ellis: My name is Steve Ellis. I'm a member of city council and also a member of the executive committee of city council. Mayor Hall cannot be here today so she asked that I come and present to this standing committee.

I'll just give a bit of background on how this all got started. Several years ago, in response to a request of the property owners in the city of Toronto, city council amended its bylaw regulating parking on private property within the municipality to allow for enforcement of the bylaw by private municipal enforcement officers appointed by city council under the Police Services Act instead of just police officers, as it had been.

However, as the system developed, it became clear that the property owners had essentially turned over the management of their property for parking purposes to unscrupulous municipal law enforcement officers companies and towing companies that were pursuing the use of towing in an unfair and abusive manner so as to maximize their profit through enforcement. As fees were collected from the vehicle owners only where the vehicle was towed, there was a clear incentive for these MLEO companies wishing to maximize their profits to tag and tow as many vehicles as possible without regard for the normal requirements of fairness which characterize any respectable law enforcement scheme.

City council, in attempting to balance the needs of property owners with the complaints of vehicle owners, looked at various ways of ensuring that enforcement is done responsibly, including a prohibition on the charging of fees by municipal law enforcement officers, and has sought the support of the province for the passage of this legislation.

Thank you very much for taking this time to consider this application. I would respectfully request that your committee support the legislation as proposed. I now turn it over to Sylvia Watson to do a further submission.

1110

Ms Sylvia Watson: The purpose of the legislation is clearly set out in the documents that are before you. It's intended to enable city council to pass bylaws which would include the ability to set the amount of fees charged by municipal law enforcement officers, the ability to prescribe the circumstances under which those fees might be charged and the ability to determine how those fees may be collected, including by way of a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

At the present time, the parking and leaving of motor vehicles on private property without the consent of the property owner is prohibited under the city of Toronto municipal code. As has already been indicated to you, city council, in reaction to complaints received from property owners not satisfied with the level of enforcement with respect to illegal parking on private property which could be provided by the police, amended the city's bylaws in 1991 to allow for enforcement of parking regulations by private municipal law enforcement companies whose members would be appointed by city council under the Police Services Act for that purpose. These individuals are to be certified by the Metropolitan Toronto Police as competent for the purposes of enforcing municipal parking bylaws and, by agreement with the city of Toronto, are supervised and trained by the police in the performance of their enforcement duties.

What did become clear, however, is that the enforcement by private MLEO companies could be subject and did become subject to certain abuses due to the methods they used to collect the fees charged for their services. Instead of charging the property owner who called upon them to tow the cars away, MLEOs were charging an administrative fee to the owners of the cars. The only way they could collect those administrative fees was by actually towing the car away and enforcing this administrative fee, which was sometimes very high, pursuant to the Repair and Storage Liens Act. We were faced with a situation where, rather than tagging cars that were illegally parked, they were just being summarily towed away with these huge towing fees and fines, as well as administrative fees tacked to them. My understanding is that it sometimes costs people as much as $250 to retrieve their car from a towing yard when it had been towed away from private property.

As a consequence of public complaints, the city of Toronto enacted bylaws that were intended to deal with the situation. The response of the industry was to suggest that legal action would be brought on the basis that the allegation or concern was that the city council did not possess the authority to control or to regulate or prohibit those kinds of administrative fees. Accordingly, this legislation is being sought to clarify that the city does have the authority to both prohibit and regulate the fees in the way that is set out in the legislation so as to control any abuses that might be undertaken by these MLEO companies.

I would ask that your committee recommend passage of Bill Pr66 in its present form. I'd certainly be pleased to answer any questions. I have brought with me members of the city of Toronto city works services department and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service to assist in that regard.

The Chair: From the agenda, I see we have an interested party, Mr Staszewski.

Mr Joseph Staszewski: I'm a municipal law enforcement officer and I own an agency that employs municipal law enforcement officers in Metro Toronto. I prepared a deputation in writing for you because the issue isn't as simple as it sounds, as it has been laid out to you. The basic information you received is correct; there are some things that have been left out. The towing industry now has a uniform price, which means that it was voluntarily set through the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, of $75. The prohibition of charging of the fees is what I'd like to discuss.

In essence, the city of Toronto wants to change the Highway Traffic Act. They have the ability to appoint municipal law enforcement officers. There was a case, a challenge of the municipal law, in the city of Toronto in front of Justice O'Leary. Justice O'Leary made a ruling on the extent of when a lien can and cannot be enforced on a vehicle.

In essence, the application is a rewrite of the Highway Traffic Act. The Highway Traffic Act, subsection 170(15), states: "A police officer, police cadet, municipal law enforcement officer or an officer appointed for the carrying out of the provisions of this act, upon discovery of any vehicle parked or standing in contravention of subsection (12)" -- which is not pertaining to this issue -- "or of a municipal bylaw, may cause it to be moved or taken to and placed or stored in a suitable place and all costs and charges for removing, care and storage thereof, if any, are a lien upon the vehicle, which may be enforced in the manner provided by the Repair and Storage Liens Act."

A conflict, or rather the real issue, arises when the cost of enforcement is not considered a real cost to a victim. A property owner who has to pay for enforcement, that's a real cost. That became the issue. The issue has been ruled upon in an appellant decision of the Honourable Senior Justice O'Leary in Gluckstein v J.P. Towing, in which the city of Toronto was named as intervenor and had to support J.P. Towing in the challenge of the bylaw 675-79 and the status of a municipal law enforcement officer, an MLEO. Please examine the ruling; it is very explicit. I gave copies of the ruling. J.P. Towing and the city of Toronto were awarded damages.

This was when fees were being collected through the city of Toronto bylaw. The ruling states the right of the victim to use an MLEO and a towing company to apply all costs to the offender through the Repair and Storage Liens Act. It also states that an MLEO has the same right to invoke subsection 170(15) of the HTA as a police officer, even though the payment of service is different. Police officers are supported by taxes and tag revenue. Municipal law enforcement officers are not supported in either of those capacities.

In comment, the ruling suggests that costs should be real and reasonable and that the municipality may decide to set reason to cost, which I believe is the bill before you right now. The question is not, "Who should pay the costs?" but rather, "How much should the offender pay?" I believe that hopefully will be the issue in the term "regulate."

This was illustrated during debate when the lawyers for the city of Toronto told Justice O'Leary that council had changed the bylaw to prohibit MLEO fees. I was there, present in the courtroom, on a project. Justice O'Leary, upon hearing the attempt at political policy contaminating his decision, warned the lawyer by saying, "I will rule on the new bylaw when it is presented to me."

After his ruling, he asked one simple question of the five lawyers before him: "Who should pay for the costs of enforcement and removal of an offending vehicle?" There was no reply because all present realized that if they said the offender, then it supported the Repair and Storage Liens Act, and if they said the victim, then it would become a real cost and therefore also support the Repair and Storage Liens Act. Either way, the offender is legally required to pay. Get to the money and get to the truth.

1120

There are two reasonable solutions for the reimbursement of services rendered by MLEO agencies:

First, tag revenue proportioning to the agency supplying the service. Metro gets tag revenue presently, not the city of Toronto. In my estimate, tag revenue per year is about $66 million for Metro. The number of tags issued in the city of Toronto results in about $44 million. It's an important issue for the city of Toronto, there's no doubt about that. Tag revenue proportioning with an agency supplying the service is important.

Second, regulation of agencies presently being supervised and certified through the Metro Toronto Police Force with an expansion of the decertification process of any who disobey established guidelines committed through contract or overcharge a fair rate as passed by the city of Toronto.

For instance, now Metro police supervise all the MLEOs. They create the guidelines and they oversee their activities. In the past, Metro police haven't had the teeth legislatively to decertify people who've stepped out of line. The industry itself did clean up some of the early offenders. Most of them are out of business, but the teeth for Metro police are still lacking, and I believe what the city of Toronto is trying to accomplish today is to provide teeth to their bylaws. That's what I hope is the direction of this.

There's a logical third option and that's a combination of tag revenue sharing and a regulated fee.

In regard to tag revenue disbursement for services rendered, the cities of Scarborough, Etobicoke and the borough of East York have passed in counsel requests for Metropolitan Toronto and/or the police services board to establish a proportioning method. The traffic department of North York, a special task force of the chief of police, in which I was involved, and even the legal council of the city of Toronto are on record in support of a contractual proportioning system so that the MLEOs don't have to charge the property owner, they don't have to create towing fees, they receive their revenue from the tags they issue. In other words, they do the work; they deserve to get paid for it.

Three years and Metro seems to have done nothing in regard to those cities' requests. What's the problem, you may ask? Metro gets the tag revenue and the municipalities create the rules. That's the problem right there. Perhaps you see an agenda attached to Bill Pr66, and I'm not unsympathetic with the agenda. I think Metro council has fumbled the ball, to be quite honest with you, and I believe the city of Toronto is trying to compensate for that fumble. Metro police, MLEO agencies and private property owners are in the middle of two levels of bureaucracy. Now the province is involved, that's three levels. Perhaps the province will apply the commonsense solution by allowing the city of Toronto to regulate the enforcement fee until Metro and the cities come to terms with the right process.

I think the city of Toronto is making a proper request and hopefully they'll come through.

The real issue: How to maintain the rights of the victim, which is the property owner, by maintaining the level of enforcement services without imposing taxation increase and balancing the offenders' rights for fair and accountable fees or fines? That's the real issue.

Right now, if someone wants my services, MLEO, they have to pay for it. I don't believe in that and I don't think our system of jurisprudence makes victims pay for law enforcement. I simply think that's wrong. If you're victimized by people who constantly park on your property, I don't think you should have to pay for calling in law enforcement. In fact, many of the members of the police services board agree with that. They call it involuntary taxation.

If the intent of Bill Pr66 is to standardize fees and practice of MLEO agencies through Metro police supervision, I as a MLEO agency support Bill Pr66. Conversely, if the intent of the city of Toronto is to eliminate all fees and infringe on the rights of victims and taxpayers by a reduction of service and the burden of the tax system by supporting the offenders, I oppose it. It's quite out front.

I make one recommendation in the draft: Delete the words "or prohibit." On second thought, I don't think we should delete the words "or prohibit," because the city of Toronto makes the rules, they have the right to say you can't use the rules, and I think that any legislative committee or organization ought to have that power.

At the end of paragraph 1 of the proposed act, I would add, "as supervised by the regional police force." This ties in the supervisory powers of Metro police to make sure that the MLEOs are working within their guidelines. It gives them peace to be able to say, "You're not doing it right; you're out of here," and that's what I'd like to hear. The problem we had is the fellows who abused the system in the beginning. When we said, "Hey, you're not doing it right," they thumbed their noses at the entire industry, the city of Toronto, Metro, the police force and said, "Hey, you don't have any power." So it's important that you include the regional police force, which in this case is Metropolitan Toronto Police, in that bill.

Laws are intended to keep everyone honest, and I believe these changes will provide for a balance of intent on all levels. I volunteer my services to any or all who wish to discuss this matter further.

The Chair: Are there any other interested parties to Bill Pr66? Before we go to questions from the committee, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Mr Shea, for comments on the part of the government.

Mr Shea: I find myself in an interesting position right now, having been a person who has represented the city of Toronto on its council and then Metropolitan Toronto council and now find myself speaking on behalf of the government. I had some interesting reactions to the comments of our last deputant, but first, my function is to ensure that I present the view very fairly on behalf of the government on this request from the city of Toronto.

I want to ensure that the members of the committee understand that there have been no objections received from any ministry in terms of the request by the city of Toronto, not only from Municipal Affairs but from the Solicitor General and Consumer and Commercial Relations. All have been asked for their comments, and there have been no objections.

Having said that, I want to add one personal comment. I have been through these waters many, many times, and I would like to give my best advice to this committee: If you think the Book of Solomon was difficult, this one is even more so. I would simply suggest that we remember the spirit and the intention of Bill 26 and we are in fact I think called upon to allow municipalities to have the scope and the responsibility to deal with circumstances as they find them. With that in mind, I would counsel you accordingly.

On behalf of the government, though, there have been no objections raised to this matter.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Just a clarification: I probably know the answer, but who actually pays the law enforcement people? Are they paid by the city of Toronto?

Ms Watson: No, they're privately employed individuals.

Mr O'Toole: Who pays the employer?

Ms Watson: You mean the fees paid, the fees they get from taking cars away?

Mr O'Toole: We're really at the issue here. Who pays for the law enforcement?

Mr Ellis: If I can help, they're not employed by the city in any way. They're not employed by the police. These municipal law enforcement officers are, for the most part, a private industry that have responded to a need. However, TTC employees can be made municipal law enforcement officers, also city employees. We can designate them and put them through the training, but the issue we're dealing with today, for the most part, is these private companies that apply to get designated and they go and carry the service.

Mr O'Toole: Let me just slow it down a little bit. The law enforcement people are duly authorized or certified under some level of government, because they're doing a function on behalf of someone. They are trained. They are certified. They are legitimized or whatever you call it. Who is the legitimizing agent, the police services board, Metro council? This is central to the whole thing. Who says he's authorized to do anything? Who is that authorizing agent?

Mr Staszewski: I can answer that for you. You're going to be surprised: You are.

Mr O'Toole: The province?

Mr Staszewski: That's correct.

Mr O'Toole: Under the liens act?

Mr Staszewski: The province gives the authority to the city of Toronto to create a bylaw --

Mr O'Toole: Yes, through the Municipal Act.

Mr Staszewski: That's correct, to create the bylaw. The city then gives the authority to Metro police through the Police Act to certify and instruct the officers. The Metro government has the authority to collect fine revenue. So in essence, we're appointed by the province and the city of Toronto. We work to generate revenue for Metropolitan Toronto.

1130

Mr O'Toole: So whoever seeks your service should pay for it, period. Now, wherever they get that revenue, whether it's from tags or towing or whatever, that's who should -- I'll tell you, from a small municipal perspective, the same thing: All parking infractions, by some definition of the Highway Traffic Act, had to be given out by the regional police. They just couldn't handle the problem around this one area, a hospital, it turned out, so they designated the municipal bylaw enforcement people to do it.

Then what happened, it didn't have the teeth, if you will, legalistically as a police-issued summons or whatever, so the people weren't paying them. But these municipal bylaw enforcement people were actually paid for by the town, the municipality, and they acted under direction of those, instead of an agent like yourself. It was really a subcontractor. That helps me.

So ultimately, you're paid out of some revenue given to you from all this tagging and towing, is that it?

Mr Staszewski: The problem is that we do not receive anything from the tag revenue, and that's the --

Mr O'Toole: Where do you get your revenue?

Mr Staszewski: There's two ways to get it. One, we get a property owner who pays us, those who can afford to. In other words, private property parking problems are unique to every property. When I do Yorkdale, it's different from when I do the Beckers store on the corner. I have more people up there. So the guy on the corner, can he afford to pay one of my people $20 an hour to stand there and give out tags? No.

The level playing field has to exist, and that was the intent of the fee in regard to attaching it to a towed vehicle. When a vehicle was towed, the fee which in the beginning was $30, which is also the amount of the fine revenue that Metro gets, was attached to the offending vehicle. Therefore, a fellow who owns a small store on the corner could have an MLEO and say, "Please tow that car," and he wouldn't have to directly pay that. He could, through the court system. It's indirect. If you look at Justice O'Leary's decision, you'll realize. In essence, he pays the municipal law enforcement officer to tag the vehicle and remove it. The officer then attaches his fees to the offending vehicle and collects on the Repair and Storage Liens Act. Those fees were originally $30. What happened in the beginning is that people went crazy.

Mr O'Toole: There was a little kickback going on.

Mr Staszewski: That's right, and they went crazy. That's where the problem existed.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm reminded that we're not here today to separate all the players when we step into this morass in terms of who's got authority. We're not going to be able to fix all of those problems today, it's obvious, but what does become obvious is the request by the city of Toronto. Is this committee going to support Bill Pr66 in its present format? The request, what they want to do, is to regulate and to prohibit the charging of fees by municipal law enforcement officers. They are seeking the right here today to regulate the charging of fees. That has to be, I suppose, the essence of this argument.

Now, what isn't clear to me, and I guess that's my question to Mr Staszewski, is that when he says if the intent -- at first, when Mr Staszewski started out, I was afraid that he would be totally against Bill Pr66 and that we'd have a greater morass on our hands. But he too is saying to us he is essentially in favour, if we just make some minor amendments; then he goes on to say, "If the intent of the city of Toronto is to eliminate all fees and infringe on the rights of the victims and the taxpayers." So I just have two questions.

My first one is, Mr Staszewski, what do you take to mean that if the city of Toronto eliminates all fees and infringes on the taxpayers?

Mr Staszewski: If they lower the standard of enforcement activity in the city of Toronto by eliminating the fees, thereby eliminating municipal law enforcement officers, the small property owners are going to hurt, because they can't afford me. Big guys can afford me, they pay me; small guys don't. We're trying to exorcize this fee settlement so that these property owners have the right to law enforcement as equally as large property owners.

The second part of your question is the regulation may change. The reason it may change is because if Metro decides to open up its pockets, then the need for an enforcement fee attached to a towed vehicle may disappear. For instance, in 1993-94, I made Metro over $1 million, but it didn't pay me a penny -- $1 million. If someone came up to you and said, "Here's $1 million," would you turn your back on them? Definitely not. I understand the hesitancy of Metro to give up some of this money.

The people who were taking the heat were Metro police who supervised the program and the individual cities that made the bylaws. The city of Toronto doesn't get any money out of this program and it was taking the heat; that's why I'm here to support them. If Metro was sitting here, I may have a different attitude.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate that very much. It seems to conclude anyway that you are in support of this legislation or the request.

My final statement is simply this: We're asked today to try to come to grips with this tremendous abuse that has been taking place in the past. Anybody living here or even anybody just visiting Toronto knows and has heard about the problem of people being overcharged and taken to the cleaners. We know that. How else can we possibly come to grips with this? We'll be here until, as my friend across the aisle says, the cows come home.

The question has to be, do we give this municipality the right -- that's the one to the right, yes -- do we give the city of Toronto the right to regulate this or not? That's the sole question here. That's where I come in favour of Bill Pr66, simply because I like to come to conclude an end to the tremendous abuse. How the municipality versus Metropolitan Toronto come to a conclusion between themselves may not be our jurisdiction, may not be what we ought to do here. But certainly what we are asked to do is, does the city of Toronto have the right to regulate or not? When you ask that central question, in my mind there's only one way to go, and that is to say yes, we'll support this. That's where I'm coming from.

Mr Martin: I will be supporting this bill as well, and I'll tell you why. I'm not from the Metro area; I'm from way up north.

Mr Shea: But your heart's here.

Mr Martin: My heart's here. When I'm here, my heart's here too. I appreciate the light that Mr Shea and Mr Ruprecht have put on this, because they represent this area. But from somebody from outside who in fact has been, in my definition of it, a victim of this -- and it was interesting this morning to listen to who was the victim and who was the offender. That differs depending on, I suggest, who you're talking to.

My experience of it was, I came down to Toronto here last winter. I drove down on a Sunday to have supper with my caucus colleagues. I drove to the area where we were going to have supper and there was a huge vacant parking lot out there. I parked my car, looked around for some place to get a ticket or give some money and there was nothing. So I left it there, thinking the worst that can happen is I'll get a ticket. I'm not sure what that would have cost me, but you put that on top of the cost of the meal. But to make a long story short, you know what happened.

Mr Shea: You couldn't find it.

Mr Martin: Yes. I came out later, having offered to drive a number of my colleagues home to find that my car wasn't there.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): And we had to walk.

Mr Martin: This is Sunday evening. There wasn't a car to be seen, and my car is gone. I wasn't denying anybody else the use of that particular little piece of --

Mr O'Toole: It's a tragic story.

Mr Martin: It is a tragic story. You know where the tragedy lies, Mr O'Toole? You don't seem to understand this sometimes. The tragedy lies in that I'm not the only one. I left that night saying I will never drive downtown Toronto again and have supper. I'll tell you, there are a lot of people from Sault Ste Marie who have had the same experience.

1140

I suggest to you there are a lot of people from across this province who drive into downtown Toronto for an evening of entertainment or to have supper, and where they thought it was going to cost them $100, it ends up costing them $200, $300, $400 at the end of the day. I asked myself after that, and I only got the answer today, why it was my car was towed. Why would they tow my car? Why wouldn't they just put a ticket on it and charge me the extra, I don't know -- what's a ticket, $30 or $40?

Mr Ellis: It's $20.

Mr Martin: I paid $10 in the Sault last weekend for a parking ticket.

Mr Bisson: You got a habit of doing that.

Mr Martin: I've a got bad habit, that's right, but they didn't tow me away.

Mr Rollins: You should go to McDonald's. They have free parking.

Mr Martin: I knew I was taking a chance on going into this little store on Queen Street in Sault Ste Marie. I knew that if I got caught it would cost me $10, but $10 was better than $125, and I didn't get towed. Down here I got towed. Now I find out this morning that the reason I got towed is that's the only way this gentleman here gets his money. So that's interesting.

I would suggest that if you talk to the business people of downtown Toronto who want to attract people in, who want to have a vibrant economy going for themselves, they'll probably support this as well, because I would assume they are paying the price for this very offensive activity on behalf of some folks to make a buck at the expense of some others.

Having told that story and shared with you the perspective of some of us from outside of downtown Toronto re that whole question, I will unquestionably be supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr Hastings: Mr Staszewski, if this bill passes and other cities in Metro came to this committee asking for similar legislation, would you be here to support them?

Mr Staszewski: Yes.

Mr Hastings: You would. When was the last time you were involved with any meetings with Metro regarding this whole situation to try to sort out the morass that this is?

Mr Staszewski: Mr Ellis can answer that question better than I, but the city of Toronto invited me on their city services committee to discuss this. Three invitations went out to Metro council. The only person who showed up was a provincial person.

Mr Hastings: It says a lot about the need for regional government, but that's another story.

Mr Staszewski: Yes, and just to clarify the vulturing activity image that was created by the offenders in the beginning of the industry, in 1993-94, 5% of the vehicles that I tagged, I towed. On a daily rate, I believe Metro police have a ratio of around 20%. So if you're painting it black, I think you better paint it blue first.

Mr Hastings: Out of the $66 million that's involved here -- we say that money isn't involved here, but really control and money are the two gut issues, I assume -- do you know from your own experience or from the industry's experience how that $66 million breaks out? I would assume the city of Toronto has the largest bulk of the $66 million involved in it and then North York, then Scarborough, then Etobicoke, then the lesser of the other two municipalities.

Mr Staszewski: Recently there has been a change within the Metro organization that focuses on that exact point, coincidentally. The breakdown actually, the $66 million -- it's actually more than I believe now -- goes into a general account, which means that it feeds the entire city or the entire municipality of Metro Toronto.

The biggest portion of that goes to the Metro Toronto Police Force because they have the biggest portion of the budget. As far as the individual municipalities are concerned, I don't think there's any prorated method of tag revenue sharing, which I believe there should be. In fact, I made a proposal to a member of provincial Parliament that perhaps a provincial tag would solve this problem, with a portion of the tag going to the individual municipality where the tag was issued, the agency supervising the MLEO, the agency that is employing the MLEO and the provincial court system, which supports the entire proposal. That member decided to sit back and see what the city of Toronto was going to do.

Mr Hastings: Wouldn't that be a better methodology to employ --

Mr Staszewski: Yes.

Mr Hastings: -- if we had a common, standardized approach to the apportionment instead of coming to us -- I guess there's a question for Councillor Ellis -- and asking for almost the exemption?

Mr Ellis: In essence, the problem is -- we're not here about money, because we don't get any of the money. We're here because as politicians we've had many committee meetings and we have been just inundated with demands from the public that this is outrageous. There have been tour buses towed in downtown Toronto, little operators from the northern States. These people have discretion whether they come to Toronto or not, and once their tour bus is towed, they're not coming back.

The thing is, the money aspect, I'm trying to get an answer too. It's at least $66 million. It's probably closer to $80 million. Metro Toronto hide these figures and they won't release them. We understand that at least 70% of the tickets come out of the city of Toronto because we're denser and there's less parking here. They blitz our neighbourhoods in the east end and in the west end at midnight, go around and get people without parking permits. So enforcement issues aren't equal across the city. They focus on Toronto because they can get a faster turnaround. One of the Green Hornets can issue 100 tickets or 50 tickets an hour in Toronto. It takes them a lot longer in North York and Scarborough to get those tickets because everyone has driveways for the most part.

So it is uneven, and just to underscore the value of money to Metro, it no longer goes to the police at all; it goes to the treasurer of Metro through finance, so the finance department of Metro are now enforcing and driving it all. It's basically a tax collection, an informal tax collection.

Mr Hastings: Why do you suspect the other municipalities in Metro are either reluctant or indifferent or see this as less of an urgent issue than you do?

Mr Ellis: They don't have the problem we have because the bulk of the municipal law enforcement office companies focus in on Toronto and Toronto lots just by the volume and they've been able to make a lot more money quicker, just like the parking enforcement people in Metro can make a lot more money quicker in the core than they can out in North York or the outer areas of Scarborough.

So we've had terrible abuse by these municipal law enforcement officers. In essence, in 1991 we created a Frankenstein by creating this. We asked for it and we created the monster by asking the police services board to allow us and the province to allow us to do this, and it got out of hand. Now we're asking, in essence, to let us bring it back to reality, and we've had many, many committee meetings on this.

The other cities: North York has had a problem and I know Councillor Moscoe of North York has been a very loud advocate and North York has been looking at it. I suspect Scarborough and Etobicoke and East York and the city of York just don't have the same kind of abuse and the same kind of problems because they don't have the population or they don't have the downtown core that we do.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I suppose you could apply logic to every argument, but the fact remains that our government encourages local decisions by local authorities. What we have here is not to draw up a bylaw, not to authorize a bylaw, but we're authorizing the local council that they may pass a bylaw. So I would definitely support this.

Mr Sheehan: I think I've got the thing figured out, but I'm not sure. There's no necessary order to what I'm going to say.

Mr Ellis, does this bill address the problem where the Metro people collect all the money and you guys provide all the victims?

Mr Ellis: Not really. We haven't put anything into the Who Does What committee yet with Mr Crombie or anyone, but in essence it doesn't really address it except for the fact that it addresses the problem that we're taking away part of the profit incentive and the profit motive of towing. That was a specific issue that we have to deal with because there's simply been too much towing on private property in Toronto.

Metro's still going to get the money. We're not that happy with it. We'd just as soon have a cut of it, and not only a cut of it, but I would like to think that if the city councillors had control of it, we wouldn't be driven by the profit motive. We'd be driven by being sensitive to small business in the area. Many of our small strips are killed because they don't have big parking lots and the Green Hornets go out just to collect the tags for Metro and our people are getting hammered. So I think we'd be more sensitive.

In essence today, it's a wash for revenue basically. We're not doing it here for a revenue basis or trying to get revenue for Metro; we're here just trying to get some rationality and clip the wings of some of the vulture companies. There are some good companies too. There are some good companies that are very responsible, but then there are a lot of them that aren't. We just want to take away that profit incentive for them and get some rationality, to try to come to grips, because it has been such a hot topic but it's also been very controversial. It's also been very troublesome to many, many people in the city of Toronto, many residents and also many visitors. I see Mr Bisson suffered the wrath of the parking enforcement people.

1150

Mr Sheehan: I think you ought to switch personalities over there.

The Chair: I was Mr Martin.

Mr Sheehan: Put up with us. But number 11 --

Interjection.

Mr Sheehan: Just a minute. I'm not finished.

Number 11 says that you decided to leave the provisions of a bylaw which gave the MLEOs an ability to authorize towing from private property. Are they not empowered to do that now? If somebody parked in my driveway or what have you and I called him and had him towed away --

Ms Watson: You're not permitted to do that right now.

Mr Sheehan: I'm not?

Ms Watson: No.

Mr Sheehan: If it's private property, I can't get your car off my property?

Ms Watson: That's not permitted right now.

Mr Ellis: You'd call the police, though. You see, the police can do it and the police do respond a lot and the police have the power to do it and are often called.

Interjection: Not in the bylaw.

Mr Ellis: Not in the bylaw, but they do get called.

Mr Sheehan: Okay. In St Catharines, if you were on my lot and I don't want you there, you aren't going to be there and I'm not going to pay anything; I'm just going to have you out of there. So my question is, is this bylaw going to empower the land owner to protect his property?

Ms Watson: That's the whole purpose of the bylaw, you see, to empower the private property owner to authorize an MLEO to have a vehicle removed from the property and, at the same time, empower the city to either regulate or prohibit fees that are charged in connection with that towing. As far as the city is concerned, the two need to be linked together so as to prevent the abuses that occurred before.

Mr Sheehan: And that's what you're asking?

Ms Watson: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Bisson.

Interruption.

Mr Bisson: I'll just let this conference finish first. Once the conference is done, I'll ask a question. Chair?

The Chair: Would you step outside, please? I have a question for the applicants or interested parties from Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: At this point as it exists, the money is split three ways when somebody's actually ticketed and towed away?

Ms Watson: Do you mean the actual ticket itself?

Mr Bisson: Yes. One of these guys goes by and they tow away a truck. You get a violation and you pay the tow truck. How is it split?

Ms Watson: There's a ticket that's issued, which is a Metropolitan Toronto Police ticket. So Metro gets all the money from the ticket.

Mr Bisson: That's right.

Ms Watson: There's a towing fee that the towing operator --

Mr Bisson: They get that.

Ms Watson: I don't know if the MLEO --

Mr Bisson: Not them, but the towing --

Ms Watson: The towing operator gets the towing fee, and then there is an administrative fee that is currently charged by the MLEO for the work done in calling the tow truck. That's the way it's currently --

Mr Bisson: Does all that money stay with him? The administration fee stays with him? No? That's the part I didn't catch.

Ms Watson: It's supposed to stay with him. I can't answer to whether there's any sort of sharing of the fee with anyone else.

Mr Bisson: The quick question is, does Toronto get anything back in the end?

Ms Watson: No. Toronto gets nothing.

Mr Bisson: That's what I thought. So basically what you want to do is you want to regulate their actions.

Ms Watson: Yes, simply so that the abuses that we saw in the past of towing cars unnecessarily don't occur.

Mr Bisson: The part that I'm wondering is, I had a constituent -- actually, something like the story Mr Martin had -- who comes down, parks on public property on a street somewhere in downtown Toronto and gets a ticket issued by the property management. Does that tie into this in any way?

Ms Watson: It wouldn't be on a street.

Mr Bisson: It was on a street.

Ms Watson: That would be surprising.

Mr Ellis: Some of these people are quite liberal in giving out their tickets. Private property and public property doesn't mean much to some of them; they just give them out.

Mr Bisson: Are they able to do that? That's the question.

Ms Watson: No. The only thing I can suggest is that maybe the car was pushed off private property and ended up being on public property. MLEOs deal with private property.

Mr Bisson: No, it was parked on a public street. I think it was on Edward Street.

Ms Watson: I can't answer to why that happened, but it shouldn't have.

Mr Staszewski: I could answer better. The MLEOs can issue tags on municipal property. Sometimes there's a border between a boulevard and a street where the municipality actually owns a boulevard. So the person may assume they're on the street when they're not. That may be the cause of confusion. But I don't think that happens very often.

Mr Bisson: I'll ask a question privately after. I'll raise it with you. Thank you.

The Chair: Are the members of this committee ready to vote?

We're voting on Bill Pr66, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by MPP Bassett. We're collapsing sections.

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Should I report the bill to the House? Yes.

I wish to thank the applicants and interested parties. I declare this order of business closed.

SUBCOMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

The Chair: Our next order of business is the item listed as number 1 on our agenda, and I would entertain a motion.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I would move that Mr Martin replace Mr Pouliot in the membership of the

subcommittee on committee business with respect to item 1 on our agenda.

The Chair: Any debate on this motion? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion passes.

Mr Shea: Mr Chairman, just before you declare it, can I just make sure we're very clear for the record, in case some people were leaving here, about the other matter? You got by it very quickly. There was talk about revenues, and let's be very clear about the revenues that come in. The revenues that come in on the one hand may go to Metro in some areas of tagging, but the fact is that Metro pays the total cost of policing. The local estimates do not cover that. So I think we understand it.

Mr O'Toole: If I can respond to that, that's the problem. The police department isn't enforcing the laws. It's some other agency that's enforcing the law.

Mr Shea: It's a difficulty of sufficient resources, and that's got to be worked out at another level. That's why I'm glad the committee dealt with this the way it did. It was appropriate.

Mr O'Toole: What they did in our municipality -- they ran into the same thing -- is that any tickets issued by the bylaw enforcement people in our municipality around the area where they're designated, the revenue came back to the municipality.

The Chair: Excuse me. I want to declare that last item of business closed.

Mr Shea: I'm out of order? All right.

The committee adjourned at 1157.