DUCLOS POINT PROPERTY OWNERS INC. ACT, 1992
APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST ACT, 1992
TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND ACT, 1992
CANADIAN MILLERS' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1992
INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES ACT, 1992
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (NATURAL GAS PURCHASE PROGRAM), 1992
INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES ACT, 1992
TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND ACT, 1992
ONTARIO BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992
CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 December 1992
Duclos Point Property Owners Inc. Act, 1992, Bill Pr79
Larry O'Connor, MPP
Stanley Letofsky, solicitor
Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East Act, 1992, Bill Pr83
Jim Wilson, MPP
Anne Donald, solicitor
Bishop Emanuel, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
Toronto Atmospheric Fund Act, 1992, Bill Pr45
Rosario Marchese, MPP
Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company Act, 1992, Bill Pr75
Jim Wilson, MPP
Murray A. Thompson, solicitor
Institute for Christian Studies Act, 1992, Bill Pr64
Rosario Marchese, MPP
City of Toronto Act (Natural Gas Purchase Program), 1992, Bill Pr61
Rosario Marchese, MPP
Peter Tabuns, councillor and chair, natural gas working group, city of Toronto
Dennis Perlin, Toronto city solicitor
Institute for Christian Studies Act, 1992, Bill Pr64
Rosario Marchese, MPP
Dr Harry Fernhout, president, Institute for Christian Studies
Dr Brian Walsh, director, Institute for Christian Studies
Dr Justin Cooper, vice-president, academic, Redeemer College
City of Toronto Act, 1992, Bill Pr78
Rosario Marchese, MPP
Dennis Perlin, Toronto city solicitor
Toronto Atmospheric Fund Act, 1992, Bill Pr45
Rosario Marchese, MPP
Tony O'Donohue, Toronto city councillor
Peter Tabuns, councillor and chair, natural gas working group, city of Toronto
Dennis Perlin, Toronto city solicitor
Ontario Building Officials Association Act, 1992, Bill Pr40
Tony Martin, MPP
David La Mantia, solicitor
Garry Davis, president, Ontario Building Officials Association
Syl Allard, past president, Ontario Building Officials Association
Peter Finn, secretary-treasurer, Ontario Building Officials Association
Brian Allick, president, Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers
Rick McGee, education chairman, Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers
Brian Green, director, Municipal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Peter Clark, secretary, Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers
Town of Lincoln Act, 1992, Bill Pr58
Ron Hansen, MPP
Robert Heil, administrator, Town of Lincoln
William E. Griffiths, Acme Trailer Equipment, Beamsville
Roger Gulinski, R.G. Enterprises, Beamsville
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
*Chair / Président: White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND)
*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
Jordan, W. Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)
*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Dadamo
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Farnan
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Sutherland
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Gray, Linda, coordinator, private legislation, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Dougherty, Richard, solicitor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Levitt, Jeffrey, senior solicitor, buildings programs legal section, Ministry of Housing
Melville, Tom, solicitor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Mills, Gordon, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
Schumann, Helmuth, senior policy adviser, natural gas distribution, Ministry of Energy
Clerk /Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel
Klein, Susan, legislative counsel
The committee met at 0936 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr Drummond White): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills to order.
DUCLOS POINT PROPERTY OWNERS INC. ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr79, An Act to revive Duclos Point Property Owners Inc.
The Chair: First on our agenda -- and I apologize because this agenda will probably be altered over time -- is Bill Pr79, An Act to revive Duclos Point Property Owners Inc., sponsored by Larry O'Connor. Larry, would you introduce your friends?
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have with me two people representing the Duclos Point property owners. Their legal counsel are Stanley Letofsky and Keith Wright. Could we start by allowing the solicitor to say a few words?
Mr Stanley Letofsky: Good morning, Mr Chairman. I am Stan Letofsky, the solicitor for the applicants on this application to revive this corporation. Mr Keith Wright is a director and president of the corporation and one of the applicants who is here today to assist in any questions you might have.
As a matter of background, this is a non-share corporation, incorporated June 3, 1955. In 1957 the company acquired certain vacant recreational park property on Duclos Point on Lake Simcoe. It currently maintains the park and pays the realty taxes and basically supervises social activities shared by its members and their families.
Since 1982 there were no annual information returns filed for this company. Default notices were in fact sent to a particular former member on March 6, 1982, and again on July 26, 1986. The other members of the board were not aware of these default notices, nor were they aware of the notice of dissolution sent on January 27, 1987.
Today there's a seven-member board of directors, and all the members have now been made fully aware of the necessity of filing. Members will now be sure to comply with the annual filings, and we ask that the company's charter be revived so that the lands remain with their rightful owners.
Those are my submissions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Are there any questions of the applicant or sponsor? Mr Parliamentary Assistant?
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): There are no problems with the ministry. It's fine.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Are there any objectors to this bill?
Mr O'Connor: The notifications were put in a newspaper. The solicitor has copies of the ad he placed, and no objectors have come forward and contacted them about this application at all.
Mr Hansen: No other questions, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Seeing that there are no objectors, I think we should be ready for a vote.
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Agreed.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr83, An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.
The Chair: Next on our agenda, on behalf of Ms Marland, Mr Wilson will be presenting Bill Pr83, An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Mr Wilson, would you introduce your friends?
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Perhaps I could have the representatives of the church introduce themselves, Mr Chairman.
Ms Anne Donald: My name is Anne Donald; I'm with Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. This is Bishop Emanuel of the church.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, on behalf of my colleague Mrs Margaret Marland, I'm pleased to sponsor and introduce An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.
Members may be aware of two things. One is that Mrs Marland is unable to be here in person this morning, although she planned to be. She's had an illness in the family and is currently attending a hospital in that regard.
Secondly, I want to begin by thanking all members in all three political parties for, in essence, fast-tracking this piece of legislation to the committee today.
What has happened is an inadvertent dissolution of the corporate status of the church. We're assured by his excellency that it indeed is inadvertent. The church has had the unfortunate happening of -- it burned down; our witnesses will perhaps give some background. They're currently rebuilding the church, as I understand it. The problem is that along the way they've discovered that the corporate status lapsed, and the National Bank, which is the church's bank, is reluctant to advance funds until the corporate status is revived.
Having said that, Mr Chairman, I would ask the bishop to elaborate.
Bishop Emanuel: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask that, since we have discovered our corporation was dissolved, it be revived. And one thing more: We were not aware that the corporation was dissolved on January 27, 1987. We were informed by our lawyer, Mr Stephen Luff, that we were sent some notice. But unfortunately, I checked with our committee, and it hasn't received any notice, or the notice was sent to our old location, our church at Park Lawn. Since 1987, when the corporation was dissolved, the church has functioned and we have filed annually for taxation for Revenue Canada and paid property taxes for the land. Really, we were not aware of it till the time it was discovered by our lawyer, after we applied for a loan and it was frozen, that we cannot obtain the loan. We had suffered about two years, rebuilding our church, and went through some difficult process. So we ask your kindness.
The Chair: Thank you, your reverence. Are there any questions from committee members? Are there any objectors?
Mr Jim Wilson: Just for the record, the applicant is not aware of any objectors, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Mr Parliamentary Assistant, any comments?
Mr Mills: No objections at all.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote?
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, your reverence, ma'am.
Do we have a request for a waiver of fees?
Mr Jim Wilson: Oh, yes, Mr Chairman, as soon as I find my --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Chair, let me move this motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: I would be happy to have Mr Marchese move my motion.
Mr Marchese: I move that we recommend that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on this bill, An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.
The Chair: Are we agreed? Agreed.
TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr45, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation.
Mr Marchese: One of the councillors, Tony O'Donohue, has another meeting at 10 o'clock, and I appreciate your moving the item up. To introduce the people here, they are Tony O'Donohue, city councillor, Peter Tabuns, city councillor, and Dennis Perlin, city solicitor.
I just want to make a few remarks before one or some of the members speak to this. I want to praise the city of Toronto for the initiative and want to say personally that I support the --
The Chair: Sorry, we have a major problem. The amendments are not in a form ready to be distributed. I apologize, Mr O'Donohue, knowing that you have a tight schedule. I hope those items will be ready within a very short period of time so you can reappear, but at the moment, I'm sorry; we'll have to stand down.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, do you mean towards the end of the morning?
The Chair: We anticipate it wouldn't take more than --
Mr Mills: We didn't get one of the amendments till 8:30.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, are you ready?
CANADIAN MILLERS' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr75, An Act respecting The Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
Mr Jim Wilson: I would like the committee's indulgence for a moment. I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of my colleague Ms Elizabeth Witmer, an Act respecting The Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
The purpose of the act and perhaps a brief background as I'm aware of it: The Canadian Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co is operating on a national basis. It seeks the indulgence of members this morning in asking for a couple of exemptions from the Corporations Act.
Those exemptions would enable the company to elect its directors or have its members elect directors by proxy and, secondly, would require it to hold annual meetings each year, at a time fixed by its board of directors, upon the giving of at least seven days' notice of such meeting by mail to its members and advertisement in a newspaper published at or near its head office as required by section 161 of the Corporations Act.
On the second point, due to the company operating on a national basis, it's very difficult for it to get together all of its filings and reports required for its annual meetings within the time frame set out in the Corporations Act. Therefore, they ask for an exemption to that act and propose this formula for giving notice and setting the date for their annual meetings.
I would ask the members of the company to introduce themselves, and perhaps one of them would like to give a further explanation of the bill.
0950
Mr Murray Thompson: I am Murray Thompson, solicitor for the applicant. Mr Donald Cruickshank is manager. Mr Dean Bast is secretary.
Just by way of explanation to introduce it, this is a mutual insurance company where all insureds have one vote, so the purpose of this bill is really to make it more democratic. The company has been in existence since 1878. It has operated continuously since that time.
Two years ago, because of a particular expertise it gained, and that is the insuring of feed and grain mills, it actually became a national company and entered into arrangements to reinsure a great number of risks across the country because of this expertise. Bringing this back to a more democratic system, it finds it very difficult to not have the right to have a proxy with respect to members ranging as far away as British Columbia and Nova Scotia. That is the reason for that interest.
The other fact is that, as an insurance company, it must file its returns by February 28 each year. With the pressing need of approving these returns with such a far-ranging mandate as it has in membership, it is asking not to hold its annual meeting other than during this period of time.
I would also suggest to the members that as a mutual insurance company, it is one of some 50-odd in the province of Ontario, the majority of which are local in the sense that they carry on business only in the township or county where they operate. Accordingly, the purpose is not to change the provisions or to suggest any change of the provisions for the local mutual insurance companies but just to permit them to operate in a more democratic way with respect to their own operations.
The Chair: Any further comments?
Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I just have one question. Is this legislation modelled after any existing statute or will we be setting a precedent with this Bill Pr75?
Mr Thompson: It would not be a precedent. It would place them on the same basis as any insurance company other than a mutual insurance company. In other words, they would still have to have their annual meeting every year. They would have the right to proxies at their meetings, but they would be more akin to operating as a joint stock insurance company rather than a mutual insurance company. A federally incorporated mutual insurance company can operate the way they propose, so it is not an exceptional circumstance.
The Chair: Are there further questions? Are there any objectors? There is no notification that we're aware of any objectors.
Mr Mills: It sets no precedent and there are no objections from the ministry.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote?
Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.
Mr Marchese: There are two people here who will be speaking to this if I can just locate them.
The Chair: Certainly, sir.
Mr Hansen: This is Pr64?
The Chair: Bill Pr64. We are attempting to do Bill Pr64, Bill Pr61 and Bill Pr78 that Mr Marchese is sponsoring. I understand that there aren't significant debate items on those bills.
Mr Hansen: If they're not ready to go, we could go with Pr58.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, are your applicants present?
Mr Marchese: I am prepared to simply move that without the other speakers being here for this, if there are no problems with it.
The Chair: Excuse me a moment.
Mr Marchese: The bill would amend the degree-granting authority of the Institute for Christian Studies.
The Chair: The clerk informs me that the applicants have been here. Excuse me just a moment. Are the applicants here? Mr Harry Fernhout?
Mr Marchese: They were here. They went for a coffee. They probably thought it would last a bit longer. But they're not here at the moment.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (NATURAL GAS PURCHASE PROGRAM), 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The Chair: Could we move to Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto?
Mr Marchese: It's my pleasure to present Bill Pr61 to the committee. Present are Peter Tabuns, city councillor, Bob Wilson and Dennis Perlin, the city solicitor.
There are two primary functions of this bill. It would allow the city of Toronto to establish a direct purchase program to purchase natural gas on behalf of Toronto residents and businesses. The natural gas would then be resold to and distributed by Consumers' Gas. It would also allow the city to establish an energy conservation program for the purpose of reducing energy consumption in the city.
It's my pleasure to support these two bills, and I'll ask Peter to perhaps make some remarks.
Mr Peter Tabuns: Due to prior commitments, Mayor Rowlands isn't able to attend the committee this morning and make the presentation for the city. In her absence, she requested that I provide you with an overview of the proposed city initiative on the direct purchase program.
The city currently bulk-purchases natural gas along with Metro Toronto, and for the first time this year one of the city's subsidiary corporations, Cityhome, joined the city-Metro purchasing pool. The ease with which the city added Cityhome requirements to the tender call for natural gas suppliers and had the necessary contract documents finalized suggested that perhaps this arrangement could be offered to the general public residing in Toronto that might be interested in joining the city's pool.
As we reviewed the trends in the market, it became apparent there were many door-to-door marketers seeking to pool residential natural gas requirements for participation in direct purchase arrangements. Concern was raised about the financial stability of some of these marketers and the apparent lack of regulation of their activities. It's possible those residents who otherwise might not participate in a direct purchase program would be encouraged to do so if such a program were city-run or sponsored by the city.
In order to be better apprised of the potential for the city to undertake a city-wide direct purchase of natural gas, the city retained a natural gas industry consultant, who is here this morning, who is an expert in advising on different types of direct purchase arrangements.
Several means of implementing such a program were considered, not only with a view of attempting to return savings on natural gas consumption to program participants, but also to provide a mechanism for promoting overall energy conservation measures.
The city is of the view that this is an innovative program. It mirrors initiatives of the province, particularly the utilities management program being promoted by the Ministry of Energy. The city therefore requests the support of this committee to put this program into action.
1000
I'd like to now present Dennis Perlin, our city solicitor, who will provide some further background information on Bill Pr61.
Mr Dennis Perlin: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, in the interests of time, I perhaps would just indicate that I am here to provide any answers they may have in terms of the technicalities of the language of the bill. Mr Wilson, from A.E. Sharp, who was the energy consultant who prepared the study that I believe is part of the compendium that has been submitted here, sets the background and the format for the types of programs that the city might be able to enter into if it received approval of this legislation.
At this point, Mr Chairman, I'm prepared to take any questions, and that might be helpful to you and the committee in terms of timing, because I understand there are no problems with the wording of the bill per se other than any amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. Are there questions from the committee members? None.
Mr Hansen: I think it's straightforward, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Are there any objectors or interested parties present? Mr Parliamentary Assistant.
Mr Mills: The Ministry of Energy has no objections. However, if there are questions from any of the members, there's a member from the minister's office here to answer those. Otherwise, we have no objections at all.
The Chair: Any questions? Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: I note that the minister has written the sponsor, Mr Marchese, and just outlines a couple of cautionary notes. It's a very recent letter. In fact it's dated yesterday. Has the ministry discussed these cautionary notes with the applicants?
Mr Mills: Just one moment and I'll get the official from the Ministry of Energy, Mr Helmuth Schumann, to just come forward to the microphone. For the benefit of Hansard, read in your name, sir, and we'll go from there.
Mr Helmuth Schumann: My name is Helmuth Schumann. I'm a policy adviser on natural gas distribution issues with the Ministry of Energy. To answer your question as to whether the ministry has discussed the cautionary notes with the city, we have not discussed them with the city.
Mr Jim Wilson: It's simply an advisory letter, then, that the minister has sent?
Mr Schumann: It's basically to inform the city that we do not object to the bill and to provide advice of that sort, yes.
Mr Jim Wilson: Do you already have in place the energy conservation program, or do you want to develop one with the savings from the direct purchase, which is the gist of the bill. You're not going to give everyone a refrigerator or anything like that?
Mr Perlin: No, we're not, Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: As one particular party around here suggested at one time.
Mr Perlin: I don't have any knowledge of that, Mr Wilson. No, we're not. We have received the letter, we understand the cautionary notes. In terms of the type of direct purchase program, as you can see in the bill, it provides for a compulsory tendering process or a proposal call process, and these have been going on, you may have noticed, across the country. Winnipeg just recently put out a proposal call in which a company, Munigas, was successful in undertaking that particular direct purchase program.
In terms of the amount of savings and the cautions that are set out in the letter from the minister, we are aware of those from the discussions we've had with the consultant and obviously we'll be dealing with those when we try to implement the program.
Mr Jim Wilson: Are the savings significant in dollar terms?
Mr Bob Wilson: The savings, as projected most recently, would provide a saving in the order of $40 per year for the average residential gas user, gross. It's anticipated that there'd be costs incurred in the administration of the program which would be withheld by the city and some portion of the revenue would be used for the energy conservation program. At present, the estimate is that a city resident would save in in the order of $25 per year after those costs have been deducted.
Mr Jim Wilson: Not to prolong the debate, simply in terms of if I was offered a possible $40 saving as a consumer versus a $25 saving as a consumer, given that some of the difference will go into administration, as you said, and some into the energy conservation program, what's the public's input into the development of the energy conservation program?
Mr Tabuns: Bob, I think, could speak to the difference between the $40 and $25, because any natural gas bulk purchase program is going to have administrative costs. We're hoping that by using our own billing systems for water and taxes we can give people rebates rather than issuing cheques, saving on administrative costs.
In terms of people's input into the energy conservation program, before we set up the program we're going to have public hearings at the city so that citizens will have a chance to come down and indicate what their interests are. What we want to do is take the money that we save to reduce the city of Toronto's long-term demand for energy, which I think is consistent with provincial policy and certainly in the interests of the city's economic viability.
Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate that.
The Chair: There are no objectors present or interested parties? Are there further questions? Mr Parliamentary Assistant?
Mr Mills: No, that's it, Mr Chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote?
Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much Mr Tabuns, Mr Wilson and Mr Perlin.
INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I believe your applicants for Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies, are present now.
Mr Marchese: It is my pleasure to present Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies, and would ask Harry Fernhout, the president, or Brian Walsh, the director, to say a few words to it.
Dr Harry Fernhout: I would like to provide a bit of background to this bill and say first of all that we're very appreciative of the assistance we've received from the minister, Dr Richard Allen, and his staff in preparing this bill and bringing it to the point where it is today.
I'd just like to say a few things about the background of this bill. The Institute for Christian Studies Act was originally passed in 1983, an act which gave us limited degree-granting powers at the master's level and authority to grant a PhD program in cooperation with another university. That's done under a ministerial consent.
In 1985, we notified the minister that we wished to develop a new master's program and seek degree-granting authority for that program. We were informed at that time that the whole matter of the degree-granting rights of freestanding university-level institutions was under review, the so-called Robarts policy was under review, and that our request would have to wait until that review was completed. This was 1985. We were told at the time that this process would not be terribly long and we proceeded to plan the program, to hire a director, to offer courses and so on, on the assumption that the matter would be resolved in due time.
In 1988, we participated actively in the review of the Robarts policy undertaken by the Ontario Council on University Affairs, and carried on along those lines through 1989 and 1990 while that matter was being considered by the OCUA and the ministry.
1010
In 1991, we learned that the matter of the Robarts policy, the degree-granting authority of freestanding institutions, had been taken up in a larger review of university policy, so we found ourselves in a situation where, after five years or so, we had a number of students who had in good faith enrolled in our program, had completed it, and we found ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation with regard to promoting this program, recruiting for it but not being able to deliver on the normal degree-granting expectations with which our students came to us.
We made a submission to the ministry to proceed along a different route, not to wait for the policy review to be completed, but to go the route of a private member's bill amending the Institute for Christian Studies Act of 1983. That's how we come before you here today with this private member's bill which Mr Marchese has sponsored.
I would just add that we would prefer, of course, if the policy matter had been resolved and there was another mechanism for us to submit programs and have them evaluated and so on, but given the fact that the review of the Robart's policy has not been completed, this seems to be our only available option.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Further comments? Are there questions of the applicant?
Mr Sola: Did I understand correctly? Did you state that you already have degree-granting powers?
Dr Fernhout: That's correct.
Mr Sola: If that is the case, what is the difference between this degree of master of worldwide studies or worldview studies compared to the degrees that you already grant?
Dr Fernhout: As I mentioned earlier, the 1983 act gives us limited master's degree-granting authority. We have the right to grant a degree for a two-year program of academic study, and that degree is called a master of philosophical foundations. This is a quite different program. It's a one-year program. It's not a program designed for people going on to doctoral studies, whereas our program is, so this adds a new program and a new degree to our roster.
Mr Sola: If I understood correctly, you've been enrolling students in this program since 1985, I think. What have you been doing? How have you been granting them degrees up to this point?
Dr Fernhout: We haven't been able to grant them degrees; we've been granting them a certificate. We've had, of course, to avoid the degree language and that's obviously a considerable handicap to us in terms of being able to recruit students for the program and being able to deliver to them what they would normally expect from such a program. The normal expectation of a student is to get a degree for a graduate program of this nature, and we haven't been able to do that.
Mr Sola: If Bill Pr64 were to pass, would they retroactively get their degrees if they have certificates? What would the procedure be?
Dr Fernhout: I would assume that for a student who has met the requirements of the program, which will remain unchanged by this bill, we would be entitled to give those students a degree, yes.
Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, is there anyone here from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities? We see a letter here, but are there any comments they'd like to make?
The Chair: Perhaps we could wait until the parliamentary assistant comments.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to say to the applicants to begin with that I appreciate your frustration with the status of the degree-granting discussion at the Ministry of Education. It's not the first time we've dealt with this issue at this committee. The last time it took the applicant about a year and several appearances to establish a degree-granting institution. You're not asking for that today; you're already established.
The master of worldview studies, you say, is a one-year program. I've looked at the requirements. I'm just wondering, what are the prerequisites?
Dr Brian Walsh: The prerequisite would be an undergraduate degree, a four-year undergraduate degree.
Mr Jim Wilson: Any undergraduate degree?
Dr. Walsh: We would consider anybody with an undergraduate bachelor's degree.
Mr Jim Wilson: Is the current title of the certificate "worldview studies"?
Dr Walsh: That's right.
Mr Jim Wilson: That's the name of the program itself?
Dr Walsh: Master's program of worldview studies.
Mr Jim Wilson: It just seems a fairly all-encompassing title.
Dr Walsh: It's not worldwide studies; it's worldview studies. The whole notion of world views is something which has come into common use in academic circles. In the brief that we sent to the minister supportive of this amendment, we discuss exactly what we mean by worldview studies. Worldview studies is cultural analysis, trying to get to the foundations of a culture.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just played devil's advocate on that point so you'd have the opportunity to enter that into the record.
The second part of the bill, which we've not discussed, is the governance of the institute. Do you not have a senate now, or what's the background? How are you governed now?
Dr Fernhout: Other than the addition of the four words in the clause that refers to our degree-granting authority, the material that you have before you is the same as the existing bill. The nature and powers of the senate are not changed, but as you know, the whole section needs to be repealed and re-enacted.
Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. Any further questions, Mr Hansen?
Mr Hansen: No, I'll just wait for the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Mr Parliamentary Assistant, any objections?
Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. There is someone present from Colleges and Universities. There are no objections from that ministry and there are none from ours.
The Chair: Mr Hansen, would you like to --
Mr Hansen: No, that's fine, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You're sure, sir? Are there objectors or interested parties present? None. Mr Wilson?
Mr Jim Wilson: The letter from the minister to the institute is kind of a strange letter. It doesn't indicate support; it simply says the ministry won't object. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant wants to put on the record the ministry's support.
Mr Mills: All I'd like to say is that there are no objections from the ministry. The representative from the ministry is here, and he tells me that it has no objections, so I'd like to leave it at that.
Mr Jim Wilson: Well, that's an interesting political position, one we may want to take up later.
Mr Marchese: Mr Wilson speaks appropriately to the issue. It would have been preferable to have said, "We support it," as opposed to, "We have no objection." I think that was the intent and I would like to put it on the record as such.
Mr Jim Wilson: It's important for this committee too, because we do deal with these issues from time to time and it would be -- the positive language is a little more useful than the negative language.
Mr Marchese: I agree.
Mr Mills: I think it's just a choice of words. I agree.
Mr Hansen: That was why I questioned on that, if there was anybody from the ministry, because it just said "would not object," and it is a little bit loose there.
The Chair: Further discussion about the ministry's non-objection? Are we then ready for a vote on Bill Pr64?
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I have a motion on that. I move that the committee recommend that the fees --
The Chair: Mr Marchese, could we move that after we've passed the bill?
Mr Mills: One moment, Mr Chair. I believe someone at the back of the room has raised his hand.
The Chair: Yes, sir?
Dr Justin Cooper: Just an interested party; not an objection.
The Chair: Would you care to state your name and come to the microphone. Even inasmuch as you are not an objector, perhaps you could state your interest, sir.
Dr Cooper: My name is Justin Cooper and I'm the vice-president, academic, at Redeemer College in Ancaster, Ontario. We are another private degree-granting institution in the province and so have some interest in what happens to other private degree-granting institutions in the province. I wonder if I'd be able to speak.
The Chair: Agreed? Agreed.
Dr Cooper: Thank you very much. First of all, as an institution that has had dealings with the Institute for Christian Studies, we simply would like to very much support the academic quality of the institution and just for the record mention that. Secondly, we'd like to reflect that it is our understanding that the Robarts policy that has been mentioned a number of times in the committee hearings this morning is no longer being observed, because it's our understanding that Nipissing University College has been chartered as a new university, so there is now a new freestanding degree-granting institution in Ontario and we understand the Robarts policy no longer applies.
1020
We also would speak in support of this type of treatment of another private degree-granting institution in Ontario, because we too have had a request before the ministry for a change in our degree-granting status for seven years, since 1985. So again, I would urge the committee to deal fairly with this sister private institution in the province.
The Chair: Are there any questions anyone would like to pose to Mr Cooper? No. We have already had a thorough discussion. Are we ready for a vote?
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr Marchese: I move that the committee recommend that the fees and actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.
The Chair: Mr Marchese moves a waiver of fees. Agreed? Agreed.
Thank you, Mr Marchese and thank you, gentlemen. Mr Marchese, could you remain where you are and introduce Bill Pr78.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Mr Marchese: Just as a brief background, in 1990 the city obtained special legislation, being the City of Toronto Act, 1990, chapter 12 of the Statutes of Ontario, 1990. That legislation is automatically repealed on May 31, 1993.
The purpose of the current legislation requested is to repeal the sunset provision in the City of Toronto Act, 1990, to allow the current legislation to remain in place until the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act is amended to include provisions respecting vending removal zones on a Metro-wide basis. Therefore, it's important that the legislation be granted so that the city can continue to remove illegal vending equipment placed within the street allowance while a Metro-wide solution is being pursued. That is the essence of the bill, and if people have questions, the city solicitor is here.
Mr Perlin: I don't know if any of you were members at the time we were here for Bill Pr12. We had videos showing the difficulties we were having in the city controlling vendors on the sidewalks and public rights of way. I can report that since the passage of this bill by the Legislature, the passage of the necessary bylaws and the posting of the necessary signs, we have had good success in better controlling the vendors on the sidewalks.
As you know, this is not a bill to in any way prohibit vending. We permit vending and do it by a permit system. What we were having was difficulty with those who didn't respect getting the permits. We had to have some method of removing them and it has worked.
As Member Marchese has said, we were hoping that the Metro act would have been amended by this time. Unfortunately, due to the timing of legislation etc, it wasn't able to be done by this time. These provisions basically from Bill Pr12 would have just gone into the Metro act and been available to Metro and to each of the area municipalities.
Now, with no objection from Metro, we are coming forward asking for the removal of the sunset provision, to keep the provision in effect until such time as the Metro act is passed and the legislation placed in that bill.
Mr Hansen: I'm just wondering what the cost is of the permit the city is charging.
The other thing is, walking to my apartment down Yonge Street, we have very many vendors in doorways selling jewellery. Do you mean each one of these people is licensed by the city of Toronto?
Mr Perlin: This is on Yonge Street?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Mr Perlin: That's a Metro road, and Metro looks after permitting, if at all, on that. Once they give the permit, we assist in the enforcement, but they handle whatever locations there are on a Metro road.
Mr Hansen: So you've got to make sure you get on a Metro road instead of on a city street. Is that correct?
Mr Perlin: Well, there is a permitting system at Metro but I'm not as familiar with how it works.
Mr Hansen: It would be nice for the committee to know, because most likely other municipalities would come forward. I think the city of St Catharines already has a bill of this nature also. So it would be for the committee's experience, and as we sit here and listen to other municipalities on how to control this, especially outside vendors coming in to town who come in and leave and where normal retail outlets get harmed because of these vendors who are operating at night selling jeans and jewellery etc on the street.
Mr Perlin: There are set rules and terms of the permitting system in terms of the way the city does it on city streets and not being able to be directly in front of competing retail type operations. If you were selling jeans, you wouldn't, under the city system, be able to do it in front of and adjacent to a store that was also selling those. So we are careful, in terms of the way the city allocates the permitting spots, to deal with that. I believe Metro used similar criteria but it has used a lottery in order to decide who gets what spots.
Mr Hansen: Well, you're talking about competition in front of you. I've seen it at maybe 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock at night in front of the Eaton Centre, racks of jeans that are standing up there. So I just want some comment, because you've got this bill going through and yet it doesn't seem to be enforceable. That's why I'm asking the questions, because if you say, "That's a Metro road," then everybody knows to get on a Metro road and not to get on a city street. So if you're on Yonge Street, you're all right, in front of the Eaton Centre.
Mr Perlin: Actually, once Metro designates a particular area as a removal zone, we do have the authority by virtue of the delegation from Metro to the city to go in and remove. Again, as we promised the committee in the Legislature when we were last here, it's being used with great discretion because it is a very serious approach to enforcement to simply take people and move them. So we use methods of ticketing and we use methods of warning before finally, Mr Hansen, moving to the approach of actually moving somebody out and taking the equipment away. We try to use it with great discretion. At times it may appear as if it's not enforceable, but when there has been a problem, frankly, we have found it quite useful in dealing with people who just continue to disregard the rules in terms of being warned and still no action; warned, no action. Finally we just have to then take it away.
Mr Hansen: Okay. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hansen. Mr Sola and then Mr Wilson.
Mr Sola: If I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is just to allow Metro, in essence, to catch up to Toronto, because you were expecting that by 1993 Metro would have a bill in place which would no longer necessitate having something similar to this for the city of Toronto. Is that correct?
Mr Perlin: That's correct. The provisions would have just gone into the Metro act.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just wanted to doublecheck that with legislative counsel, the reason for the sunset clause in the first place in the 1990 legislation.
Ms Laura Hopkins: I didn't prepare the legislation in 1990. I understand that the sunset clause was a request by Metro Toronto, but perhaps staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs can fill you in on the background.
Mr Mills: I'd just like to turn to Linda Gray for comment.
Ms Linda Gray: That amendment was inserted at committee at Metro's request at the hearing of the previous bill, mainly to give time for the legislation to be put in place at the Metro level and so that Metro could delegate down. Unfortunately, legislative time has not permitted that to happen and Metro has written and said it has no objection to the sunset clause being removed at this time until such time as general legislation can be passed.
The Chair: Further questions? Are there other questions from the committee members? Are there interested parties here present? Do we know of any objections? Mr Parliamentary Assistant?
Mr Mills: No, there are no objections, and it's been explained, the little glitch there, by Miss Gray.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant. Are we ready then for a vote?
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr Perlin, Mr Marchese.
1030
TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr45, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation.
The Chair: I believe Mr O'Donohue need no longer be inconvenienced and we should be ready for Bill Pr45.
Mr Marchese: I hope so.
The Chair: The amendments, I believe, are ready. The amendments are being Xeroxed, so hopefully they will be circulated and here by the time they are necessary. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Very good. Thank you, again, Mr Chair. I'm happy to present Bill Pr45. As I said earlier, I wanted to praise the initiative the city has taken with respect to the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation. I'm very happy, again, to support the objectives of the fund and pleased we've been able to iron out some of the difficulties we might have had. Having said that, I would like to again present Councillor Tony O'Donohue and Peter Tabuns and would ask Tony O'Donohue to make some remarks because he's been one of the authors of this.
Mr Tony O'Donohue: First of all, I want to thank the committee for allowing us to make a presentation here today, and hopefully to finalize what has been a long journey for us.
I'd like to take you back to June 1988 when we had in Toronto the Changing Atmosphere conference, which was convened by the federal government and attended by about 500 or 600 internationally known scientists and planners who addressed the whole question of global warming. When the conference was over, in the final set of recommendations, which was chaired by Stephen Lewis, they came out with 39 recommendations.
We thought we should not let this moment pass, because at that particular time there was a lot of interest in global warming and the economy was very buoyant. I put before city council a series of recommendations on how we could capture some of the talent we had at that conference, and we set up what we called the special advisory committee on the environment, which included citizens from the Toronto area who had expertise in the various disciplines. We asked them to give us some ideas and some thoughts on how we could tap into the Changing Atmosphere conference and the recommendations of that conference. They issued us a blueprint called The Changing Atmosphere: A Call to Action. It was cochaired by Danny Harvey and Phil Jessup, and it was really a blueprint that was before its time in that it laid out certain things that a city could do. I remember at that time writing to the executive, as did a lot of other members of city council, suggesting ways and means of how we could better the proposals in The Changing Atmosphere: A Call to Action.
One of the things I pulled out was that we had a lot of money. At that time I guess it was money we wanted to spend wisely. We had $115 million in the bank, and it had come into our possession through the sale of two farms. One of the farms was the jail farm, which was in Richmond Hill, and it had accumulated to just under $100 million. We sold it for $78 million in 1987, but with the interest going on every year it had gone up near to $100 million by the time we took this into account. Incidentally, that particular farm, right now all the monies are finally going to come to the city on the 15th of this month. December 15 we'll be getting our last $55 million. We didn't sell at the peak but we were damned near it and we got quite a substantial amount of money for it.
So the amount of money we had in the fund at that time was $115 million, and I suggested that we should put 20% of that into a Toronto atmospheric fund, which would really deal at the leading edge of technology, things that a city should be doing, and play our part as a major city in the world to combat global warming and energy conservation and a whole lot of other environmental things, and 20% of $115 million is $23 million, and that's what you have before you here today, a cap of $23 million with respect to the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.
The bill establishes two corporations, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation. Part I of the bill contains definitions. Part II sets out the structure, objects and powers of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and part III sets them out for the foundation.
The city of Toronto initially proposed draft legislation which would have enabled it to incorporate a corporation under the Business Corporations Act. The form of the legislation was similar to the TEDCO legislation, and I think it was in April I contacted Mr Marchese and told him what we wanted to do and ask him to try to help us through the Legislature.
We wanted to announce this at the Earth Summit, because the city of Toronto played a very large role at the Earth Summit in Brazil last summer. The municipal section was held in the city of Curitiba. Unfortunately, we were not able to process it fast enough. But we do have a meeting coming up in January in New York. It's an international mayors meeting, mayors of world cities, with the United Nations dealing with global warming.
This will give us an enormous boost when we can announce that we have finally had the legislation we had asked for, and we will be taking a lead role of cities in the world. When we announce this legislation and that we have the approval from the provincial government, I think other cities throughout the world might wish to follow us and become involved in the reduction of greenhouse gases. At least for us going to New York in January, it will be a great help.
I'd just like to deal with a couple of other things that we have written down here. As I have stated, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation is a charitable foundation. As such, it will be able to give receipts for income tax purposes to persons who make donations to it. Donations received by the foundation must be used in furtherance of the charitable objectives. These objectives are similar in many respects to the objects of the fund. However, participation with business for profit is not charitable, and the foundation could not provide funds to the fund to be used for this purpose.
The board of directors of the fund will consist of 10 people: four persons who are members of the public, three persons who are members of city council, and then there will be the commissioner of finance, the medical officer of health and the commissioner of public works and the environment.
I have with me here today my colleague Councillor Tabuns, who has been playing a leading role in environmental matters in the city of Toronto, and Dennis Perlin, who is the city solicitor. Perhaps they would like to address the bill before you.
Mr Tabuns: I have no comments to make in particular, Mr Chair. If there are any questions about this fund, I would be happy to try and address them.
Mr Perlin: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, this is actually the third in a series of bills. When I was here last spring and we had Bill Pr86 here which dealt with the CFCs and the scheme for reducing and removing CFC production in the city in terms of appliances etc and playing our role in support of provincial policy in that area, we indicated that this bill, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, would be a second pillar in that attempt to deal with environmental issues in terms of global warming and carbon zinc increase and so forth. We had urban forestry programs etc, and then as well the earlier bill that you dealt with this morning, the direct purchase of natural gas, the city using any savings from those who would participate towards energy conservation.
There are many other measures city council can do within its own mandate that it is doing, within powers that you've already granted to the city. This adds a further dimension, with a body that is at arm's length to the city -- it's not a local board -- and it is able, as Councillor O'Donohue said, to deal with various programs in education and research, as well as some joint ventures on the leading edge with institutions and private industry. That is what is hoped for from this program.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. Any questions of the applicants? Mr Sola.
1040
Mr Sola: I'd like to commend Mr O'Donohue and the city of Toronto for taking this initiative, especially at this time, in such an economy, where usually environmental concerns are last on the list.
But I do have one concern and it's the similarity of this private member's bill to government legislation. There apparently are more amendments than there were articles in the original bill, so I'm wondering what the reason for this is. Were they objections by the ministry or was this a quick fix which was found to be wanting?
Mr Perlin: We were attempting, as Councillor O'Donohue said, to try and get the bill in before the Earth Summit, and with the cooperation of provincial staff we were able to get an initial draft done and that was initially put in for first reading last spring. But it was really, with the cooperation of provincial staff, to be able to get it through.
We all knew at that point that there would have to be further work done, because we were moving from simply the type of legislation which was the City of Toronto Act, 1985, for example, that allowed us to incorporate a company under the Business Corporations Act, which we later did, called the Toronto Economic Development Corp, for economic development purposes, instead of doing it that way, to one that actually created statutory corporations, which is what you see in front of you. Therefore, we had to rush the initial drafting in order to get the bill in for first reading prior to the Earth Summit.
Since that time, various ministries have now had a chance to look at it, and what is in front of you is the work of various ministries in terms of changes that are needed to make it work with other legislation, other policies that you have at the provincial level, other legislation that you have at the provincial level that couldn't be picked up initially in attempting to help us to have that in for first reading before the Earth Summit. It was really along those lines.
A lot of this might have been captured, Mr Sola, as normally happens before you would see the bill. Although we would normally distribute a draft, it would go around to the various ministries, we'd get the changes in advance and try and work those out so that you as members would see a bill that had most of those types of technical difficulties worked out, but it was to try and help us out.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sola. Mr Ruprecht.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am delighted that you're here this morning. What impresses me most is that you've got Mr Marchese here, and of course Mr O'Donohue and Mr Tabuns and the city solicitor. I'm really delighted to see that there is what I would term real agreement. This is non-partisan.
Mr Marchese: It can happen from time to time.
Mr Ruprecht: I want to commend not only you -- but the question I have --
Mr Marchese: I almost introduced them as my friends.
Mr Ruprecht: For the record, I want this noted. This is a first on this committee, I think. I've been on this committee now for at least nine years, but I think this is also a first for the city of Toronto. When you look across Canada and the design of the fund and of the foundation, it is really ground-breaking work, and I know that all members of this committee want to congratulate you on that issue obviously.
While Mr Perlin indicated some of the legislative problems, my question to you would be, why would it take this long? I've heard about this on the radio and I've heard Mr O'Donohue speak about this for quite some time and I'm just wondering -- with a caveat here that things were apparently resolved with the ministry this morning -- but I'm just wondering in terms of your ground-breaking work. This would be a model for the rest of Canada. Cities throughout this country would emulate this, I'm pretty sure, because it's not only timely but it's important.
My question is this: Why would it take you this long to get to this stage? What are the hangups? The reason I'm asking you this question is because I really want it noted, simply because there may be others who want to get on this immediately because of the importance of this issue of global warming.
Mr O'Donohue: Perhaps I could answer that. One of the reasons is that the province couldn't really understand why we weren't asking for money. We were putting money in. I thought I'd throw that in to let you know that we are not coming here looking for money; we are putting money in and we feel very strongly that the route you're taking is the right direction, and we want to be the catalyst to get other cities.
The reason we had such difficulty was because I think a lot of people in the various ministries didn't really believe that we were for real in what we wanted to do. So there were a lot of things being done for the first time and there were a lot of questions asked and there were a lot of answers that were forthcoming and took some time. That's one of the reasons.
This is the first time I think anybody or any city anywhere has attempted anything like this; therefore it took a bit longer. As I said, I don't think they thought it was for real, our putting $23 million into something we strongly believe in. We want to be a leader as a city goes, and we think we can be. We think we can be the catalyst that will get other cities to do the same thing.
When we go to New York in January, we think we will have other cities wanting to know how we did it and why we're doing it. Hopefully, we will get European cities and other First World cities to do the same thing. I think that will start the ball rolling and I think it will be a tremendous step forward.
Mr Ruprecht: One final thing, Mr Chairman, if I might: Who can contribute to your fund? If you provide this expertise to other centres, would you be able to get moneys actually from which source? I know you can get private sources, but can you also get government sources such as other cities?
Mr O'Donohue: I doubt if another city would contribute to our fund, but we would take money from anybody. You can contribute, members of the committee can contribute, anybody.
Mr Sola: Fork out.
Mr Perlin: The staff person told me to bring along the receipt book, so I'll -- through the foundation, the private donations can be made. That's why the foundation corporation -- as you can see in front of you, there are two corporations: the fund itself which will actually carry out the program, and the foundation, which would be the method by which people can make contributions and receive tax credit receipts.
In terms of other municipalities, they would be welcome, because it is at arm's length to the city and could make a contribution. I'm not sure others would, to an atmospheric fund created by the city. But the fund can accept grants from anywhere. Other foundations themselves that are looking to contribute but would rather pool money in a way that could be used in a more significant way towards dealing with global warming -- probably would be more in Metro Toronto or in the city of Toronto -- can contribute to the atmospheric fund. What we'd hope is that they would find the foundation as a method by which they could, and therefore get receipts etc.
Anyone can. It has been purposely created at arm's length to try to encourage people who might be worried that it was going to the city. That's why, you see, it's not a local board. It is at arm's length to the city in order to try to encourage people who might be concerned about the funds being used for some other city purpose, not being used for the atmospheric purposes for which this fund is designed. So it was designed that way.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ruprecht. Mr Hansen and then Mr Wilson.
Mr Hansen: I believe it was last year that the CFCs you brought forward in this committee -- we passed it, didn't we?
Mr Perlin: Absolutely.
Mr Hansen: Against the ministry's advice to us, I believe, because I think I got my fingers rapped back then too. I think it was a good pilot project. I have no problem supporting this particular bill, Mr Chair. I have a few amendments here, about 10 or 15, and I will seek your guidance on how you want to proceed with that. I will be in agreement with this bill, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hansen. We should proceed clause by clause.
Mr Jim Wilson: I think, Mr Chairman, that the question concerning the ultimate liability of any debts incurred by the fund will be answered when we deal with one of the amendments, so perhaps we should proceed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson.
Mr Marchese: Just for the record, and I think it is important to say, the ministry has been supportive of this. As usual, it takes some time to work out some problems or difficulties the ministry people might have with certain bills. But it's important to say that it's here, the changes have been made, it has the support of the minister and the ministry, and I'm glad we're moving on it.
Mr Jim Wilson: Perhaps I could give the applicants a chance to just clear up one question that comes to mind when looking at the establishment of the fund and the foundation. Given that there's simply one taxpayer, and given that both federal and provincial ministries of the environment are supposed to be looking after our environment and doing some of the things that are the objectives of the fund -- although I certainly agree that perhaps you can do them better at the local level in terms of preserving carbon areas and things in that regard -- I just want to ensure you're not duplicating efforts that should be carried on by the province. Is there any comment on that?
Mr O'Donohue: Yes, I'd like to comment on that. On a per capita basis, I think, cities generally are the first units of habitation, if you want to use the phrase, that get the full brunt of any changes in atmospheric conditions, particularly with respect to environmental pollution. I think that if you lived in a rural area you probably wouldn't feel it, but you'll certainly feel it when you're living in the city.
1050
Mr Jim Wilson: Oh, it all comes our way.
Mr O'Donohue: That also goes for, I think, when you're looking at the consumption of carbon, the amount of fuels we burn and how it's spread over an area. We feel the city is the first target and we're on the firing line. All problems that we have with respect to modern living, I think, are felt first in cities. So I guess we're the guinea pigs and we try to make sure we've got the best legislation on how to combat the problems we have. This is the city of Toronto. For example, in the CFC bill, we were the first city anywhere to propose a bill and try to make it work, because we knew that somebody had to do it. We're on the firing line. We are right in the trenches, and here's where we want to be, because we feel our environmental problems in the city are really problems that should be addressed.
Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you for that explanation, and may I add my congratulations to those of other members. I appreciate Mr O'Donohue elaborating on the purposes of the act. I want to say that certainly I agree with the thrust and I wish you all the best.
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Perhaps we could do the clause-by-clause.
The Chair: Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: I would like to, as I say, support this bill. You know, when I'm on the fourth floor here at Queen's Park looking out, I get homesick every so often. I can see Lincoln down here only on a clear day. So with this bill, I imagine every day will be a clear day.
Mr Ruprecht: Except you're not on the fourth floor now; you're on the first floor.
Mr Hansen: Well, I'm moving up.
The Chair: Are there any objectors or interested parties here present?
Mr Jim Wilson: The only fog is between you and the window.
The Chair: Mr Parliamentary Assistant.
Mr Mills: I'd just like to make a few comments. Of course, this is complex legislation. It involved a number of ministries, including the public trustee and I'd like to commend our ministry people, who worked very hard on this to bring it to fruition. As late as 8:30 this morning we were dealing with some of the amendments that are before the committee now, which makes for the delay, as it happened. But I'd just like to go on record that the ministry and the minister support this initiative and we're very pleased to be here today to move this legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant. Are there any questions to the parliamentary assistant?
Mr Sola: Let's vote.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote?
The Chair: Agreed. Shall sections 1 and 2 carry?
Interjection: Carried.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any amendments to section 3?
Mr Hansen: Yes, Mr Chair. I have an amendment here.
I move that subsection 3(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(3) The term of a board member appointed by the council of the city shall not extend beyond the term of the council that made the appointment."
I would like to refer for an explanation from legal counsel here.
Mr Tom Melville: It's Tom Melville speaking, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm not a new member, as may have been commented on.
The purpose of this section is to provide that the term of the board members of the fund coincides with the term of the council that appoints them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Melville. Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, I have another amendment --
Interjection.
Mr Hansen: Are we going to do the whole section or are we going to do amendment by amendment?
The Chair: Amendment by amendment.
Mr Hansen: Okay. I'm just following your direction, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Discussion on this amendment?
Mr Hansen: I have another amendment here. Subsection 3 --
The Chair: Mr Hansen, could we deal with one amendment at a time, please?
Mr Hansen: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any questions on Mr Hansen's amendment?
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Yes. I have a problem when I hear of a member being appointed to any board and then that's going to end when the council ends. What do you have built in there for continuity? If everybody changes as it happens, the council changes. I have a bit of a problem.
Mr Perlin: Subsection (4) provides, "A board member continues to hold office upon the expiry of his or her term of office until a successor is appointed." What will happen is that the person concerned will continue to hold office until the successor is appointed. What it provides is that somebody who might have been there for a particular period of time, if this amendment that's being proposed -- might have been there for a number of years. If it went beyond the term of the council that made the appointment of that person -- by virtue of this bill, one cannot do that. The term of the person will expire with the term of the council that appointed that member. However, the person will continue to remain a board member until a new appointment to replace that person is made by the new city council.
Mr Marchese: But in addition, the same person could be reappointed by the new council, obviously.
Mr Perlin: That's true.
Mrs MacKinnon: And by the same token, you could have a whole brand-new list of appointments. Therefore, you'd have no continuity, so you're not building in a guarantee, any continuity to the board.
Mr Perlin: This is a matter more in the area of provincial policy and provincial direction as opposed -- we have for a long time been seeking change in that area of municipalities. But if I could, I'd prefer to defer to Mr Mills or members of provincial staff.
Mr Mills: I have some of our legal branch. Would you introduce yourself?
Mr Richard Dougherty: Richard Dougherty, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The view of Municipal Affairs is that new council should not be subject to the appointments of a previous council when taking office. Therefore, this is something we accept.
The Chair: Thanks for commenting.
Mr Marchese: To address the point Mrs MacKinnon was raising, the new council can reappoint some or many of the members if it chooses. So I presume there will be continuity because not everybody would be dismissed, obviously.
The Chair: Further discussion on subsection 3(3)?
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to put on the record that I appreciate the amendment. If the foundation were to get stuffed with a bunch of political hacks from one particular council, this enables you to clear house and I think that's why the province has this as a general rule of thumb, to be frank about it.
The Chair: Any further discussion of subsection 3(3)? Are we in agreement with the amendment? Agreed.
Any further amendments to section 3?
Mr Hansen: Yes, I have another amendment here, subsection 3(11).
I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception
"(11) A board member may receive reasonable remuneration and expenses for his or her services to the fund in a capacity other than that of a board member, unless the bylaws otherwise provide."
The Chair: Are there any questions of Mr Hansen?
Mr Jim Wilson: I would like an explanation of this because upon first reading, I would have thought it said, "A board member may not receive reasonable -- "
Mr Melville: This follows a recommendation, I understand, of the public trustee. The provision is to provide or allow for the remuneration of the fund board members, otherwise then as board members. That would be to allow, for example, for professional fees to be paid to these persons when they're acting in some other capacity.
Mr Jim Wilson: It envisions, in my mind, or sets up a conflict. You can get paid in two capacities working for the board: being on the board and working for the board?
Mr Melville: I'm not sure I'm in a position to respond to that, since it was a recommendation of the public trustee.
1100
Mr Jim Wilson: Perhaps the city would like to respond to that.
Mr Perlin: It's difficult at the moment to see where there might be -- there's also an amendment you'll be dealing with that makes it clear that despite the fact this is not a local board, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act will apply. Therefore, there could be an occasion where, Mr Wilson, because you appoint an expert member to this board in terms of some sort of technology, the best person to give advice on that as a consultant, there might indeed be a board member who would then disclose and not participate in or influence the voting by virtue of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Because that act is made applicable as well, that should deal with conflicts in the same way they're dealt with at the municipal level or local board level now.
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes, but given that these people are appointed by council, and three of them will be council members themselves, excluding the three council members, you've got appointees that aren't accountable to the public. When you look at the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, you're primarily dealing with politicians who are accountable, at some point, to the public. It just seems to me, and I was wondering if the government might want to respond -- is this precedent-setting or is this the way we do business now?
Mr Perlin: It comes right out of the Corporations Act.
Mr Jim Wilson: That you could pay a member of the board of a corporation?
Mr Perlin: I'm looking at subsection 126(2) of the Corporations Act right now:
"Nothing...prohibits a director from receiving reasonable remuneration and expenses for his" -- or her -- "services to the corporation as a director or prohibits a director or member from receiving a reasonable remuneration and expenses for his services to the corporation in any other capacity, unless the letters patent...or bylaws otherwise provide."
There isn't going to be remuneration for the persons being on the board but they could -- that part I just read to you as the latter part is there in the Corporations Act right now. Remember, this is in terms of a statutory corporation, so we are following what is there now in terms of the situation.
Mr Jim Wilson: Okay; I accept that explanation.
The Chair: Nothing further, Mr Wilson? Any further questions?
Mr Jim Wilson: No.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 3(11) carry? Agreed.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 4?
Mr Hansen: Yes, I have another motion. We have 17 more, just to inform the chair and the committee members of how many amendments there are to this particular bill, it being 11 o'clock, to get this bill through, and maybe we can ask some questions after, in the hallway. I move that paragraph 6 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out.
The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment to section 4?
Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 5?
Mr Hansen: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Open meetings
"(2) Meetings of the board of directors, others than meetings of committees of the board of directors, are open to the public and no person shall be excluded from the meeting except for improper conduct.
"Power to expel, etc
"(3) The presiding officer may expel or exclude from a meeting of the board of directors a person who has engaged in improper conduct at the meeting.
"Court review
"(4) Section 193 of the Municipal Act applies, with necessary modifications, to a decision of the board of directors as if it were a decision of a council."
I would like to have legal counsel give an explanation of this amendment.
Mr Melville: These amendments would provide for the application to the operation of the board of directors of the fund of open-meetings provisions and disposition-of-property provisions similar to those in the Municipal Act.
The Chair: Are there questions? Are we ready for a vote? Agreed.
Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection (5) carry? Carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are we ready for a vote on sections 6 through 8? Agreed.
Shall sections 6 through 8 carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 9?
Mr Hansen: Yes, Mr Chairman. I move that section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Money from city
"9(1) Despite section 111 of the Municipal Act, the city is authorized to grant, loan or by any other method provide the fund with a maximum of twenty-three million dollars.
"Interest on loans
"(2) If the city lends money to the fund, the city may charge interest at a rate agreed upon by the city and the fund."
An explanation from legal counsel? This is one we're waiting for.
Mr Melville: There are three more --
The Chair: I'm sorry, could you finish the amendment, Mr Hansen?
Mr Hansen: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
"Restrictions on use
"(3) The fund shall not use any money received from the city for the purpose of directly or indirectly inducing any industrial, commercial, manufacturing or business enterprise to locate in the city of Toronto.
"Effect on city's debt limits
"(4) For the purpose of calculating its debt and financial obligation limits under subsection 147(5) of the Municipal Act, the city is deemed to have incurred as a long-term debt any financial commitment, liability or contractual obligation of the fund in respect of which the fund is required to make payments after the expiry of the term for which the council of the city was elected.
"Approval
"(5) The fund shall not undertake a financial commitment, liability or obligation described in subsection (4) without the prior authorization of the council of the city."
Mr Melville: I'll just do the highlights. These amendments would provide, first, for the restriction of the amount of money that can be spent for the bill's purposes to $23 million. Second, it provides that money cannot be used by the fund to induce business or industry to locate in Toronto. Finally, it provides that long-term debt of the fund is deemed to be long-term debt of the city for the purposes of the city's prescribed borrowing limit.
The Chair: Any questions?
Mr Jim Wilson: I've just got a quick question. Is the $23 million a lifetime maximum?
Mr Melville: Yes, it would be.
Mr Jim Wilson: Over the life of the fund. This is not per annum.
Mr Perlin: No, that's coming from the --
Mr Jim Wilson: Maybe interest rates will go up and you'll make more money on the farm you sold.
Mr Perlin: That is the one-time capital contribution coming from the jail farm proceeds. If the city wishes to contribute any more from city funds, then it'll have to come back here to the Legislature for permission to do so.
The Chair: Further questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Agreed.
Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to section 9 carry? Carried.
Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 10?
Mr Hansen: Yes, Mr Chair. I move that section 10 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Application of RSO 1990, c M.50
"(2) The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies with respect to the fund as if it were a local board.
"Application of RSO 1990, c M.56
"(3) The fund is deemed to have been designated as an institution to which the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies."
I'll ask legal counsel for an explanation before we go on for a vote.
Mr Melville: These provisions provide for the application of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the operations of the board of the fund.
The Chair: Questions? Are we ready for a vote on section 10's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 10, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 11?
Mr Hansen: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2) With respect to a donation, the fund shall not exercise its powers in contravention of any intention expressed in the document governing the donation unless directed to do so by the Ontario Court (General Division)."
1110
The Chair: Are there questions? Are we ready for a vote then? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 11 carry, as amended? Carried.
Are there any questions on sections 12 and 13? Are we ready for a vote on sections 12 and 13? Shall sections 12 and 13 carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 14?
Mr Hansen: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):
"Same
"(2.1) The term of a board member shall not extend beyond the term of office of those members of the board of directors of the fund who are appointed by the council of the city."
The Chair: Any discussion on Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 14?
Mr Sola: It seems to be a carbon copy of the first amendment that Mr Hansen read.
Mr Melville: Just to explain, the bill would set up two corporations, so many of these provisions will be repeated.
The Chair: Are we then ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment to section 14? Agreed.
Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Agreed.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? I'm sorry, there is another amendment, I see.
Mr Hansen: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Profit
"(7) A board member shall not directly or indirectly receive any profit from his or her position on the board.
"Exception
"(8) A board member may receive reasonable remuneration and expenses for his or her services to the foundation in a capacity other than that of a board member, unless the bylaws otherwise provide."
The Chair: Any discussion? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsections 14(7) and (8) carry? Carried.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 15?
Mr Hansen: I move that clause 15(1)(d) of the bill be struck out.
The Chair: Any questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Carried.
Are there any further amendments to section 15?
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 15(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Powers
"(2) The foundation has the following powers:
"1. To solicit, receive and use donations of property whether by gift, testamentary disposition, deed or trust.
"2. Unless otherwise provided by a donor, to convert any property held by or on behalf of the foundation into any other form and for that purpose to sell or otherwise dispose of it.
"3. To apply the net income from all funds held directly or indirectly by it toward such charitable purposes of the foundation as the board considers advisable.
"4. To invest and reinvest funds in such securities as are authorized under the Trustee Act for trustees. The earnings derived from the investments of the money form part of the funds of the foundation.
"5. To incur debts, liabilities and charges for carrying out its objects.
"6. To determine in respect of all funds of the foundation what shall be treated as income and what shall be treated as capital and to charge or apportion any losses or expenses to capital or income as the board of directors considers advisable.
"7. To carry on, in accordance with the Charitable Gifts Act, a related business or a business donated to the foundation in which the net profit from the business is used solely for the purposes of the foundation.
"8. To accumulate net income with the intention of distributing the accumulation for the purposes of the foundation.
"9. To retain, in accordance with the Charitable Gifts Act and the Charities Accounting Act, any property in the form in which it is received by the foundation for such length of time as the board considers advisable.
"10. To demand and compel payment of all sums of money and claims to any real or personal property in which the foundation may have an interest and to compromise any such claims.
"11. To sue and be sued in its corporate name.
"12. To draw, make, accept, endorse, execute and issue cheques and other negotiable or transferable instruments.
"No gain
"(2.1) The foundation shall be carried on without the purpose of gain for its members and any profits or other accretions to the property of the foundation shall be used in promoting its objects."
How about "dispense"?
The Chair: Okay, Mr Hansen moved --
Mr Sola: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Mills: Thank goodness.
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions on Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 15(2)?
Mr Jim Wilson: I just have a question on paragraph 3. Perhaps I can be advised by the parliamentary assistant whether this is just a standard subsection, but it allows the fund to contribute to charitable purposes, so I would assume that's contributing to causes outside the fund. Do those charities have to be in line with the objectives of the fund? What are the safeguards there?
Mr Melville: I'll answer indirectly here. The public trustee recommended that these provisions be inserted in order to make the powers of the foundation consistent with the powers of a charity corporation, if I'm correct, Dennis. In essence, I believe the moneys would have to be dispensed in accordance with the objects of the foundation.
Mr Jim Wilson: Which is set out in the bylaws of the foundation.
Mr Melville: Which is set up in this act.
The Chair: Further to subsection (1).
Mr Jim Wilson: No, the objectives of the foundation. For instance, if you take some union organizations that decide to support certain political parties which are charities for the purposes of these acts, they become funnels for money with no safeguards for the membership. That's why my concern is the foundation, not that they would ever do that.
Mr Perlin: But if you look back at subsection 15(1) of the bill, it says to apply for the charitable purposes of the foundation, and the foundation is set out in terms of promoting global climate stabilization, promoting public understanding, promoting projects related to energy conservation.
Mr Jim Wilson: Right. So that's the safeguard.
Mr Perlin: Then you cut out (d), which said engaged in any other similar matters.
Mr Jim Wilson: I noticed that.
Mr Perlin: So that's the safeguard.
The Chair: Any further questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 15(2) carry? Carried.
Are there further amendments, Mr Hansen?
Mr Hansen: Yes, Mr Chair. I move that subsection 15(4) of the bill be struck out.
The Chair: Mr Hansen moves that subsection 15(4) of the bill be struck out. Any questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment to 15(4)?
Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to 15(4) carry? Carried.
Thank you. Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 16?
Mr Hansen: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Open meetings
"(3) Meetings of the board, other than meetings of committees of the board, are open to the public and no person shall be excluded from a meeting except for improper conduct.
"Power to expel etc
"(4) The presiding officer may expel or exclude from a meeting of the board a person who has engaged in improper conduct at the meeting."
The Chair: Questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment to 16(3)? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 17?
1120
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 17(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Use of income
"(4) Income from the trust fund must be used for charitable purposes as provided in this act."
The Chair: Are there any questions? Are we ready for a vote? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 17(4) carry? Carried.
Shall section 17, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 18 and 19 carry?
Mr Hansen: No.
The Chair: I see in front of me an amendment which is section 19.1, which adds a section. Are there amendments to section 18 or 19? No. Is there any discussion of sections 18 and 19? No.
Shall sections 18 and 19 carry? Agreed.
Are there any additional sections?
Mr Hansen: I move that the bill be added by adding the following section after section 19. There was a little bit of confusion there, Mr Chair.
"Not a local board
"19.1(1) The foundation is deemed not to be a local board of the city for the purposes of the Municipal Act or the Municipal Affairs Act.
"Application of RSO 1990, c.M.50
"(2) The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies with respect to the foundation as if it were a local board.
"Application of RSO 1990, c.M.56
"(3) The foundation is deemed to have been designated as an institution to which the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies."
The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on section 19.1? Shall section 19.1 carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 20?
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 20(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) With respect to a donation, the foundation shall not exercise its powers in contravention of any intention expressed in the document governing the donation unless directed to do so by the Ontario Court (General Division)."
The Chair: Any questions on Mr Hansen's amendment? Are we ready for a vote? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 20(2) carry? Carried.
Shall section 20, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 21?
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 21(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Disposition of property
"(3) When the foundation is wound up or dissolved and after its debts and liabilities are paid, its remaining property shall be distributed or disposed of,
"(a) to charitable organizations having objects or purposes similar to those of the foundation; or
"(b) to the fund,
"if the Ontario Court (General Division) authorizes the distribution or disposition under the cy pres doctrine.
"Distribution to the fund
"(4) The fund shall use the property it receives under subsection (3) only for the objects or purposes for which the foundation could have used it.
"Administration
"(5) The fund shall keep the property it receives under subsection (3) separate from its other property."
That's the last amendment I have in front of me.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Mr Sola: I would like to reveal my ignorance by asking what the "cy pres" doctrine means.
Mr Melville: My understanding is that it's a kind of next best thing. If you can't use the money exactly as a maker of a will wants, you apply that doctrine and use the money for the closest thing possible.
The Chair: Further questions? Are we ready for a vote on Mr Hansen's amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 21(3) carry? Carried.
Shall subsection 20(1), as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there further amendments? No. Are we then ready for a vote on sections 22 and 23?
Shall sections 22 and 23 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
1130
ONTARIO BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the Ontario Building Officials Association.
The Chair: We are now proceeding with Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the Ontario Building Officials Association. Mr Martin will be presenting. Mr Martin, would you like to have a seat and introduce your several friends, the applicants.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm extremely happy to be here this morning with this very hardworking group of individuals on behalf of the association and the province. There's been a lot of work done re this piece of business by these folks and others over a period of time. It's good to have arrived at this point. I'd ask, before I make some introductory comments, each of the members to introduce themselves so that they might speak as to their particular role and position in the organization.
Mr David La Mantia: My name is David La Mantia. I'm a solicitor in Lindsay, Ontario, and I appear today as counsel for the Ontario Building Officials Association.
Mr Garry Davis: My name is Garry Davis. I am the president of the Ontario Building Officials Association.
Mr Syl Allard: My name is Syl Allard; I'm a municipal building official from Sault Ste Marie. I am the immediate past president of the association.
Mr Peter Finn: My name is Peter Finn. I'm the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Building Officials Association.
Mr Martin: The piece of business before you does not change in any way, Mr Chair and members of the committee, what building officials have done historically in this province, which is try to maintain a level of professional conduct and protection for the public.
In fact, it's very compatible with Bill 112, which has just been passed, An Act to revise the Building Code Act. You may have in your package a letter of support from the Ministry of Housing, through the parliamentary assistant to the minister, Margaret Harrington, supporting this particular bill. We also have here this morning legal counsel from the Ministry of Housing if there's any question as to the compatibility of this bill with anything it's doing.
It's fair to say, though, that there is before you one objection to the bill, brought forward by the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers Inc. To respond generally to that concern, all of us here at the front table looked at this very seriously in an attempt to see where it might in some way, shape or form get in the way of the very high ideals that the building officials bring to this piece of legislation, which are to be helpful particularly to the general public but also to its own membership, and to not in any way impede the ability of the province to do its best work.
In the act that's under contention, I think the operative word that needs to be focused on -- it's section 3 -- is the word "assist." It doesn't preclude other groups assisting. I think the group and its legal counsel will be able to expand on that further, given that there might be some questions or some opportunity to do that. I turn it over now to the legal counsel of the group to present the bill.
Mr La Mantia: I'd like to begin, Mr Chair, by thanking the committee for seeing us today, and I would propose to first describe what the Ontario Building Officials Association sees as the purposes of this legislation. Those purposes, to summarize, are really twofold.
The first purpose is to identify those with competence in the area of regulating the building code. I'm sure members of the committee are aware that at present, enforcement of the Ontario Building Code is one of three statutory duties imposed upon municipalities in this province. Construction standards are of course set out in the Ontario Building Code. Presently, however, there are no regulations in place to establish the qualifications of those who are charged with implementing and monitoring the Building Code Act to see that both new construction and renovation types of construction are completed according to the code.
This fact, we submit, leaves the general public with little assurance that its health, safety and investment interests are being taken seriously. I should perhaps rephrase that. Right now, there's no particular qualification that building officials can aspire to that would indicate to municipalities that might be hiring a building official that that individual comes to the municipality having completed some set of examinations and courses that would give that individual the expertise to monitor the fairly sophisticated requirements of the building code.
The Ontario Building Officials Association is proposing in this act to establish the designation "certified building code official" or, to use the acronym, CBCO. I should add that it's not proposed that only certified building code officials would be allowed to monitor construction in Ontario, but I think it allows municipalities an opportunity to know that someone they have charged with monitoring the building code in their municipalities has fulfilled the requirements of obtaining that title. They can at least search for somebody who has that qualification.
If you recommend passage of this act and it receives final reading and royal assent, municipalities will have a way in which to ensure that those they retain with that designation have successfully completed the educational requirements and passed the examinations necessary to obtain that designation.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we submit two purposes to this legislation. The second purpose is to protect the public. Although at present the Ontario Building Officials Association operates as a corporation without share capital and has set up a series of tests and examinations and courses that would allow its members to obtain the title "certified building code official," there is little recognition of that designation outside its own organization.
Furthermore, the flip side of that is that there's no penalty to dissuade individuals from passing themselves off as certified building officials. In other words, theoretically someone could apply to a municipality for a job as a building official and represent that he had that qualification when in fact he does not.
So the second side of this act or benefit to the public is that if an individual represents himself or herself as having the qualifications of a certified building code official, that is an offence and he or she could be prosecuted. The point of that, of course, is to dissuade someone from taking that type of action.
Those, I would submit, are the two main purposes. If any of the members of the committee have questions regarding those submissions, I am certainly prepared to deal with them or ask these gentlemen with me to assist me in that regard.
Before that, I'd like to indicate that this legislation is supported by a number of groups that have a particular interest in housing in Ontario and in construction in this province. I'd like to begin with the Ministry of Housing. I was advised that there has been a letter filed with you from Margaret Harrington, MPP for Niagara Falls and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, indicating the support of the Ministry of Housing for this bill.
In that regard, I'd just like to quote from speaking notes that have been provided to me through Ms Harrington's office. These remarks were made by her to the Ontario Building Officials Association at its 1992 conference on October 7 in Richmond Hill.
The Chair: I think those are valuable supportive evidences, but I'm sure Mr Mills could supply the support of the Ministry of Housing or Municipal Affairs.
Mr La Mantia: That's fine. I'm content to have Mr Mills indicate the position of the Ministry of Housing.
The second group in support of this legislation is the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. I have before me a letter dated December 1 from J.B.S. Rose, the president-registrar of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. I'd just like to quote from two or three paragraphs of that letter. I believe this letter may also be filed with the members of the committee. I direct your attention then to the first and second paragraphs on the first page of the letter:
"This letter is being sent to you in order to register the Ontario New Home Warranty Program's support of a proposed bill which is apparently scheduled to be introduced to the House by Tony Martin, MPP for Sault Ste Marie, during the week of December 7th, 1992.
"The Ontario Building Officials Act, 1992, will enable the Ontario Building Officials Association to govern and discipline its members and calls for the adoption of a designated title for building officials in the province of Ontario. This special legislation is seen by the warranty program as being key to the establishment of professional status for those individuals who are charged with the administration of the Ontario Building Code Act within their respective municipalities."
I'd like to direct your attention to the first paragraph on the second page of that letter, which begins:
"The warranty program has been working in partnership with the Ontario Building Officials Association for several years now and has found the association to be very serious and conscientious in its efforts to provide the necessary training programs in order to upgrade the skills of its members and live up to the motto of `for the public good.' We see the proposal to obtain professional status for its members as an essential move to bring about more uniform administration of the Ontario Building Code."
The other letter of support I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee is a letter from Mr Patrick McNeill, who is the executive director of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. That letter's dated December 8, and I'm not sure if it's filed.
Mr Mills: We've got that.
Mr La Mantia: It is filed? I'd like to put on the record the first paragraph of Mr McNeill's letter, which indicates as follows:
"On behalf of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, a professional organization representing over 2,000 private and public sector planners across the province, I would like to advise that we have no objection to OBOA's proposed private member's bill (Bill Pr40) seeking the designated title `certified building code official.' Such proposed legislation will help strengthen the important role of building officials in carrying out your respective duties and responsibilities outlined under several acts."
Now, as Mr Martin alluded to, there is an objection, and that objection's being made by the --
1140
The Chair: If the persons are here, they'll have the opportunity to speak to their objection. You could certainly respond after they have raised it.
Mr La Mantia: That's fine, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Further, Mr La Mantia.
Mr La Mantia: Those are my submissions, unless there are some questions I can help the committee with or I can direct to members of the executive.
The Chair: Mr Davis, Mr Allard, Mr Finn, comments in addition to Mr La Mantia's?
Interjection: No.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there questions from the committee members for the applicants?
Mr Sola: If there's an objector, we should hear from the objector and then maybe we can phrase our questions.
The Chair: Certainly. I understand there are several objectors present. Because of that, I'm wondering, gentlemen, if it might be possible for you to just move back so those people can come to the committee. We'll have to switch places in front of the mikes. My apologies, gentlemen.
We have, I believe, a number of objectors present. Could you please come forward and introduce yourselves. Are you, first of all, known to each other?
Mr Brian Allick: I believe so, sir.
The Chair: Yes. Are there other objectors present? I have on my list five gentlemen. Gentlemen, could you introduce yourselves.
Mr Rick McGee: I'm Rick McGee. I'm from the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, education chairman for the association. I also represent a group of Metropolitan area municipalities called TAPSO, which is Toronto Area Property Standards Officers, with regard to the objection.
Mr Brian Green: I'm Brian Green and I'm here representing the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers Association of Ontario.
Mr Allick: My name is Brian Allick. I'm president of the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers.
Mr Peter Clark: My name is Peter Clark. I'm a property standards officer and building inspector for the city of Kingston. I'm also secretary of the Association of Property Standards Officers.
The Chair: I have a note that Mr Norman Jackson, solicitor from the city of Kingston, also is concerned.
Mr Clark: Unfortunately, Mr Jackson couldn't make it this morning.
The Chair: Would you be able to convey his views, though, sir? Are they essentially the same as your own?
Mr Clark: I think the president could, yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Clark first. I'm sorry. Mr McGee first. Excuse me.
Mr McGee: I defer to Mr Allick first.
Mr Allick: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I must say that we are sorry Mr Jackson is unable to be with us. Far be it from me to try and equal his expertise in presentation etc, but we will do our best.
This morning, I did hand out to the members a position paper, the concerns we have with Bill Pr40, being the proposed legislation respecting the Ontario Building Officials Association. It's somewhat unusual in that clause 3(a) is very specific in its description of its objects in that it references the establishment of regulations which cover all facets of building, construction, renovation and maintenance. It would appear to assume the right to promote uniform interpretation of any act with standards. The following clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Bill Pr40 of the same section make similar assumptions.
The Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers have recently been awarded legislation dealing with a similar, if not exactly the same, subject. The concern of the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers is that, should Bill Pr40 be passed in its present state, confusion will be caused to municipalities and to the construction industry as to what in fact the awarded designations really mean or what people having the designation have knowledge of.
Section 31 of the Planning Act is legislation which deals with the maintenance and operation of buildings, which is specific to the function of property standards officers whose designation was established by An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, passed June 25, 1992.
Bill Pr40 would appear to pattern itself upon An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers and seems to be a mere extension of that act. It is with this concern in mind that this association raised the issue to the legislative committee in an effort to safeguard the Legislature and both associations from perceived confusion.
We have as an association endeavoured to reach compromise and have offered our services to assist the Ontario Building Officials Association and have in fact met with the executive of the Ontario Building Officials Association as late as December 5 and advised that the removal of the words "maintenance" and "operation" from clause 3(a) would satisfy our concerns. We were of the opinion that agreement had been reached. However, correspondence received December 8 from the Ontario Building Officials Association indicated some reticence to maintain that situation.
We, as an association, do not object and in fact agree with every statement that has been made this morning. We, all members represented here who are raising their concerns, are in fact members of the Ontario Association of Building Officials. I believe the reference was that it would protect the public with tests and examinations and an educational process that they presently operate.
I would advise the committee that the educational process that is being operated by the Ontario Building Officials Association is material which in fact was developed not by themselves but in conjunction with all other voluntary associations in this province, which included the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association.
In many cases, we are a crossover and an overlap as far as the educators are concerned. There are members who sat in raising the concerns about this bill who actually facilitate those educational programs and, as advised, we are not objecting to the passage of this bill. We welcome the bill. Our concern is the fact that it would seem to cause this confusion and enter into some areas where legislation is already in place.
There was mention also this morning that this will give an added protection to the public. This bill is voluntary, and until such time as the government itself decides to take a position and make it a mandatory certification upon all building inspectors and all property standards officers, if you will, then the protection that's been suggested here cannot be guaranteed.
The letters of support that have been received from the new home warranty program -- we do not have any objection to that. We agree with that, and as advised, that is basically our position, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Allick. As it would seem that there is this one point of disagreement, I'm wondering, gentlemen, if it might be possible for Mr La Mantia to join Mr Allick at the table so that those questions can be debated. Mr La Mantia is the representative of the building association. Would you mind taking that role? Are there questions?
1150
Mr La Mantia: If I might make a comment first in response, I read the letter that was sent by the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers on September 10, which complained about clauses 3(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and subsections 10(1) and 11(1) of the act, and I guess I commend my friends for having reduced their objection now to what I understand to be clause 3(a). Their concern at that time seemed to be that the proposed act impinged upon their aims and objectives.
I think it would be helpful to the committee to just look at Bill Pr40 and look at the section that's been complained about, clause 3(a):
"3. The objects of the association are,
"(a) to assist in the establishment of uniform regulations in Ontario relating to the planning, construction, demolition, alteration, renovation, maintenance, operation" etc.
As I understand the objection of the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, it's to the words "maintenance" and "operation" in that clause of section 3. I submit to this committee that all 3(a) is suggesting is that the Ontario Building Officials Association might be one of a number of groups that could bring their particular expertise to regulations dealing with maintenance and operation, among other items.
It doesn't say that the Ontario Building Officials Association is going to be the only body in the province of Ontario that's ever going to be consulted. I would add that the act that Mr Allick refers to that created the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, which was Bill Pr22, which received royal assent on June 25, in its objectives makes no mention of the words "maintenance" or "operation," so I'm just confused as to what it is they indicate that is being impinged on here. I'm having trouble understanding their position, quite frankly, and with the greatest of respect.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr La Mantia. Mr Sola, you have a question?
Mr Sola: I would like to get an opinion from the ministry as to the validity of the objection and what the ministry's stand is on the bill itself.
Mr Mills: Mr Sola, I must say that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, through the deputy minister, is considerably sympathetic in the position put forward here. However, I have to say that this bill seems to be a Housing issue, and perhaps it may be as well to speak to the representative for the ministry here. Mr Jeff Levitt, would you come forward and introduce yourself in the microphone.
Mr Jeff Levitt: My name is Jeff Levitt. I'm a solicitor with the Ministry of Housing. As I understand the question, I understand that a letter has been distributed, from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, about the views of the ministry in respect of the bill.
I understand that I'm being asked now to provide some technical background about the perceived or potential conflict. I would point out first that under Bill 112, which recently received royal assent although it's not yet in force, does provide for the authority to establish standards for existing buildings in subsection 34(2). Although these are probably a longer-term project, that may at some stage be on the horizon.
The second aspect deals with, I guess, the inevitable aspect of overlap at the fringes of a mandate that it's possible to consider. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but building officials are currently responsible, under what's known as part 11 of the building code, the renovation provisions, for at least in some way evaluating the maintenance and operation of certain structural and life safety systems. So in that aspect, the concern with maintenance could be looked at as recognizing a certain function of the municipal building officials' job as well as the recently passed Bill 112.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Levitt. Further questions?
Mr Sola: I was more than a little bit perturbed to find out that at present there are no criteria by which officials are appointed for guaranteeing the safety of our buildings. What are the credentials or qualifications? What expertise is required and how is it confirmed for any of these officials? I would think that if there are no criteria, once we discovered that fact, we should actually have a government bill to make something like this mandatory, that we have qualified people carrying out such important functions rather than have a voluntary bill that may or may not guarantee what we are trying to protect, and that's safety.
Mr La Mantia: I certainly share the member's concern. I believe, however, that this is an important first step in creating this designation. Once this designation is out there, a municipality which is considering hiring a new building official will at least know that this designation is available and that it could demand that the applicants for that position have those credentials.
I believe it's also available to them to request that their presently employed building officials take the courses and the tests offered by the association to bring them up to the minimum standards, at least, that will be achieved.
Mr Sola: But I don't think that answered my question. I'd like to pose a question both to you and to the objectors. In your experience, what are the criteria used today to establish the expertise, the qualifications, the credentials of people appointed to these positions under present circumstances? Do we get qualified people or are they unqualified? That is the question I'm posing. Perhaps you could answer first and then Mr Allick.
Mr La Mantia: I would like to apologize for not answering the member's question. I introduce Mr Davis, who is the president of the association. He has more technical background in this area than myself and I'm sure he can answer your question.
The Chair: Mr Allick, would you like to respond as well?
Mr Allick: Yes, I would.
The Chair: Mr Davis first.
Mr Davis: As Mr Sola has just said, there is no hard and fast criterion or mandatory designation for anyone to become an inspector or a building official. Most municipalities, or the majority of them, will bring in anyone who has had possibly a construction background, be it that they're tradesmen in one of the many trades related to building, and this is one of the perceived things that we see corrected over time on a voluntary basis with this, in that there will be a recognized program.
This program in place right now for building officials is a one-year add-on at Seneca College which gives an accreditation to anyone taking it, that he has taken the criteria for building code officials. It's recognized now by our association, with two years of experience in municipalities, that they would get credited in our present accreditation. But to answer the question, right now there is nothing. A municipality could have anything from basically a tradesman to a professional engineer.
The Chair: Mr Davis, in the bill -- my apologies, gentlemen -- in clause 7(b), you have "has complied with the academic and experience requirements specified in the bylaws for the issuance of membership."
Mr Davis: "Shall grant a membership," yes.
The Chair: So that applicant must have achieved a certain -- you said the add-on year at Seneca College.
Mr Davis: If he has complied, then he would be given the designation of CBCO.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Allick, to that same question?
Mr Allick: I concur with Mr Davis's appraisal of the hiring practices. It can be from anywhere. It depends entirely upon the municipality in which this person is employed and the standards that municipality applies and extent to which it has knowledge of the legislation which deals with buildings. We recognize that, we appreciate that and of course that is why we initially moved forward with Bill Pr22, to sort of get that professionalism and that control into the property standards area, specifically, when we're dealing with legislation which is coming on stream, specifically Bill 121, the Rent Control Act.
We, as an association, are presently working very closely with the members of the Ministry of Housing who are charged with the implementation and are in fact working with them in the education of their rent control officers to the education of maintenance.
1200
Mr Green: The confusion is just over the two words, as we mentioned earlier. The Planning Act is quite specific in laying out the mandate for property standards officers on handling property standards violations. The building inspector looks over the building until completion; that is the usual aspect of it. Once the building is completed and the building is of an older version -- century-old buildings -- property standards officers are usually called upon to inspect for the maintenance and the structural repair. The building officials are called in when permits are taken out, ie, new buildings, renovations, part 11. Building officials are involved when a permit is in process.
As I said, the Planning Act is very specific on older buildings and also from the Planning Act is the zoning bylaw, the use of the buildings, and that is where the municipal law enforcement comes in, enforcing the zoning bylaws. We each have our own designated section and the overlap of the building officials looking after maintenance and use of property is not just a small overlap; it's a drastic overlap. Once the building officials get into maintenance of a building, the conflict is there in the municipalities.
Mr Sola: What is the difference in training between the two organizations?
Mr Allick: We would suggest, sir, probably a little facetiously, that the training that's given to a building inspector is an exceedingly good grounding to begin to train somebody to be a property standards officer.
A property standards officer's function varies very drastically from that of a building inspector, and I think this is something that has not yet been recognized. A property standards officer, first of all, is a negotiator. He is a more dealing-with-people person. He is the person who will respond to a tenant who is complaining about the living conditions of his building, of whatever he's renting. He's in a situation where he is negotiating with the tenant. He is dealing with the owners of the property. He is dealing with property management functions. He is dealing with the law that controls their rents.
He's a person to whom the tenants and the owners can go to seek information. He will act as an arbitrator, in many cases, in resolving situations of conflict. These matters are not referenced nor taught by the Ontario Building Officials Association, nor are they part of the function of a building inspector.
But if I may, I would like to respond to the comments made by counsel for the Ontario Building Officials Association, who referenced that there's no reference in Bill Pr22 with regard to "maintenance." I would submit that this is merely the style of writing of the bill and that the reference he's concerned about is covered, of course, in the bylaws of the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers.
On the comments that were made by the representative from the Ministry of Housing, while we agree that there are provisions in Bill 112 for the writing of regulations dealing with maintenance, it is an unknown quantity at this time as to what those regulations will be. In Bill 112 we see a move to bringing sections of the fire code into the Ontario Building Code Act. The maintenance references may well be maintenance purely with regards to fire.
I would also advise that part 11 of the Ontario Building Code is purely a section which allows alternative materials to be used to give the same sort of protection to a building in the course of construction and cannot really be related to the maintenance.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Allick. Are there further questions?
Mr Sola: Would your objections be related more to being a turf war between the two organizations or related more to protection of the public?
Mr Allick: It's related more to the protection of the public and the recognition of the public as to what the officers are doing. If we deal with the names and the certifications which are designated, we're talking about a certified property standards officer and we're talking about a certified building official. We have the two entirely separate names, and this is where we reference the confusion at the municipal level, to somebody coming into a municipality seeking information.
Mr Sola: Would the public be better off having the confusion and having the two groups recognized or having it the way it is at present, with no criteria required and your group having a designation?
Mr Allick: The public would be better served by having the designation of a certified building official, because they know, when they are going to build something, when they want to add on a room or something like this to the property, they go to the building official. However, when they have a problem with an existing building, that their building is below standard, they should have the same right to know who to go to to have that standard brought up to an acceptable level.
Mr Sola: In other words, we'd be better off removing two words from 3(a), and then there were wouldn't be any objection.
Mr Allick: That's correct.
The Chair: Any further questions? Mr La Mantia, do you want to respond?
Mr La Mantia: Once again, I wish someone would explain to me how the words "maintenance" and "operation" in 3(a), which relates only to assisting in the establishment of regulations -- how do we then get from that paragraph into the building officials suddenly being charged with property standards in a municipality? That's not what this section's about.
This section merely makes it part of the mandate of this association to bring to the table its particular discipline, its particular expertise, in assisting the drafting of regulations relating to maintenance and operation, among other things. It doesn't say that the building officials are going to subvert the role of the property standards officers.
I fail to understand why the property standards officers want to deny the public the benefit of getting the input of the building officials to proposed regulations. That input isn't binding on anybody; it's merely input. I suspect that if regulations were passed relating to maintenance or operation, there'd be a number of groups requested for input. Why would we deny the public the right to have the input of a professional organization?
I just wish someone would explain to me how those words in that particular paragraph, relating, as it does, not to the function of the building officials but only to the mandate of their association in assisting in drafting the regulations is going to jeopardize the public.
1210
The Chair: Thank you, Mr La Mantia. Are there further questions? Are we ready for a vote on Bill Pr40? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 through 10 carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 11?
Mrs MacKinnon: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by inserting after "a" in the sixth line "building inspector or".
The Chair: Is there any debate on that amendment? Shall Mrs MacKinnon's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 12 to 15, inclusive, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to the preamble?
Mrs MacKinnon: I move that the preamble of the bill be amended by striking out "certain designations and their abbreviations" in the fifth and sixth lines and substituting "the designation `certified building code official' and the initials `CBCO.'"
The Chair: Any discussion on this amendment? None. Shall the amendment to the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.
The Chair: Mr Hansen will be sponsoring Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln. Mr Hansen, could you introduce your colleague, the applicant.
Mr Hansen: With me are Mr Robert Heil, the administrator for the town of Lincoln, and Kyle Kruger, the clerk for the corporation of the town of Lincoln.
The town of Lincoln has been working on this bill for well over a year, and I'd like to read into the record a little bit of history.
Pr58 is a bill empowering the town of Lincoln to pass bylaws regulating and prohibiting the dumping of fill within the town. In the past, the town has experienced a number of problems with persons dumping fill. Many complaints have been brought to the attention of the town council. In one instance, fill was being hauled from a large construction site in a neighbouring municipality to a ravine area in the town of Lincoln. Understandably, neighbours were up in arms, worried about the destruction of the local road system and that the ravine was becoming an eyesore.
Others expressed concern when property owners attempted to extend their yards into abutting ravines by dumping loads of fill, thus filling in important wetland areas. In other situations, the dumping of fill has interfered with existing drainage patterns. Many municipalities, including Lincoln, currently have no authority to pass bylaws relating to this type of activity.
To sum up, the town of Lincoln's concerns with the dumping of fill are:
(1) The environment. The ravines and wetlands are suffering damage.
(2) The drainage. The placing of fill to change the grade and level of properties for agricultural or other reasons may interfere with pre-existing drainage patterns.
(3) Aesthetics. Large piles of fill, including concrete blocks, make vacant lands unsightly.
(4) Contamination. Since fill dumped on private land is not regulated, such fill may include chemical waste.
For these reasons, the council of the town of Lincoln deems it necessary to make application to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the passage of a private bill which will allow the council to pass bylaws regulating dumping and filling activities. We must note that the legislation is not a prohibition of dumping but a regulation.
If approved, this legislation would allow the town, through proper licence and control, to proffer much-needed, properly regulated dumping sites for clean fill. The powers contained in Bill Pr58 will enable the town to ensure the aesthetic beauty of the rural community of the town of Lincoln and the health and welfare of its inhabitants. Therefore, I'm asking this committee for its support of this bill.
I'd like to also cite Linda Gray on November 27, 1991, when she stated that a number of municipalities are looking for a bill of this nature. I guess the ministry is taking a look at enacting a bill for the whole province of Ontario, but as you know, the town of Lincoln is a very progressive town and it's taking one step ahead until the ministry gets a chance to get in the bill.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Members' statements are at 1:30, Mr Chair.
Mr Hansen: I would like to hand it over to Mr Heil. He has a few comments to make.
The Chair: Mr Heil, I should mention that Mr Hansen has long prepared this legislation and has briefed us on its importance to his town and amply represented Lincoln.
Mr Robert Heil: Thank you, Mr Chair. Let me first begin by saying that his worship Mayor Konkle extends his regrets for not being able to be here today. In short, and not to keep you any longer past the lunch-hour, we do not have a great deal to add to the legislation.
Our understanding is that the ministry has proposed a couple of amendments. We have presented those to our council at last night's meeting, and there are no objections to the proposed amendments of the ministry. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Are there objectors present? I note that there are two people, Mr Gulinski and Mr Griffiths. Perhaps you could join us at the table. Gentlemen, could you move slightly to the side so that Mr Gulinski and Mr Griffiths could join us at the front.
Mr William Griffiths: My name is William Griffiths. I live in the town of Lincoln. I have serious doubts about this bylaw in terms of the very high cost to the public. They have not addressed any of the costs. All they say is, "We don't want it." They have not made provision in any way, shape or form to accept fill from onsite programs that are ongoing in the town. The bylaw -- I do not have a copy of it, unfortunately -- has, to the best of my knowledge, no provisions for the naming of the type of material. They have just said they don't want fill, but what describes "fill"? We've got a plant right there in the town that reuses asphalt. It is a huge pile at the present time; it hasn't been used for some little time. But that's fill. It is material piled up, and it's quite a pile. There are other places that strip land.
According to the way I read the bylaw, if a man had a load of fill dumped on his front lawn to fill a swimming pool or a very bad depression in his backyard and the inspector came along, he could be fined an enormous amount of money, which I feel is ridiculous.
1220
They don't specify how much or how little constitutes "fill." They have no definition of "fill." "Fill" could be sand or gravel, depending on where it is, and there's no definition, no specific type of material or amount. I think this is highly disgraceful on both the people who wrote the bylaw and the people who are applying for it.
There are other departments of the government that have control over almost all of the material that they talk about that is not suitable for dumping in the environment. The Ministry of the Environment is very quick to come down and condemn it and stop it, and it has the authority to make people remove unqualified fill. The Ministry of Natural Resources has the power to make sure that if fill is dumped into an inappropriate area of wetland, it is removed. I have seen this actually done.
So I see no reason for this town to get this bylaw passed. I think it's a disgrace; I think the wording of it is terrible. It is only that they are looking for another excuse to hinder business. At the present time, all sewer cuts and road cuts of all types, all the material has to be disposed of, which means in the case of the town of Lincoln, if they do not provide a place for it, they would have to take it up to 25 miles' distance from the town hall to the city of St Catharines or the city of Hamilton to dispose of somewhat small amounts of fill that they may get from a sewer cut or a road repair or a driveway that is being paved for a private individual. I think this bylaw should be struck down.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Griffiths. Mr Gulinski, do you want to add any comments?
Mr Roger Gulinski: Yes. Mr Griffiths covered some of the comments I had. There are a lot of farmers in our community. Some own farms in different spots, not just one farm. In their standard doing of business they will move material from one farm to another on a regular basis.
I'm right against them not really defining "fill," because a load of topsoil could be called fill. The reason I'm saying that is, there are laws in place now to stop most stripping of topsoil, so most topsoil is manufactured. They actually take fill, add manure and something black and whatever and manufacture this. This could be dumped in your yard and the fellow can some along and say that you owe a $10,000 or $25,000 fine, as provided by this bill. That seems to me excessive.
It gives extraordinary powers to town officials for whatever reason to stop you from doing whatever you want. You've already got the Ministry of the Environment, the conservation authority and Natural Resources to take care of all this. I don't see why they want this regulation.
The other point is, the town officials really have no expertise or special training to recognize good or bad fill or how or why it should be placed, so right away we're going to see that they're going to hire a consulting firm or an engineer or something for a fellow who wants to dump a load of fill. That doesn't seem reasonable.
They have a 45-day permit wait. If a fellow wants to get his driveway dug out and paved or something like that and for whatever reason it didn't get done, that seems a bit ridiculous to wait for. And if the 45 days isn't complied with, then it becomes 180 days if it has to go to the OMB.
So it just seems to me that if anyone dug up anything and conveyed it to another part of his property, he'd have to get a permit for it. It doesn't seem reasonable to me. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gulinski. Questions? Mr Sola.
Mr Sola: I'd like to ask somebody to comment on this last statement, "If anyone dug up anything and conveyed it to another part of his property, he'd have to get a permit for it." Is that correct?
Mr Heil: Mr Chairman, the process has not been established yet. Municipalities are required to, in all cases, act in a very reasonable fashion. The council of the municipality of the town of Lincoln in all cases endeavours to try to put the information to the public. The purpose of the legislation isn't to stop or regulate or prohibit that type of use of soil on one's property, but more so to try to provide an area by regulation to dump material from our own construction as well as construction of private individuals within the municipality, and as well prevent some of the problems that we have been having with soils and rock and sidewalk being dumped over banks that are unstable.
The purpose of the legislation is not in any way, and has not and is not in all of the reports in the background, been intended to prohibit or regulate a farmer or a property owner from taking topsoil or filling in a small area. It's more for control of some of the areas where we have had some major difficulties and problems.
Mr Sola: Has there been any tension between the farmers and the officials of the town? We've got two representatives here who are opposing this bill and there must some reason for the opposition; there must be substance to their arguments. So, if you could clarify that.
Mr Heil: We have not had any complaints from specifically farmers in the area. We know that we have had some farmers who have been concerned about some alterations in some of the natural water course and would like the municipality to deal with it because of some fill, and basically the municipality's hands have been tied in that instance; it doesn't have the authority. Where the Ministry of Natural Resources and the conservation authority can control through the floodplain and floodline regulations, we encourage them in all cases, but there is a major portion of the town of Lincoln that is currently not covered or regulated by those ministries and authority.
The actual contaminated soil is governed by the Environmental Protection Act. We would hope that we would never have to try to regulate that and we would like to bring the Ministry of the Environment on side. Currently, as I understand, they are proposing some legislation to deal with possible contaminants in soil that comes out from ditching projects alongside of roads, and we will be looking at that kind of regulation in dealing with the issue even before probably the Ministry of the Environment passes it, to try to control that.
Mr Sola: Thank you. I'd like to pose this next question to Mr Griffiths. In your letter you state that this complaint is made on behalf of the residents of the town of Lincoln. I'd like to ask you how many residents you are representing and whether you are authorized to represent anybody. I mean, is it an organization that --
Mr Griffiths: They did ask that I write the letter, but I'm not by legal standards authorized to represent any of them.
Mr Sola: You said "they." Is it --
Mr Griffiths: There were several of them who asked me about it and asked me would I appear for them, but I can't say that it's official as such. I'm sorry.
Mr Sola: The other statement you make is that the advertisement was misleading. Now, in what way, and could you elaborate on that?
1230
Mr Griffiths: The town has consistently used regulations that it has to mislead the public on what it does. The advertisement for this was one single advertisement. Unless you went to council every night that there was a council meeting -- it was very quickly passed over, with little or no discussion. I didn't go to the council meetings so I'm not at liberty to say what was said at the council meetings. If they want to put this bill in then they should specify what is fill, what isn't fill and how much is considered fill, because a swimming pool takes approximately four tandem loads of fill, if that's what your choice is, and there is a great number of people who do fill in swimming pools -- not everybody, but then there's a swimming pool that the people are putting in and the dirt has to be disposed of.
Under these regulations it's not specified as to where they can do it. They say they're going to put these regulations in. I wouldn't trust the town of Lincoln to put the regulation in that they said unless it's written down in the order. Then you can trust them. Otherwise, there's nothing to say that if this bylaw is passed the town of Lincoln can say that 10 yards of dirt constitutes fill. There are some farmers over there who have some waste product that they use for fertilizer, and up until I talked to the farmer personally, when I drove down the road, it looked like he'd dumped about four loads of dirty old gravel in there; I wondered what it was going to be used for. Actually, it's fertilizer that will be used on the land when it comes up. Now, this could be called fill. It's been there for probably four, five or six months now.
Mr Sola: I'd like to ask somebody from the town, what is the definition of fill that you are using and if you have one, why is it not contained in the bill?
Mr Heil: What we have done is just, at this point we're simply seeking the legislation to give us the authority. What we would in all probability do is go to these municipalities in Ontario that have passed similar bylaws that have also sought and obtained private legislation and probably follow very closely what they have done. It is not our intention to limit or prohibit farming operations, quite the contrary, but to support -- we know we have had requests from farmers to help fill in some of their ponds; we would like to do that. We know that there is excess fill in the town. We have to provide a place and our intention would be to licence several locations to specifically provide an outlet or a location to dump fill, even for our own projects. Currently we haul everything that we have to our landfill site and we provide that site for fill for all of our construction projects, and it can get costly because it is quite a way sometimes to haul material. So our regulation is hopefully to actually open it up a little bit more.
The Chair: Mr Sola, any further questions? Mr Perruzza.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's not so much a question. I look at this and what's before us and I can't help but commend the member for Lincoln for being, as usual, ahead of his time and encouraging us to proceed on something that probably should be province-wide and have provincial implications, and I think he's moving us in that direction and he's shaking us on this, and I commend him for that. He's a leader. He's not following on this issue, and I congratulate him for that.
Mr Fletcher: To Mr Griffiths, your company is Acme Trailer Equipment. Is that right in the town of Lincoln?
Mr Griffiths: The answering service is and I do collect the mail there. Other than that, no.
Mr Fletcher: Where is your --
Mr Griffiths: It's in Hamilton.
Mr Fletcher: I see.
Mr Griffiths: Presently we're not in operation. The free trade act destroyed the business, so right at the minute we're sitting on it, waiting to see what happens.
Mr Fletcher: The other thing you were saying was about the swimming pools. Do you do a lot of swimming pool things, or is that just people you know?
Mr Griffiths: People I know, but I have done some filling in on a temporary basis, for something to do. I would take in and fill a pool. I'd rent the equipment and would fill in a pool for various people or dig one out, whichever.
The Chair: Further questions? Mr Parliamentary Assistant, do you have any comments?
Mr Mills: Before we go to the amendments, I'd just like to say a couple of things. First of all, the ministry supports this bill. There were one or two concerns which have been addressed by the amendments. Having seen those amendments, we concur now with the bill.
I'd just like to make an observation about defining "fill." The problem with defining "fill" is that once it's written in, then you've got a problem changing it. That's really why it's not in this bill. It's not in any sense seen as a way around something.
I'd just like to refer to clause 1(1)(b), which requires that a permit be obtained. I think the ministry feels one has to have some certain trust in municipal government so that when you apply for that permit, it would be spelled out at that time. If it agreed with the intent of this bill, then I don't see any problem with that.
There was a question raised or some suggestion put forward that in order to get that permit, there was a 45-day delay in getting that. That's not true. If the permit is refused, there's a 45-day delay in the appeal process. I just wanted to make that correction on the record.
The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on Bill Pr58? Agreed. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mrs MacKinnon: Yes, clause 1(1)(e).
I move that clause 1(1)(e) of the bill be amended by striking out "and deeming the costs incurred in performing such work to be municipal taxes levied upon the land" in the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth lines.
The Chair: Any questions on the amendment? Are we ready for a vote on Mrs MacKinnon's amendment?
Shall Mrs MacKinnon's amendment carry? Carried.
Are there further amendments to section 1?
Mrs MacKinnon: I have an amendment on subsection 1(5).
I move that subsection 1(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Creation of lien
"(5) Costs incurred by the corporation under a bylaw passed under clause 1(1)(e) are, upon registration by the corporation in the proper land registry office of a notice claiming the first lien and charge conferred by this subsection, a first lien and charge upon the land.
"Status of lien
"(6) The first lien and charge conferred by subsection (5) is in respect of all costs that are payable at the time of registration of the notice, and the first lien and charge has priority over all encumbrances and claims registered or attached to the land after the notice is registered."
The Chair: Any discussion of the subsection 1(5) amendment? Are we ready for a vote?
Shall Mrs MacKinnon's amendment to subsection 1(5) carry? Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 2 and 3 carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 4?
Mrs MacKinnon: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"No liability
"4(1) No action or other proceeding for damages may be instituted against the corporation or its officers, employees, agents or assigns for any act done in good faith under a bylaw passed under clause 1(1)(e).
"Exception
"(2) Subsection (1) does not relieve the person of liability in respect of a tort."
The Chair: Any discussion of the amendment to section 4? Are we ready for a vote on the amendment?
Shall Mrs MacKinnon's amendment to section 4 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 5 and 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, Mr Gulinski and Mr Griffiths. I particularly want to commend you for making the effort to come and present your issues. Thank you, Mr Heil, Mr Kruger and Mr Hansen.
Mr Perruzza: Can I move adjournment, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1241.