MISSISSAUGA REAL ESTATE BOARD ACT, 1992
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 July 1992
Mississauga Real Estate Board Act, 1992, Bill Pr46
Murray Box, counsel, Mississauga Real Estate Board
Bikur Cholim Act, 1992, Bill Pr48
Steve Shulman, counsel, Bikur Cholim
Jack Horsley, senior solicitor, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
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)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Wilson
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem /Greffière par intérim: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel
Klein, Susan A., legislative counsel
The committee met at 1005 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.
MISSISSAUGA REAL ESTATE BOARD ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr46, An Act to revive the Mississauga Real Estate Board.
The Chair: Margaret Marland will be presenting Bill Pr46, An Act to revive The Mississauga Real Estate Board.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Thank you. Good morning, Mr Chairman. We have with us Mr Murray Box from Pallett, Valo, who will answer any questions you have on the bill. It is a routine bill to revive the Mississauga Real Estate Board.
Mr Murray Box: In the spring of 1986 the board moved its offices and didn't update its records with the ministry, so when the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations sent out notices, which it does to corporations every four years or so, the board didn't receive one and, as a result, didn't file the notice with the ministry and was subsequently dissolved in due course. That wasn't discovered until May of this year when we were retained to do some work for them. We discovered that they had been dissolved in 1987 and since we were beyond five years, the only way in which to have the board revived was to apply for the passage of a private member's bill.
The Chair: Any questions? Are we ready for a vote?
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
BIKUR CHOLIM ACT, 1992
Consideration of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim.
The Chair: I'm sure we can proceed in the absence of Mr Cordiano, Mr Shulman, if you'd join us at the table.
As the committee will recall, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim was before us last week and has been before. I understand we have amendments, which substantively address the problems that arose during our hearings last week, that have been circulated and have not as yet been moved.
Mr Mills moves that sections 1, 2 and 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Tax exemption
"1(1) Despite parts VIII and XVII of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, the council of the corporation of the city of North York may pass bylaws exempting from taxation other than local improvement rates, for municipal purposes of the corporation and for or in respect of school purposes, the land as defined in the Assessment Act, owned and occupied by Bikur Cholim, being the land and the premises described in the schedule, so long as the land is owned, occupied and used solely for the purposes of Bikur Cholim.
"Condition
"(2) An exemption granted under subsection (1) may be subject to such conditions as may be set out in the bylaw.
"Direction re tax exemption
"(3) Despite parts VIII and XVII of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, if land is exempted from municipal and school taxation under subsection (1), the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto may by resolution direct the corporation of the city of North York to exempt that land from taxation for the purposes of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
"Delivery of resolution
"(4) The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto shall forward a copy of the resolution to the corporation of the city of North York.
"Further tax exemption
"(5) When it receives a copy of the resolution, the corporation of the city of North York shall by bylaw exempt the land from taxation for the purposes of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
"Obligations on clerk
"(6) Upon the passing of a bylaw under this section, the clerk of the corporation of the city of North York,
"(a) shall notify the assessment commissioner of the contents of the bylaw; and
"(b) shall cancel all or part of the taxes levied on the exempted land from the 1st day of January, 1991, in accordance with the bylaw made under this section.
"Re cancellation of taxes
"(7) The provisions of section 421 of the Municipal Act apply with necessary modifications to taxes cancelled under clause 1(6)(b).
"Effect of exemption
"(8) The treasurer of the corporation of the city of North York may strike from the roll taxes that are exempted by reason of a bylaw passed under this section.
"Effect of exemption
"(9) An exemption of land under this act is not considered to be an exemption under section 3 of the Assessment Act.
"Retroactive bylaw or resolution
"2. A bylaw or resolution passed under section 1 may be made retroactive to the lst day of January, 1991."
Mr Steve Shulman: I just have one point to make before the vote takes place. We are in agreement with everything in this bill. The only thing there's a problem with, from our standpoint, is the retroactivity section.
The Chair: There's a further amendment.
Mr Shulman: Yes.
The Chair: It would be an amendment to the amendment, which I'm sure will be moved by someone, which addresses those concerns.
Do we have anyone moving that amendment?
Mr Eddy moves that the motion made by Mr Mills be amended as follows:
1. In clause 1(6)(b), strike out "1991" and substitute "1990."
2. In section 2, strike out "1991" and substitute "1990."
We will deal with the amendment to the amendment first. Discussion?
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would just like to inform the committee and the other folks here that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is opposed to this amendment and I won't be supporting it.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Could I ask the reason? Maybe it's clear, but Mr Mills's amendment is providing for retroactivity to January 1991. This provides for one additional year.
Mr Mills: It's an exception to the retroactivity that's normal. You're going back to when the bill was introduced and no further.
Mr Eddy: I have a copy of the London-Middlesex bill that I've been reviewing, which provides for retroactivity. It's a draft bill. It hasn't been introduced yet. Well, yes, it has been given first reading.
The Sunday shopping issue certainly, when legislation eventually is presented, I would think it will be necessary to provide for retroactivity prior to the introduction of the bill.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Mills: I'd just like to add for your information that for tax exemptions we've not done this before.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Shulman, would you like to comment?
Mr Shulman: Yes. First of all, I'd like to say that on behalf of Bikur Cholim we appreciate the efforts of this committee to sit here for a third time to try to get something done. That's certainly appreciated on behalf of the organization.
In terms of retroactivity, I think I made the points -- and sometimes the members here change -- as to why we're going back to 1990 in our initial request for retroactivity in that although this may be -- and I'll take your word for it that it's an exception to go back one year. The reason the organization is requesting this is that it actually commenced its efforts in 1990 to try to get an exemption under the Assessment Act and it realized without legal help at that time that it was going the wrong way. In 1991, efforts to move in this direction began and the advertising in fact began in 1991.
As well, the effect on this organization's finances -- they have been told absolutely that there's no possibility of that exemption for 1990 -- would be very difficult to say the least and I don't think I have to go into that again. Miss Elzas, the coordinator, was here last week.
As you stated, Mr Mills, it's not unprecedented to have retroactivity; it's just a matter of going back one prior year. As well, the unique nature of this bill is that both Metropolitan Toronto and North York have the say in terms of their own taxes, so ultimately it will be in their discretion. This committee is not putting any obligation on either of those two bodies to say yes to 1990; it's only permissive. So instead of this committee saying absolutely you can only go back to 1991, since it would be consistent with this committee's concern not to put any obligation not to make decisions for municipalities, to give the municipalities the option.
One further point: In every version of this draft that North York has received notice of, the retroactivity went to 1990. There's not been an objection from North York on that basis. As well, Mr Horsley is here today and Mr Horsley can speak to it, but he indicated to me that on behalf of Metro he would not be opposed to the 1990 language in this bill because it is only permissive; it does not place an obligation on Metro. Those are my submissions in that regard.
The Chair: Mr Horsley, any comments on the amendment to the amendment?
Mr Jack Horsley: I have no problem with it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Eddy?
Mr Eddy: If I may a second time have a final word, Mr Chair, thank you. I think the important point here is that it's enabling legislation. It enables the municipal councils to decide on the matter.
The Chair: Further comments on the amendment to the amendment? Are we then ready for a vote on the amendment to the amendment? All in favour? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: On to Mr Mills's amendment. Mr Horsley? Comments on the amendment?
Mr Horsley: I have no objection to the amendment. In fact it's consistent, I think, with what I said last time.
The Chair: Thank you. Any discussion on the amendment? Are we ready for a vote then? All in favour of Mr Mills's amendment?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Passed unanimously. Are we then ready for a vote on the bill?
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Fee-waiving motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much, Mr Shulman, for spending so much time to deal with this issue. I know it's been out of your own courtesy and not out of a remuneration.
Mr Shulman: Thank you for your time.
The Chair: We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1021.