KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993
AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993
P.O.I.N.T. INCORPORATED ACT, 1993
KITCHENER-WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT, 1993
CRUICKSHANK ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRE ACT, 1993
CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK
CONTENTS
Wednesday 16 June 1993
Korean Canadian Cultural Association Act, 1993, Bill Pr5
David Johnson, MPP
Samuel Hahn, past president, Korean Canadian Cultural Association
Val Ornoy, legal counsel, Korean Canadian Cultural Association
Aga Ming Property Owners Association Act, 1993, Bill Pr17
David Johnson, MPP
Ian Mead, vice-president, Aga Ming Property Owners Association
P.O.I.N.T Incorporated Act, 1993, Bill Pr37
Dianne Poole, MPP
John Hodgson, legal counsel, P.O.I.N.T Incorporated
Kitchener-Waterloo Foundation Act, 1993, Bill Pr14
Elizabeth Witmer, MPP
John Panabaker, president, Kitchener-Waterloo Foundation
Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre Act, 1993, Bill Pr88
Ellen MacKinnon, MPP
Wayne Beaton, solicitor, Township of Moore
City of North York Act, 1993, Bill Pr74
Anthony Perruzza, MPP
Irvin Schachter, solicitor, City of North York
Nick Spensieri, director, North York Parking Authority
Mary Ellen Bench, director of legal services, City of Toronto
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
*Chair / Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)
*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
*Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
O'Neil, Hugh P. (Quinte L)
*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Fletcher
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr Mills
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
Melville, Tom, legal counsel, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Clerk / Greffière: Pajeska, Donna
Staff / Personnel:
Klein, Susan, legislative counsel
Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 0936 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): I'd like to call the meeting to order.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The committee.
The Chair: Well, it says "meeting." I have a cheat sheet here and it says "meeting," so I'm reading it as it is. But it is the committee and I welcome you all. Ellen, I would ask you to actually stand down for just a very few minutes. We're waiting for the legislative counsel, who has the amendments for your particular bill --
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Oh, all right.
The Chair: -- to actually get here. So if I could ask you and Wayne to move to the side.
KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993
Consideration of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association.
The Chair: We will start with Pr17, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association, if Mr Johnson and the applicants for the bill could please take their places.
Interjection: You said "Pr17." It's Pr5.
The Chair: Oh, sorry. Let me correct that. It's Pr5.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Okay, are you all set, Madam Chairman?
The Chair: Let me just -- okay. So, Mr Johnson, if you would be so kind.
Mr David Johnson: This is Bill Pr5, the Korean --
The Chair: Dave, if you would then just introduce the people who are with you as the applicants.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, that's what I'm about to do.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr David Johnson: They're from the Korean Canadian Cultural Association. On my right is Mr Val Ornoy, who is the legal counsel from Otis and Korman, barristers and solicitors, and on his right is the former president of the Korean Canadian Cultural Association, Mr Sam Hahn. They've applied for special legislation to exempt certain lands and premises from taxation for municipal and school purposes.
The Chair: Thank you. Do you have any other opening remarks to make at this time?
Mr David Johnson: No, I think that covers my opening remarks, but I know that Mr Hahn and Mr Ornoy would be prepared to expand or answer any questions.
The Chair: Then if the applicants would please make their presentation. So either Mr Hahn or Mr Ornoy, if you would make your presentation.
Mr Samuel Hahn: Good morning, Chair. My name is Sam Hahn. I'm representing the Korean Canadian Cultural Association. The association has been in operation for the past 20 years. Our major function is to provide family and social services to the people who are living in the community. The community centre is located in North York. In our tabulation, you will see the activities and functions of the association. We do operate the community centre and that's the focal point of today's meeting. The services of our community centre are open to all the general public, and the facilities, again, are open to the general public. It's used on a first come, first served basis.
Briefly, we were struggling to get this exemption passed for about 10 years. The fact is, the other community centres in North York, where we are located, I think have been exempted from the property tax for 10 or 15 years, such as the Latvian, which is a few steps away from our centre, and we have another few minutes' walk leading to the Japanese centre. Again, there's the Columbus Centre for the Italian community and so on, so there are a lot of community centres in North York, but unfortunately somehow we were not lucky to get this one being done 10 years ago. I tried for the past six years to get this done. The story's long, but I hope today it will be done with your support.
The Chair: Mr Ornoy, did you have any other comments to make?
Mr Val Ornoy: In general, other than the brief description that you heard regarding the facilities and the functions of the centre as well, basically what we're trying to do here is not new or ground-breaking in any sense. I'm sure you're aware of all the precedents that we have before us, most recently, the Bikur Cholim bill which was passed very recently.
The whole idea is that there is an association which operates the centre. This centre is open to the public. There are many, many services which are provided, and I believe in the compendium there's a full list of services, which I'm sure you'll see are quite wide-ranging in their effect. There are many other areas of the community and many other groups in the community that make full use of the facilities on a regular basis, and I think that's something that has to be considered as well.
As far as the various criteria that were put forth in the consideration of previous bills of this nature, basically, like Mr Hahn said, the centre has been around for roughly 20 years. They are a registered charity, which is a main factor here as well. The premises which we're talking about at 20 Mobile Drive are wholly owned and used solely for the purpose of the centre, and also a main consideration here is the fact that North York city council has passed a resolution accepting this proposal and supporting the exemption as well. So I think those are three criteria that need to be considered carefully.
The Chair: Thank you. I was just slightly distracted there by some comments.
Mr Ornoy: Should I repeat any of what I --
The Chair: No, that's fine. In fact, since I really can't ask you any questions, it's much more important that you make your comments for the members sitting here and that they're able to ask questions based on your comments.
I would at this point turn to the parliamentary assistant for Municipal Affairs, Mr Hayes, to ask if he has any comments.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object to this application. However, we feel that the retroactivity of the application should begin in January 1993 and not go back further. That's our recommendation.
Mr Ornoy: If I may comment on that, the original application that the association began was back in 1991. At that point there was a certain legislative policy in effect at that time which we did comply with, and we did follow the precedents that were in effect at that time. However, there were policy changes made during that year and basically our application at that point wasn't in effect once these policy changes were made.
We subsequently have revised it, following the current precedents, and basically what has happened is that through a whole series of political manoeuvring and political adjustment, this process has taken the better part of two years. But we had no control over any of that process. We were just basically following the steps that we were required to follow at the time that we were required to follow them. So I think we have followed and done everything we were supposed to do at the time that we were supposed to do it, and we've complied with every step in the proper manner. However, as I mentioned, there were things that took place that were out of our control and those extended the time period.
Even though we started this application back in 1991, we're willing to sort of come to a median point in this particular point and go back to January 1992 and that's our request, that even though we started the application in 1991 the retroactivity period start in January 1992.
The Chair: Thank you. I know that the members themselves will have some questions, and I see that there's at least one question coming forward. I would at this point, however, ask if there are any other interested parties who would like to make any comments on the bill that is before us. Seeing none, I will turn to Mr Eddy.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question was regarding section 3 and the retroactivity. What is the position of the council of North York on the matter of retroactivity to January 1, 1992?
Mr Ornoy: As far as I know, there was no opposition. They basically had passed the resolution, the original resolution approving this exemption, back in 1990. So my understanding is that since the resolution was passed in 1990, which was just around the time when we originally started our application, there would be no opposition from North York. Since they approved the application in principle and they were prepared to exempt us back in 1990, my understanding is there wouldn't be any opposition from North York.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, did you want to continue?
Mr Eddy: Is there anything on file from the council of North York regarding this matter?
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you have any comments?
Mr Eddy: It's specifically on the matter of the retroactivity again.
Mr Hayes: North York has passed a resolution of support, yes.
Mr Eddy: Thank you.
Mrs MacKinnon: My concern also was in regard to section 3, the retroactivity of it. January 1992 for retroactivity seems a bit excessive to me. I didn't catch what Mr Hayes said in regard to the position of North York.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, could you repeat that?
Mr Hayes: Yes. North York has passed a resolution in support of this application.
Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you. Is that binding on us?
Mr Hayes: No, not necessarily. It's just saying that they do support it, that's all.
Mrs MacKinnon: The retroactivity?
Mr Hayes: They support the request in the bill.
Mrs MacKinnon: Okay. Thanks.
Mr Hansen: I didn't read in here -- maybe I skipped over -- what the amount of taxes would be involved in this. I see on -- I don't think they're numbered -- page 3, which shows the financial statements for 1991 showing a loss of $26,222. I imagine why you're applying for this is that you're in a losing position with the services that you are giving to the community.
Mr Ornoy: Absolutely.
Mr Hansen: Maybe you can explain that to the members a little bit.
Mr Ornoy: Roughly, we stand in a position where the taxes, I believe, are about $11,000 a year. Basically, for the last couple of years -- I mean, I don't have to explain to anybody what the recession has been like for people -- the association and the membership in general relied only on public funding, on donations, fund-raising, things like that.
At any time when you undergo a recession as severe as we've had for the last three years, you're going to see a dramatic drop in the contributions that the association gets. That's understandable, and that has been monitored and it's been a very dramatic decrease. As a result, there have been cutbacks on services already, which the association was simply unable to avoid. Having to pay these taxes now is simply going to mean that a further reduction in services is going to be inevitable.
0950
As it is right now, most of the people who are working at the centre are volunteers, but there are many, many services which require funds, and these services have been cut back already. They've been cut back a lot more than anybody would have liked, but up to now we've had simply no choice because the reduction in the funding that we've received has been quite dramatic over the last two to three years. So having this extra burden of these taxes imposed is going to definitely mean a very substantial decrease in the services that remain.
Mr Hansen: So the services that you're providing actually can't be bought for that kind of price by the municipality with the 440 volunteers that are working in the programs. So it is a cost saving, in the long run, for the municipality.
Mr Ornoy: Oh, absolutely.
Mr Hansen: I'll support this bill.
The Chair: Any further questions from the members? Seeing none, I'd like to ask the members if they are ready to vote.
Mr Eddy: Ready.
The Chair: Very good. Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Mr Hansen: I'd like to make a motion, Madam Chair.
I move that the committee recommend that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All those in favour, please signify. Motion carried.
Mr Johnson, before you go, if you have another one you want to do.
AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993
Consideration of Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association.
Mr David Johnson: This is Bill Pr17, and I am joined by Mr Ian Mead, who is the vice-president of the Aga Ming Property Owners Association.
The comments that I would make I guess are contained on the inside of the bill. They've applied for special legislation to revive the Aga Ming Property Owners Association. The corporation was dissolved under the Corporations Act on September 8, 1982, for default in complying with the Corporations Information Act.
I believe there was a solicitor involved at the time and the papers went into a black hole, I think --
The Chair: This has been known to happen before.
Mr David Johnson: -- as Mr Mead has indicated. Otherwise they would certainly have kept up, but there was just a lack of information flowing to them.
With those comments, Mr Mead may wish to embellish.
Mr Ian Mead: Just to give you a bit of background on the association, it all started back in 1970 when a group of us purchased some properties on a peninsula on Crane Lake. At that time, it was intended that there would be a road to the peninsula and that we would have access via road.
A few years later it was established by the developer that the road would not be forthcoming, and he had a chunk of property and a dockage area that he had put up for our use in the interim. We approached the developer and asked him if we could buy it or whatever so that we would have continued, close access to our properties on the peninsula. He agreed basically to give us the properties and the dockage but it had to go into an association, hence the formation of Aga Ming association.
We thereafter took over the maintenance of the area and the paying of the taxes, insurance etc. However, we were, I'd have to say, very naïve and very ignorant of the process of what has to happen with an association on a year-to-year basis. Hence, we had a lawyer at the time who really got out of the lawyering business and into some speculative real estate business. All the documentation, we understand, went to the lawyer and, as I said, into some black hole, obviously. Again, we were ignorant and naïve and we didn't even know that we had to even worry about this thing.
The company was dissolved in 1982, but we really didn't know about this until a couple of years ago.
I guess it was getting together with the concerned parties on the lake last summer and creating enough anxiety and interest that we need to get this thing settled and put it back in place.
The Chair: I think the members who are part of this committee have heard similar stories before and undoubtedly will commiserate but, at the same time, they may also have some questions, so I will ask if there are any questions from the members at this point.
Mr Hansen: I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant first.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you have any comments?
Mr Hayes: I'm very pleased you'd like to hear from me. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objections to Bill Pr17.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties who may be in the audience who would like to come forward to express their concerns or support with regard to Pr17?
Mr Hansen: I would like to move that we get on with this bill. It seems to be that it's something that has just been overlooked by the association -- and we've had other presenters also -- and not to take too much time with this committee so we can get this bill passed.
The Chair: I believe that we can say that the members are prepared to vote on Pr17.
All those in favour of clauses 1 through 3, please indicate. Agreed.
Shall the preamble carry? Agreed.
Shall the bill carry? Agreed.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thanks very much to you all. It was a lot of hard work. Thank you very much, Mr Mead, for your contribution, and Mr Johnson.
P.O.I.N.T. INCORPORATED ACT, 1993
Consideration of Bill Pr37, An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated.
The Chair: We would like to call forward Ms Poole and Mr Hodgson, please. Dianne, if you would introduce the applicant.
Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to introduce to committee members John Hodgson from the firm of Blake Cassels.
The Chair: Very good. Any opening comments from you, and then Mr Hodgson?
Ms Poole: I will be very brief but I would like to familiarize committee members with P.O.I.N.T. It is an organization in North Toronto called People and Organizations in North Toronto. Their charitable endeavours have ensured that many services for our community in North Toronto would be there.
For instance, they were the motivators and the inspirers and the workers who ensured we had a new recreational community centre, a new health station which serves seniors, adolescents and women. They've been involved in social housing projects and they are truly a fine organization in north Toronto that has served our community well.
Being a community organization, it is of course primarily staffed by volunteers. That being the case, they aren't always cognizant of some of the filings that must be required to keep their incorporated charter. I believe Mr Hodgson would have a few comments.
Mr John Hodgson: P.O.I.N.T. was incorporated in 1974 and, as Mrs Poole has indicated, it has been a very effective force of volunteers continuously right through this, including now. Unfortunately, they did not spend sufficient time looking after their change of address and the notices from the department did not reach them. So when I courteously provided a search of their status, we put the board into somewhat of a shock to discover that they had not existed corporately for something like 12 years.
It was of course an involuntary mistake, and what they are doing, what they have established themselves as doing in the community, is extremely significant, and I'm happy to say that the public trustee, in my understanding, agrees with this application.
1000
The Chair: Very good. Are there any other interested parties who are in the audience who would like to come forward and either support or object to Pr37 going forward? Seeing none, I would turn to the parliamentary --
Mr Hansen: This is the same bill, in a sense, as the last one, which Mr Johnson put forward. I think we can save the time of the committee and the applicants here, if the parliamentary assistant will have his say first.
Mr Hayes: Well, I thought you'd like to hear from me.
Mr Hansen: If he agrees, I think we can get on with it.
The Chair: I was just going to turn to him, Mr Hansen. Mr Hayes, do you have any words here?
Mr Hayes: I don't know what you'd do without Mr Hansen's assistance, but that's okay.
The Chair: He's an asset to the committee.
Mr Hayes: He is. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no objections to this application.
The Chair: Do the members have any other questions? No. So let us move to the vote. All those in favour of the vote? Yes, you're in favour of the vote.
All those in favour of sections 1 through 3 carrying, please signify. Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Mr Eddy: I move that the committee recommend that the fees, and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr37, An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? The motion is carried.
Ms Poole: I thank the committee very much for your indulgence and for ensuring that we continue to have the fine services of P.O.I.N.T. in north Toronto.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Poole and Mr Hodgson. Ms Witmer and Mr Panabaker, please.
KITCHENER-WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT, 1993
Consideration of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to be here this morning and introduce to you the president of the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation, Mr John Panabaker. We are introducing today An Act respecting The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.
The Chair: Any further comments other than introducing your guest?
Mrs Witmer: I will just make a few other comments. I would just like to indicate to you that this is an independent organization, and the foundation over the past number of years has made an outstanding contribution to improving the quality of life for the individuals in my community. Money is put into a fund and it is redistributed in grants to various cultural, educational and community and social organizations. I can certainly tell you that there have been many, many groups that have benefited from the money that has been made available in the foundation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Mr Panabaker, if you would make some comments.
Mr John Panabaker: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the information of members of the committee, I might just briefly outline what has been accomplished by the foundation.
We were established under an act of this Legislature in 1984, which was amended I believe in 1988, as a non-profit organization to build a permanent fund of capital, the income from which could be distributed in grants flexibly to the communities of Kitchener and Waterloo and the surrounding areas.
The foundation started with just over $100,000 and its assets are now in the order of $2.7 million. Last year, through gifts and bequests, we raised just under $500,000 dollars and distributed about $188,000 in grants to various community organizations.
Over the last number of years, we have discovered some technical and administrative problems that have made our act a little difficult to work with and the bill that you have before you today is an attempt to rectify those administrative problems.
I would be happy, Madam Chair, to respond to any questions the members of the committee have.
The Chair: I know that the members will be anxious to ask any questions, but I'm first going to ask if there is anyone in the audience who has any concerns or objections to this bill and if they'd like to raise them at this point. Seeing none, I will first of all turn to the parliamentary assistant. Any comments from Municipal Affairs on this, Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objections to this bill.
The Chair: Are there any questions from the members of the committee at this point?
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Just a brief comment. I know that quite a while ago Ms Witmer brought up a resolution in the House to get the signage on Highway 401 changed to "Kitchener and Waterloo" in recognition of what's happening in our community: Our labour council is now the Waterloo Regional Labour Council and, as was mentioned in the compendium, the chamber of commerce is now the Kitchener and Waterloo Chamber of Commerce. These are the things that are happening in the community, and it's good to see that somebody's on top of it and bringing legislation forward at an appropriate time rather than 10 years later. I commend you for the work you've done in the community and for keeping on top of your legislation.
Mr Panabaker: Thank you. The legislation was becoming very difficult to work with, as you can appreciate.
Mr Eddy: As a member also representing part of the region of Waterloo, I must also add my commendation to the applicants and acknowledge their excellent good work.
The Chair: Mr Hansen, did you have a few comments?
Mr Hansen: I was just going to say that the composition of the nominating committee is the mayor of Kitchener, the mayor of Waterloo, the president of the chamber of commerce -- it looks like you've involved all the people in Kitchener-Waterloo, so I have no problem supporting this bill.
Mr David Johnson: It only raises the question that we consider adding the local member of provincial Parliament.
Mr Eddy: The problem is that there are four.
The Chair: Yes, they would have to bring a few people on board. Maybe Mr Panabaker and his group can take back and give it due consideration for the next round of amendments.
Seeing the lack of questions and definitely a lot of laudatory remarks, which are probably well earned, I would suggest that we are prepared to vote. Any objection to continuing with the vote?
Seeing none, I would ask if the members are in agreement that 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.
Mr David Johnson: I have a motion that the committee recommend that the fees and the extra cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill 14, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.
The Chair: Any comments or questions on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? The motion is carried.
Mr Panabaker: Thank you very much.
CRUICKSHANK ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRE ACT, 1993
Consideration of Bill Pr88, An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.
The Chair: Ellen, if you'd like to take your place. Ellen, is the applicant Mr Tennyson here?
Mrs MacKinnon: The applicant is Moore township, and Wayne Beaton is going to represent it, not Mr Tennyson.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I take great pleasure in presenting An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre, Bill Pr88. Wayne will speak on behalf of this particular centre.
Mr Wayne Beaton: The bill is very self-explanatory. As you can see, it's to request a tax exemption for the elderly persons centre at the Cruickshank centre in Corunna, Ontario, in the township of Moore.
The Chair: Is there anyone else in the audience who has any concerns or objections to this bill? I would ask them to come forward at this time. Seeing none, Mr Hayes, as the parliamentary assistant, do you have any comments to make?
Mr Hayes: No, we do not. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objection to this bill, providing that certain amendments will be introduced.
1010
The Chair: Do the members have any comments or questions to make on Pr88?
Mr Hansen: I have some amendments to be moved afterwards, if there are any questions.
The Chair: I take it that as there are no questions we can move to the vote. Any objection to going forward with the vote?
Seeing none, shall section 1 carry?
Mr Hansen: I have a motion to be moved under subsection 1(1).
I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Tax exemption
"1(1) The council of the corporation of the township of Moore may pass bylaws exempting from taxes for municipal and school purposes, other than local improvement rates, the land, as defined in the Assessment Act, owned by the Moore Presbyterian Foundation, being the land and premises described in the schedule, so long as the land is owned by the Moore Presbyterian Foundation, used consistently with its objects and occupied and used solely for the purposes of the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre."
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? If there are no comments on this particular amendment as put forward, all those in favour of the amendment as read? Carried.
Mr Hansen: Also under section 1, adding subsections (4), (5) and (6):
I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Limitation
"(4) No exemption shall be granted under subsection (1) in respect of land used for a commercial purpose even if that commercial purpose has a cultural or recreational aspect to it.
"Notification
"(5) Upon the passing of a bylaw under this act, the clerk of the corporation of the township of Moore,
"(a) shall notify the assessment commissioner of the contents of the bylaw; and
"(b) shall cancel the taxes levied on the exempted land from the effective date of the bylaw to the date on which the assessment roll is revised in respect of the land exempted by the bylaw.
"Limitation
"(6) The area of land that may be exempted under subsection (1) shall not exceed 13,000 square feet."
Mr Eddy: I have a question about subsection (4); I'd like the response of the applicant to the wording of subsection (4). I'm not sure whether it creates a problem or not. It sounds to me that it could, in view of the fact that a cultural or recreational facility might have a commercial aspect -- I realize this is turning the wording around a little bit -- in connection therewith on occasion. Maybe it doesn't cause a problem, but I'd like the applicant to respond, if they wouldn't mind.
The Chair: Mr Beaton, do you have any comments to make?
Mr Beaton: I really don't foresee any problem with that because there's no way it's going to be used in a commercial purpose whatsoever.
Mr David Johnson: Following up on Mr Eddy's comments, this is a seniors residence, and sometimes such residences might have a craft centre or something like that where goods might be sold. Would this exclude such an arrangement? I don't know who to ask that of.
Mr Beaton: This particular centre really does not have craft sales. Basically they make crafts to take to different areas in the community such as church bazaars, things like that. But to actually have a craft sale in this particular facility, they do not use it for that.
Mr David Johnson: Maybe to legislative counsel or whoever I can ask the question of here, if in the future they wanted to have a craft sale on the premises, would that be excluded?
Mr Tom Melville: I don't believe it would be. Ordinarily with non-profit corporations, you can have ancillary commercial carryings-on.
Mr David Johnson: Then can I just ask, on subsection (6), the limitation to 13,000 square feet, why it was felt necessary to put something like that in?
Mr Melville: First of all, the applicant has agreed to these changes. I'll point that out. I believe that the reason for that is that the elderly persons centre is contained within a larger residential complex, so it was necessary to limit the area subject to the tax exemption.
The Chair: Very good. Seeing no further questions on the motion before you, all those in favour? That's carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 2 and 3 carry? Carried.
Ms Mathyssen, I believe you indicated that you have an amendment.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I move that the bill be amended by adding the following schedule:
"The land situate in the former village of Corunna in the township of Moore in the county of Lambton, and being composed of part of lot 63, front concession, and known municipally as 198 Beckwith Street, Corunna, Ontario."
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All those in favour of the motion? The motion is carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?
Mr Hansen, did you have an additional motion?
Mr Hansen: 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 Pr88, An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All those in favour of the motion? Carried.
Thank you, Ellen and Wayne.
Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you very much, committee members and Madam Chair.
1020
CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK
Consideration of Bill Pr74, An Act respecting the City of North York / Loi concernant la cité de North York.
The Chair: Now we will ask Mr Perruzza, Mr Shachter, Mr Spensieri. Anthony, would you introduce your guests and the applicants. You would then be able to make some opening remarks and then they in turn will be making remarks.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Good morning. With me are Irvin Shachter -- I believe he's the solicitor representing the city of North York -- and Nick Spensieri, who is with the parking authority for the city of North York.
Before you today you have a bill, the purpose of this bill which is essentially to allow the corporation of the city of North York to increase the number of members of the parking authority from three to a maximum of five. The bill would also enable the city to pass bylaws authorizing the parking authority to enter into agreements with any person to maintain and to operate and manage parking facilities outside of the city of North York boundaries. That's essentially what the intent is.
The Chair: Mr Shachter or Mr Spensieri, if you have any comments to make, please introduce yourself first for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Irvin Shachter: Good morning. My name is Irvin Shachter. I'm with the legal department of the city of North York. I'm here on behalf of the parking authority of the city of North York with respect to Bill Pr74.
If I may make a few brief comments, just a little bit of background with respect to the parking authority, it was established by bylaw 30848 in May 1990. In September 1990, the bylaw was amended by bylaw 31295 to further clarify the powers and authorities of the particular parking authority. Since 1989, the parking authority of North York has been established and has been operating within the city of North York.
Within its mission statement, the mission of the parking authority of North York is to provide the highest level of parking facilities within the city and to provide for parking facilities for the residents of the city.
We are here before you today with respect to Bill Pr74, the effect of which is really to do three things.
The first is to increase the board of the parking authority from three members to five, to provide for broader representation.
The second matter is to provide for authority for the parking authority to enter into agreements with private individuals. As you are aware, the Municipal Act constrains parking authorities from operating facilities that are not municipal facilities. It is the desire of the parking authority at this juncture to have the authority to enter into and provide parking management for private entities on a requested basis.
For example, a building that would be interested in having the parking authority use its expertise to manage the parking at that particular building could conceivably come to the parking authority, enter into an agreement and the parking authority would manage that particular building.
You may or may not be aware that the city of Toronto has since 1988, I believe it is, had private legislation which gives them the authority to enter into private agreements with individuals in the city of Toronto. I should correct myself: It's actually Bill Pr9, chapter 22, Statutes of Ontario, 1985. It received royal assent December 18, 1985. It has been working in the city of Toronto for that period of time.
The bill does one further thing. It also authorizes the parking authority of North York to enter into parking agreements with private entities outside of the boundaries of the city of North York. Again, the difficulty with this particular matter is that, as you are probably aware, the city is constrained by the provision under the Municipal Act, I believe section 101, which only permits a municipality, and also as a result a parking authority, to exercise its powers within the jurisdiction of the geographical boundaries of the city of North York. We are requesting that the authorization be given through this bill to enter into the agreements outside of the city.
One example I can give that Mr Spensieri has brought to my attention recently was that Seneca College has requested a bid from the parking authority of North York for the parking authority to operate parking management for all of its lots. It comes as a one-tender package. It involves seven lots, all of the various Seneca College lots. The difficulty is that there are two small Seneca lots outside of the jurisdiction of the city of North York. The parking authority is unable, because of that, to bid for operation of all the lots.
It's for those reasons that we are here before you today. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Very good. I do have to ask if there are any other interested parties at this point who would like to come forward. I believe we have Dennis Perlin.
Ms Mary Ellen Bench: I'm here on behalf of Dennis Perlin. My name is Mary Ellen Bench, director of legal services for the city of Toronto. I have a written submission. When the president of the parking authority, Norris Zucchet, arrives I will have him sign the copies, but you'll have the original fully executed. He was tied up in another meeting and should be here momentarily.
Basically, the position of the city of Toronto is in support of the legislation as currently drafted. The city of Toronto and the parking authority of the city of Toronto originally asked to be present at this proceeding because of a concern with respect to the operation of private parking facilities outside of the city of North York. The legislation as originally drafted did not have a requirement that the consent of the municipality be required, and that was the main concern. That has been addressed in Pr74, as it's been amended. For instance, if the parking authority of North York wanted to operate parking facilities in the city of Toronto, the consent of the city of Toronto would be required by the new amendment. As long as that consent is required, then the city of Toronto and the parking authority of Toronto do not have objections.
The Chair: Very good. Are there any questions on the part of the members?
Mr Eddy: To follow up on that point, it would be the same with any adjoining municipality, is that correct?
Ms Bench: Yes, it would. It's broader than that. We've applied for the same kind of legislation with the same condition on it, so it would apply to any municipality. Mr Shachter has mentioned section 101 of the Municipal Act, which does restrict a municipality to its own boundaries.
Mr Eddy: I'm pleased that you mentioned the restrictions in the Municipal Act, because that's another thing that should be followed up. When amendments are coming on the Municipal Act before the Legislature, I think this is another one that we should broaden. Whenever you restrict a body to a certain number of things and don't provide broader legislation, you run into the need, as we've seen today, for private legislation. I think that's something we should follow up on, and broaden the legislation to allow any municipality that has a parking authority or may form one in the future to have such powers. But I am in agreement with the bill.
Mr David Johnson: Where does it say in the bill at present that it requires the agreement of the other municipality?
Mr Shachter: It's contained in the last sentence of subsection 2(1), in the section entitled "Agreements." Agreements will be "with the consent of the council of the appropriate municipality."
Mr David Johnson: Oh, with the consent of the council. I see; right there.
Mr Shachter: To go on from Mr Eddy's comment, that would include Richmond Hill. It isn't just Toronto and North York. It does include all municipalities.
Mr David Johnson: And obviously, you're in agreement with that clause?
Mr Shachter: That's correct, yes. We felt it was an appropriate restriction.
Mr David Johnson: It's interesting, the city of Toronto being here. The city of Toronto actually operates a parking operation in the borough of East York, but that was by mutual consent. I don't know if you're aware of that or not.
Ms Bench: No, I'm not. We're applying for the same legislation to operate outside. There is a provision in the Metro Toronto act that allows us to operate Metro facilities beyond our borders, so we do have more flexibility than other parking authorities at present.
The Chair: I would like to turn to Mr Hayes at this point and request if he has any comments on behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no objections to this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. You had indicated, Ms Bench, that you are waiting for another interested party to join us.
Ms Bench: Yes, Mr Norris Zucchet, who is the president of the parking authority. It's to be a jointly signed submission which was reviewed with Mr Zucchet. I was hoping to get his signature when he came in this morning. He's been delayed a little later than I thought. He should be here momentarily, but the concerns I've expressed are the same as his, basically that the city of Toronto has an opportunity to address the matter if the parking authority of North York wants to compete with the parking authority of Toronto.
The Chair: As he has not arrived, we really do have to continue. Any objections on behalf of the members to do that? Ron?
Mr Eddy: Madam Chair, in view of the fact that it is the same submission and that we have dealt with it and agreed to it, surely there isn't a problem.
Mr Hansen: His first name might be the same, but he had the same thoughts I had.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you for reading each others' minds an awful lot today. Anyway, are the members ready to 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.
The Chair: Very good. That's the exercise. Thank you for coming and for your submission.
Mr Shachter: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1030.