HAMILTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994
ONTARIO SOUTHLAND RAILWAY INC. ACT, 1994
CONTENTS
Wednesday 11 May 1994
Township of Tay Act, 1994, Bill Pr105, Mr Waters
Daniel Waters, MPP
Simon Chester, solicitor, Township of Tay
Hamilton Community Foundation Act, 1994, Bill Pr114, Mr Abel
Donald Abel, MPP
James Sweetlove, board member, Hamilton Community Foundation
Judith McCulloch, executive director, Hamilton Community Foundation
Ontario Southland Railway Inc. Act, 1994, Bill Pr100, Mr North
Peter North, MPP
Jeff Willsie, president, Ontario Southland Railway
County of Dufferin Act, 1994, Bill Pr109, Mr Tilson
David Tilson, MPP
Pat Kalapaca, warden, County of Dufferin
Patrick Moyle, chief administrative officer, Town of Orangeville
Patricia Sproule Ward, counsel, County of Dufferin
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)
Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton 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:
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr O'Neil
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Mills
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Goojha, Krishna, economist
Ministry of the Attorney General:
Fox, Larry, counsel
Moore, Eric, director, charitable property division, office of the public trustee
Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel:
Klein, Susan, legislative counsel
Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.
TOWNSHIP OF TAY ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr105, An Act respecting the Township of Tay.
The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills to order. Our first order of business is Bill Pr105, An Act respecting the Township of Tay. I'd ask the sponsor, Mr Dan Waters, local MPP, and Simon Chester, the solicitor for the township, to come forward. Mr Waters, could you make some opening comments and introduce the applicant, please.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'll make my opening comments very brief. This act is just a technical amendment, as we see it. Therefore, I will pass the mike over to my colleague, Mr Simon Chester, who is the solicitor for the township, to answer any technical questions that you might have.
Mr Simon Chester: I've got in the audience this morning Mr Ted Walker, who is the clerk, and Simone Lathan, who is the treasurer of the township of Tay. They would be available if you have any technical questions.
This is a small bill to solve a small problem. It's a problem that essentially relates to the process of approval of debenture financing of capital projects within Tay township.
In 1993, Tay constructed a sewage project for some $802,000. It's a small project, by the standards of many municipalities in Ontario; it was a fairly major project for Tay. That year, 1993, was a significant year in municipal finance. Up to 1993, long-term debenture financing had been subject to the project-by-project approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. In the time-honoured fashion that many municipal politicians will be familiar with, when the township of Tay passed its bylaws authorizing this project, it made them subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. That was the old regime for governing approval of capital projects. The OMB had to approve.
In 1993, however, a completely new regime came into force, one that involved debt and financial obligation limits. Instead of having to go to the Ontario Municipal Board on a case-by-case basis, now municipal treasurers had to calculate the debt and financial obligation limits. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs in effect said to them, "Provided that you can show us that the project is within your debt and financial obligation limits, you can proceed."
So we had an old regime -- OMB approval -- and a new regime which involved global limits. Unhappily, the township of Tay was caught in the middle. It passed the bylaws under the old regime, making the approval conditional on the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, but construction was not commenced until 1993. The municipal authorities had become familiar by that point with the new regime, the debt and financial obligation limits. They did their calculations. They saw that this was the only debt obligation of Tay township, that they were well within the limits, and they assumed that they could proceed.
Tenders were issued. The successful bidder was awarded the contract. The sewage project was built.
Unhappily, they now discover that they didn't have and couldn't now get the approval of the OMB, because the legislation has changed. This committee is charged by the Legislature with, in effect, curing a slight technical fix. I can assure you that under the old regime the OMB would likely not have held a hearing and would have approved a half-million-dollar project to debenture-finance sewage works, and under the new debt and financial obligation limits this is the only long-term debt obligation of Tay township. So we're on side under the old rules and we're on side under the new rules.
We come to this committee to approve private Bill 105, which does only two things. Firstly, it confirms a bylaw which gives the municipal authority power to commence and to build the sewage project. Secondly, it says, "And by the way, we deem you to have the approval of the OMB."
Technically, this is the only way that this problem can be solved. It's a minor transitional problem which will not come up again because now all municipalities are governed by the debt and financial obligation limits.
Fairly straightforward. The total debentures are for some half a million dollars. While it's large in the mind of the township of Tay, it's not large in the overall municipal finances of the province.
We'd be pleased to entertain any questions that the committee might have.
The Chair: My rules of order require me to ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to speak to this legislation. Seeing none present, I would ask Mr Hayes if he, on behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, would make some comment.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The bill has been reviewed by the municipal finance branch. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objections to this bill.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Will there be other municipalities? I know this isn't a fair question but I'm wondering -- perhaps to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the parliamentary assistant -- is this something we're going to find across the province, other municipalities caught in this same situation?
Mr Krishna Goojha: I am Krishna Goojha from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What I would say is that we don't foresee any other municipalities getting into this situation, because now it has been two years since this new regime has been in place. We have been monitoring the last couple of years and things seem to be moving smoothly.
The Chair: Very good. So they're the only one that got caught in the transition.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I don't have a question; I just express support for the application and the bill.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The government has no questions on this particular bill.
The Chair: Mr Chester, did I notice that you had something additional to add or was it just out of my peripheral vision that I noticed you moving your hand?
Mr Chester: I was just going to say that our firm has a fair amount of experience in municipal finance and we just wanted to confirm what Mr Goojha said: We're unaware of any other municipal authority that's got itself into this small technical problem. We don't anticipate that we'll be coming back to you on behalf of the municipality.
The Chair: Very good. It would appear that members are ready to vote. I put the question to you: Are you ready to vote? Yes.
Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Agreed.
Shall the preamble carry? Agreed.
Shall the title carry? Agreed.
Shall the bill carry? Agreed.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you to the members and thank you, Mr Chester. The deed is done.
HAMILTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation. I would ask Mr Abel to come before us, along with the applicants. Mr Abel, would you make some opening remarks and also introduce the applicants, please.
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): It's a pleasure to be here this morning to sponsor Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation. With me today to present their case are Judith McCulloch, the executive director; Bill Nelson, the past president of the foundation; and James Sweetlove, solicitor with Ross and McBride and also, I believe, a member of the board. I'll hand it over; I believe Jim is going to carry the ball.
Mr James Sweetlove: My remarks will be brief. The Hamilton Foundation's been in existence since 1954. It was set up under a bill at that time which was amended in 1980. Latterly, it became apparent that it was necessary to update the legislation in order to bring the legislation in line with the types of things that a community foundation wished to address itself to in this day and age. In the course of drafting those amendments and consultation with legislative counsel, it became apparent that we were probably better off to enact an entirely new bill and repeal the old bill, and that is the reason for the piece of legislation before you.
One of the major changes involves the change of the name to the Hamilton Community Foundation to reflect the current status of community foundations in Canada and to better reflect the true role of the foundation. A number of the other provisions that have been changed merely reflect an updating and technical changes. We'd be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that might arise in that regard.
The Chair: That was a very succinct presentation. I would ask at this point if there are any other interested parties who wish to come before us at this time. Seeing none, I would turn to Mr Hayes for any comments from the respective ministries.
Mr Hayes: This particular bill really does not affect the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. However, we do have representation from the Attorney General's office and the public trustee, Larry Fox and Eric Moore, and they would like to make a presentation of some of the concerns that their ministries have on this particular bill.
1020
Mr Larry Fox: My name is Larry Fox. I'm with the Ministry of the Attorney General.
I wish to comment on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General about paragraph 4(1)1 of the bill, which makes the senior judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) a member of the nominating committee.
The Ministry of the Attorney General objects to this paragraph because we have concerns about its implications for the judiciary. In our view, requests by judges for permission to engage in non-judicial duties of this kind should be handled on a case-by-case basis by those whose responsibility it is to manage the judiciary. Legislation stating that by virtue only of his or her office a judge should be expected to perform non-judicial functions may be perceived as compromising the independence of the judiciary.
The ministry appreciates that individual judges may wish to volunteer for such bodies and may be appointed for their personal qualities, not because of their office. However, by mandating the participation of the senior judge, subsection 4(1) may have the effect of imposing an undesirable or undesired non-judicial function on an individual judge.
While the present senior General Division judge in Hamilton may be willing to serve on a nominating committee, there's no guarantee that this commitment will be shared by future senior judges. Yet section 4 may create a public expectation that it is the responsibility of senior judges to assume this position.
As a practical matter, this may make it difficult within the local community for a judge to decline to serve on the committee regardless of his or her personal preferences. Similarly, there is no assurance that the Chief Justice will always be comfortable with the senior judge serving as a member of the committee. This provision may compromise the Chief Justice's freedom to make decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis.
The bill places the burden on the judiciary of explaining that a senior judge will not serve and, in a sense, interferes with the discretion of the Chief Justice to make decisions respecting the workload of judges.
For these reasons, the Ministry of the Attorney General recommends that the reference to the senior judge be removed from subsection 4(1).
There is a compromise solution that will allow the appointment of individual judges who wish to serve on the nominating committee and who are supported by the Chief Justice: Allow the nominating committee to choose another member.
Mr Eric Moore: I'm Eric Moore. I'm representing the office of the public trustee.
The public trustee is interested in this bill because of her role in connection with charitable property matters. The Hamilton Community Foundation is a charity, and the provisions of the bill relating to how it will be dealing with property and applying it therefore are of interest to the public trustee.
There are some technical amendments which I understand the applicants are agreeable to, and I would like to explain the reason for the necessity for those amendments to the committee.
Throughout the bill, the words "charitable, educational and cultural" or "charitable, educational or cultural" have been used, particularly in section 2, paragraphs 6 and 7 of section 6, subsections 10(1), 10(2), 10(4) and sections 13 and 16.
To the extent that educational and cultural purposes are charitable, those words are redundant. To the extent that they are intended not to be charitable, they would represent a diversion of charitable property to non-charitable purposes. Accordingly, we have requested, and I understand the applicants are agreeable to, amendments deleting those words.
In paragraph 4(1)6 of the bill, the members of the committee will find a reference to "United Way of Burlington, Hamilton-Wentworth." We have examined the existence of that organization and have discovered that it appears to be a style or name used by a charity that is incorporated as the Hamilton and District United Appeal. It is a technical amendment, and I understand this amendment is also agreeable to the applicants.
In subsection 10(3) of the bill, and that is the section dealing with the ability of the foundation to accept money from other charities and manage it on their behalf, the committee members will note that towards the end of that section, it provides that the foundation may, upon request of the organization from which it has received funds, return the funds to that organization.
We have suggested that the bill be amended so that the word "may" be replaced with "shall." The foundation's role is as a manager rather than as an owner of those moneys.
Finally, members of the committee will note that subsection 10(2) of the bill refers to the foundation disbursing funds to qualified donees as defined in the Income Tax Act. Qualified donees include many non-charitable organizations: municipalities, national amateur athletic organizations; all worthy, but not charitable. The public trustee has suggested, and again I understand the applicants are agreeable, that this wording should be replaced with "registered charities under the Income Tax Act." That will then avoid the possibility of charitable property being diverted to admittedly worthy but non-charitable purposes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Moore. I would now turn to Mr Fletcher, who had indicated he had a question.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): You're expanding from within Ontario to within Canada now. Is that part of the purpose of this?
Mr Sweetlove: Sometimes we find that when funds are to be expended they may be for a use, for instance, that's primarily within Ontario but some of the funds may be used outside Ontario for a particular purpose. We find that it's a little bit restrictive. Our main focus, of course, is the communities that this has been set up to serve: Hamilton, Wentworth and Burlington. Sometimes that spills over into Ontario, and occasionally you will get a request for funding where the funds are not going to be used exclusively within that area but some portion may be used outside Ontario.
Mr Fletcher: You mean if you get a request from Alberta for something, you may donate to that?
Mr Sweetlove: No. It's usually because the donor we're giving to may be an Ontario organization but may use some of its funds outside Ontario.
Mr Fletcher: What are the educational/cultural purposes? What are we talking about? I'm just trying to find out about your organization.
Mr Sweetlove: They could be very broad. They could be, for example, providing bursaries or scholarships, that sort of thing. The cultural things could be assisting in the putting on of cultural exhibits. It could be the full range of educational or cultural purposes.
Mr Fletcher: I notice that you have a special fund for the relief of persons or families who suffer from a lot of different things. Is that tornado relief, things like that, foreign aid?
Mr Sweetlove: We were talking about that on the way down this morning, because it had been raised by Mr Moore. I think the only time that has in fact been used was during the first phase of famine in Ethiopia and Somalia. A fund was set up in a local area with respect to that. I think that's the only time in the history of the organization that's in fact been used.
Mr Fletcher: I have a concern with the judge being there also. You have the president of the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, the chair of the council of the regional municipality and the mayor of Hamilton. Is this a committee or are they board members?
Mr Sweetlove: What we're talking about here in fact is a nominating committee. The nominating committee meets once a year for -- I understand that the most it has met for in the last number of years is an hour at a time -- a slate of new directors, because historically three directors have retired each year. Directors serve for a four-year term on a rotational basis. That nominating committee meets to nominate the new directors for the ensuing term and to fill vacancies on the board. They are not board members per se. That is their sole function.
With respect, if I might respond if it's appropriate, to the question of the judge serving on the committee, this is not an extension or anything new. The senior judge has served in this capacity for 40 years. This type of legislation in fact exists for community foundations all across the province and has recently been enacted with respect to newly set-up community foundations. We were one of the first ones set up, and we feel very strongly that we don't want to have something taken away from us which we see as important to the status of the community foundation, within the foundation to have the judge serving in this rather proscribed narrow function as a member of the nominating committee. In fact, over the last 40 years, the judge has often it taken upon himself, and I would think almost without exception, to chair that committee, considering it an honour to do so.
1030
Mr Fletcher: This probably has nothing to do with the bill itself, but does the nominating committee have any guidelines, such as gender parity and affirmative action, when it comes to nominations?
Mr Sweetlove: The community foundation as a whole has a thrust to try and make the community foundation, principally through the board members, as representative of the community as possible, and all those things are taken into consideration.
Mr Fletcher: Yes. I just didn't see it in here; maybe a statement would be nice.
Mr Eddy: I have two questions, the first being the request or direction from the public trustee. I understand there are amendments to cover all those points, that the applicants are agreeable to all those changes and that we have them all before us. Is that correct? That's my understanding, but I just wanted to clarify it.
Mr Moore: My understanding is that the applicant is agreeable to all the amendments we have.
Mr Eddy: And the amendments have been prepared for us to deal with?
Mr Moore: Yes.
The Chair: Actually, since Mr Eddy has raised the point, we had one package of amendments and there were two additional points that were just distributed.
Mr Eddy: That's my second question. I believe that has to do with the points raised by the representative of the Attorney General.
The Chair: Let me put it to you this way: They relate to section 4. For ease of following along in the process when we come to that point, I hope members have taken the advantage of some time to insert them in the proper places so we won't have any confusion.
Mr Eddy: That's the first thing we did.
The Chair: Good, Mr Eddy. I'm glad that members availed themselves of that opportunity.
Mr Eddy: So the points raised by the representative of the public trustee are included in the amendments, and if we pass the amendments, the public trustee's representative approves of the bill as amended.
Mr Moore: That is correct.
Mr Eddy: The second question has to do with the Attorney General's representative. The proposed amendment regarding paragraph 1 of subsection 4(1), regarding the senior judge: Is that proposed amendment acceptable to the applicant? I gather it is not from what was just said, but I'd like clarification.
The Chair: You're directing that question to Mr Sweetlove?
Mr Eddy: Yes, or is there an alternative suggestion at this point?
Mr Sweetlove: Our position is that we would prefer not to see that amendment to the legislation. We would prefer to see the nominating committee as constituted in the bill before you, which carries forward the existing situation.
Mr Eddy: Further on that particular point, because I would tend to expect that the government members would support the request of the representative of the Attorney General regarding this section, I wonder if there couldn't be an alternative clause inserted. What would the Attorney General's viewpoint be on a change to read, "A member of the judiciary who is willing to serve may be appointed," or something of a general nature like that? If the Attorney General's representative is willing to agree to that, I think it covers the objection from the Attorney General and I would hope it would meet the perceived need by the applicant.
Mr Fox: I think that amounts to the same provision we have now, because it puts the burden of explaining on the judiciary more as a corporate body than as an individual. From our perspective, it amounts to the same thing.
Mr Eddy: I disagree. "The foundation may appoint a member of the judiciary who is willing to serve," is what I had in mind. It's completely optional, so to speak, or voluntary. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should be, but it would be something of a general nature, making it optional.
Mr Fletcher: The problem is the judge being on the committee itself. Even if you give leeway, the probability of the judge being on the committee is still there.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your support on that suggestion, Mr Fletcher, because it leaves it open to both sides.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, but there is a problem with that.
Mr Eddy: No, there isn't, if it's completely optional. What I propose is wording that "A member of the judiciary who is willing to serve may be appointed." So it gives the intent of having a member of the judiciary.
The point that was being made is that you're imposing a duty upon a judge, a specific judge, the senior judge. This would take that away. You're not imposing any duty on anyone, but you are making it possible for a member of the judiciary who wishes to serve to indeed serve. Secondly, then you're giving the intent to the community foundation of who it actually wants represented in there, that it is a representative of the judiciary. I think it meets the best of both worlds.
Mr Fletcher: I don't know about that.
Mr Eddy: It's a middle ground. I think it's beautiful.
Mr Fox: In a way, the motion would allow that, although it's much more general than what you've suggested.
Mr Eddy: Yes, very general.
Mr Fletcher: Then if it were to be that general for the judge, it should be that general for all members.
Mr Eddy: Yes. It could be any judge who is willing to serve.
Mr Fletcher: No, no. I mean the mayor shouldn't be obligated, the same way as the judge shouldn't be obligated.
Mr Eddy: That has not been raised as a point. I don't know whether the other bodies that would have representatives, or indeed these specific people, have been approached. They're honorary positions.
We have to realize that nobody can be forced to serve in this capacity. They can be named, but they don't have to serve if they don't wish to. Indeed, most municipalities have a bylaw authorizing the mayor to appoint any other member of council to serve in any capacity in his or her stead. So I don't think that's at issue.
Mr Fletcher: In the same breath, though, Mr Eddy, it does exclude people from joining, if it's that way.
The Chair: Mr Moore has a comment to make in this regard.
Mr Moore: Just as a point of clarification, because the member had requested whether all the changes we had suggested were in the amendments put before the committee: The bundle of amendments that I've received does not contain the amendment that we have requested for section 16.
The Chair: I must admit, I do have a copy and I believe that may have been distributed to members. If everyone would please check their package of amendments, section 16 is handwritten.
Mr Moore: Thank you. I've received it. That's correct.
The Chair: So that will deal with some of these concerns?
Mr Moore: Yes.
The Chair: Any further questions, Mr Fletcher? No? Seeing none --
Mr Eddy: Madam Chair, I don't think we've completed the matter I raised, the second point. Will a representative of the Attorney General give the viewpoint of whether they have any objection to that proposed wording? Then I'd like the applicant's response to that.
Mr Fox: Our position would be that it would not be acceptable, because it's still in the legislation stating that there's an expectation that a judge should be expected, by virtue of his or her office, to perform non-judicial functions.
Mr Eddy: No, that's not correct. I disagree with that interpretation. It leaves it completely open and optional.
The proposal is to insert wording like "a member of the judiciary who is agreeable to serving may be appointed." That is completely voluntary and doesn't raise any expectations unless a member who is approached wishes to serve. It's the solution to this particular problem. Otherwise, we're going to delete that. It's perhaps more unacceptable to the applicant, but I'd like to hear the applicant's viewpoint on this matter before we delete it.
1040
Mr Fletcher: But, Ron, you've said it before. You said that any person does not have to take the position. Whether you put "may," "shall," or anything, they still don't have to take the position, so there is no real reason to change it to "may."
Mr Eddy: Oh, you mean you're in favour of what's here. Oh, I didn't realize that.
Mr Fletcher: What I'm in favour of is what we've been told about the judiciary sitting on the committee. I agree with what the counsel has said, and I don't think the changing of "may" is going to make any iota of difference to what they have said.
Mr Eddy: Yes, it does change it completely.
Mr Fletcher: No.
The Chair: I believe we have come to the point where there is a difference of opinion, and rather than --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Sweetlove, if I may finish my remarks. Then we will have to obviously make some decisions, but following up on Mr Eddy's comment, I will ask Mr Sweetlove to make a final comment, when I will put forward the request if members are prepared to vote.
Mr Sweetlove: Two things: First of all, I would like to reiterate that if you make this change, it will be taking something away from this foundation which we feel is important and which other foundations in this province have today and which will affect the status of the foundation in the community.
Number 2, I would like to point out to you that the legislation as proposed provides for substitute members if a member is unable or unwilling to sit. The nominating committee may choose another member, who could be another member of the judiciary or otherwise.
Number 3, I would point out again that this is legislation that is in effect today. If we were coming before you merely with amendments to our existing legislation rather than a new bill, this might not be an issue before you today. We chose to bring this forward as a new bill without anticipating that such a narrow position was going to be taken by the Attorney General's department.
Mr Hayes: Do you feel that this amendment will stop you from filling that position with a senior judge of the Ontario Court?
Mr Sweetlove: It won't necessarily stop us from it, but it's important for us to be able to say to the community, particularly when we are recruiting people to serve on the board, "The nominating committee for the board of directors is composed of the following persons." That's important to us, and to be able to say that the nominating committee is composed of the senior judge of the court sitting in Hamilton is important to us, as well as the head of the United Appeal etc. If we have to say, "It's composed of five other people and someone else who will be chosen who may be a judge," that's not quite the same.
Ms Judith McCulloch: There are community foundations across Canada now, about 50 of us, and each one has a similar person named in its legislation. I might say that the Winnipeg foundation's appointing board has two such persons: the Chief Justice of Manitoba and the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. They're named in their legislation and they serve.
Our senior judge, who's been a member, as we've said, for 40 years now, provides, we believe, the foundation with independence and credibility in the community, which is also very important for donors who are entrusting the use of their entire estates, in some cases, to the foundation's board of directors. Therefore, we feel it's very important to have that independent and highly regarded involvement of the judiciary and the other members of this committee.
The Chair: I'm sorry. I was trying to ask a question of Mr Fox, and he was obviously distracted from some of your points. Can you address any of Ms McCulloch's points at this time?
Mr Fox: I sort of lost it, and I'm sorry about that. Can you just reiterate it briefly?
Ms McCulloch: I said there were about 50 community foundations across Canada, all of which have similar legislation in place. In fact, in Winnipeg, two of the five members of the Winnipeg foundation's appointing board are the Chief Justice of Manitoba and the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. These are named in their legislation.
We have had the senior judge in our district named as a member of our nominating committee for 40 years, and we certainly did not expect to have that position withdrawn. It's very important for us in our community to have independence and to have credibility with the community and with donors who in some cases are entrusting their entire life savings and estates to the foundation when they die. It's important that the board of directors that is selected by this independent nominating committee is in fact well selected and selected by people who are impartial and well regarded in their community.
We feel the senior judge in our area fulfils that position very well. In fact, they have served willingly and, as Mr Sweetlove has said, chair the committee willingly.
Mr Fox: When we looked at the legislation, we looked at it as the bill itself, not on the basis of any comparison with other foundations in Ontario or in the rest of Canada. We're approaching it as a matter of principle and also with an awareness that other Ontario legislation in this context, if such exists, and other contexts, often at the local level, imposes these non-judicial duties on judges.
In a sense, we looked at the issue anew, you might say, or discretely. We didn't look at it in the context in which you've established it and tried to explain away past practice or practice that's going on elsewhere. Looking at the bill itself, within its four corners, this question was raised. If another community foundation sent a bill which our office was asked to review tomorrow, we'd come out with the same response.
Mr Eddy: You can't say that. We can't say what we would do in the future. I can't and no one else here can, really. It might be the intention at this time to do that if one came forward tomorrow, but you can't really say that, because somebody else may be here making a representation with an entirely different viewpoint. That happens, as we've run into on many bills on many occasions.
We're to the point where the Attorney General wants a change, wants a deletion. There has been an amendment prepared to do that. I would expect that it will be presented and the government has the majority and will pass that.
My question to the applicant is, do you wish to proceed with the bill or do you feel that you have the alternative of bringing in amendments to the bill at a future date? Because it appears that will be deleted, so I'd just like to know that. I will be supporting the inclusion of that clause, myself.
Mr Sweetlove: We would be proceeding with the bill if the amendment as proposed were to go forward, in spite of the fact that we feel that amendment should not go forward.
1050
Mr Hansen: I've got a problem with the way the bill is without the amendments. I think the board of directors can sit down and say, "These are the people whom we want to choose as our nominating committee." When you restrict people from other areas -- it could be the CEO of Stelco you would like next year to be on this nominating committee. Maybe he's not a member of the chamber of commerce as a representative. So you've restricted a lot of high-profile people who could be on this nominating committee. I'll have to vote for the amendments coming in and will vote against the bill the way it stands. Can I get a reply back if I'm not reading this right?
Mr Sweetlove: I have some difficulty with what Mr Hansen has said. The nominating committee's sole function is to nominate members of the board of directors. The members of the board of directors may be any persons in the community. The nominating committee's sole function is to meet once a year and to nominate members for the board of directors. They have no function whatsoever in the administration of the foundation.
Mr Hansen: But what I'm saying is that the board would have that opportunity to pick the nominating committee.
Mr Sweetlove: The nominating committee is set by the legislation. That's one of the reasons for having a nominating committee, because it is completely independent and separate from the board. If the board were enabled to select the nominating committee, it could presumably be self-perpetuating. But the legislation says that the members of the nominating committee "shall be" the mayor of the city of Hamilton, the regional chairman, the president of the Hamilton district United Appeal. We don't pick those people. They're people who sit on the nominating committee by virtue of the office that they hold, and we think that's important.
If you take away one of those people, then the nominating committee will nominate someone else to fill that role. You haven't said what office is going to fill that role. We think it's important to have people serving who hold certain offices in the community.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is for legal staff, because it's named as the General Division of the court and in subsection 9(3) it clearly indicates the Ontario Court (General Division). My question would be, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest? Because you've named the judge in the nominating part of it and then in section 9 of the bill it clearly also indicates about applying to the Ontario Court (General Division), I'm just curious about a conflict. I've been listening to the concerns that were raised and I started reading the bill and I saw where it's been indicated where the board may make application to a judge, and then you've also indicated the General Division. Would there be a potential conflict there?
Mr Fox: I haven't thought about this issue until this moment, to tell you the truth.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to --
The Chair: Is it a point of order?
Mr Eddy: Yes. It was raised with me that surely these amendments could have been looked at and worked on with the applicant and an amended bill have come in that was acceptable.
Mr Fox: In response to that, I think the Hamilton Community Foundation, through Mr Sweetlove, has been aware of the reservations of the Attorney General for a few months. This is not a surprise. There may be a disagreement, but it's not a surprise. There's been correspondence and there's been telephone conversation.
I'm not sure I see there's a conflict, in that the nominating committee has a circumscribed function of the kind described by Mr Sweetlove. They would be choosing individuals to serve on the board of directors, and it's the board of directors and its operation of the foundation that might lead somewhere down the line to an application to a General Division judge. Perhaps Mr Sweetlove has some views on that. I myself don't really see a conflict simply by virtue of discharging the duty of a person being on a nominating committee.
Mr Sweetlove: If I could respond to that, if the judge had a perception that there was a conflict, he would of course disqualify himself from hearing the variation application, which often happens, where a judge might have a matter come before him from the firm where he used to be a partner, for example. He will disqualify himself and it will just be passed on to another member of the bench sitting in that community. And I agree with Mr Fox, that there should not be a conflict of interest merely because the judge sat on a nominating committee and an application for a variation came before him. But if the judge himself had that perception, he could disqualify himself from hearing the variation and another judge would hear the matter. That happens all the time.
The Chair: There are no further questions from anybody who has indicated, so I am going to follow the next order of business and ask members if they are ready to vote. Agreed? Agreed. I'd like to remind members there are a number of amendments here, so I hope everyone's got them in order.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Mr Hansen: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "educational and cultural" in the third and fourth lines.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Anyone opposed? Seeing none, the amendment is carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 carry?
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 1.
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment? Anybody opposed? We have two members opposed, but that does mean that the amendment is carried.
Mr Hansen: I have another amendment to subsection 4(1).
I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 6 and substituting the following:
"6. The president of the Hamilton and District United Appeal; or its successor organization."
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment?
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I don't seem to have what Mr Hansen's referring to.
The Chair: That was part of that second package. I believe everyone else has the motion. Would you please read it again, Mr Hansen, so that everyone's clear?
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 6 and substituting the following:
"6. The president of the Hamilton and District United Appeal; or its successor organization."
1100
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment? Agreed.
Mr Hansen: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Additional member
"(2.1) The nominating committee may appoint one additional person to be a member of the committee."
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment? Agreed.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall section 6 carry?
Mr Hansen: I have an amendment to section 6 of the bill.
I move that section 6 of the bill be amended,
(a) by striking out "educational or cultural" in the fourth line of paragraph 6; and
(b) by striking out "educational and cultural" in the fourth line of paragraph 7.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 7, 8 and 9 carry? Carried.
Shall section 10 carry?
Mr Hope: I have amendments to section 10.
I move that subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "educational or cultural" in the fifth line.
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment? Agreed.
Mr Hope: I move that subsection 10(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Donations for the purpose outside of Canada
"(2) The foundation may accept a donation even if some portion of the benefits of the donation is directed to be applied to charitable purposes outside of Canada but the recipient of such portion of the benefit must be a registered charity under the Income Tax Act (Canada)."
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
You have another amendment.
Mr Hope: I move that subsection 10(3) of the bill be amended (a) by striking out "educational or cultural" in the sixth line and (b) by striking out "may" in the ninth line and substituting "shall."
The Chair: All those in favour of that amendment? Carried.
Shall section 10, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 11 and 12 carry? Carried.
Mr Fletcher: I have an amendment to subsection 13(1) of the bill.
I move that subsection 13(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "educational or cultural" in the second-last line.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
Shall section 13, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 14 and 15 carry? Carried.
Mr Fletcher: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by striking out "educational or cultural" in the sixth line.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
Shall sections 17, 18 and 19 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Mr Sweetlove: Point of information.
Mr Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Madam Chair, we're in the middle of a vote.
Mr Sweetlove: That's fine. We've changed our number of members on the nominating committee.
Mr Perruzza: We're in the middle of a vote.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Sweetlove, but Mr Perruzza is in fact correct: We're in the midst of a vote.
Mr Sweetlove: That's fine. He's created a problem of which he's unaware.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Mr Sweetlove, you had a comment?
Mr Sweetlove: My comment was that you've now changed the nominating committee from six people to five people. The quorum is four people. We would have requested, had we known that this was going to take place, that the quorum be set at a lower number, perhaps three out of five. It's only six people if the nominating committee adds another person, but if they don't do that, it's only a five-person committee.
The Chair: First Mr Eddy, please.
Mr Eddy: Madam Chair, would you explain to us the process for amending this bill to meet that problem before it's reported to the House? Is that possible? I hope it would be.
The Chair: I will turn to legislative counsel at this point and request that point of information.
Ms Susan Klein: That's a procedural question and I think I'll refer it to the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): We'd have to get agreement from the committee to reopen the bill and deal with it here, before we send it.
Mr Eddy: At this time?
Clerk of the Committee: At this time.
Mr Eddy: If a motion is acceptable, I would move that we indeed reconsider the bill at this time, in view of the fact that the applicant has made the members of this committee aware of a problem with the bill as now proposed by us. I would think now is the time to do it, rather than hold up the reporting of the bill to the House and then have the applicant coming back in. It's to expedite the matter.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Eddy. Actually, we had Mr Daigeler's hand go up before yours. Mr Daigeler, was this on the same point?
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On the general point, yes. I must say, while I'm not a regular member of this committee, I have from time to time sat on this committee for almost eight years and I find highly unusual what is happening here. Either the presenters or the ministry officials didn't do their homework properly, but what we're seeing here is really very, very poorly prepared, I must say.
Mr Perruzza: I essentially concur. What we're doing is rewriting bills here, sort of on the spot and from cover to cover. I'm not really clear on what would be required to do what the gentleman has asked. I really look for direction from you, but what I would support doing is perhaps deferring this for a couple of weeks and letting the ministry people have another look at it before it comes back to us so that we are able to proceed with it. But I concur with Mr Daigeler.
Mrs MacKinnon: I guess my question should be directed to Mr Sweetlove. In one of our amendments we said that the nominating committee may appoint one additional person to be a member of the nominating committee. Does that not help your cause, or do you feel that's just too loosely worded?
Mr Sweetlove: If the nominating committee does not appoint another member, then there is a committee of five persons. They don't have to appoint another member.
Mrs MacKinnon: Would it be helpful if that particular amendment was "shall" appoint an additional person as opposed to "may"? I'm not very good at all this technical stuff, trust me. I'm used to raising kids.
1110
Mr Hansen: Since there have been some changes here, I don't want to see the bill held up. I don't want to see these people come forward before this committee again, as Mr Perruzza had said. They've got other things to do than come here in a volunteer group, so I don't want to waste any more of their time. I would like to put a motion forward that the quorum be dropped to three if the --
Mrs MacKinnon: Wait a minute. We've got a motion on the floor.
Mr Perruzza: You've got to read over the bill. You can't move it.
Mr Hansen: As I say, you've got support on this side of the floor for three.
The Chair: Mr Hope, did you want to make a motion?
Mr Hope: I would ask, as I take it Mr Eddy has requested, that the bill be reopened and that we deal with subsection 4(5) of the bill. If what Mr Eddy is asking is that we open the bill and only deal with subsection 4(5), I agree that unanimous consent can be given.
The Chair: It would appear that we have agreed; the consensus is there to reopen the bill. Members, we have a motion.
Mr Perruzza: Could we hear from the ministry people on the implications here, please?
Mr Fox: There are no implications whatsoever. It's eminently reasonable and makes sense to lower the quorum from four to three in the circumstances.
Mr Hope: I move that subsection 4(5) of the bill be amended by striking out in the second line "four" and substituting "three."
The Chair: All those members have heard the motion.
Mrs MacKinnon: I have a question.
The Chair: We are in the midst of the vote, Mrs MacKinnon.
Mrs MacKinnon: I can't ask a question?
The Chair: All those in favour of the quorum number being reduced to three?
Mrs MacKinnon: Can I refuse to vote?
The Chair: Yes. The motion is carried.
Mrs MacKinnon: I really have some concern about this. A quorum of three on a nominating committee?
The Chair: Three out of five. There are only five people on the committee. Three people would be there.
Mr Eddy: It's a rule with the Municipal Act that you must have three out of a five-person council. It's a common thing. I can see no problem with it.
Mrs MacKinnon: So through you to Mr Eddy, do I understand that this is acceptable, three out of five for a quorum on a nominating committee?
Mr Eddy: Yes, it's a majority.
Mrs MacKinnon: I find that very low.
Mr Fletcher: They use it on the school boards.
Mr Eddy: Yes, it's a majority vote.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. The noise level in here with the reverberation is very confusing. We now will vote on section 4, as we had reopened it.
Shall section 4, as further amended, carry? Carried.
Mr Hope: Madam Chair, I move that we revert back to voting on the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope.
Shall the bill, as further amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as further amended, to the House? Agreed.
ONTARIO SOUTHLAND RAILWAY INC. ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr100, An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr100, An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc. Mr North is the sponsor.
Thank you, Mr North, for your patience. As you can see, not all bills move through in five minutes. I would ask you, as the sponsor of this application, if you would make a few opening remarks and then introduce the applicant.
Mr Peter North (Elgin): I realize that the committee has just been through quite an ordeal, so I'll try to keep it brief. To my right is Jeff Willsie, who is president of Ontario Southland Railway, and he's here today to explain a few points about the bill. I'll let you go ahead, Jeff.
Mr Jeff Willsie: The bill is necessary for the Ontario Southland Railway to actually operate trains in the province of Ontario. It requires special legislation. The Ontario Southland Railway was formed from the people who own and operate the chartered provincial railway, Port Stanley Terminal Rail. Port Stanley Terminal Rail isn't interested in operating freight trains and expanding into lines that are being abandoned by CN and CP. Ontario Southland Railway is, and that is the purpose of the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Willsie. At this point I'd like to ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward. Seeing none, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: Does the letter on our desks indicate an interested party, just for technical clarification? I've got a letter from the Great Canadian Dinner Train Co.
The Chair: Thank you. Yes, it is. I had managed to bury that on my desk.
Mr North: We don't have that letter in front of us.
The Chair: The clerk will make sure you get a copy.
All members have a letter here from the Great Canadian Dinner Train Co. It is signed by Mr Roy Broadbear, president. I hope you'll just take a moment to review that piece of correspondence before we move on. As you will notice, the letter is in fact supportive of the application.
Mr Hope: It's supportive, but it also indicates concerns that it doesn't take away.
Mr North: I actually know both sides of this particular issue. There's an interest by Mr Broadbear and his group to operate this dining train over Port Stanley Terminal Rail, which in turn Ontario Southland has hopes in the future of operating on as well. I can let Jeff address the issue, because I'm sure that he can explain it more fully than I.
Mr Willsie: The concern expressed here is that this gentleman would like to operate trains over the Port Stanley Terminal Rail, which is a Port Stanley Terminal Rail issue. It's entirely up to Port Stanley Terminal Rail whether it will allow this company to use its trackage. The trackage that he's concerned about, the St Thomas, is owned by the government of Ontario. It was purchased in order to preserve the transportation connection between Port Stanley Terminal Rail and the federal railways.
Although I can't speak for Port Stanley Terminal Rail here on an OSR bill --
Mr Perruzza: Point of order, please.
The Chair: Could you allow Mr Willsie just to finish?
Mr Perruzza: That's my point of order: This guy, Broadbear, wrote a letter saying: "I have no problem with this application. However, I want to protect my interests." We don't know what Mr Broadbear's interests are. We're only going to get a perspective of Mr Broadbear's interests through this gentleman, which I think is unfair, given that Mr Broadbear can pick up the Hansard and re-read your interpretation of what his or their interests are.
My point, Madam Chair, is simply to move this letter to the side, because obviously if Mr Broadbear had an interest which he wanted to explain to the committee, he would have come to the committee and explained it. Simply deal with the merits of the bill, as requested by the people who are before us today. For us to consider this as part of the considerations of the bill with only a one-sided interpretation I think is unfair and not a proper way to go.
1120
The Chair: If I may, Mr Perruzza, we have dealt with similar correspondence on other issues and have accepted it. This is not the first time that letters regarding bills that have come before this committee have been included as part of the package, and have definitely been included as part of the interested parties. Mr Broadbear --
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Perruzza. I am providing the clarification I believe that you are seeking. Mr Broadbear was in fact going to attend this morning. However, he sent a fax yesterday indicating the following: "I will not be able to attend the committee hearing for OSR, May 11, 1994. Please present the following concerns for the committee's consideration." That's signed by Mr Broadbear. You have a copy of that letter.
Mr Perruzza: Well, we don't know what his interests are.
The Chair: However the committee proceeds to accept that letter is obviously your choice. If you personally prefer to totally discount it, that is your choice. Other members may use this for their information. They may decide to take his information, Mr Willsie's and Mr Broadbear's, in another light. That is their choice.
Mr Perruzza: There's no information here.
The Chair: He has raised one or two points of his concern. You may wish to discount it yourself. The other members may wish to take it as information.
Mr Perruzza: Hans, you explain it to her, will you?
The Chair: Having addressed, I believe amply, the concern at this point, Mr Willsie, had you finished your comments?
Mr Daigeler: Madam Chair?
The Chair: One moment, please. Thank you, Mr Willsie. Mr Daigeler.
Mr Daigeler: I wasn't quite clear, since you went into quite an explanation, whether you accepted Mr Perruzza's intervention as a point of order. I just want to point out that this was clearly not a point of order; it was a point of intervention which should be coming in the normal rotation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daigeler, for your intervention, and we'll move on. Mr Willsie, did you have any additional remarks to make?
Mr Willsie: Not really. I'll answer any questions.
The Chair: It's been a good morning. Before we get caught up in more points of order at this point, I'm going to turn to Mr Hayes, if he has any comments on behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Mr Hayes: We haven't received any comments from any other ministry, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object to this bill. Thank you very kindly, and I'm glad you're all here this morning.
Mr Fletcher: On a point of clarification, Madam Chair: I have a letter in this package dated April 19, 1989, signed by an R.E.F. Eddy. I'm just wondering if it's the same R.E.F. Eddy I am facing right now and whether that's a conflict. I'm just wondering.
Mr Eddy: It was at a time when I was a large toad in a small puddle, which is the reverse, I must say, of what I find myself in today.
The Chair: Under the circumstances, do you feel your question has been appropriately answered, Mr Fletcher?
Mr Fletcher: I believe it has been.
The Chair: Are there any other questions at this point?
Mr Hansen: I move that we call the questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hansen. Are the members ready to vote? Yes?
Shall sections 1 through 13 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you, Mr Willsie, for your time and patience this morning. Mr North, likewise.
COUNTY OF DUFFERIN ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr109, An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.
The Chair: Our last order of business for this morning is related to Bill Pr109, An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.
I would ask Mr Tilson to come forward.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could we have some order, please. Mr Hansen, you might like to move outside.
Good morning, Mr Tilson. I would ask you, as I have asked of other presenters this morning, to make a few opening remarks and to introduce the applicants.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): As a sponsor of this bill, I would like to introduce the warden of Dufferin county, Pat Kalapaca; the counsel for the county of Dufferin, Patricia Sproule Ward; and the clerk-administrator of the county of Dufferin, Scott Wilson. Also present in the committee's gallery is the chief administrative officer for the town of Orangeville, Pat Moyle, and the treasurer of the county of Dufferin, Jim Hewitt.
The presentation will be made by the warden, Pat Kalapaca.
Ms Patricia Kalapaca: Very briefly, I'm trusting that all of you have a copy of the compendium of background information. However, I want to bring it to your attention that this matter on representation at the county level, and the number of votes and weighting of votes, has been before county council since 1992, at which time we had a motion to set aside our restructuring county, addressing all of the services and representation issues in Dufferin county, until this specific area had been dealt with.
Through a series of motions for a variety of reasons, this whole issue was not actively pursued until the fall of last year, when we met with the assistant deputy minister. He advised us at that time that he was quite receptive to us going ahead with one portion of a change within the structure of Dufferin county before addressing the others. With the endorsement of county council, we have created this piece of legislation to address the inequities of representation, particularly on the part of the town of Orangeville, which has grown significantly since county structure came into being.
If there are questions, myself and our counsel would be pleased to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you. I know all members have had the chance to peruse this. We've had some similar bills before us in recent weeks. At this point, I would ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward. Is there someone here from the town of Orangeville?
Mr Tilson: Ann Armstrong is shown on your agenda as being present, and she is not present this morning.
The Chair: We have a gentleman who just raised his hand at the back. I ask one of the other members to vacate the dais and have this gentleman come forward.
Mr Patrick Moyle: My name is Patrick Moyle. I'm the chief administrative officer with the town of Orangeville. The town of Orangeville council has reviewed this proposed bill and is supportive of the bill subject to some very minor amendments which Patricia Sproule Ward will speak to.
Ms Patricia Sproule Ward: You'll note that in section 6 of the bill there is a local option for municipalities that are represented by a mayor to have the mayor, as the head of council, sit at the county council level with the reeves, who are also the heads of their respective councils. The town of Orangeville, by its council, has decided that, other than the 1994 election, in all future elections it wishes to be permanently represented by its mayor and the reeve and doesn't want to have the opting-in clause applied to it specifically.
1130
The Chair: Are there any additional amendments that you wish to bring to our attention?
Ms Sproule Ward: There are two other amendments. One is dealing with subsection 4(3). In the bill as drafted, the municipalities will have their votes divided among two representatives. If their votes happen to be equal, the most senior municipal council position in the municipality that they come from would exercise the extra vote.
It has been suggested to us by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the senior municipal position is not a recognized concept in law and that should be changed to reflect specifically that the mayor would have the extra vote, and if not a mayor sitting on county council, then the reeve would have the extra vote.
The other amendment is with respect to subsection 6(6), which is the opting-in clause I just referred to. In that particular one, we had asked the local municipal clerks that if they did in fact pass a bylaw under section 6 indicating that someone other than the reeve and deputy reeve would be the representative on county council, that bylaw be forwarded to the clerk of the county of Dufferin within one month of its passing.
Again at the request of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we're asking that the reference to "within a month of its passing" simply be eliminated or deleted altogether and that the mandatory that they shall provide the bylaw to the clerk remain in the bill.
The Chair: I believe there are no further interested parties who wish to come before us, so I would ask Mr Hayes from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs if he would like to give the ministry's view.
Mr Hayes: The ministry does not object to this bill. However, we do have one question, and that's the amendment they're talking about to section 6. I'm just wondering why you want this committee to make that decision when you do have authority to do it yourself.
Ms Sproule Ward: Could I ask which section? Is it subsection 6(6) or section 6.1?
Mr Hayes: Subsection 6(1), where it reads:
"Despite section 26 of the Municipal Act, the council of a local municipality may by bylaw provide that, instead of the reeve and deputy reeve, it may be represented on county council by (a) the mayor and the reeve," and so on.
This bill already gives the council the authority to do that. What I'm saying is, does someone prefer to have this committee or Municipal Affairs make that decision for them?
Ms Sproule Ward: The corporation of the town of Orangeville has passed a resolution to that effect, and I've provided legislative counsel with a certified copy of that resolution. That's the town of Orangeville's wish, and the county of Dufferin does not object to that. If they wish to have it put in the bill, then we don't object to them asking for that amendment.
Mr Hayes: It's not a big deal for us, but I'm just wondering why you would want this committee to do it rather than allowing themselves. They already have the authority to do it themselves. I guess you can go back and say, "Well, the government did it." I don't know.
Mr Tilson: It's the usual spirit of cooperation in Dufferin county, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: No, no. They already have the authority to do it, is what I'm saying.
Mr Tilson: I'm quite aware of that, but as you can see, both municipalities agreed to the amendment and I think that's what their position is.
Mr Perruzza: So moved.
The Chair: I'm glad that Mr Perruzza has uttered his support. Mr Moyle, did you have any additional comments to make?
Mr Moyle: No, I don't.
The Chair: Are there any other members who wish to raise questions at this point?
Mr Jordan: I was interested in how the figure of 2,500 was arrived at, in section 3.
Ms Sproule Ward: I believe that figure is similar to the Municipal Act.
The Chair: Any additional questions?
Mr Perruzza: We agree to the bill.
The Chair: We're not at that point yet, Mr Perruzza. Are the members ready to vote? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 4(3) of the bill be struck out and the following be substituted:
"Division of votes
"(3) If a local municipality has two representatives, the votes shall be split equally between them and if the number of the votes is an odd number, the mayor has the extra vote or if there is no mayor, the reeve has the extra vote."
The Chair: All members in favour of the amendment? Agreed.
Is everyone in favour of section 4, as amended? Agreed.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 6(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "within a month of its passing" at the end.
The Chair: Shall that amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry?
Mr Hansen: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Town of Orangeville
"6.1 Despite section 6, beginning with the regular election held in 1997, the town of Orangeville shall be represented on county council by the mayor and the reeve."
The Chair: Are all members in favour of that amendment? Agreed.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 through 9 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you to the town of Orangeville and the county of Dufferin.
Ms Sproule Ward: Thank you very much.
The Chair: The regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1138.