CONTENTS
Wednesday 4 December 1991
City of Toronto Act, 1991, Bill Pr25
City of Nepean Act, 1991, Bill Pr110
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton NDP)
Abel, Donald (Wentworth North NDP)
Beer, Charles (York North L)
Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton NDP)
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge NDP)
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
Sola, John (Mississauga East L)
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford NDP)
Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC)
Substitution: Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP) for Mr Farnan
Clerk: Decker, Todd
Staff: Mifsud, Lucinda, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.
The Chair: We have two bills before us: Bill Pr110, An Act respecting the City of Nepean, sponsored by Mrs O'Neill, and Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: It is my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr25.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, are we not doing the Nepean one first?
The Chair: That was in order, but Mr Marchese was here at 10 o'clock.
Mr Marchese: I have a meeting at 10 o'clock, which has started already, so if I could introduce Bill Pr25 to the committee, I would appreciate that.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990
Consideration of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Mr Marchese: It is my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr25 to this committee.
The Chair: Could you introduce Ms Foran for the purpose of the reporter?
Mr Marchese: Actually, we have not been introduced to each other.
Ms Foran: My name is Pat Foran. I am the deputy city solicitor and I will be representing the city on Bill Pr25. I would be pleased to step down and wait for the Nepean bill if that is what you would like.
The Chair: I think we should proceed.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, if you will excuse me, I think members of this committee can deal with this bill. I need to get to my committee.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Ruprecht: You mean we can do this without Mr Marchese?
The Chair: We certainly can, sir.
Mr Ruprecht: All right. In that case, I suppose we will try our best.
The Chair: With difficulty.
Mr Ruprecht: Yes, with difficulty.
The Chair: Ms Foran, can you introduce your colleagues?
Ms Foran: Bill Pr25 has five sections. Dealing with section 1 first, I would like to introduce the people who are here from the Toronto Humane Society.
Ms Kathleen Hunter is the executive director. Dr John Allen is the shelter veterinarian for the Toronto Humane Society. Mr Bill Bonner is the chief of investigations. I have two more witnesses from the Toronto Humane Society: Sandra Hyckie is the shelter manager and Christina Fox is the external relations manager.
Section 1 of Bill Pr25 would enable city council to pass bylaws prohibiting "the use, setting, maintaining, selling, leasing or distributing of leghold traps, snares and conibears within the city of Toronto."
Ms Hunter: Current legislation means that traps are readily available and freely used within the city of Toronto. In the past 24 months, nine animals have been brought to the Toronto Humane Society in leghold traps. This figure represents only a tiny fraction of the thousands of traps being set in Toronto, largely without safeguard or monitoring. To allow the sale and use of these devices in an urban area, where both people and animals are at risk, is clearly dangerous and irresponsible.
I see four major problems with the existing situation. First, traps are non-selective, posing a hazard to any living creatures, including children and pets. Second, the people who set the traps are, by and large, inexperienced users who do not know how the traps function. The danger of the traps, already considerable, is thereby increased. Third, so long as traps are available in the city, their availability will encourage their use by people who are either unaware of the possible illegality of this use or encouraged by their availability to believe that there cannot be anything wrong in using them. Fourth, enforcement is virtually impossible with the existing situation. The fines currently in place seem to serve as no deterrent.
The great tragedy is that there already exists a simple solution. Alternatives are available. Humane traps can be obtained from animal control in Toronto and will be monitored by it. The Toronto Humane Society will accept the animals and will relocate them, all of this at no expense and no danger to the user, his children, his pets, his neighbours, his neighbours' children and pets and urban wildlife in the locality at large.
I believe the legislation that Toronto is asking you to pass will provide a solution to the danger and irresponsibility of allowing the sale and use of traps to continue within our urban area. If it is passed, Toronto will be an example for other cities and towns across Ontario to follow. Please, give this proposed legislation your thoughtful consideration.
With us today are representatives from various departments at the Toronto Humane Society. Dr John Allen, our shelter veterinarian, will tell you more about the traps and trap-related injuries. Bill Bonner, our chief of investigations, will talk to you about enforcement problems. Sandra Hyckie, our shelter manager, will explain the alternatives that are available to people who wish to remove wildlife from their property.
I would now like to introduce to you Dr John Allen.
Dr Allen: I want to ask you to ponder some questions.
1. Have you ever been in a situation where your life was in danger?
2. Have you ever been forced to do something against your will where there is no way out?
3. Have you suffered excruciating pain and/or symptoms of suffocation at the same time?
4. Have you ever experienced extreme panic?
5. How would you like to be worth more dead than alive?
These are questions I hope none of you will ever be forced to face. However, they are very real occurrences even today within the municipality of Toronto.
Central to these questions is the whole issue of the use of leghold traps. I have brought along several examples of leghold traps which I will show you later. Before that, however, I want you to see several film clips surrounding their barbaric use. Please bear my previous questions in mind as you watch. I am sure your empathy will enable you to feel some of the same horror the innocent animals go through.
[Film presentation]
1013
Most people who see the previous film find it most upsetting, yet they can still remain detached from the "celluloid" reality. To show you how the brutality is promulgated by these contraptions, I have brought along three examples of leghold traps, all discovered within the boundaries of the city of Toronto. Each was brought to the Toronto Humane Society and all had animals in their jaws. Not every animal was dead.
The first trap to be demonstrated is the supposedly humane single-levered Newhouse trap. In a perfect world, the trap would snap shut immediately, trapping the animal. However, as we know, the world is not a perfect place and most animals are not positioned in such a manner that death is instantaneous. Instead, they are maimed and become involved in a death struggle, frequently hurting themselves trying to get free or chewing off the trapped limb. This is an appalling way to die.
The second type I want to show you is commonly referred to as the padded jaws type, whereby the rubber pads are steel-reinforced, supposedly to reduce injury. The term is actually a misnomer. The jaws spring together with such force that internal injuries are sustained; that is, broken bones, internal bleeding, organ damage. The purpose is not to kill instantly but rather to trap the animal. Think about my previous five questions. All of the emotions come into play with the animal, so much so that in many cases they chew off appendages caught in the trap or they struggle to death. Again, not a very pleasant way to end one's life.
The third trap I will demonstrate is the unpadded or bare trap. Not unlike the other two traps in terms of severity, the jaws close with such velocity that excruciating pain is inflicted on the victim. When I demonstrate this trap, imagine how devastating it would be when used on the flesh. Perhaps this is the worst of all three traps.
We have focused on animals as targets for these traps. However their use in a populated area brings up the question of who else might be victimized by these traps. Basically the answer is any person, man, woman or child, or domestic animal, household pet, etc, or wildlife coexistent in the urban setting, which happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thankfully there have been no reported personal injuries to date in Toronto for humans. However, that is not to say that an instance will not occur in the future. You saw three of the traps demonstrated. Imagine what havoc the device would play with an innocent child.
I have brought along some rather discomforting photographs of animals found in Toronto and injured by these traps. In each case the trap did not misfire but did not work in the manner in which it is supposedly intended. While some of the animals survived the maiming of the trap initially, some injuries proved to be fatal in the long term. Imagine the pain suffered by, first, the raccoon whose face was caught in a single-levered trap, euthanized due to the severity of the facial injury. The second picture shows a squirrel who tried to chew his leg off to escape the single-levered leghold trap. The third shows a cat whose foreleg was skinned and the bones cracked by the single-levered leghold trap.
All this suffering is unnecessary. Inhumane trapping should not be an integral component of life in Metropolitan Toronto. It therefore raises the questions: (1) Why have traps been set in Toronto? (2) Why can you purchase traps in the city easily and without a licence? (3) What responsibility are we taking as citizens to ensure that further suffering and/or loss of life will not occur in the future?
Our position at the Toronto Humane Society is that inhumane traps are unnecessary, so much so that we support the concept of a trap-free zone with the exception of humane traps for wildlife removal. Gone are the days when trapping was a cornerstone of our economic life, and leghold traps should be abolished.
I would now like to turn the presentation over to Bill Bonner, our chief of investigations.
Mr Bonner: First I would like to say the enforcement problem associated with easily obtaining these traps is a real problem with the Toronto Humane Society and also, I would think, for the police department and any other designated bylaw enforcement officer within the city of Toronto. Most of these traps are usually found in areas where people will not disclose their whereabouts. They also indicate they do not know who owns them, although they are on their own lands. In the case of most animals we have brought in, the people indicate they were out trying to trap a skunk or a raccoon or a squirrel and in fact they are trapping more domestic animals, mostly cats.
If we are to stop the use of these traps, it must be written into law that any bylaw enforcement officer within the city of Toronto may, upon finding a device, issue a summons for a court appearance to the individual or the person in charge of that property. We have found that mainly they are found in ethnic areas where people will not admit that they know they are illegal. They have used them for hundreds of years and brought their traditions from their home country. Some studies that were done by the humane society in the United States indicated that for every 10 targeted animals captured, 14 non-targeted animals were.
A 1974 study conducted by the humane society in the United States and published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, shows they were having problems with coyotes going after sheep. Out of 1,205 animals trapped, 138 were coyotes. The rest were golden eagles, hawks, rabbits, 63 domestic animals and, quite ironically, the rest were sheep which they were trying to protect from the coyotes. So we have a very small number of coyotes, actually less than a sixth.
1020
If we allow these traps to continue to be sold and maintained within a city -- as Dr Allen pointed out, we have not had an incident where a child has accidentally come across one of these traps, but they are found everywhere, High Park, alleyways; everywhere you can think of where you could set a trap, they do.
If we allowed any designated bylaw enforcement officer within the city of Toronto to seize -- and I realize the problem of searching individual residences or outside is a very difficult one. We should have the right to enter a property, to seize any trap found on that property and to make the owner of the property or the person in possession of that property responsible for having it there. Unfortunately, the Toronto Humane Society investigation team is not designated as bylaw enforcement officers. We work strictly under the Criminal Code as private citizens. Hopefully that will change with the new animal welfare act which we understand will be coming shortly from the Ontario government.
In closing, I would like to ask if you think the current fine of $53.75 under the city of Toronto's bylaw 644-78 is a deterrent. I feel it is not. If we are going to stop the use and the setting and the possession of these traps, we must look at the fines. Most people admit a large fine may deter them from using these traps. I suggest we think of raising the fine. Also, I believe we should publicize the granting of an amnesty to all people within the city who have these traps, to bring their traps in, over a reasonable amount of time, for disposal to the city or to the humane society or the Ministry of Natural Resources, and allow them the time to get rid of these traps. Once this amnesty period is over, hopefully the bylaw could be enforced.
I appreciate your time and I thank you.
Ms Foran: I now call on Sandra Hyckie, who is the shelter manager from the Toronto Humane Society, who will demonstrate what is known as a humane trap.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chairman, did you decide that we could ask questions after the introductions, or should we ask questions now, while they are fresh in our minds?
The Chair: Perhaps if you can make a record of your question, you could pose it after the presentation is finished. I believe you are almost finished.
Ms Foran: Yes, we are just about finished.
Ms Hyckie: After viewing the film and witnessing the horror of these unnecessary traps, I hope you will agree there must be a humane alternative. I have brought an efficient humane trap with me today. It is the box trap. Anything that is viewed as a nuisance animal can be humanely trapped in this device. It is quite a large trap, but I will try and show you how it operates.
This is one that animal control uses quite frequently to catch raccoons, nuisance cats, the odd time even a dog, believe it or not. I have a smaller one as well. They even make them for a mouse or a rat. They are quite humane, very effective and nobody gets hurt at all.
Basically it sits on a balance here. The animal walks in and steps on this plate that is sitting up. You usually bait it with food, something that they enjoy eating. As soon as they touch it, the trap will fall down and they cannot get out. They also cannot hurt themselves because they cannot really get their noses or feet caught.
Ms Hunter: Do you want to show them the other one?
Ms Hyckie: Yes, I can. This is another trap the Toronto Humane Society uses. It comes in large sizes, mouse size, any size, and it works on the same principle. Basically it balances here. The plate is baited. The animal walks in, steps on the plate. The trap drops and locks. Again, no one is hurt. The animal is brought in, and it is easy to release, even without getting bitten, and the animal is relocated or whatever.
This device has been around for many years and is very popular in the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto animal control sets at least 20 box traps at any given time. Last year alone, animal control humanely trapped 191 felines, 167 raccoons and 29 skunks at no charge to Toronto residents. Not only do they set the trap, they also monitor it and bring the animal to the Toronto Humane Society for relocation or, in the case of felines, adoption.
All a Toronto resident has to do is pick up the telephone and call animal control. Animal control will even assess the problem on the property and make recommendations on how to repair the property so the animal does not enter the property again. Even outside Toronto the box trap is available through your municipal pound for a small rental charge of $5.
It is the Toronto Humane Society's view that if there is a humane alternative, it should be enforced. Not only does it eliminate the nuisance animal humanely, it gives that animal a second chance. It is the Toronto Humane Society's goal and objective to stop unnecessary suffering. We believe they deserve consideration. One unfortunate animal that wanders into a steel leghold device, with the pain and suffering it endures, is one animal too many, especially when there is an alternative, an efficient humane alternative.
Ms Foran: That is our presentation. We could answer questions now or deal with the ministry's position, whatever you wish.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Foran. Before we ask questions, I understand there was one objector. Is there alternative testimony or is an objector present? Seeing none, Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: I guess I would violate this particular bylaw you want to impose because we have mousetraps at home. Does this not cover, under conibear, a mousetrap, so there would not be the sale or the possession of a mousetrap in Toronto with this bylaw? Is that correct?
Ms Hunter: I suppose that is true. There are alternatives for mousetraps too.
Mr Hansen: The other thing is that my uncle was a trapper north of Sault Ste Marie -- there were some on my mother's side of the family who were pioneers -- and I have the traps he used. They hang on the wall of my living room here in Toronto. They would no longer be able to hang on the wall in my living room.
Ms Hunter: I am sure some way could be arrived at where you could have traps that you were not going to use, just for historical value. We have traps for demonstration which are essentially probably outside the law, or would be, but we have labelled them as such and we clearly are not going to use them for anything else.
Mr Hansen: You were talking about trapping by some of the ethnic groups. The traps I have hanging on the wall came from Finland. It is a historic leghold trap, yet it is still usable. If I go back to my uncle's ways and I want to trap, as you say, something in a valley, then I could take that trap off the wall and use it. I am just asking these questions on how you cover these. I know you are looking at making them illegal within the city of Toronto where there are children and everything else.
Ms Hunter: Yes, essentially that is what we are here today for.
Mr Bonner: Mr Hansen, I believe the Ministry of Natural Resources demands that if the trap is discovered, it is either welded shut or something. Therefore it could still be in your possession, I believe, but I am not 100% positive of that.
1030
Mr Ruprecht: I just wanted to put on the record that you made a pretty compelling case and that as far as I am concerned it is really objectionable to have animals suffer like this, especially within urban centres, and even beyond urban centres. We are confining ourselves to the city of Toronto in this specific case but I wish we could go beyond that. If you had not brought in some other alternatives showing us a more humane way of catching these animals and even the value of taking them away, then that might be a different story. I have no objection whatsoever; in fact, I have total support for this.
Mr Bonner raises some other questions I would like to get some answers for. Mr Bonner, in your presentation you indicated that in this act, if you can clear this up for me, you are saying the fines should be raised. This obviously gives you the authority to raise fines, or is this strictly confined to prohibiting the use of leghold traps, snares and conibears.
Mr Bonner: I would pass that on to Pat, Mr Ruprecht.
Ms Foran: We no longer put the amount of the fines or the ability to impose fines in this type of legislation because it is governed by the Provincial Offences Act. The maximum penalty would be $5,000 under that act. We would impose a penalty of up to $5,000, then we would apply for a set fine. Again, that is within the jurisdiction of the chief judge, so I cannot say what that set fine would be. We would be arguing for a very hefty set fine.
Mr Ruprecht: Is this under your authority now? The legislation is in place that provides for you to raise fines anyway without this piece in front of us, correct?
Ms Foran: We have the authority in a bylaw to impose any fine up to $5,000.
Mr Ruprecht: So you could do that now.
Ms Foran: Yes, that is why it is not set out in this section. It is taken out because it is no longer necessary to put it into the private bills. That is governed by the Provincial Offences Act.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Bonner mentioned something about the right of entry, which of course raises a whole bunch of subquestions which perhaps would be irrelevant to this bill. In your presentation, Mr Bonner, were you thinking that the right of entry was included in this bill?
Mr Bonner: No, Mr Ruprecht. The unfortunate part is that I believe most of these traps are kept in basements of houses, etc. Usually, when we come across them somebody has called us and we have found them in the backyard or laneway adjacent to a house. Obviously, under the Criminal Code you must have extreme measures to obtain a warrant to search a residence. I am not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is that we would find a very small percentage of these traps since they are maintained within the residence. We would require the right to enter a property, although I think the percentage of the total number of traps available within the city would be minimal.
Ms Foran: We realize that to get legislation to enter private property -- we are very careful when we make an application such as that and we are not asking for it. We would not enter a private building or residence. It is where these are set that could do damage to the public at this time: our public laneways, the outside areas and parks, wherever they are set. We would not enter private buildings to search for these or get a search warrant or anything like that. We have not gone that far in this legislation.
Mr Ruprecht: I realize you have been very cautious in the past as far as the city of Toronto is concerned, but this is not part of the legislation in front of us, right.
Ms Foran: That is right.
Mr Ruprecht: My final question is a procedural one really, that maybe concerns the committee as well. Are we going to proceed with sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, and then have people speak to it? How do you want to proceed with this?
The Chair: That is a very interesting question because obviously section 1 refers to the issue of the leghold traps. Sections 2, 3 and 4 and consequently sections 5, 6 and 7 are about totally different matters which I am sure the --
Ms Foran: Section 5 relates also to section 1.
The Chair: Regardless then, sections 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are totally different issues and my understanding is that they were added for the purposes of simplification and being able to make several presentations at one time, which I am sure Ms Foran will do after we have discussed the leghold trap issue. I suggest we finish with that issue, and the other issues brought up in the bill should be dealt with separately. Does that make sense, Mr Ruprecht?
Mr Ruprecht: Yes, that is fine.
The Chair: Do we have the concurrence of the committee members? Can Mr Wood now pose his questions? Mr Ruprecht, were you finished?
Mr Ruprecht: Yes.
Mr Wood: I am a little concerned about a couple of items mentioned in the bill, the maintaining or selling of traps. I represent a large constituency in northern Ontario where we have native and non-native trappers in the fur industry. There is a concern to have it built up because it is a way of life. It is an income for people at certain times of the year and there is a good dollar to be made, so I am a little concerned by one of the articles, which says maintaining possession of them or selling them would become illegal.
There is no doubt that we have to publicize humane ways of trapping, but trapping has been going on for quite a number of years and should continue with humane ways of trapping fur-bearing animals and as a way of making an income. There are a number of regulations for the control of traps within the city of Toronto right now. I am wondering if publicity is not the right way to go to deal with the concern about domestic animals being trapped. What reaction do I get on that?
Ms Foran: Maybe we could go back and I could tell you what is in existence in the city of Toronto right now. There is private legislation whereby the city can pass a bylaw, and the city has passed a bylaw, which prohibits the use, setting or maintaining of leghold traps. It is felt that does not go far enough in that they are still sold within the city of Toronto. The previous legislation did not cover conibears or snares, but the maintaining of a leghold trap at this time is prohibited in the city of Toronto by special legislation and bylaw 644-78 which has been in existence since 1978. I am not aware of anybody who has objected to that bill.
The maintaining of leghold traps in the city of Toronto is already prohibited by bylaw, but if you wish to get into the educational aspect, maybe Ms Hunter could give you some background on what they propose to do once this legislation comes into force. If we get it, there will immediately be a large educational program to make people aware of the legislation, aware of the alternatives, that it does not cost anything to use the alternatives, that the city of Toronto provides these alternatives and sets the humane traps and inspects them every day to see if there is an animal there, and that the animals caught in the humane traps are taken to the shelter and then either adopted or whatever happens to them. There is a program in place and that is what is going to be brought across by educational methods. They have geared up to an educational program if the legislation comes into being. It is not just going to be forced on the people right away. We realize that this type of legislation may not work in the riding you represent, because it is a somewhat different situation. We are dealing with an urban area. We feel there are some distinguishing factors.
Mr Wood: Just to go one step farther, there is a concern that once a regulation or a bylaw of this kind is put into one particular area, what is to prevent other municipalities or communities from saying they have to have it in their area. Then we have a whole industry that is their way of life. I could go just a little bit farther to say trapping goes on in 75% of the land mass of the province of Ontario, to some degree. There is a lot of unfair, bad publicity given to the trapping industry and prices were driven down. If the prices were to go back up, this would be a way of saving thousands of dollars.
It is very similar to a person running and maintaining a farm. It is one way of regulating the animals. Beaver can get to the point where they overpopulate and cause, I could say, millions of dollars in damage to existing roads and railway lines. That covers about 75% of the land mass in northern, northeastern and northwestern Ontario. So I am really concerned that it might cause a lot of fighting between different groups of people saying, "There's a bylaw being passed in the city of Toronto, and that should be extended to the other areas."
1040
Ms Foran: If I could answer that, I also come from a rural, northeastern area of Ontario, so I understand what you are speaking about. It is a very different situation in the city of Toronto, I know that. But I have to go back to the fact that since 1978 the city has had a bylaw which prohibits -- and I will read it -- "the use, the maintaining or the setting of leghold traps in the city of Toronto." I know of no other municipality that followed Toronto.
The precedent is there. We already have one bylaw and we are looking to expand it. No other municipality in Ontario has come forward since 1978 and it has been on the books a long time. I realize there is the argument that if you give it to the city of Toronto, other people will be looking for it, but nobody has come forward looking for legislation similar to our bylaw passed in 1978. That defeats that argument. I think it is unique to the city of Toronto.
Mr Sutherland: I am just a bit confused on this section in that you already have a bylaw in place prohibiting the use of traps. You said you have a bylaw in place to prohibit leghold traps.
Ms Foran: To prohibit use, setting or maintaining of leghold traps. We want to go beyond that.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, so what you want to add is the snare and conibear, correct?
Ms Foran: Right. We also want to add the -- I just have to go back to the bill here -- selling, leasing or distributing.
Mr Sutherland: I guess my real question is, though, if you are trying to stop the use, how is this piece of legislation going to make it any easier to enforce what you are doing? It seems to me, if you already have a bylaw but you are still seeing examples of it occurring, there is a question of enforcement. I am not getting the message as to how this piece of legislation is going to give you any better enforcement to prevent these animals from getting into the traps.
Ms Foran: It will prevent people from going to stores and buying them. It will prevent people from lending, leasing or distributing them within the city, and it will go beyond leghold traps. It will go into the other types of devices that are objectionable. We are basically expanding what we already have, but now we can prohibit the use, setting and maintaining.
Mr Hansen: The selling, the leasing and the distributing of leghold traps -- I think here in Toronto are suppliers to other parts of the province. So if you are a distributor here in Toronto or a wholesaler, then possibly you could not sell to Kapuskasing or Sault Ste Marie.
Ms Foran: That would be a question the seller would have to determine, but the legislation, if you look at subsection 1(2), does confine the legislation necessarily to within the city of Toronto, so you cannot distribute or lease or sell within the city of Toronto.
Mr Hansen: So no one would be able to sell within the city of Toronto a leghold trap to someone from Kapuskasing.
Ms Foran: That is right. I guess they would have to make other arrangements as to where the point of sale would take place, but I do not know if that is a fact that the distributors are in Toronto. I just do not know.
Mr Hansen: I do not know. These are questions we are asking. How many stores or distributors or whatever are selling them at present in Toronto? Have you got any idea?
Ms Hunter: Our staff did not have any difficulty finding leghold traps for sale. I cannot tell you how many stores, but --
Mr Hansen: Most sporting stores?
Ms Hunter: Bill, you shopped around, did you not?
Mr Bonner: I did find three stores out of the five or six I went into to see if they had traps. This was, I believe, in late spring or early summer. I went out again to purchase the padded trap we saw that was talked about. I managed to find that in North York with no problem. I went back to two of the other stores that I had visited that previously sold the traps. In one store there was a different man there at this time and he indicated he did not have any more traps. So I went directly to where the traps were kept when I went there a couple months prior to that. They were no longer there. The other stores still had them at that time. But when I wanted the padded trap, I had no problem going to North York and finding it. I did not do all the city of Toronto. Time is limited, but when I wanted to find the traps the first time, I was very successful.
Mr Drainville: Mr Wood, who was here, is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources. He raised certain concerns and objections. In terms of our approach, we are objecting to it basically because of the Ministry of Natural Resources and concerns about how this is going to be effectively used in the city of Toronto and the fact that this sets precedents which we have real questions about.
I come from an area where these kinds of traps are used, and I have seen animals that have been in these traps, and I have my own concerns about them. But certainly in drafting laws and putting legislation into force we have to ensure that legislation, that law is going to do the job it is meant to do. Finding a padded trap in North York is totally out of the purview of this legislation anyway, and it will find its way into the city of Toronto. We know that there are between two and three million leghold and other kinds of traps lying in garages, in basements, in attics all over Ontario. The reality is that many times, those are ones that end up being used to begin with.
We have a bylaw proposed here which, it is the view of the ministry, is not going to be terribly effective. Therefore, we object to it and feel that it really needs to go back to be worked on to be a piece of legislation or a bylaw that would be more effective. Mr Wood is not here any more to raise any further objections. I think he has another committee as well. So at this point, in terms of this particular section, there is an objection on the part of the government of Ontario.
1050
Mr Ruprecht: If I understand this correctly, and I know you may not be totally briefed on this, Mr Drainville, but for the committee's enlightenment, could you run by those two essential objections you had? One was effective use, and the other one was something like the thin edge of the wedge if Toronto uses it and others might use it as well.
Mr Drainville: Okay, let me take the second first. What this legislation is asking is that we prohibit the selling of something. If we prohibit the selling of something in the city of Toronto, surely that opens up the possibility of prohibiting the selling of that same thing in other parts of the province. The government has some real objections to moving into the area of making those kinds of dispositions because, as we know, there are parts of Ontario in which these things are being sold and used by people who are licensed to do so and have the training to do so. It raises all sorts of issues, and this bylaw being suggested is not complete or comprehensive enough, nor does it approach the issue in a way that allows for it to be such an exclusionary bylaw that it would make sense to allow it to happen in Toronto only. It is a wide-open kind of bylaw.
As to the first point, I can even admit the problem we are facing. In fact, in Ontario the provincial government quite a number of years ago tried to have serial numbers on leg traps and tried to take care of how they were being used in the province. The ministry failed in that process, mainly because of how people use traps and how they are traded and how they go from generation to generation in families and end up in various places. It is very hard to control these things. Many of the traps being used have been in existence for a very long time, they are not new traps being sold. Our ability to police such a thing and to ensure this whole area is on very shaky ground.
Mr Ruprecht: It would seem obvious that Mr Drainville is giving out some vibes to the committee members on the other side, and consequently there is a chance this may be defeated. Let me just say a few words to make sure we understand the positions here.
First, in terms of your effective use of these leghold traps, just because there are some members of Parliament who in the past had some affection for the historical traps or because they wanted to have them on the walls or because there may be some other related problems with them does not make it actually right. The animals still have to suffer, and we have come through a period of what some of us might term enlightenment: that just because the traps have been used for 1,000 years or 200 years or 100 years or even five years does not make it right, does not make it the best kind of a trap.
Second, we are talking about a certain jurisdiction. We are not talking about this legislation being province-wide. We are not saying that. We are simply saying that the city of Toronto, in terms of its own area, is very small compared to the rest of the province. If other jurisdictions wish to come to the city because of its care not to make animals suffer, well, let them come. We are prepared as a regulations committee to hear them all. That is what our job is. If other jurisdictions are coming with specific bills, fine, then let's look at them.
We have heard that part of this bill has been in existence since 1978 and no other jurisdictions have come before this committee. It is very clear that while this may be trailblazing there is no necessary push from other jurisdictions to come to the city and say, "This is what we want as well." It is totally unrelated.
From our perspective I would say we would not be in favour of your objection, and I would like to tell the other members of the committee that the city is here, the Toronto Humane Society is here, I think they have made a compelling case, and I would urge you to vote in favour of this legislation.
Mr Drainville: Just a very quick response, Mr Chair, and that is to say I have no affection for the leghold trap. I do have affection for well-drafted bylaws and legislation; this just does not happen to be one. That is why we are objecting to its presentation at this point in time.
Ms Foran: Ms Hunter was wondering if she could respond to the ministry's position. We are somewhat surprised because we have dealt with the ministry. We understood that if we brought in an amendment saying, "Despite clause 2(1)(b) of the Game and Fish Act and the regulations," the ministry did not have an objection. It is very difficult to sit here this morning and hear that there is a problem with effective use and the thin edge of the wedge. The fact that we have had similar legislation since 1978 and no other municipality has come forward sort of defeats that argument. At least give us a chance to show how we can effectively use it. It is all right for ministry officials to say, "Well, it won't be used effectively." Give us a chance. But Ms Hunter from the Toronto Humane Society would like to speak.
The Chair: You are suggesting an amendment to the act --
Ms Foran: There was an amendment coming forward --
The Chair: Yes, and the clerk is circulating that. Are you suggesting or are you requesting that someone move that amendment?
Ms Foran: We had agreed with the ministry --
The Chair: Your suggestion is that this amendment would deal with one of the issues the parliamentary assistant brought up.
Ms Foran: We had thought so.
The Chair: The amendment is not yet on the floor and has not yet been moved. Is there someone who is willing to do so?
Mr Ruprecht: I would like to read it first, Mr Chairman. If you would just give me one minute.
Ms Foran: Ms Hunter also wanted to speak to the ministry's position, if that is possible.
The Chair: My concern, Ms Hunter, is a couple of things. We have an amendment which has not been put forth, and we have your response to the parliamentary assistant, and I am not quite sure which should be going first.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chairman, if it would help you out, then I will move this motion.
The Chair: Mr Ruprecht moves that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by adding at the beginning, "Despite clause 2(1)(b) of the Game and Fish Act and any regulation made under the act."
Mr Ruprecht: That is Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The Chair: Ms Foran, could you or Ms Hunter expand upon the amendment and how that would meet the parliamentary assistant's concerns?
Ms Foran: I had understood that the amendment came about because the ministry felt the legislation was contrary to clause 2(1)(b) of the Game and Fish Act, and we wanted to say "despite that." We had understood from somebody at the ministry -- this legislation has been around for about two years -- that this was what the concern was, and I hear different concerns this morning. But Ms Hunter wanted to speak to the concern.
Ms Hunter: I simply wanted to go back to the points that Mr Drainville was making. First of all, I do not think other localities are necessarily going to follow us. We have already had the example of 1978 when something was passed and no one picked it up. But further, if they do, surely that is because the locality wants to do so, and it should be free to do so. It would be a decision made locally, so I do not think that is anything to fear.
Second, as far as the monitoring of traps is concerned, it does not take place now because there is evidently no group or body prepared to do that. If we get this new legislation, the Toronto Humane Society, with the help of animal control, would undertake to educate the public about the new bylaw. We would certainly undertake some kind of monitoring to make sure things were running well.
1100
The Chair: Is there any further discussion of the amendment? We will have to leave the amendment on the table to deal with the other sections of the act.
Mr Drainville: I want to respond to the solicitor from the city of Toronto and make it abundantly clear that in all my discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and our --
The Chair: Are you speaking on the amendment, Mr Drainville?
Mr Drainville: Yes. The amendment that is being put forward does not significantly alter the stand of the ministry. I would like to know to whom you were talking, because that would be very helpful to my going back and trying to ascertain exactly how you came to that particular perspective.
Ms Foran: Perhaps I can send you a letter on that. I just do not have the name here.
Mr Drainville: Okay, because I have volumes of correspondence with the solicitor and the clerk's office and everything else about the position of Natural Resources and it does not indicate that this would be an acceptable answer to the ministry.
The Chair: That clarification would probably be very helpful, but my concern is that it would not be arrived at until after we had either deferred or passed the bill. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, could we move on to the other sections of Bill Pr25? Ms Foran.
Ms Foran: Yes, we will now deal with section 2 of Bill Pr25. Section 2 deals with committees of management set up under the Community Recreation Centres Act. At the present time, the act requires that where a committee of management is composed of five or more persons, at least two members of the committee shall also be members of council. The act also requires that members of the committee be appointed annually. All section 2 of the bill does is reduce from two to one the number of members of council who sit on a committee of management and it provides that members of the committee holding office on the day of a regular election continue in office until their successors are appointed by the new council.
The reduction of the number of members of council sitting on a committee from two to one arises out of the new electoral system in the city. Where formerly each ward had two members of council, for the past three years each ward in the city has been represented by just one elected member of council. Council now wishes that the member of council representing the ward where the community facility is located should sit on the committee of management. Because of the increasing pressures being placed on members of council from the perspective of time and workload, it is impossible to get a member from a different ward to sit as the second member of a committee for a facility not in that member's ward.
For the past three years we have tried to comply with the Community Recreation Centres Act by having the mayor appointed as the second member. This placed an incredible amount of pressure on the mayor to attend every meeting, and if he did not attend every meeting, there was a quorum problem. It is felt by city council that the community recreation centre would be better served if only the local member of council were required to sit on the committee.
There are two amendments which I understand will be coming forward. These are the result of objections raised by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I understand that the ministry is now satisfied. The amendment found in subsection 2(2) provides that a member of the committee shall not hold office beyond the term of the council appointing the members. This is the amendment of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs but one which the city accepts and is willing to incorporate into the bill.
Subsection 2(3) would provide for a smooth transition of power in an election year, because subsection 2(2) provides that where a council goes out of office on November 30, in theory there is no committee of management until the new council is appointed, which can be a matter of days or weeks. Subsection 2(3) plugs that gap by providing that a person who was a member of the committee on November 30 in an election year continues in office until a successor is appointed.
I have with me Mr Mario Zanetti, director of recreation for the city of Toronto, who can answer any other questions you may have.
The Chair: Mr Ruprecht moves that subsection 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Despite subsection 5(3) of the Community Recreation Centres Act, members of a committee of management appointed under subsection 5(1) of that act shall not hold office beyond the term of the council that appointed them and are eligible for reappointment.
"(3) Despite subsection (2), members of a committee of management in office on the day of a regular election shall continue in office until their successors are appointed by the newly elected council."
Any discussion in terms of the amendment? No? Section 3.
Ms Foran: Section 3 of the bill deals with demolition permits issued by council under section 33 of the Planning Act or section 1 of the City of Toronto Act, 1984. When council is dealing with an application to demolish a residential property under those acts, council often wishes to impose conditions upon the granting of such a permit. There are various types of conditions which council might consider, such as requiring the applicant to substantially complete a new building on the site by a certain date, requiring the site to be cleared and left in a graded and levelled condition to ensure the ground water will not adversely affect adjacent properties, requiring that suitable ground cover be provided or requiring that the site or a portion thereof be used as a parkette.
There are other conditions council has considered; for example, the protection and preservation of significant natural elements and features, such as private trees. Council has also considered imposing such conditions as the removal of existing encroachments and services and requiring adequate provision for protection for the public. There are other environmental concerns which council is looking at, such as the requiring of submission of satisfactory hazardous waste or PCB audit or disposal plans or dust management plans, material recovery and waste reduction plans or submission of comprehensive soil testing plans and site remediation plans. These are the kinds of conditions council wishes to consider.
The way section 3 was framed on first reading of the bill, council could impose such conditions as are, in its opinion, in the interest of the municipality. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs came forward last week with a proposed amendment, which I believe it is distributing. This amendment essentially would say that council could impose any condition which, in the opinion of council, is reasonable, having regard to the nature of the residential property to be demolished. The city council has agreed to this amendment.
The proposed legislation will also deal with a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for a variation of any condition. Also, where there is a demolition permit issued subject to a condition, the person may apply for relief from that condition in that a decision of council in respect of the relieving of a condition is appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. The legislation also provides that where a condition is not complied with, the city may do the work and may have a lien for the amount expended. The legislation also provides for a penalty and for service of notices.
In summary, city council wishes permission to impose certain conditions when a demolition permit for residential property is issued. The legislation has been drafted to safeguard the interests of the applicant and to satisfy the concerns of the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the property to be demolished. I understand that the amendment which came forward last week and which we are prepared to support, satisfies the concerns of the ministries, at least the concerns of the ministries as they were made known to me last week. That is the position of the city.
1110
The Chair: I am sorry. The amendment is --
Ms Foran: It is a ministry amendment coming forward.
The Chair: That is under dispute for a moment. Excuse me. The parliamentary assistant is requesting a brief recess of five minutes, please.
Ms Foran: We can go without the amendment. We are agreeable to go without the amendment. We are just trying to be co-operative and support the amendment. If there is some question about the amendment --
The Chair: Ms Foran, I certainly appreciate that, but the parliamentary assistant still requests a five-minute recess.
Ms Foran: I am easy to get along with.
Mr Ruprecht: Could I make the suggestion that we move on to section 4?
The Chair: One moment, I will check with the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Ruprecht: You are the Chair.
The Chair: We will return to consideration of section 3. Section 4.
Ms Foran: Section 4 of Bill Pr25 would enable city council to pass bylaws for numbering buildings and lots or units on private roadways, for affixing numbers to such buildings and for charging the owner or occupant of such building, lot or unit with the expense incident thereto. The legislation would also provide for the naming and renaming of private roadways and for charging the owner or the condominium corporation with the expense incident thereto. The legislation also provides for the keeping of records and the making available of such records for public inspection and for making available for public inspection the names and locations of private roadways. The legislation also provides for the requiring of the owner of a private roadway or condominium corporation to enter into agreement with the city in respect of such private roadway and for terminating such agreement.
I understand there is another amendment before your committee today. This arises out of a concern raised by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have a letter here that says the ministry is satisfied with that amendment and city council has agreed to that amendment.
There are three reasons why the city is requesting this legislation. First, it would eliminate potential ambiguities in interpreting bylaws which define properties by reference to municipal addresses. Second, it would ensure that municipal addresses used by the public are consistent with the computerized addresses based on property records in the city and Metropolitan Toronto and the assessment offices. Third, it would facilitate the dispatch of emergency vehicles.
I have with me Mr Wally Kowalenko, who will deal with any questions the members of the committee may have.
There is precedent for this type of legislation; Sault Ste Marie obtained it I believe 10 years ago.
To summarize, the city needs this kind of legislation. Its primary concern is to eliminate ambiguities in bylaws and to facilitate dispatch of emergency services when you have private roadways which are not officially recorded in the city's books. Therefore, we ask that your committee approve this section and report it to the House.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chairman, in terms of process, do you want to read the motion first? I have a question for Ms Foran or for the person in charge. What do you want to do first?
The Chair: Why do you not ask your question first and then we can have the motion. Perhaps we could have the amendment you are talking about at the end of our discussion of section 4, seeing that the amendment is fairly substantially agreed upon already.
Mr Ruprecht: Was there a change? I have a question, but did you say now to read the motion first?
The Chair: I was suggesting we could either do it right at the beginning or at the end of our discussion.
Mr Ruprecht: What do you suggest? I will do whatever you want me to do. I am totally at your mercy.
The Chair: Let us go at the beginning, sir.
Mr Ruprecht: Meaning the motion.
The Chair: Mr Ruprecht moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out subsections (8) and (9).
Mr Ruprecht: While we are waiting for item 3, I was wondering, Ms Foran, if section 4 of this bill deals specifically and solely with private roadways, not public roadways, and private lots. I suppose the city of Toronto would pay for the public roadways, but the private roadways' numbering systems is paid for by individuals. Is that how it is going to work?
Ms Foran: Yes. That is one area I forgot to mention, I am sorry. The legislation does provide that if the city numbers these buildings, puts up street signs or names the roads, it would charge the owner or the occupant or the condominium corporation for so doing and the city would have a lien which would be collectable like taxes for that purpose. The reason we are agreeing to delete subsections 4(8) and 4(9) is that the ministry objected to having these agreements registered on title and trying to collect it as a charge against the land by notice on title, because the ministry's position was the city could be protected by its lien being collected in the same manner as taxes. The city has agreed to that position. We would be looking at the owner or the occupant or the condominium corporation, and that is exactly the same as was done in Sault Ste Marie in 1981.
Mr Hansen: These numbers and addresses, is there anything in the regulations -- maybe it is your other one on the public areas -- on the size of the sign, location of the sign or the laneway on private lands, or that the number has to be within a certain size so it is readable from the street, so that if the police department or the fire department is going to an apartment number, or whatever the case may be, it would be readable, and where the number is affixed so that there is something that is a little bit more standard?
Travelling in Europe, I noticed some of the city-owned, what they call, city homes, which were apartments, had large numbers affixed in a certain area and everything was named on the laneways there. It was on the corner of the building so a police officer coming would know exactly where to look. I do not know what you have in your regulations here in Toronto.
Ms Foran: They would be handled in the same way as public streets. You have hit on what the problem is. If in the city's books something is shown as 10 such-and-such a street but it is a private property, they number it as a square or something like that because their property sells better known that way. Then with an emergency vehicle such as a firetruck, which address is used? We want to be able to change our books so that we would refer to the private roadway. That would be the official street number and name. Then they would be handled the same as any other public highway: The official names would be put on and street names would be uniform with other streets in the city.
Mr Hansen: That was part of the question I asked you about the size of the letters and the location of the signs. There is a bylaw now?
Ms Foran: In relation to the public streets and public lanes, yes, we have a bylaw and certain requirements of the Highway Traffic Act also in relation to public streets.
Mr Hansen: I was looking through here. I did not actually see where that would apply to this.
Ms Foran: We would handle it just the same as any other --
Mr Hansen: What subsection or section would that be in?
Ms Foran: We would number the buildings, lots or units along private roadways. That would give us the right to do it.
Mr Hansen: I am just saying there is not a reference to your other bylaw.
Ms Foran: As to size, no. But, naturally, if the whole purpose in getting the legislation is to clear up the ambiguities and to make emergency vehicles aware of what the proper name of the street is, we are going to number it and name it and require them to do it so that the public knows what it is. I think that is the whole purpose.
Mr Hansen: This is just a friendly suggestion so that you do not have to come back next year and add an amendment.
Ms Foran: No, we will not. That is right.
1120
The Chair: Further discussion? Hearing no further discussion on section 4, shall we return to section 3?
Mr Drainville: If I could just for a moment mention that we have no objections to section 2. We just want to make that very clear. In terms of section 4, with the amendments that have been put forward we have no objections to it either.
In terms of section 3, we end up in a slightly different situation. First, I want to indicate that there was a sense of surprise on our part that in terms of the amendment we had suggested to the city of Toronto we received a letter dated October 22 from Ms Foran indicating they cannot agree to that particular thing. We were a little surprised, to say the least, when we saw there had been a change in policy; not that that is a bad thing, but we were a little bit taken aback. We were not quite prepared for that response from the city of Toronto.
What I would like to say is that at this time the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no objection to the amendment that has been proposed, but there is some concern on the part of the Ministry of Housing. The Ministry of Housing has a suggestion to make, if that is acceptable to the solicitor of the city of Toronto, that we might be able to accept section 3 as presented, with these amendments. I would now turn it over to Mr Chris Thompson from the Ministry of Housing.
Mr Thompson: My name is Chris Thompson. I am a planner with the rental housing protection program at the Ministry of Housing. We have some objection to the wording of subsection 3(1). The particular concern we have relates to the lack of precision about the imposition of conditions. The ministry is concerned there is nothing at the present time in the motion as it stands to indicate that buildings exempt from the Rental Housing Protection Act are not to be addressed by certain types of conditions.
The proposal we have come up with is, I gather, to insert a second subsection, 3(1)(1), stating that if there is a conflict between a condition imposed under this section and the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, the Rental Housing Protection Act prevails.
Ms Foran: I do not have any instructions on that, but I can assure you the city council has always supported the Rental Housing Protection Act, and in fact was the leading body, because I was involved, in getting that act passed. If there was a condition that city council wished to impose that was contrary to that act -- I am not sure if the wording says "contrary to that act" -- there is no way city council would be imposing that condition. I have not seen the amendment. Could somebody distribute it to me so I can understand it?
The Chair: We seem to be dealing with a number of amendments to different sections of this act, and these different sections of the act seem to deal with somewhat different issues. Is that amendment forthcoming?
Mr Drainville: Legislative counsel has just been writing it out, actually.
The Chair: I am wondering if it is possible for us, while this is being circulated, to return to sections 2 or 4. It seems we are slowly going back and forth and getting closer and closer to resolution on this bill.
Mr Ruprecht: It is getting closer to Christmas every day.
The Chair: Indeed, that too.
First, this amendment on section 2: Any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr Ruprecht: Is this the amendment I read previously, or is this a new amendment?
The Chair: Subsection 2(2). Yes, this is one of the amendments you put forth. All in favour of the amendment as presented please indicate. Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
The Chair: Section 4: All in favour of Mr Ruprecht's amendment? Opposed, if any?
Motion agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Ms Foran: If you wish to go back to section 3, while I have no instructions as to the proposed amendment and I cannot get back to the city council to get them, I am not going to object to it. Clearly there will never be a situation where there is a conflict because the act just would not apply, so I am not objecting to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Foran. It seems we have two amendments which have not been produced and about which we have some degree of agreement. It would be nice to read them.
Mr Sutherland: I will move the amendment if someone can read it into the record.
The Chair: We have to have that first. Do we have the first amendment?
Interjections.
Mr Ruprecht: It is the first time this has happened in the history of this committee that we all agree before we even start.
The Chair: Indeed, yes. The provincial government and the city of Toronto seem to be in agreement, in any case.
Mr Sutherland moves that subsection 3(1) of the bill be struck out, and the following substituted:
"(1) If a demolition permit is issued under section 33 of the Planning Act, 1983, or section 1 of the City of Toronto Act, 1984, the council or the corporation may, in addition to any other conditions it may impose under those sections, impose as a condition of the demolition permit any condition that, in the opinion of council, is reasonable, having regard to the nature of the residential property to be demolished, including conditions,
"(a) requiring the preservation of significant natural features; and
"(b) requiring the erection and maintenance of structures and enclosures around the residential property proposed to be demolished and for requiring the submission and approval of plans of the structures and enclosures.
"(1.1) If there is a conflict between a condition imposed under this section and the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, prevails."
Motion agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
The Chair: We now have Mr Ruprecht's amendment to subsection 1(2), which refers to the Game and Fish Act. Any discussion of the amendment?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion on section 1?
1130
Mr Ruprecht: Would it help if I chained myself to a trap as Mr Drainville chained himself to some trees?
The Chair: Any further discussion on section 1? All in favour of section 1? Opposed?
Section 1 negatived.
The Chair: Section 5 is consequential to section 1.
Ms Foran: I would then ask that section 5 be struck out.
The Chair: So section 5 is withdrawn?
Ms Foran: I do not know if you wish a motion or if you just wish me to withdraw section 5.
The Chair: The clerk suggests that the section would have to be defeated.
All in favour of section 5? All opposed?
Section 5 negatived. Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1991
Consideration of Bill Pr110, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.
The Chair: Mrs O'Neill is sponsoring Bill Pr110.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: That is correct. This bill "would authorize the corporation of the city of Nepean to establish the amount to be charged for its licensing fees." Ms Nancy L. Miles, the city solicitor, is here to present the reasons for the bill.
Mr Sutherland: This looks like a pretty routine bill. I move that we go to an immediate vote.
The Chair: I suggest that for the record, the city solicitor be allowed the opportunity to at least introduce the legislation. She has waited a fair bit of time and come a fair distance.
Ms Miles: Good morning. At the end of last year the solicitors for the corporation of the city of Nepean undertook a comprehensive review of Nepean's licensing bylaw and they found that, with respect to the administration and enforcement cost of certain licences, there was quite a disparity. The reason was that certain licensing fees are subject to statutory maximums of $10, $25 or $50. The cost of enforcement and administration was much greater than that.
In February 1991, the council of the corporation of the city of Nepean resolved to apply for this special legislation. It was to be in a more comprehensive form, and we had had a letter from the honourable David Cooke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, talking about his problems with the bill as drafted. Essentially the concern was that if we were going to take away the statutory maximum for these certain licensing fees, the cost of the licence the city could impose should be linked directly to the administration and enforcement costs.
You will see that the act has now been amended to provide for those certain sections of the Municipal Act and the Bread Sales Act which impose statutory maximums. Paragraph 1(1)1 goes on to link the maximum fee to be charged to the administrative and enforcement costs, so in our opinion it is no more than a cost recovery bill.
Mr Ruprecht: I think Mr Kimble had a great point. I appreciate Nancy coming all this way, but certainly what I really see is Yvonne O'Neill's signature as the sponsor here. That is good enough for me. I would consequently --
Mr Abel: Talk about power.
The Chair: Is it the opinion of the committee that we should be ready to vote?
Mr Sutherland: Yes.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs O'Neill and Ms Miles.
We have no business next week. As well, it is the swearing-in ceremony for the new Lieutenant Governor. Our next meeting will be in two weeks.
The committee adjourned at 1136.