Wednesday 9 June 1993

Sisters of Charity at Ottawa Act, 1993, Bill Pr81

Bernard Grandmaître, MPP

Marc Babinski, legal counsel, Sisters of Charity at Ottawa

Township of Aldborough and Village of Rodney Act, 1993, Bill Pr87

Peter North, MPP

Murray Hennessey, legal counsel, township of Aldborough and village of Rodney

City of Ottawa Act, 1993, Bill Pr69

Ron Eddy, MPP

Douglas Wallace, city solicitor, city of Ottawa

Town of Richmond Hill Act, 1993, Bill Pr77

Ron Eddy, MPP

Virginia MacLean, solicitor

Mary Braun, legal counsel, town of Richmond Hill

Dr Tom Bolton, associate director, David Dunlap Observatory


*Chair / Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

*Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)

*O'Neil, Hugh P. (Quinte L)

*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Mills

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Coy, Lynette, economist, municipal finance branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Melville, Tom, legal counsel, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Clerk / Greffière: Pajeska, Donna

Staff / Personnel: Klein, Susan, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.


Consideration of Bill Pr81, An Act respecting The Sisters of Charity at Ottawa.

The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting to order. The first bill we will be considering this morning is Bill Pr81, An Act respecting The Sisters of Charity at Ottawa. Mr Grandmaître, you are the sponsor; if you would introduce your applicant, and you will be making your opening remarks.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Marc Babinski is the counsel for the Sisters of Charity. Marc will answer all your technical questions, if you do have any. It's a very simple bill. I don't know why we're wasting our time. I think it should be approved and we should go on with something else.

But let me briefly give you the background, the history of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa. They were first incorporated back in 1849 and this morning we're applying for special legislation to exempt certain lands from taxation for municipal and school purposes. The Sisters of Charity operate a health centre known as Élisabeth Bruyère Health Centre, and also under the same roof, a nursing home known as Villa Marguérite. This building is the former Ottawa General Hospital, which was exempt from taxation, as you know.

This organization, this corporation, has never made a profit. In fact, I can give you some examples of the deficits that have been accrued. Back in 1989-90, the deficit was $15,000; in 1991, $85,000; in 1991-92, $50,000; and this year, 1992-93, the deficit will be in excess of $100,000. We figure that this corporation needs a tax break and the city of Ottawa has agreed through a resolution to exempt the building and land from municipal taxes, and we are before you this morning to give us this kind of exemption. If it's given to us, then the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton, through a resolution, will approve your decision of this morning.

I have introduced similar bills in the past, such as Pr2, the Children's Oncology Care of Ontario, and also Pr47, the National Capital Children's Oncology Care, and also the South Ottawa Services Foundation. That's Pr13. So we're not asking for any special favours. We want the Sisters of Charity to be treated as everybody else. Did you want to add something, Marc?

The Chair: Mr Babinski, did you want to --

Mr Marc Babinski: Just a few points that I'd like to make to supplement Mr Grandmaître's comments. He pointed out that about three quarters of the costs for the residents are subsidized by the Ministry of Health, so by not providing an exemption and not letting this bill pass, it's going to increase the pressure on the Ministry of Health to provide more funds for the operation of the nursing home, perhaps to the point where it may want to reconsider whether or not it can operate at all.

The second point is that the villa is subject to taxes because it was given its licence under the Nursing Homes Act, and under the particular legislative arrangement that we have now, we have certain inequities which are resulting. We have charitable homes for the aged, which perform exactly the same function as Villa Marguérite, that are exempt from taxation. At the same time, the Ministry of Health is not issuing any licences to nursing homes that are operating on a for-profit basis. So the only people now who are in the nursing home business are people like the Villa Marguérite that are operating a not-for-profit business. At the same time, we have people who are doing the same thing, municipal homes for the aged, that are not subject to tax. So there is, in my opinion, an inequity.

The additional problem that we see coming down the pipe is that Bill 101, which is attempting to address this particular problem of all the various categories of nursing homes, is not going to relieve this inequity. There's still going to be this problem if Bill 101, in the form that it is in now, is passed. So we have an additional concern there, that we are going to be faced with the same treatment even after Bill 101 becomes law.

An additional point that I'd like to also point out is that I like to step back from it, and not being a government person, as a layman, I say, "Why is the Ministry of Revenue doing this?" They're doing it, I would suppose, to increase the tax base. But I'm not really sure that this is what the result is.

If you have three quarters of the funds there coming from the Ministry of Health, what you're really doing is moving the money from one pocket to the other. The other one quarter, I suppose, is going to have to come from the funds that are generated within the villa, but it operates on a not-for-profit basis. So the end result is, I don't think you're increasing your tax base by very much, and with all due respect to the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, I don't really think that the public policy objective which is intended to be reached by taxing the health centre is going to be achieved. You're just moving money from one pocket to the other.

I'd also like to point this out: Most, if not all, of the residents are on an old age pension, so where they're going to get the extra money to meet the costs is from their pension.

The most important point of all here is that I think you may all agree that what is happening is a shift of revenues that are in the direct control of the provincial government to the municipality. The basic result of this is that the funds the Ministry of Health has under its control and is transferring for the operation of this nursing home will be basically going into the hands of the local municipality.

I would like to remind you that in Ottawa the priorities of the local municipalities seem to be not the kind that are served by the old age home, which are the needs of the aged and pensioners. What we have in Ottawa now, tax funds are going to finance the new city hall, which is millions of dollars; to finance the new baseball stadium. At the same meeting at which we asked the regional municipality to exempt us from taxes, it told us: "The region's policy is to send this back to the local municipality. We don't have anything to say about it." But at the same meeting, they exempted the baseball stadium from the payment of municipal taxes.

Mr Grandmaître: My private member's bill.

Mr Babinski: This is obviously a point that Mr Grandmaître couldn't raise. All of this to me suggests that if the government has a priority for the care of the needy and moving away from financing projects like a baseball stadium, I think this is an opportunity for that particular interest to be served. Those are my submissions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Babinski. I would like to call on any other interested parties at this point to come forward and make their presentation. I have you down, Mr Johnson, but if I can ask, first of all, the parliamentary assistant, because I think some of his remarks will be of interest to you.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I just want to make a couple of comments on behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, just to point out a couple of things. We are actually opposing it; I'll let you know that up front. First of all, it's not a registered charity and there have not been property tax exemptions granted by private bill for applicants who provide health centre and nursing home facilities, and this application would create a precedent which could be used by a large number of similar organizations.

The other area is that it should be noted that any such decision could have a large impact on the municipal tax base and, at the same time, when the tax base is under considerable pressure, the regional municipality in Ottawa has actually opposed this bill by resolution also. So I just want to inform the members that we are opposing it.

I do have one question, though. This group owns 12 other properties. What are these other properties? What kind of operations are they?

Mr Grandmaître: They're in the health care business, hospitals and nursing homes and so on and so forth, all non-profit. But, Madam Chair, I would like to correct the parliamentary assistant.

The Chair: Yes. I noticed that you were --

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, the city of Ottawa did approve it.

Mr Hayes: Excuse me; I'm sorry. I'm saying the regional government has opposed it.

Mr Grandmaître: The regional, I'm sorry. Well, I'll let the real lawyer talk about that.

Mr Babinski: I think there's a difference here which is very important. I think there's a difference between the region saying, "We oppose this," and the region saying, "We're not going to consider these any longer and we're sending it back to the area municipality." I've included in the compendium a copy of the finance committee recommendation which was adopted by the council of the regional municipality. I don't think that was a refusal, though. I read that as saying: "We just don't want to consider it. As a matter of policy, we don't want to touch it." I don't think that's the same as opposing it.


Mr Hayes: I can't argue that right at the present time. We are waiting for a copy of the resolution that they have made. Apparently, it's on its way here, so hopefully it will come here shortly.

Mr Grandmaître: But it is the policy of the regional municipality not to deal with those questions. They send it back to the local level. The city of Ottawa, as I pointed out, through a resolution approved this.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess some of the questions have been answered, but do I gather from the conversation that the city of Ottawa is in actual support of this application?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: In the terminology, it says the applicant is not a municipality. If the city of Ottawa is in support, is this the regular routine for this sort of bill to come forward?

Mr Grandmaître: Through the Municipal Act and also the Assessment Act. This is how it weaves its way.

Mr David Johnson: Now, I don't know, maybe this is a question to the legal counsel or somebody. If the city is in support of an application for the -- this is for the elimination of the assessment, I guess, essentially, isn't it?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: Then would it not be common practice for the government to acquiesce to the wishes of the -- is that common practice?

Ms Susan Klein: I couldn't answer that. I don't know.

Mr David Johnson: Is there anybody who could answer that?

Mr Grandmaître: You still need --

Mr David Johnson: I realize we still need a bill, but in most circumstances, if a city requests something of this nature, would it be common practice, because it impacts largely on the city in question? It also impacts on the region, of course, but --

Mr Hayes: If I may, Madam Chair, on that point, the breakdown in taxes would be that the city's share would be 18%, the region's share is 30% and the school board's share would be 52%.

Mr David Johnson: But the school board hasn't taken a position.

Mr Hayes: So it will affect the school board and it will affect the region more than it will affect the city. Those are the points that I raise.

Mr David Johnson: Still, my basic question, though -- it was my understanding that if the city passes a resolution, the onus is basically on the city itself, and if it determines that it wants to support an application like this and that the assessment should be -- what's the word? -- washed out or eliminated --

Ms Lynnette Coy: I can say --

The Chair: Excuse me. Just before you continue, would you introduce yourself for Hansard. You might have to move over, just to be picked up by the mike.

Ms Coy: My name is Lynnette Coy. I'm with the municipal finance branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Our concern with respect to such exemptions has been that even if the lower tier does approve it, we have some concerns for the ratepayers in the rest of the region, because what it means is that the exemption is going to be removed from the roll and it does affect the ratepayers, the upper-tier costs, as well as the school board's sharing of those costs. So we are concerned about the ratepayers.

Mr David Johnson: I appreciate that. I'm new here, so maybe you could help me out a little bit. You must see quite a number of these kinds of applications coming from various cities, maybe not exactly in this form, but something similar. What would the common circumstance be? Would the ministry generally go along with it or --

Ms Coy: Usually, our support has been for more recreational type charities, but we've always encouraged them to have approval of the upper tier, and they usually do.

Mr David Johnson: So this wouldn't be a precedent then, for example, where the ministry has opposed a request --

Ms Coy: It would be for us, yes.

Mr David Johnson: This is a precedent? This is the first time --

Interjection: Because of the nursing home aspect?

Ms Coy: Because of the nursing home aspect.

Mr David Johnson: So this is the first time that the ministry has actually ever opposed a local city?

Ms Coy: No, no.

Mr David Johnson: It's not a precedent?

Ms Coy: No, it's not. We have opposed such bills at times, yes.

Mr David Johnson: You have opposed them in the past?

Ms Coy: That's right.

Mr David Johnson: On a number of occasions?

Ms Coy: That's right.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): One thing I just wanted to get an idea of is the amount of taxes that are involved in this exemption. Can we just get a figure on that?

Mr Babinski: I can answer that question. I have the tax bills with me. For 1992, the basic rate, the quantum was $28,730.12. There was, however, a reassessment which resulted in an additional $19,798 of taxes being charged against the property. So the total taxes for 1992 are in the amount of $48,529.11. I'll say that again: $48,529.11. This year, the first three instalments total up to about $18,112.52. That may double over the year. I'm not sure what the taxes for the whole year will be.

If I may, I'd like to say, to reply perhaps to the parliamentary assistant's concern and the Ministry of Revenue's concern, that this burden will be shifted to the rest of the community. I don't believe that $48,000 a year is going to create as much of a burden as a decision to exempt the baseball stadium from taxes, which I'm sure would produce at least three or four times as much per year.

Mr Hansen: Okay. The reason I asked, because I was just looking at your deficit: 1989-90 was $15,000; 1990-91 was $85,000. I guess why you applied for this -- it would just sort of flat-line your budget without a deficit.

There was another -- on page 6, item 8 and item 10. I was wondering, reading through here it says, "There are no persons or groups known to the applicant to be opposed to the bill except as shown in item 6."

Mr Grandmaître: Is this the compendium, Ron?

Mr Hansen: Yes.

Mr Babinski: Item 6 just lists the interested parties. We've attached the affidavit of Roger Pepper, the clerk, city council, city of Ottawa, to the documentation. It's an affidavit showing that the city council approved the recommendations of the city's finance committee to support our request for an exemption.

Mr Hansen: I didn't see that in here.

Mr Babinski: Okay. I can provide you with a copy. I have some with me if you need that. If for whatever reason that's not attached --

Mr Hansen: No. I was just reading here and I was just wondering because it says, "There are no persons or groups...." Also number 10: " the applicant to be opposed to the bill except as stated in item 6." That would be just the region then. Okay. The clerk has a copy here.

Mr Babinski: Just to clarify again, to reiterate that, as we stated in the compendium, there was a refusal to consider the request by the region and not a refusal of the request. They didn't want to hear it, they didn't want to talk about it, and to me that's a lot different from them saying, "We're rejecting it." They're saying as a matter of policy, they're not considering any of these requests.

I have to point out, for the purposes of clarity, that the Catholic section of the French-language school board has opposed this request, and that's in the compendium.

Madam Chair, I just was wondering if I could also address some of the comments that were made by the parliamentary assistant.

The Chair: We have two more questioners, but I am interested in hearing your remarks. That might in fact clarify some of their questions, so I will cede the floor to you at this point.

The two questioners I have on my list are Mr Eddy and Mr Ruprecht, so you are noted and you will have your question as soon as soon as Mr Babinski clarifies.

Mr Babinski: I would just like the members of the committee also to be aware that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs imposes its own guidelines as to what makes this type of application acceptable or not. There is no requirement in law, for you to give us the exemption, that we be a registered charity. This is just a criterion that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs establishes for its acceptance of these types of requests.


The second point I'd like to make is, the suggestion that this creates a precedent I think is a bit disingenuous if you look at our -- we've relied on three bills that have already been passed. There have been three private members' bills in the Ottawa-Carleton region alone which we've used as precedents to draft this bill. So I fail to understand how we're creating a precedent. I think the precedent has been created before us.

Another point is that if as well there's no legal requirement put forward for the committee to say, "Well, we'll only approve particular types of activities," again with respect to public policy objectives, the care of pensioners, in my mind at least, takes priority over recreational purposes, which the parliamentary assistant and the Ministry of Revenue have already stated that they've supported in the past.

That's it. Those are just things I wanted to --

The Chair: I'll turn then to Mr Eddy.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Before asking the question, I just want to state that I don't think a legislative body should be afraid of making a precedent. If you didn't make decisions on applications and problems for fear of making a precedent, there'd never be any progress in the world, I don't expect.

I find myself in favour of the bill, because the homes and health centre operate on a non-profit basis. Indeed that's the key to it, and I note that you stated that it would put them on equal footing with other charitable and municipal institutions, if I can use that term, of like nature. I think that's awfully important.

I notice that there's not opposition from Ottawa-Carleton, nor the city of Ottawa. Certainly that's important from a local point of view.

The parliamentary assistant stated that the centre and the home are not a registered charity, and I wondered what that involved. Could that be pursued? Is that a difficult thing, to become a registered charity? Is that a possibility, if that indeed is the main impediment to the ministry agreeing to exemption of municipal taxation? Is that a possibility, or what are the implications of that? Do you wish to answer at this time?

Mr Babinski: My understanding is that the status of a charitable organization under the Canadian Income Tax Act is partly used and required when you have an organization that is seeking funds from private members of the public. The Sisters of Charity doesn't operate in that fashion and doesn't go and have fund-raising drives and give out tax receipts. That's not the manner in which they operate. They collect the funds internally or --

Mr Eddy: So it's not appropriate?

Mr Babinski: No, or required.

Mr Eddy: Or required. Thank you.

Could I ask the parliamentary assistant a further question then, or the legal counsel? Are there any centres, homes or institutions like this that are presently tax-exempt?

Mr Hayes: My understanding is that there aren't, and not for nursing homes. That's the information I've been given, that there are not others.

As a matter of fact, I guess one of the things, if we want to talk about the precedent being set here, it's estimated there are approximately another 200 such organizations that would be in the same situation.

Mr Grandmaître: Are they all non-profit?

Mr Hayes: Yes, that's correct that they are non-profit. But then at the same time, how is this committee to deal with the future of some of these organizations in terms of whether they would become profit or non-profit, and they already would have that exemption? Like I say, there are approximately 200 other organizations that are similar to this. I'm not sure whether the committee -- that's when I say there is a precedent -- would actually want to deal with each one of those in the future, citing these exemptions.

Mr Babinski: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. It is simply how he conceives that the queue will be forming outside the door of this room of other nursing homes making the same application. If it gives the committee any comfort, I certainly will be glad not to talk about this to anybody after I leave the room.

Mr Hayes: I'm sure nobody else will know about it.

Mr Babinski: The ministry of revenue is well acquainted with this application, but I really have my doubts that the 200 or so other nursing homes have sent representatives or are monitoring the situation and are on the edge of making an application.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Eddy's comments certainly made sense to me, and I was going to make part of that argument. In addition, Mr Grandmaître is here and he has given it a great deal of thought. That's why, obviously, we will support this bill.

But let me caution you. The parliamentary assistant indicates that there will be others, and I have no doubt personally that this is absolutely true. There will be others, because this will be looked at -- however you like to phrase it -- as a loophole, as a way out or as a way to gain.

I'm really tired of us having to sit here year after year looking at these specific applications. I really want to say to the ministry today, and I hope the parliamentary assistant takes notes on this, why in heaven's name is there no policy? We have made the request in this committee year after year, because people are coming for exemptions, whether they're multicultural organizations, cultural groups, community centres or whatever. They're coming, and this is ad hockery at its finest.

I'd like to request -- I hope this committee will take it somewhat seriously -- that later, or at whatever time the Chair deems right, this committee recommend that the ministry come up with a policy so that we don't have to sit through this again and again until it'll be too late. Perhaps what might happen later on, as I say, is that we've got to go back to these organizations and say: "Sorry, but you're no longer tax-exempt. You've got to pay taxes now." It's easier to do it from the front than go to the back door and make those changes later on. So please, I hope you take these comments seriously.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ruprecht. I will now turn to Mr Hansen.

Mr Hansen: I have to agree with Mr Ruprecht. This committee has sat and passed certain legislation for certain communities, certain organizations. The municipality agreed, the region agreed, we saw no one disagree, so at that point we went ahead.

I have a very hard time voting in favour of this bill. One reason is what the region of Ottawa-Carleton has said: "The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton adopted a policy with regards to all applications for tax exemption which provides that such exemptions only be provided by public provincial legislation utilizing uniform criteria on a province-wide basis."

I have to agree with the region of Ottawa-Carleton. If the province comes out with it across the province and everyone is treated exactly the same, then I can agree with it at that point.

They go on to item (c), on page 5 also. They "passed a resolution refusing the request of the Sisters of Charity for a tax exemption at a meeting of the council held on October 27, 1992."

Being a provincial member, we talk about the city and then we talk about the region, but we represent everyone in Ontario. When I see a letter come back from Ottawa-Carleton region supporting this, then I will vote in a different manner, but today I'm going to have to say I'm going to vote against this bill. Thank you.


Mr David Johnson: We had a similar sort of situation in East York a few years ago, and our position was not to support the exemption from the assessment. We did so reluctantly, because I know that this organization, the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa, and the organization I'm talking about in East York, provide an excellent service and are worthy of every support that can be given. The problem is that when they don't pay taxes, everybody else pays the extra taxes, and there are a lot of poor people out there in apartments and homes, a lot of people on welfare etc, who are paying taxes who really can't afford to pay their own taxes, let alone pick up an extra burden, however well-deserving it is.

Still, I'm a little torn on this, because I respect the local municipality's decision. Normally, if the local municipality's gone through a process, a fair process, and determined that this property should be exempt, I would respect that, and I think we should give the most weight to the local municipality.

On the other hand, when I look at the possibility -- I'd like a report on this. Is that possible, to get a report on the 200 other nursing homes? Can I get that in writing somehow, that there are 200 other similar situations? I think in the final analysis I'm going to agree with the parliamentary assistant on this, that we have to treat all of these properties in a fair and uniform fashion, and if we're prepared to exempt this one, then we have to be prepared to exempt all 200. I'm going to put a lot of weight on that, so if that's what's being stated here this morning, I'm asking those who have stated that if they could give me the documentation so I could be content that I'm making my decision on a factual basis.

Mr Eddy: I just want a clarification on Mr Johnson's request. I believe he said "similar homes," so it's those homes and centres operating on a non-profit basis. Is that what we're talking about?

The Chair: I'd like to turn this to ministry staff, if you'd like to respond for the purposes of Hansard about what kind of organizations are being referred to by the parliamentary assistant. Do you have an idea? Are they nursing homes or are they some other form of organization? If you'd like to come back to the mike and reintroduce yourself, please.

Ms Coy: Lynette Coy from Municipal Affairs. I'll reconfirm that with the Ministry of Finance, because I got the information from it.

Mr Tom Melville: Including the nature of the organization.

Ms Coy: Yes, that's right.

Mr Eddy: It's this point of being on a non-profit basis that I'm particularly interested in.

Mr Melville: Perhaps that information could be available on a breakdown basis.

Mr Ruprecht: And when are they going to come up with a policy?

Mr Melville: There is a policy.

The Chair: Just for the information of the committee, the clerk has informed me that if this is something you would like to have Ms Coy confirm with the Ministry of Finance, this item could be stood down for 20 minutes until the appropriate phone calls are made to confirm the kinds of questions that have been raised on this particular issue and to substantiate your concern. I leave it in the hands of the committee, but you should be fully informed of what your rights are as a committee and the information that you might desire.

Mr David Johnson: My problem, Madam Chairman, since I guess I was the one who asked for it, is that I'm speaking to the private member's bill at 11 o'clock, so I won't be here in 20 minutes.

Mr Hayes: Madam Chair, to be realistic, I don't think we can get that information in 20 minutes. You've asked for that information and we will get it to you as soon as possible, but the information actually came from the Ministry of Finance. Twenty minutes: We'd love to, but we can't.

Mr Babinski: Do we know that these other organizations are also in a deficit position?

The Chair: Mr Babinski, I'm not aware if the Ministry of Finance at this point, without going through some research, can answer that question. Ms Coy, do you have any information? She says no, at this point. Mr Eddy?

Mr Eddy: In view of the fact that the information isn't obtainable within 20 minutes, a very short space of time, I'm wondering if the matter could be deferred until the end of the meeting, as the last item after the other applications have been heard. In that way it can still be considered today before a decision is made and yet be included in this meeting.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): With all due respect, I would like to suggest that this be deferred for a week, until we can get all this information together. To ask to have it done even today I think is just asking a bit too much of the committee to get it, read it, digest it and so on. I would like to suggest that it be deferred for a week. If you wish a motion, I can do that.

The Chair: If the committee would like to that, that is something that can be done.

Mrs MacKinnon: Would you like a motion?

The Chair: I would like a motion, if you would.

Mrs MacKinnon: I move that this particular application be deferred for one week.

The Chair: Any discussion on that particular motion?

Mr Grandmaître: Madam Chair, before the vote is taken, for one week to do what? This is what I'm interested in.

The Chair: I think, Mr Grandmaître, the issue around which this motion revolves is to clarify the situation of the 200 organizations which also would fall into a similar circumstance as the Sisters of Charity. Mr Babinski has raised the issue about their financial situation. Some research would have to be done. It would allow the ministry to prepare that research and to present it so that all of the committee members would be duly informed and be able to make an appropriate decision.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for making it clear. I just wanted everything on record. If we're going to stall it for a week -- I want action.

Mr Hayes: I would like a clarification from Mr Johnson. I understood him to say, and he can correct me if I didn't hear it properly, that he was not supporting the bill; however, you'd still want that information, but that information wouldn't affect your decision today; you wanted that information to deal with future applicants on this particular issue. I may be wrong in that, but I thought that's what --

Mr David Johnson: In actual fact, what I was trying to convey was that based on that information, which I assume to be accurate, although I don't have the documentation, I would not be supporting the bill today. However, if it's the wish to have this deferred for a week to get that information, then that would make me even happier and that would be wonderful. I assume, since it was said, that it's accurate information, but it would be nice to have it documented and deal with it in a week's time. If that's possible, then that's fine.

The Chair: There's now a motion on the floor, so people can obviously vote for or against.

Mr David Johnson: Sure, I'll support that.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm not going to vote in favour of having this go for another week. These people have come here expecting a decision today. They've brought all the information that they deemed to be necessary and I think we owe it to these people to make a decision on the information they gave us. I cannot see what bearing the information that's being requested is going to have on making a decision on this. If we find out whether the other 200 organizations are deficit or non-deficit, who cares? We are here to make a decision based on what these people want and I think we should make that decision today.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers on this particular issue, I will call a vote on the motion as put forward by Mrs MacKinnon. All those in favour of the motion, please indicate. All those opposed? The motion is lost.

The question on the bill; that's Bill Pr81. All those in favour of voting?


The Chair: Clause by clause.

Mr Grandmaître: No, no, of the bill.

The Chair: I'm informed that the appropriate procedure is go through clause by clause.

If I may start now, all those in favour of sections 1 through 6? All those against sections 1 through 6? That is defeated.

The bill will not be reported to the House.

I'm sorry, Mr Grandmaître and Mr Babinski.



Consideration of Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney.

The Chair: We would now call Mr North and the applicants from the communities of Aldborough and Rodney for Bill Pr87.

I'm just waiting for things to settle down a bit. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Mr North, I would ask you to begin. As the sponsor, you have the opportunity to make some opening remarks. I would ask you to introduce your guests and then it will be their turn to make some remarks.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): We appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. We hope to be very brief. First of all, I would like to introduce John Fisher, the reeve of Rodney. Harry Mezenberg is the reeve of Aldborough township and Murray Hennessey is with Hennessey, Bowsher and Associates in the city of St Thomas. He's counsel for the communities.

We have before you a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to amalgamate the township of Aldborough and the village of Rodney as one municipality. It's received favourable support in both communities and therefore we bring it forward to the committee and ask the committee for its favourable support as well.

I really will keep my opening remarks brief and I will ask our counsel, Mr Hennessey, if he wishes any other comments.

Mr Murray Hennessey: The two municipalities in question have made an application or petition to the minister under the municipal boundaries adjustment act, or whatever that act is, for an order under section 14 permitting the amalgamation of the two municipalities. That, I understand, is proceeding as planned and as scheduled and with everybody's support.

The bill before you deals with a particular problem that arises under the Power Corporation Act and the Public Utilities Act. That is simply that under the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro or/and the municipalities are permitted to create areas of service from time to time.

But there is a provision in the Power Corporation Act that no new area is to be created after the year 1951. I don't know what the magic is of 1951, but somehow no new area was to be created for a service area. At the moment, the village of Rodney, which has its own public utilities commission, is an area and it can be serviced because it's the total municipality. Upon amalgamation, however, the total municipality of Aldborough-Rodney will not be serviced by Hydro in the same fashion, whereas the act and the Public Utilities Act say that a municipality will provide the services for the total municipality.

In this particular case, if we were to continue with what we have now, and which is what we want, Ontario Hydro would sell energy directly to Rodney and it would continue to service the residents of Aldborough as it is doing now: directly, that is.

Normally, the right to continue with the existing circumstance would find its way into a bill wherein municipalities are amalgamating. Something in the legislation of an amalgamating act would direct its attention to this particular problem. But in view of the fact that these two municipalities hopefully are going to be amalgamated by virtue of an order under section 14 of the municipal boundaries act, this thing will not get direct attention or legislative attention.

That's the necessity for the private bill, and all we're asking in the private bill is that Ontario Hydro be permitted to continue to supply service to the former village of Rodney and continue, as it is doing now, selling it to the utility, and to continue supplying to the residents of the former township of Aldborough as it is doing now, and nothing else changes. It does provide that the Rodney Public Utilities Commission will continue as a commission for the total amalgamated municipality. Those are my comments, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hennessey. It is my job to ask if there are any other interested parties who would like to come forward to make a statement at this time. Seeing none, I will turn to Mr Fletcher and then Mr Hansen, who have indicated they'd like to ask some questions.

Mr Fletcher: Just a quick one: Everyone seems to be in agreement with this. Is that the way it is, no dissension?

Mr Hennessey: No dissension.

Mr Fletcher: That's good.

Interjection: This is a change.

Mr Fletcher: Yes, that is, and I'm very happy to be able to support this, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr Hansen.

Mr Hansen: This happened down in the area I represent. We had a bunch of small villages and it became the Lincoln public utilities. So this is a very simple bill and it just cleans up a lot of areas there, and I think I'll support this also. There's no objection.

Mr Hennessey: Thank you.

Mr Hansen: I also have an amendment when it comes time for an amendment, Madam Chair, a very small one.

The Chair: Okay. Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: First of all, my compliments to the councils of the two municipalities for negotiating an amalgamation of this type. I think there will be others of those, and so we're back to really needing policy and amendments to the Power Corporation Act to take care of this situation, and indeed situations which are probably more common in relation to the dissolution of police villages in the many counties of Ontario that are still operating. I agree, certainly, with this. This does take care of the situation entirely, this bill, as far as the hydro supply and the operation of the commission in the municipality are concerned?

Mr Hennessey: Yes, it does.

Mr Eddy: Thank you.

Mr Ruprecht: I just want to compliment Mr North. He thought about this, he looked at this bill, he made his decision and that's good enough for me. Thank you very much.

The Chair: It's always a delight to hear you, Mr Ruprecht. Mr Hayes, did you have a few comments to add as parliamentary assistant?

Mr Hayes: Yes. I want to compliment not only Mr North but the leaders of both of those municipalities for working so very closely together on this issue. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs supports this bill. It'll help speed along your amalgamation and be a success. We support it.


The Chair: Okay. If there are no further questions or any other comments, I think we can move to clause-by-clause.

Mr Hansen: I've got an amendment coming up.

The Chair: Wait till we get to that section, all right?

Mr Hansen: Okay. I just want to make you aware: section 3.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll keep that in mind.

Shall sections 1 and 2 of the bill carry? Carried. We have section 3, so, Mr Hansen, would you like to read your amendment?

Mr Hansen: I'd like to make a motion to the committee here. I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding after "Rodney" in the sixth line, the word "public." So it would read "Rodney Public Utilities Commission."

The Chair: Very good. I think that clarifies the matter. Any discussion about that amendment? Seeing none, shall the section, as amended, carry? It's carried.

Sections 4 to 8: Shall they carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Mr North, you had some concerns prior to coming here that things would move quickly. I think you are pleased with what has happened. I thank you for your bringing this forward.

Mr North: Thank you, Madam Chair, on behalf of the communities that feel there is great import to this particular bill.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr Hansen: Peter, this is the first bill that's passed today.


Consideration of Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Chair: All right, will Mr Eddy bring -- I believe he's sponsoring this, along with the applicants, Mr Wallace, Ms Junop.

Mr Eddy: Madam Chair --

The Chair: You don't want to sit with your --

Mr Eddy: I was told that I could sit in my own seat.

The Chair: Very good, Mr Eddy. Heaven forbid that I should ask you to sit somewhere else.

Mr Eddy: It saves me running back and forth.

Mr Ruprecht: Is this controversial or not?

Mr Eddy: On behalf of Bob Chiarelli, MPP, it's my pleasure to introduce Mr Douglas Wallace, who is a director of corporate law and city solicitor for the city of Ottawa. It's regarding, of course, Bill Pr69, which is "to authorize the council of the corporation of the City of Ottawa to charge fees for the inspection and monitoring of properties in relation to maintenance and occupancy standards." Mr Wallace will make the presentation.

The Chair: Mr Wallace, perhaps you would like to make your remarks then.

Mr Douglas Wallace: I'm sure that all members of the committee will have read the purposes and objects of the legislation set out in the compendium, so I won't go through that at any length. Because this draft legislation met certain objections in its initial stages, which objections have been met by revisions to the bill in the drafting process, I should like to point out a couple of features of the bill as it is before you now, features, particularly, that met the original objections.

The bill, I believe, reflects an innovative approach by the municipality to recover some of the costs of its bylaw enforcement with respect to property standards through user fees. Rather than continuing with any increase in the general tax burden on all the citizens, the objective is that those properties that are problem properties, the owners of them should pay a higher price and a higher burden for enforcement of the bylaw than the general public.

The big change in the bill in its drafting was to change from a provision that it would apply to all properties to only properties that are found in default under our property standards bylaw, and I think that is very important to recognize, because it wasn't always clear.

Under the property standards bylaw that's authorized under the Planning Act, of course, an inspector goes out and inspects a property and there's a whole procedure there with a notice of violation, a right for an appearance before a property standards officer, an order is given, and there's an opportunity to appeal that order both before a property standards committee and then possibly before a court, if it is desired. The court, under the Planning Act, has the same powers as a property standards appeal committee and therefore could reverse the order if it saw fit, so there is this built-in court process.

What our legislation does is, starting at the conclusion of all of that -- I'm talking about once a final order has been given under that process and the property standards officers go back and find that deficiencies still have not been corrected -- then the costs of those inspections will be borne by the property owner. So it is not of general application to all the taxpayers; it's to those who are in default. That's why we say what justifies the shift in the costs from the general taxpayer to the property owner.

There are other safeguards built in to the legislation. Besides the procedure under the Planning Act before the order becomes final, there is provision in the act that anyone affected must receive notice of the fees that will be imposed before the inspection is carried out, and they also receive notice. After the inspection's been carried out and fees incurred, they receive notice and have an opportunity to appeal. Any order with respect to the fees may be appealed again to the property standards appeal committee. So those safeguards have been built in. As I say, some of them did not appear in the original version of the bill.

We got objections from the public, which I'm sure have been distributed and are included in our supplementary compendium. Now I'm pleased to say that with the amendments that have taken place during the course of the drafting, we've been advised that some of the objections, certainly, have been withdrawn, now that it's clearly understood exactly what the purpose of the legislation is.

The Chair: Just for all members, in fact there is a series of letters that has been included in your package. As Mr Wallace has pointed out, there have been some objections raised, and they are there for your perusal and consultation. But I should also point out that there are some amendments, I've been informed, that will be taking place during our clause-by-clause discussions.

Was there something more that one of you would like to add?

Mr Wallace: Simply, Madam Chairman, I would indicate Cathy Junop is with me from the operating department, the manager of the property standards and site plan control branch of our planning and development department, and would be pleased to answer any questions if the committee has questions as to the procedure, particularly of giving the property standards orders before it gets to the stage of further inspections that we're talking about here.

The Chair: The procedure is that I have to ask if there are any other interested parties who would like to come forward who would at this point like to make some remarks for or against the proposed bill. Seeing none, I am going to turn to the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hayes, who is with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to make his comments.


Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is not objecting to this bill, with the understanding that there will be an amendment to clear up things.

The Chair: Are there any other questions at this time on behalf of members?

Mr Hansen: You've got two Rons now, in case you thought Ron Eddy starts before --

The Chair: Not just that; he was sponsoring the bill. I think I'll turn to Mr Hansen first and then to Mr Eddy.

Mr Hansen: I'm going to ask a question. I missed the very first part, about the first five minutes. If you're looking at the city of Ottawa, in effect, it costs you money to have these inspections, so you're looking at a point of it as a basis of breaking even, then, with these inspections. Is this the idea of the bill? In other words, the wages that you're paying for these inspections will actually sort of flat-line. It wouldn't be a burden on the city of Ottawa.

Mr Wallace: That is generally the case, certainly with respect to, as you say, these inspections, these inspections being only after properties have been found in default. But for those inspections, yes, the fees are intended to be set to be basically cost recovery.

Mr Hansen: That's great. Okay, I can support that.

Mr Eddy: Just as a clarification regarding this matter of opposition to the bill, I believe you stated in your explanation that although there had been several objections, you've met most or all of those in the bill that's before us.

Mr Wallace: Yes, I believe that is the case. We're not aware -- certainly nobody's appeared. There haven't been formal withdrawals of a number of individual objections, but in reading them, they appear to be based, by and large, on the concept that they think the fees are going to be charged for all property standards inspections. If that were the case, it would be different grounds and I think we would probably agree.

We think we've met those objections, even though they haven't officially withdrawn them. The largest rental property owner in the city is probably Minto Developments. You'll see there is a letter before you withdrawing its concerns and noting that it is now in favour of the bill, as presently drafted.

The Chair: Seeing no further questioners, I am going to move to the vote. Let us go section by section.

Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Mr Hansen: Madam Chair, I have a motion to be made before the committee on an amendment.

I move that subsection 4(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Recovery of fees

"(6) The fees payable may be recovered by the corporation in like manner as municipal taxes."

Mr Ruprecht: Is there discussion on this?

The Chair: On that particular amendment, yes.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm wondering if I may be permitted to ask this question. I have a quick question to Mr Hansen and, if he is unable to answer, probably to counsel. Does this refer to if the owner does not comply with the request by the inspector? Do those fees then have to be paid immediately or will that person, in this case the owner, have a chance to comply? At what point do the fees click in?

Mr Melville: Perhaps Mr Wallace could answer that question.

Mr Wallace: There is provision in the bill for the owner to receive notice that fees will be charged if there is an inspection that reveals the deficiency. Then there would be the inspection revealing a continuing deficiency.

Mr Ruprecht: So there's a fee just for the inspection?

Mr Wallace: It is proposed that there would be a fee for the inspection which would only apply if the inspection revealed a deficiency or a failure to correct a deficiency under a property standards bylaw order.

Mr Ruprecht: That means then that this would only be done on the second inspection, because the first inspection would not be the laying of a charge, necessarily, but identifying the problem?

Mr Wallace: At least second and in practice probably third or fourth before it ever gets to there being a final order under the property standards bylaw which there can be a failure to comply with. So you've had those inspections before this even begins.

Mr Ruprecht: Without a fee?

Mr Wallace: That's right.

Mr Ruprecht: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ruprecht. Any further questions on that amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 5 through 7 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House as amended? Agreed.

Thank you, Mr Wallace, Ms Junop and Mr Eddy, for your competent presentation, and thank you for coming today.

Mr Wallace: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee.


Consideration of Bill Pr77, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, have you pulled together your next presentation for Bill Pr77? It's Miss MacLean. Mr Eddy, as sponsor, would you like to introduce the applicants and then make your opening remarks.

Mr Eddy: Yes, Madam Chair. It's my pleasure, on behalf of Greg Sorbara, MPP, to introduce Virginia MacLean of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, barristers and solicitors, who will present and speak to the bill to enable the town of Richmond Hill to regulate outdoor lighting in order to provide an appropriate environment for the use of the University of Toronto's David Dunlap Observatory located in the town. Miss MacLean will introduce the other members of the deputation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Eddy. Miss MacLean, if you would do so.

Miss Virginia MacLean: Yes, Madam Chairman. I'd like to thank Mr Eddy for introducing the bill. Mr Sorbara conveyed his regrets to us just prior to the meeting and we're very grateful that Mr Eddy was available to sponsor the bill.

With me today to my immediate left is Dr Daniel Lang, who is the assistant vice-president, planning, and university registrar for the University of Toronto. Next to Dr Lang is Mary Braun of Meighen, Demers, who is counsel for the town of Richmond Hill, and to her left is Dr Bolton, professor and associate director, David Dunlap Observatory, University of Toronto.

This is a very unusual piece of legislation as a result of the town of Richmond Hill having within its boundaries a very unusual feature, namely the David Dunlap Observatory. As the compendium background indicates, this observatory was donated to the University of Toronto in 1929 and was opened in 1935, and at that time contained the second-largest optical telescope in the world. The municipality of Richmond Hill was, needless to say, very small at the time and it was considered to be an ideal location for such a facility.

It is an important research and training facility for the department of astronomy for the University of Toronto and is used for public education programs run by the department with the assistance of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.


As Dr Bolton can attest, the big issue is urban glow increase. As municipalities grow, you have more and more urban glow. There are a number of observatories in the United States that have experienced similar problems.

In about 1975 Dr Bolton expressed his concerns about urban glow and started to have conversations with the town of Richmond Hill about trying to reduce that urban glow. As a result of Dr Bolton's efforts and the cooperation of the town of Richmond Hill, a system was instigated in 1985 whereby new projects for development were put through a process of having a lighting plan approved by the municipality prior to the approval of new planned subdivisions or new development within the municipality. Where a municipal permit was required for building a structure, there was a process whereby Dr Bolton, principally, reviewed lighting plans and approved the lighting.

This process has worked very effectively; Dr Bolton can advise you as to the effect of the process. But it has now got to the point that the informal process can no longer continue because it's very time-consuming as far as the university is concerned. They would like the municipality to run the process itself.

What the proposed bill will do is enable the municipality to pass a bylaw whereby the municipality will be able to regulate the type of lighting. We're only talking about outdoor light fixtures. The municipality will basically put into place the process that is now being used and it will be officially put into a bylaw that municipal staff can administer. That in essence is the purpose of the legislation for which we seek your support.

The Chair: Are there any other members of the delegation today who want to make any remarks?

Ms Mary Braun: I'd simply like to say that the town of Richmond Hill is fully in support of this private bill and has passed a resolution indicating its willingness to pass a light pollution bylaw, subject to this private legislation being approved. There has been this cooperative informal process and policy in effect. It has been very effective and the town is in agreement with the observatory that it would be appropriate to actually have a bylaw in place at this time and to have this review process come into the town and be part of the usual development review process. So the town is fully in support.


The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Perruzza, we do run a list; I'll put you down. Dr Bolton, did you have a comment?

Dr Tom Bolton: Yes, I'd like to make a few comments. First, I think it's important to make clear to you that we are not talking about an attempt here to roll back the clock; we're talking about an attempt to maintain status quo as the town grows. We realize that lights are necessary and that we're going to have to live with those. We're trying to establish controls that actually improve lighting. We also are quite convinced, and the lighting industry tells us, that many of the measures we put in will aid in energy conservation.

A second point that I think is worth making is that not only is the present system a burden on the observatory, but it also provides an additional burden on the applicant, because there's one more stop they have to make to get their approvals. By transferring this back to the town, we'll decrease the burden on the applicant to some degree.

The Chair: I have at this point two members who wish to pose questions. That's Mr Hansen and Mr Perruzza. Mr Hansen, would you like to begin?

Mr Hansen: I'd just like to ask the question, and maybe it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the bill: You used the words "light pollution." Can you tell me in some ways how you're going to address the term "light pollution," Dr Bolton?

Dr Bolton: I like to think of light pollution as being similar to the definition of a weed, which is a flower growing where you don't want it. Light pollution, in the context of astronomy, is light that goes upwards to the sky rather than going down to the ground where it will serve a purpose, to illuminate surfaces, provide security, whatever. Light that goes directly up to the sky reflects off dust, water vapour and the atmosphere and comes back down to the ground as a diffuse glow which obscures other objects, the stars, to some degree.

That's why if you look up at the sky in downtown Toronto you don't see that many stars. If you go out to cottage country and look up, there are many, many more stars. For a telescope, it's the same story. It screens out light. It comes in and contributes light, along with the starlight, and it's difficult for us to separate the two contributions of light. It hampers our research.

Mr Hansen: The area of Richmond Hill is sort of an urban-rural area now. I come from Lincoln. What you're classifying as light pollution -- we have a lot of that in our area because of the greenhouses down there. Are there greenhouses in the area which would have to adapt if they're going in or, if they're there already, would have to wind up complying with the new bylaw?

Dr Bolton: This legislation does not affect greenhouses. It only applies to exterior lighting; it does not affect interior lighting.

Mr Hansen: Greenhouses are made out of glass, so it becomes an exterior light problem. That's why I'm saying, because if you drive in Lincoln, you can tell where the greenhouses are; it exposes all the sky.

Dr Bolton: I am acutely aware of that. We have greenhouses in fact on the building next to our telescopes on campus. That's another story. However, the nearest greenhouses that are a severe light pollution problem to our observatory lie outside the town of Richmond Hill. I would certainly, if there were greenhouses proposed in the area around us, take steps to deal with those on an ad hoc basis. They are not covered by this bylaw. I don't know any way to write a bylaw that would catch those and not catch other things we probably wouldn't want to affect.

Mr Hansen: It's just a concern. That's the biggest light pollution item that I know down in our area. Especially in rural areas you can see the whole sky lit up.

Dr Bolton: In our area, the two biggest sources of light pollution are automobile dealerships and athletic fields.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I'll pass.

The Chair: Are there any other questions on behalf of members? Very good. Are we then ready for the vote?

Mr Hayes: I have comments. What about me?

The Chair: I'm sorry. We're just moving along so well, Mr Hayes. Not that you don't have constructive comments to make.

Mr Hayes: I was really feeling hurt.

The Chair: Mr Hayes, if you would like to make some comments on behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object to this bill, pending the passing of certain amendments that are going to be introduced.

The Chair: I will now move to clause -- oh, I had another oversight, which is, are there any other interested parties who would like to make any comments? Seeing none, we will move to clause-by-clause.

Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Mr Eddy, do you have something to say about section 4?

Mr Eddy: Yes. I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection 1(3)" in the seventh and eighth lines and substituting "subsection 1(4)."

The Chair: Any discussion on that amendment? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 5 through 7 carry? Carried.


Mr Eddy: I move that section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Warrant for entry and search

"8(1) A justice of the peace may at any time issue a warrant authorizing an inspector named in the warrant to enter and search any land, building or structure if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to believe that,

"(a) an offence under this act has been committed;

"(b) the entry into and search of the land, building or structure will afford evidence relevant to the commission of the offence.


"(2) In a warrant, the justice of the peace may authorize the person named in the warrant to seize any thing there is reasonable ground to believe will afford evidence relevant to the commission of the offence.


"(3) Anyone who seizes something under a warrant shall,

"(a) give a receipt for the thing seized to the person from whom it was seized; and

"(b) bring the thing seized before the justice of the peace issuing the warrant or another justice to be dealt with according to law."

The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? Shall section 8, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 9: Do you have an amendment, Mr Eddy?

Mr Eddy: I move that section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application of Provincial Offences Act

"9. Sections 159 and 160 of the Provincial Offences Act apply with necessary modifications in respect of any thing seized under section 8."

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 10: Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Time for execution

"10. A warrant issued under this act may be executed only between 6 am and 9 pm unless it provides otherwise."

The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment? Those in favour of the amendment? Shall section 10, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 11: Shall section 11 carry? Carried.

Section 12: I have been informed that it is out -

Interjection: Let him read it first.

The Chair: Sorry. Go right ahead, Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 12 of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: I have been informed that that is in fact out of order, that members either vote for or against that particular section.

Shall section 12 carry?

Mrs MacKinnon: What did you say? I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I didn't hear what you said.

The Chair: You cannot just simply strike out with no replacement, so that the amendment to section 12 is out of order. The way to remove it from the bill would be to vote against it. So you have a choice to make: you would either vote for section 12 or against section 12. So shall section 12 carry?

Interjections: No.

The Chair: Thank you. Shall section 13 carry? Carried.

Shall section 14 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Shall the bill carry? Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention and participation.

The committee adjourned at 1136.