Wednesday 17 November 1993

County of Grey Act, 1993, Bill Pr58, Mr Murdoch

Bill Murdoch, MPP

Howard Grieg, warden, County of Grey

City of Toronto Acts, 1993, Bills Pr48 and Pr61, Ms Akande

Zanana L. Akande, MPP

City of Toronto:

Martin Silva, councillor,

Dennis Perlin, city solicitor

Anne Valliere, acting coordinator, parks and urban forestry, parks and recreation department

Gary Fox, coordinator, equipment control, parks and recreation department

Henry Kelly, administrative assistant, permits and licensing branch, public works department

James Skells, solicitor, Delight Vending Services

Peter Bougadis, president, Delight Vending Services

Andrew Paton, solicitor, Unishare Investments Ltd

Sam Caragianakos, Grenadier Restaurant

George Foulidis, president, TUGGS Inc


*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:

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Eddy

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.


Consideration of Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey.

The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call the meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills to order. Our first act of business today is to consider Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey. The sponsor for this bill is the MPP for Grey, Bill Murdoch. Bill, would you like to take your place and bring your applicants forward and introduce them for us all.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): We have with us the warden of Grey county, Howard Grieg; the CFO of Grey county, Norm Gamble; and Milt Bellamy, the reeve of Keppel township. Howard, you're going to explain a bit about the bill?

Mr Howard Grieg: Thanks, Bill, and thank you for the opportunity to come before the committee this morning.

Grey county has taken a look at the reorganization and reducing the size of county council. It's a bill that would allow for that to happen, to go from the existing 37member council to a 28-member council. We need a legislative change to allow for that. We want to go to a weighted voting system that would allow municipalities to have a vote for every 1,000 electors. That requires a change also. Those are the two major things we're looking at.

We presently have a 37-member council, but we have the potential for eight more members coming on to county council, and it was felt that it was time this issue had to be addressed. We did a fairly extensive review of a questionnaire out to all municipalities, and further reviewed by the warden's committee. As chairman, Milt Bellamy looked after that. This is what we've come up with that seemed to be most suitable for Grey county.

It wasn't unanimous, the position we have taken. There was some difference of opinion whether the number should be 4,000 electors where you have your deputy reeve, 5,000 electors where you have your deputy reeve, or whether there should be any deputy reeves. As our proposal states, we're proposing deputy reeves after 5,000 electors.

I don't think I have much more to add at this time. We'd certainly be prepared to attempt to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Just to reassure the applicants, this is pro forma: I have to ask if there are any interested parties here who have a different view. Seeing none, I would turn to the parliamentary assistant at this point and ask him if he would present any comments from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not have any objections to this bill.

The Chair: We have a question from Mr Hansen.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): What was the vote on this when you actually went ahead to restructure, the up to 5,000 for municipalities there for a vote, or a vote for every 1,000? There was a vote taken between all the members of council. What were the results of the vote? Can you remember?

Mr Grieg: I believe there were 23 for the proposed changes.

Mr Hansen: And how many against?

Mr Grieg: I believe 14, if they were all there, something like that. But as I mentioned, the ones opposing weren't definitely against the fact that we wanted to reduce the size of county council. It was their opinion that 4,000 might have been a more appropriate number, or 7,500 might have been a more appropriate number, or that there'd be no deputy reeves at all. It wasn't a vote against restructuring or reducing the size of county council as such.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): This is similar to the one that was passed by the committee a couple of weeks ago considering Hastings county, or something similar. There were no objections to that one either.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I don't really have any objections either. I'm sorry; I got in a couple of minutes late. It's just that I wondered: In the process you went through to arrive at the conclusion, which seems to be a very democratic one and the majority of the people support it, was there involvement with the electorate at large as well as the council members?

Mr Grieg: No, there weren't any public meetings held. It was done through the municipal councils, a questionnaire, and through county council.

Mr David Johnson: But I presume that the people knew you were discussing this topic.

Mr Grieg: Certainly through the media the public is well informed that this is going on, and it went through the advertising process before it could get this far. The public is very supportive of it. I've had numerous comments, as well as different members of county council, that it should have happened years ago. The public is very supportive.

The Chair: Very good. It would appear that all questions have been answered. I would ask the members if they are prepared to vote at this point. Agreed.

Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Gentlemen, your work is completed.

Mr Grieg: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, committee members.



Consideration of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, and Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Ms Akande, perhaps you would like to come forward as sponsor and introduce the applicants.

For the benefit of the members, the city of Toronto would like to consider both of the bills -- that's Bill Pr61 and Bill Pr48 -- together. They will be making a presentation to us, I believe with some video backup. But we will be voting on them separately, just so we keep all that straight for organizational purposes.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I'm going to introduce you to Mr Martin Silva, who will introduce his colleagues.

Mr Martin Silva: Mr Dennis Perlin is the city solicitor and Mr Ward Earle is the assistant specifically for this. Mayor Rowlands is unfortunately unable to come today. She's doing some streamlining at the city of Toronto and she asked me to come and represent her before the committee.

Ms Akande: In the spirit of streamlining, thank you. I'm pleased to introduce to the standing committee two proposed City of Toronto Acts, Bills Pr48 and Pr61, dealing respectively with the regulation of vending and other activities taking place on a street allowance and the establishment of vending removal zones in city of Toronto parks.

You have already been introduced to the gentlemen who are here. They will continue with the discussion.

Mr Silva: I can make the first introduction and Mr Perlin will go with the more legal detail.

As a representative of city council and a member of the vending committee while the committee met to try to find solutions for all these problems, I come to you today to express council's concern that the city of Toronto be allowed to effectively and fairly regulate the use of the city street allowance and city parks so as to provide the maximum benefit, both to those persons who have a commercial interest in the use of those areas and the public at large, and at the same time allow for orderly vending throughout the city of Toronto.

From my own experience, I can tell you that the city of Toronto receives many applications each year respecting the use of the street allowance for things as varied as vending, boulevard parking, boulevard cafés and various installations such as fences or trees.

Competition for the use of the street allowance in certain areas of the city, particularly the downtown core, is intense and requires that the city of Toronto have the clearest sort of regulatory power in order to properly administer a permit system which is effective in terms of balancing the rights of permit holders with the interests of the public at large in a safe and orderly way.

The city of Toronto is particularly concerned with its ability to protect the rights of those who have gone through the proper legal channels and have complied with the requirements of the existing permit system. Unfortunately, it's not always the case and we sometimes have a lot of illegal activity in competition with the people who have gone through the municipal process.

Having said this, it is essential that the use of public property by private commercial interests be subject to an appropriate form and level of regulation to ensure the health and the safety of the public.

The second bill that is being proposed, Bill Pr61, has been brought forward in recognition of the fact that the enforcement problems which previously existed in relation to vending within the street allowance have now spread to city parks. What happens is that the vendors who before were mostly on the street, now that we have acquired the ability to take away their vending carts, have moved into the city parks.

The City of Toronto Act, 1990, was introduced to address this problem in the street allowance and has been quite effective. Similar legislation is therefore being sought for city parks. Along with the normal concerns occasioned by the presence of illegal vendors, such as obstruction, safety and damage to public property, is the fact that the city has already licensed space in its parks to private individuals who operate concessions in the parks and pay a portion of their revenues to the city in exchange for that opportunity.

Without the establishment of vending removal zones which would allow city staff to confiscate and remove illegal vehicles or objects found in city parks, there would appear to be no effective enforcement mechanism to allow the city to protect the interests of the public and its authorized concession areas.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today. The city solicitor, Mr Dennis Perlin, will present you with a detailed view of what is being sought and we can answer questions after that presentation.

Mr Dennis Perlin: Assisting me today in the presentation, in case you have technical questions, are people here from the department of public works and the environment in relation to Bill Pr48 and in relation to Bill Pr61, dealing with parks. There are also people here from parks administration, from the parks and urban forestry division of the parks and recreation department. If there are technical questions regarding the existing permit system on the street allowance or in respect to the use of the parks, both those individuals will be here: Mr Kelly from the public works departments and Ms Valliere from the parks and recreation department.

Also, I believe there will be two individuals who will be speaking to you after us with respect to their concessions within city parks. I believe the letters from those concession areas in terms of the eastern beaches parks and the western beaches parks have been circulated to you or will be circulated to you.

Bill Pr48, regulation of activities on the street allowance: The request to put this forward by city council arises basically from two Supreme Court of Canada decisions, R v Sharma and R v Greenbaum, and consequent legislation that you, as the Legislative Assembly, provided to the city of Ottawa last year.

The activities that you see listed in the bill are boulevard parking, operating a boulevard café, carrying on a sidewalk sale, displaying merchandise, installing bicycle stands, marquees, hedges, fences or other objects and, of course, street vending as well.

At the present time there is, as Councillor Silva said, a successful permit system in place which is used to regulate these activities. The total number of applications received last year for these activities, not including installations, was 796 in one year alone. At the present time, there are 2,095 permits or licences which have been issued for these types of activities on the street allowances in the city.

Many public highways within the city have been designated as removal zones -- not all, but some -- under the legislation, which allows us to take away from the street allowance those who do not have a permit through the municipal process, as Councillor Silva said. This present system of providing permits and designated removal zones in those areas that are difficult areas in terms of vendors acting illegally has been effective. There's no immediate intention on the part of city council -- I've been asked to make sure the committee is aware of this -- to change the system.

The purpose of Bill Pr48 is to clarify the legality of the present system, and this comes from a recommendation from the city solicitor's office reviewing the effects of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, as I said, in the cases of R v Sharma and R v Greenbaum. In those cases, the defendants were accused of vending on a Metro road without lawful authority, and in its review of the statutory authority allowing the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto to regulate streets activities the court applied a strict interpretation to the Municipal Act and found that the relevant bylaw provisions were ultra vires Metro and the city. In particular, the court held that the Municipal Act did not allow municipalities to make distinctions between free-standing vendors and the owners or occupants of abutting property for the purposes of issuing permits.

In my view, one result of this decision is, for example, that an owner or occupant of premises used as a restaurant may not be allowed, as is the case in the city's present boulevard café system, the first opportunity to refuse the use of the adjacent street allowance for that particular restaurant's boulevard café.


In fact, it appears that where a municipality wishes to allow boulevard cafés, then any person may apply for a permit and the municipality may be unable to refuse an application from an applicant who is the owner, for example, of an adjacent restaurant who's trying to block or get an advantage over the actual restaurant that abuts on the particular street allowance concerned. This result is clearly unfair and ignores the fact that there are legitimate policy reasons to favour applications from the owners and occupants of commercial premises in coveted locations, such as the city's downtown core, who have earned the opportunity to use the street allowance in front of the premises in accordance with city policy and the right to have that area protected should they choose not to use it.

City council is cognizant of the fact that there is stiff competition for street allowance space in certain areas of the city and, in order to protect the interests of those using this space and allow for different activities to be carried on productively and safely in the same vicinity, has come to the conclusion that explicit regulatory powers are now required to maintain an effective system of regulation.

We brought with us some videotape, and I'm going to just see if the committee wishes to see it. It is videotape that was prepared and presented to the committee in 1990. It is indicative of the problems that were posed for city officials by the proliferation of vendors in an illegal way and that prompted the need for the 1990 legislation, the removal legislation. For those who are familiar with the city, the areas that you would see in the tape would be the Eaton Centre, the Bloor-Yorkville area, the Harbourfront area, the Spadina-Dundas-Queen area, commonly referred to as Chinatown, the SkyDome and the St Lawrence Market.

I could interrupt at this time and go into the videotapes or continue and finish the presentation and then do the videotapes at the end, if you still wish to see them.

The Chair: I will ask the members if they are interested in the video.


The Chair: Mr Johnson would like to know how long it is.

Mr Perlin: This particular videotape on the street allowance activities is about 20 minutes long and the one on the parks is about 15 minutes.

Mr David Johnson: I wish it was a little bit shorter.

The Chair: Yes. I think what we'll do is if there's someone interested, they can ask you about it later, but we'll leave it for right now and allow you to finish your verbal presentation, because I do know there are some people here who would like to express another view.

Mr Perlin: Fine. Perhaps after expressing that other view, you could then show the videotapes.

The Chair: We're in the hands of the committee members.

Mr Perlin: The legislation as proposed would clarify the city's ability to pass bylaws regulating or prohibiting street activities through the exercise of the powers that are set out in the proposed bills, sections 3 and 4. As I said, the wording of the bill follows closely the City of Ottawa Act, 1992, and would in addition clarify, arising out of the Sharma and Greenbaum decisions, the city's right to restrict the issuance of defined classes of permits to persons meeting the criteria established by council, including the owners or occupants of abutting property. That you'll see in clause 4(j).

The bill talks about the ability to designate spaces and grant the exclusive use of such spaces, the ability to prescribe the classes of permits and the types of goods which may be sold, so they can be shared between boulevard cafés and sidewalk cafés and vending and hedges and fences and trying to allow for those different types of uses that are requested of a municipality for the use of the street allowance; the power to establish design criteria for the equipment that is used to display goods, for the merchandise display or sidewalk sales; the power to exempt certain classes of applicant from parts of the bylaw; the ability to establish required administrative procedures for the issuance, renewal or redistribution of permits; the power to establish fees and the term of the permits; the power to regulate hours of operation; and the ability to establish criteria to be applied to determine locations where activities may take place.

All of these enumerated powers one could see presently in the existing city bylaw regulation systems. There's nothing that this bill would do that isn't already being done. As I said earlier, we're really clarifying our legal ability, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada, to continue to do this.

Section 5 of the bill would allow city council, a committee of council or a municipal official named in the bylaw to suspend or revoke a permit issued by the corporation pursuant to a bylaw passed under this legislation. In order to ensure due process and natural justice, a hearing would be required before a permit may be suspended or revoked for a substantive reason. You have in front of you a requested amendment that deals with the lack of payment of a fee, what is really a process issue to ensure that people do pay their fees and that their permit is not in effect if they don't. Obviously, under the bylaw, if they pay the fee, their permit is renewed. But for a substantive reason for revocation or suspension, before that could occur, it would have to go before a committee for a hearing.

In the case of those administrative requirements in addition to the payment of fees, the other ones we're asking for, the amendment relates to the liability insurance or their entering into permit agreements which set out clearly what it is that the permit holder, for whatever the activity is, can do in the space concerned.

Where a permit is revoked, the part of the fee paid proportionate to the unexpired part of the term of the permit may be refunded to the permit holder. The legislation would also allow the municipal officials to suspend permits for a limited period of time to allow the use of the designated space for special events, road repairs or to address safety concerns.

Basically, that's Bill Pr48, which, as I said, clarifies legally the present system that we have.

Bill Pr61, removal zones in city parks: The commissioner of parks and recreation for the city of Toronto has had a long-standing concern relating to trespassing in city parks by illegal vendors and the damage and disruption caused by their presence. Some of you who live in the city and others of you who visit the city have occasion perhaps to go to some of the major city parks and see some of the vending activity in the parks. If not, as I said, we have a video that will demonstrate this for you.

It would allow the city council to designate any park or portion of a park as a removal zone and to prohibit the stopping, parking or placing of any object, vehicle or thing used for vending purposes within city parks without a valid permit issued by the city.

Under the legislation, the police and any other persons entitled to enforce municipal bylaws would be able to request the production of a valid permit and, where no permit was produced, remove the vehicles, objects or things and place them in storage. If they weren't claimed within 60 days, then these objects and materials would become the property of the city. Where the objects confiscated include perishable items, these would immediately become the property of the city and would be destroyed or given to a charitable institution.

The costs and charges for removing these vehicles, objects or things would constitute a lien on the material removed and would be enforceable by the city under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, so it's basically bringing the Repair and Storage Liens Act into the handling of matters that are confiscated in those parks that are designated removal zones.

It would provide for signage to be put up, as you can see in the bill, in those that are designated. As I indicated earlier on the ones on street allowance, we haven't designated every street allowance as a removal zone because not every street allowance is a problem. We only do it on those that are problem areas. Again, with respect to parks, it would only be for those parks where vending has become a problem in terms of the illegal activities being carried on there.

It's intended that the powers contained would be used to enforce the provisions of the parks bylaw. This parks bylaw prohibits the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or food and the display or distribution of those without a permit. I've been informed that, again, this legislation would be just working in conjunction with the permit system we presently have.

The areas that are in the tape and the major areas of concern to us in terms of the parks are the eastern beaches, western beaches, the Harbourfront park and the park surrounding the CN Tower. For those of you who have been around the SkyDome, there are park areas that are outside of the SkyDome area -- it's hard to know when you're walking there -- that are not CN areas or road allowance areas. At times, those can be very difficult areas in terms of people trying to move in and out of the SkyDome in terms of illegal vendors being in the parks areas. There are certain vendors who are actually regulated to be in the location. The illegal ones are the ones who obstruct and cause the difficulty.

The concerns for the park are obstruction, damage and hostility. We've had normal park operations obstructed by access to parking lots and park buildings. We've had damage through the presence of litter and grease stains, damage to vegetation. Obstructions to the pedestrian passage have also led to adjacent foliage and grassy areas, where pedestrians are seeking alternative areas around these carts, being damaged.


Finally, the area of licensing and concession agreements: One of the few areas that municipalities have with respect to raising revenues aside from property tax is user fees. In the case of the western beaches, the eastern beaches, concessions have been granted to certain people by way of a proposal-call process in each of those areas to have the exclusive use of those areas in terms of concessions, and in exchange they pay fees to the city.

The presence of illegal vendors has caused a continual source of frustration for these concessionaires, leading to friction, confrontation and, frankly, potential for real violence. The normal process of ticketing and fining, as in the case of street allowance, has not been effective. What has turned out to be effective on the street allowance and what we're asking in the case of these parks is the taking away, the removal and storing of the equipment and requiring people to pay storage charges. That seems to have a more salutary effect on people, an immediate effect, in terms of complying with city bylaws.

Basically, I'll leave it at that and be prepared to answer any questions you might have. As I've said, Bill Pr61 is basically just bringing the street allowance, the City of Toronto Act, 1990, that you already gave us, into the parks situation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perlin. We have a question from Mr O'Neil.

Mr O'Neil: I notice in the statistics you handed out that of the 81 applications for boulevard cafés, 44 licences were approved; for merchandise display, there were 174 applications, and again about half, 84, approved; sidewalk boulevard vending, 357 applied for, 207 approved. How do you determine who gets those permits and who doesn't get them?

Mr Silva: We have a process where every application goes through the city services committee. In the specific case of the boulevard cafés, if they are within 25 metres of a residential zone there's actually a poll that goes out to all the residents within the area. There is a minimum requirement. At least 25% of the respondents have to send their ballot back, and out of that 25%, they have to respond in the affirmative. This is in the case of the permit parking. In the case of the boulevard café, if the poll goes out and comes back positive, city council has the option then of granting the boulevard café. There are various polls that are done.

Mr O'Neil: What about the merchandise display?

Mr Silva: In the case of merchandise display, there are certain regulations. For example, if a cart came with an application to vend hot dogs, the location would have to be within certain criteria. We have the people from public works here if you require details on what the criteria are. A certain width of the sidewalk would still have to remain free. It would have to be 25 metres or more away from a licensed restaurant. There are various criteria we would apply to approve the permit.

Mr O'Neil: Who sits on the committee that deals with this? How many people are on it?

Mr Silva: Eight members of city council. That's the city services committee. The city services committee then makes recommendations to city council through the executive committee, and then council has the final say.

Mr O'Neil: Is there an appeal process?

Mr Silva: Yes, there is an appeal process. For example, if the city services committee were to say no to an application -- or in the case of vending, if the public works department that has been delegated the power to say yes or no -- the applicant who is denied can appeal to the city services committee under certain circumstances.

The Chair: Mr O'Neil, a gentleman has come forward to more specifically answer any of your questions.

Mr O'Neil : I think that has covered it.

The Chair: Okay. Mr Johnson?

Mr David Johnson: To the deputants, there are a number of issues that will be raised by future deputants after you've sat down and I don't know if you'll have the opportunity to come back and speak to them again. One I happen to be looking at indicates that they feel there's an unfairness in the city having the power to regulate the hours of operation. Does the city at present, under the present system, have the power to regulate the hours of operation?

Mr Silva: Yes, we do. For example, I support about 90% of the applications for boulevard cafés. But in the case where it's in an area where there has been opposition by the residents, we usually put a condition that the operation of the boulevard café be limited to certain hours.

We don't have limits on the hours of operation of the vending carts except where they are, for example, on a street where parking is not allowed between 4 and 6 or between 7 and 9 in the morning.

Mr David Johnson: Bill Pr48 would give you the authority to regulate the hours of operation of cafés, for example.

Mr Silva: I believe we have that already.

Mr David Johnson: You may have that already, up to a certain -- perhaps not after 1 o'clock in the morning or midnight or something of that nature.

Mr Perlin: We're doing that now under the present bylaw, trying to use present provisions. Being very frank, it's hard to know what the effect of Sharma and Greenbaum is. The concern with that decision and the City of Ottawa Act, 1992, is whether or not we do have the authority to do so.

Mr David Johnson: I guess we have to determine what we're talking about, first of all. Are we talking about the vending machines, the portable --

Mr Perlin: We're talking about all of the activities that I described first: boulevard cafés, vending, merchandising, sidewalk sales, all of those activities.

Mr David Johnson: That's quite a range. Some of them would be associated with the adjacent business and some of them would be portable that would come in and just be --

Mr Perlin: That's right.

Mr David Johnson: My guess is that you might have some authority with regard to those that are adjacent to the business, but probably you don't have a lot of authority today in terms of the portable ones that come in and plunk themselves down on the sidewalk. Is that true?

Mr Perlin: That's the argument. What we're trying to do is clarify.

Mr David Johnson: The reason I'm asking this is because you've indicated a couple of times that this bill doesn't give you any more authority than you have today.

Mr Perlin: We're not asking for any more authority than that which we have today.

Mr David Johnson: But in the case of hours of operation for vending, the portable wagons or whatever you call them that come in, I would think --

Mr Perlin: In terms of regulating activities on the street allowance, we have always thought we had that authority by virtue of the general power to regulate on the street allowance. By virtue of the very limiting language of the Supreme Court in terms of what municipalities can do back to the days of putting everything into pigeonholes, as you know from your past experience as a mayor, we had hoped we were moving away from the days of everything having to be pigeonholed and into a little broader powers. Our concern is that the decision has taken us back to everything having to be absolutely expressed before being able to do anything as a municipality.

Mr David Johnson: When you are saying it doesn't give you more power, you're saying by comparison to the power you thought you had before the legal case.

Mr Perlin: That's right.

Mr David Johnson: But by comparison to the judgments of the courts --

Mr Perlin: It's open to argument.

Mr David Johnson: -- it's open to argument. The vendors also apparently indicate that this would allow you to set design criteria for the vehicles and the kind of foods as well. Did you think you have that authority today?

Mr Perlin: We thought we did.

Mr David Johnson: Okay. I didn't realize we had all that authority. Were you being realistic?

In terms of the fee structure, there are a number of concerns here with regard to how the fees are being dealt with, but this bill really doesn't enhance that, I don't suppose, does it?

Mr Perlin: No. It clarifies that we do have the right to establish permit fees, which may vary by activity, location, type of goods or refreshments. That would then be part of the bylaw. Those who have difficulty with that, we would hope, would approach the city council and deal with city council.

Mr David Johnson: So that perhaps is not an argument that we should get involved with one way or the other. That's really up to the city council, I would guess, although we may hear a different argument.

Mr Perlin: That's the way the regime is being presented, yes, that the matter be left then to city council.

Mr David Johnson: I'm still a little unclear about how this impacts on Metro roads. Does this apply to all streets within the city of Toronto or just city of Toronto streets?

Mr Perlin: To city of Toronto streets and those that Metro delegates responsibility for to the city. As you may remember, under the Metro act, Metro can delegate responsibility with respect to the maintenance of the Metro street allowances to the local municipalities to look after.

Mr David Johnson: But that would be Metro's choice. This bill doesn't give the city of Toronto any authority to unilaterally usurp authority in Metro.


Mr Perlin: No. Only if Metro decides to give that to the area municipality.

Mr David Johnson: It puzzles me a little why you don't have authority in your parks today. That's something I was unaware of. Perhaps our parks haven't been that attractive to the vendors, I don't know, but the parks belong to the city of Toronto. Why would you not have the authority today to require the removal of vehicles or carts or whatever from city property and city parks?

Mr Perlin: Again, there's nothing expressed in legislation that would say we do. We could try and use the Trespass to Property Act, but the problem we have with that is that the police just are not able to provide the type of enforcement that's necessary in terms of an immediate response and/or providing police constantly in the parks.

Second, the police have indicated that as far as they are concerned, based on the legal advice they've received from legal counsel of Metro, they are not able to have things just picked up and taken away. They can issue a ticket; they can do an arrest, which is not something they normally would like to do on a trespass situation. But if there is to be removal -- and the same sort of argument actually came up during the time the matter was here on the street allowance, because again one can argue that the Trespass to Property Act applies to the street allowance. At that time we came for the removal legislation because it was felt there was not power for the police to actually pick up and take the material away in terms of responding to trespassing. They could ticket, they could arrest, but not remove.

The issue of being able to respond quickly and deal with it quickly, which we're able to do by virtue of using our own city workforce by the removal legislation is a lot quicker in terms of getting an immediate solution to the problem. Second, it's the lack of authority, even when the police are available, to be able to remove. It makes it obviously more difficult for a vendor if every time they illegally vend, they're going to be faced with the idea that the material's going to be taken to a public works yard and they're going to have to go down and pay storage fees and get it back.

Mr David Johnson: In your opening remarks, was there some reference made to a committee that has considered these amendments to boulevards? Is there a business committee of some sort that -- I can see from the blank looks on your face --

Mr Perlin: No.

Mr David Johnson: Other than through the council itself, is there a business committee within the city of Toronto that would review these matters and make recommendations?

Mr Silva: This comes to us through the city services committee, which would regulate vending.

Mr David Johnson: That's the elected representatives. Do they seek input from various businesses within the city of Toronto or the business improvement areas or --

Mr Silva: It's open to deputations. All of the matters that come to the city services committee are open to deputations such as what we are doing here today.

Mr David Johnson: Do you recall if there were deputations other than from the vendors themselves, from the downtown businessmen, for example, that sort of thing?

Mr Silva: Not about the specific regulations we are seeking today, but before, when we had the problems with the illegal vending in the city of Toronto -- and I must say that on the streets, when we finally managed to keep the vending under control is when we acquired the ability to take away the carts. At that time, there were very extensive deputations at the city services committee. Lately, we haven't had. This specific issue came here because of the Supreme Court decision, which basically told us we did not have the authority we thought we had.

The Chair: I have a couple more questions. Mr O'Neil, what I'm going to do is, before your second round, I'm going to ask some of the people who have differing views from the deputants to come forward so we get a chance to have that discussion.

Mr O'Neil: The question I had dealt with something they likely are going to refer to. It was about how long a person has that specific spot --

The Chair: Actually, Mr Hansen is before you. I wanted to make sure I wasn't taking anybody out of order but also, just to inform you, in light of the fact that this subject is going to be discussed at some length, I want to make sure everybody gets a chance. Okay?

Mr O'Neil: Fine. No problem.

Mr Hansen: I'd like to hear the objectors, and I'd maybe have some questions at that point. One of my questions has already been answered.

The Chair: All right. If I could ask the city folks to join the audience again, I understand there are some people who have some different views. There is a Mr Peter Bougadis, president of Delight Vending Services, if he would come forward. It would be helpful, Mr Bougadis, if you would introduce your colleague.

Mr James Skells: My name is Skells, and I'm appearing for Mr Bougadis in connection with the position he'd like to put forward regarding this bill. He has three points that are of particular concern to him.

Mr Bougadis has been in the business of ice cream vending now for 25 years in the city of Toronto. He has two trucks which he uses for this purpose and has been actively engaged in the business during that time.

I think it's also relevant to let the committee know that Mr Bougadis, and people like him, are not simply fly-by-night operators. They have substantial amounts of money invested in their businesses. For example, Mr Bougadis's vehicles cost in excess of $35,000 and must be equipped in accordance with the requirements of Metropolitan Toronto licensing. He is proud of the kind of product he sells, and over the years in the locations where he has been selling, in front of Toronto city hall and also down on Queen's Quay, he has developed a clientele who like his particular product. He's proud of the business he operates and it's not just something that is here today and gone tomorrow. He's put a lot of work and effort into it.

These are some of the causes for his concern about the bill.

His major concern is that although he has been in business for all this length of time, if I read this bill correctly, then his licence could be cancelled without any particular reason being given and he would not have any real right of appeal to have the reason reviewed. A business he has established over a 25-year period could be lost to him overnight.

He does not feel this is an equitable position to take. When any other business is, for example, expropriated and terminated, it's hedged around with all kinds of protection for the person who is being expropriated so that it can be determined whether the expropriation is fair.

We feel some provision should be included in this bill requiring some form of appeal procedure other than to the city services committee. The problem with the city services committee is that the commissioner of public works and the environment, whose responsibility it is to vet the particular applications for a location, sits in and advises that committee on a constant basis. The end result is that one wonders, when the matter comes before the committee and the committee is hearing from the commissioner, who is almost a member of that committee, whether a fair and impartial hearing is being given to the applicant about whether the particular application should be approved.

Unfortunately, it smacks of possible discrimination because the applicant is usually given five minutes to present his case, which is a very brief time, yet the commissioner, who advises the committee, is not limited in time at all on the reasons why the application is being refused and in fact participates in the discussion.


We feel this is not really a true appeal procedure, and we feel there should be some provision in this bill requiring a procedure of appeal to be set up whereby a refusal is to be reviewed by some impartial board that would then make its recommendation to the city services committee. It doesn't have to be a large board; it simply should be some kind of business review board that would be able to look at the pros and cons and just make a recommendation to the city services committee about what should apply. If that was done, we feel it would be more equitable.

For example, Mr Bougadis made an application for an ice cream vending permit for a location on Queen's Quay. He was third on the list of applicants, having waited several years to be considered. When the matter came up for a particular location on Queen's Quay, there were two persons ahead of him, neither one of whom had included in their application that they intended to sell ice cream.

But because they were ahead of him, although in one case I think they included in their application that they intended to sell French fries, and in another one, hot dogs, the city department went to the person who was ahead and said they couldn't give him a permit to sell hot dogs or French fries, but if he'd like to sell ice cream, he could get a permit to sell ice cream. He proceeded to say yes and proceeded to get the permit for the ice cream vending location which in fact had been denied to Mr Bougadis, who was the only applicant in line for an ice cream vending permit in that particular location.

Now, that doesn't sound equitable. Unfortunately, the matter came up before the city services committee and was reviewed by the committee and the position of the commissioner was confirmed. What else would happen? We feel there is not equity here.

Similarly, we feel there should be some procedure to be followed so that a person who has been in business as long as Mr Bougadis has could not have his licence now cancelled and have to go to the bottom of the line again to make a new application. In other words, we feel there should be some grandfather clause in this legislation. We feel it's the only way in which long-standing vendors who have developed this method of earning a living to support themselves and their families can be protected from arbitrary decisions to cancel.

It would seem this legislation is sufficiently bald that it could happen that way without any cause of appeal being given to a person in Mr Bougadis's position to appeal such a decision. There should be some appeal procedure built into this bill, I suggest, requiring that the bylaw have a procedure to review, on an impartial basis, decisions such as that, which can so arbitrarily affect a business.

We also feel there should be some provision that the lists of applicants for vending locations should be kept in a public place and that they should always be current so that anyone can go and look at the list at any time and be able to see where his or her particular application is. There have been instances of persons I have represented who one day found themselves, say, number 15 on the list and who went back a month later and found that they were now 25 on the list, with no explanation of how they happened to drop down the list in that manner.

The lists are not public. The lists are kept by the city department, and heaven only knows what can happen to things under those circumstances. If the lists were public, they would be reviewed by the applicants from time to time, who would see that they were being treated fairly. I guess it's the old story that things must not only appear to be done properly, but they must in fact be done properly.

Those are the concerns of my client. He feels that the bill in its present form does not build in sufficient safeguards for appeals of applications which are refused and for cancellations of permits without cause.

There's also a third procedure which is a little inequitable. At present, if a person wants a particular location, they make an application to the department of public works and the environment for a particular location and pay their fee of $200, I think. That matter is then reviewed; inspectors go out and look at the location to see if it's a proper location and then they report back to the department, viz, the commissioner, and that can be refused as not a proper location. Then it can come before the city services committee where, as I've mentioned, the procedure followed is to have the commissioner make his case to the committee, and he's there all the time. If it's refused, the applicant doesn't get any money back.

It's a pretty dangerous procedure, unless you've got a few hundred dollars you want to throw away, to make an application for any particular location, because (1) it can be relatively arbitrarily refused and (2) you don't get your money back.

We feel this bill should have some more equitable features built into it to protect these kinds of situations, and we respectfully make those submissions to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Skells. Mr Bougadis, did you want to make a few comments?

Mr Peter Bougadis: Yes, ma'am. I don't know if the same committee was here in this room about three years ago. They said there were too many hot dog carts on the sidewalk, and if you put the signs they removed the zoning, and because of the pedestrians and traffic. That's a poor excuse that always the city has come forward with at meetings.

At that time we asked Councillor Tom Jakobek and Mayor Eggleton what's going to happen with the curb lanes. I'm talking about with the ice cream trucks. We work in the city only 150, 160 days. It's a tradition in Toronto. In 1958 my father started, and I continued his business for all these years. He said: "Mr Bougadis, you don't have to worry about it. If you get the tapes, you're going to find the ice cream trucks are going to be free. Nobody's going to bother your tradition. It's just for 150 or 180 days. You don't have to worry."

After we left the room, we received so many summons, so many tickets and so many problems on the streets. I asked, where's the promise? It went from one situation to another: He said go to the 24th floor, come back to the 15th floor, come back to city services, come back to city council.

We can't afford to pay all the time lawyers. We don't understand the language very well. We are farmers who come from Greece, from Italy, from all these places, to be honest people, to work, to make a living. To go through these procedures, we don't understand the language. We have to have somebody like Mr Skells or somebody else to advise, and we can't afford it.

We have our families. My kids are going to university and so many other people's are going to university. We work in this job. We have to have some legislation, something for us to protect us. We're honest people. If you ask the policemen, we have the cleanest records. We don't cause any trouble; we don't cause anything. I don't see why the city should treat us like that and why the city should want more power to send us home. I don't see why.

The Chair: Thank you. I notice there are some other folks here who may have an interest in this, so I will put the question again. Are there any other people in the audience who have a particular view on this bill or a proposal to express? You can each take a chair if you like. I will start with this gentleman, if you would like to introduce yourself for the committee's sake.

Mr Andrew Paton: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Andrew Paton. I am a solicitor and I'm accompanied by Mr Firsten. Mr Firsten is a supplier of flowers for vendors in the city of Toronto.

In first reading the legislation, we weren't really sure we had a problem with it. I think the more I hear, the more problem I have with it. Mr Johnson perhaps hit the nail on the head, and that is, what are the additional powers you're asking for?

This is special legislation, it's my submission, and the city, I think, has proceeded to amend its bylaw with respect to the two cases Mr Perlin had mentioned, Greenbaum and Sharma. But he says to you, notwithstanding that, and keeping in mind that the vending legislation has been in the city of Toronto since the late 1970s or early 1980s pretty much in its current form -- and I should indicate to the committee I have some knowledge of that; I was a member of city council and actually passed that bylaw -- and it went on for many years and was successfully run, then the city came up and said, "We need additional powers; we have to have powers to seize." That's a fairly serious matter. This committee said, "Well, that's fine."


If the city can say to you very clearly, "This only confirms and clarifies; it does not give us any more power," then I have some easiness. I feel a little better because Mr Firsten's been operating on the streets for over 30 years. In the good old days you walked in and paid $5 and got a permit. They didn't measure and take and do and drive you crazy. But we understand that times change.

It's inappropriate, I think, for various municipalities, various interest groups, to come to Queen's Park and say: "I need special legislation. It's nothing different from what anybody else has, but I want it clear. I just want it clear." I think it's a waste of time and I think it's inappropriate. I would submit to you that I thought I heard Mr Perlin back off the clarification to say, "Well, maybe we are getting some additional powers." If they're not getting additional powers, then they don't need the act.

Believe me, as a lawyer, to try and figure out what's going on in the city of Toronto -- and they're here every year. Unlike most municipalities, they're here almost every year for special legislation.

How do you seize? You have to go to the City of Toronto Act, 1990. It only goes to 1993. Well, that's not true, because Pr whatever after Pr4 said we're going to extend it indefinitely. Then I have to find out whether you need a demolition permit or not. They've got special legislation; you can't get a demolition permit without it. It goes on and on, and it's just making government more complicated. For what? "To clarify." Why don't we wait for another 10 or 12 or 15 years and see if indeed we end up in the Supreme Court of Canada and we have a problem. He's saying to you, "We don't have a problem, but" --

I think it's very, very dangerous and wrong of this committee, without some extensive hearings, some real time put into this bill to go through it clause by clause, word for word, to see if we have new powers, because it affects a lot of people. The city of Toronto is famous, and has been for many years, for consulting with the constituents.

When this matter went to council, and I've been dealing for Mr Firsten with the city of Toronto for 10 or 12 years, we didn't get any notice of the matters that are appended, the March 16, 1993, report that went through Sharma and Greenbaum and so on. I would have thought that when they're seeking special legislation of this nature -- they have lists of all the people who have permits -- why wouldn't they advise people, "What we're going to do is we're going to clarify the legislation to make sure you can have your permit." That's fine, but they didn't do that, and I think that's inappropriate.

I heard a magic word that we get into with vending. If I was before city services, I wouldn't have to spend a lot of time on this, but it was the word "competition," which Mr Perlin mentioned. He started to talk about restaurants, that restaurants will come and want an outdoor café. Reasonable. Mr Silva told you how you go through the process. But then I think I heard him say, "But if that person who runs that restaurant doesn't want it, then they should have the right not to let anybody else have it." So we shouldn't have competition.

Interestingly enough, the city of Toronto doesn't have the power on Queen Street to regulate the number of restaurants. If you're zoned, you can have a restaurant, whether you're next door or 50 or 100 metres away. I don't see that they have that power today, but maybe they're saying they want to control that. "We want to say to the person who has the restaurant, who doesn't want the boulevard café, no one else can have it. Don't worry, we'll protect you."

These are issues that start to creep into clarifying legislation that looks pretty general, but if you're somebody like the previous speaker, like my client who's been doing it for 30 years, 25 years, who does this for a living, it becomes a very, very serious matter.

With respect to Pr61, we didn't get the opportunity or we missed the opportunity to be here when the legislation was passed with respect to removal zones. I think it's appropriate that the city has a system of ticketing people, charging them and going through the court system. If we'd had a removal zone back when Mr Sharma and Mr Greenbaum were charged, they would have taken their flowers and they would have died. That would have been the end of it. But what happened? They actually worked through the court system. A couple of people who just sell on the street went to the Supreme Court of Canada, God bless them, and actually won. I think that this makes a lot more sense than what you're doing.

You've already extended legislation with respect to removal zones on the street allowance, but I don't think you should exacerbate a situation. I don't think you should make the same mistake twice. I think you should really think about it, that there are other processes, particularly with perishable items. How you're going to store them, flowers or hot dogs or food or those types of things, is beyond me. It's really a very draconian way to deal with people. Charge them and make the fines stick the way the city does on other matters and eventually get injunctions. The city gets an injunction if you don't comply to the orders that are given you under the Building Code Act.

We don't have a particular interest in parks because we don't vend in parks, but I don't think you should make the mistake twice. I think you should say, "Mr Perlin, you give me your undertaking, the undertaking of the city of Toronto, that you are not asking for one bit of new power or we won't pass this bill, and if you are asking for new powers," and I think they are, "then you clearly outline them to us in the material that you give us," material which unfortunately we haven't seen.

I presume there's some material before the members of the committee with numbers and so on which really would have been very interesting for us to have had and perhaps would have allowed us to focus a little bit more in our presentation. I also thought I heard someone talk about an amendment which, again, I haven't seen. If there's an amendment before the committee, I can't speak to it because I haven't had the privilege of looking at it.

But this Legislature and this committee should not be in the business of reconfirming legislation for people. If they want to pass new legislation, then clearly understand what those new powers are and why the city of Toronto should have them, why Metro shouldn't have them, why Pickering shouldn't have them, why Mississauga shouldn't have them. You may know, and I think it is in the material before you, that Metro has asked for certain powers. I think you should look at vending in a global way and I think the government should bring forward some changes to the Municipal Act so everybody in all municipalities has the same rights and should be treated the same. Special legislation, private legislation, is not the way to go on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Paton. I'm going to turn to the gentleman here, if you'd like to introduce yourself and who you're representing, please.

Mr Sam Caragianakos: My name is Sam Caragianakos and I'm from the Grenadier Restaurant in High Park. We also operate in the western beaches in the west end of Toronto.


I'm here because of the seizure law where they want to seize the vehicles. I took over the western beaches just over a year ago and we've had nothing but problems since day one with illegal vendors, sometimes up to 10, 15 vendors a day, operating around my concession booth. I went through the proper channels to get the rights to sell down there. We went through over 12 months of back and forth with different tenders and what we're going to give to the city of Toronto to enhance the parks, make it more enjoyable for the people who are going to be in the parks and what kind of food they're going to eat while they're there. They have not only the opportunity to eat healthy food, but also hot dogs and the rest of the food. We carry both ends of food.

We pay approximately $2,000 a month in property taxes while we're there. We have a short season because it's a park, and we pay approximately $2,000 to $3,000, depending on how long our season goes. Sometimes it'll go for a five-month season, but most of the time we're looking at a four-month season on the western beaches. In High Park we have a little longer season, because you get your spring and your fall, which are beautiful in the park. In the park, we're paying about $3,500 a month, just talking property taxes. We also pay about $4,000 to $5,000 a month in business taxes, our share to GST, PST and all the rest of the things. We also pay, in High Park, over $70,000 a season in rent.

We have illegal vendors coming when they feel like it. I'm there every day even when it's not a good day. Even when I have to hire the 10 students to work for me that day and we don't even make enough money to pay our wages that day, I have to be there, I have to open up and I have to operate my concession. These vendors come on Sundays, which is one of our high days, or during the air show. They show up to come and reap the profits that I'm entitled to to try to make up for the rest of the season. Let's say we had a rainy weekend or a season like last season, not the season that's just past, when we had no business at all.

I went into this season in High Park owing $70,000 in rent that I did not have. Luckily, we had a half-decent summer and I don't owe $70,000 any more. I paid last year's rent, which I owed and I paid almost half of this year's rent. I'm still behind. But then I have illegal vendors coming up and stealing my business. I went through the proper processes to get the rights to this park.

The police have helped us on many occasions. They will come and they will ticket when they have the time. They're busy too; they're under budget cuts and everything, just as well as other people in the city. But they have no authority; they cannot seize these vehicles. They give them a $107 ticket, I think it is, or a $103 ticket. A $103 ticket is a business expense to these people. They pay $100 or $200, as Mr Bougadis says, for their year for their licence. If I had the opportunity to pay only $200 a year for my licence in there, I would take a $107 ticket or a $103 ticket every day that I operate. There has to be some way that we can discourage illegal vendors from being in the park; I'm talking financially now.

Now let's get into the western beaches, which we have videotapes of. There are five or six vendors hanging around in one corner of the park. They're arguing and fighting with each other on who should be there: "Why don't you go home?" -- obscenities and so on. Our children come to the park. The first thing they see is these vendors fighting and arguing with each other. A mother comes up to the cart with a child and says, "I'd like a hot dog." Joe over on the other side says, "I'll give you a hot dog over here," and they start arguing and fighting among each other. It's right on the videotape that was brought here; you can see. Is that what we want our city parks to become?

The city tells me what colour my umbrella is. They tell me what kind of hot dogs I can use: all-beef, vegetarian and everything like that. I'm fine with that, because I don't need the city to tell me anyway; I will give the best product because I'm there and I want to service people. I want people to come back to my hot dog stand or to my concession stand or to my restaurant. That's part of doing business. There are a lot of fly-by-nighters out there -- I'm not saying that any of these people who were here today are -- who will save a hot dog from the day before and sell it. You're going to get into problems in these areas where you don't want those types of problems to arise.

On several occasions this year, when I was down on the western beaches, I have shown vendors the proper documents that I have that I'm the only one to sell down there. I had my life threatened. Since then I've never approached a vendor, because the police came down and they said to me: "You know something? That's not your matter. You shouldn't go up to the vendor and show him anything and ask him to leave. You should call us and have us" -- well, sometimes the police just don't have the time to come down.

So I'm pleading with you to at least take a look. I'm talking for the seizure of any illegal vendor who's in a city park, especially when someone has a concession stand or a restaurant and pays his dues and has gone through the proper channels in that park. The parks that are empty, that don't have concessions, I don't know; I really don't have a feeling on that one. But on this one, where I pay the amount of money that I pay to have the right to sell in that park -- I not only give uniform and good food, but you don't know what's going to happen when you have an illegal vendor in there.

The Chair: I'm going to turn to the gentleman at the far end then. Please introduce yourself and tell the committee who you're representing.

Mr George Foulidis: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Honourable members, my name is George Foulidis. I am the president of TUGGS Inc. TUGGS Inc is under contract with the city of Toronto pursuant to a tender call in 1986. Since 1986, TUGGS Inc has invested over $2 million in the eastern beaches, which is what Mr Perlin referred to earlier.

One of the ideas the city had initially was to enhance all the concession stands and provide better service and better food. For that reason, we entered into this agreement. We invested our money. As I said, we had the exclusive right to vend in these areas. Since the beginning, I've experienced nothing but problems. Of course, I've brought them by myself, through my solicitor, to the attention of city staff and the city solicitor himself.

It's been very difficult, but although I have entertained many times or considered even litigating the city because we're under agreement with each other, we have never taken that step. One of the reasons is because the city has tried to work very hard at controlling the illegal vending that's happening in the park areas where I'm under contract.

Today before your committee you've heard many people tell you that some people have been in business for 30 years, others have been in business even longer, and therefore you should give consideration for the length of time. What I'm here to tell you is that vending is okay. If someone is licensed to vend in a particular area and they honour that and they stay in that area and do what they are supposed to do, there's nothing wrong with operating a business. I'm in business myself. That's what the whole spirit of the free enterprise system is all about. However, where vendors enter illegally into areas on boulevards or in park areas and specifically come during those days that are busy, as he mentioned earlier, in the summertime, what you have is chaos.

On a good weekend, where we expect our revenues to be high, we have not one, not five; I can count for you 1,000 and more, and I've given many letters and pictures to the city over time. These people come and invade the park in such ways that I could describe to you for three hours. Some of them go on the grass. Ice-cream trucks come in. They go right on grass areas. They park beside our concession stands. Of course, the only recourse we have is to yell and scream and try to get the police down there to perhaps get them removed.

The police have certain powers. They do not have the power to remove physically or seize carts. The only powers they have are to ticket people. Ticketing is not a solution, any more than it is for seatbelts. The police ticket; people still don't wear them.

The amount of the fine certainly doesn't discourage anyone from practising business in the parks. It's a cost of doing business, definitely. Even if a vendor receives one or five or 20 tickets, the fact is, once they reach court, half of these tickets are not honoured anyway.


I pay heavy tax dollars to the provincial government through provincial sales tax, obviously to GST, land and business taxes over $60,000 and $80,000. The city's return on my investment through depreciation and natural rent is over $250,000 a year.

I fully support the city's position in having the right to remove these carts. I have had staff who have done nothing but work full-time during the summer months in trying to monitor and solve our problem with respect to illegal vending. I would describe for you one typical example of what happens when I try to get assistance.

I phone the police. The police may come two hours later. Obviously, this is not priority on their list. It's an issue, they know it's an illegal act, but they have other things to do as well. The vendor may have been there for a good number of hours by the time we discover them, so therefore half a day may have passed by the time the police arrive, if they arrive at all.

When they arrive, they may ticket them but most often they ask them to leave. The vendor moves on further down along the parklands and parks somewhere else and continues to do vending. These are the revenues I'm looking for to run my business. The vendor comes back the next weekend.

I've come to know some of these vendors at a personal level. I've had fists in my face, I've been pushed around physically, I have had my staff intimidated. Recently, in 1993, waiting for one call for the police to come, a vendor did such a thing. They moved from one location to the other and we had to track them down.

By the time the police arrived, I had approached the vendor and informed him, "It's time that you leave, the police are here." He started to threaten me. They kicked the side of my vehicle, which was parked adjacent to theirs, as they were unloading, or I should say loading their cart back into their van, and at that point they became extremely abusive, verbally and physically, to myself and to the police. They were arrested and this December I'm going to court under subpoena as a witness because my life was threatened too.

I'm saying to you it's time you put a stop to illegal vending. Certainly don't stop those who are there to do business, but illegal vending should be stopped and the city, specifically the city, should have the right to govern and monitor their lands as they deem fit. If they do not, this problem will not stop. I hate to say this to you, but at one point in time you may regret not giving them these rights. Thank you for listening.

The Chair: Thank you. I was going to turn to Mr Hayes but he had to step out for a moment. At this point I will turn to Mr Hansen, if you have any particular questions that you wanted to raise with the deputants.

Mr Hansen: I've got a lot of concerns with the bill here; I guess maybe the new powers that are given here. This is why I sort of waited to ask the questions.

You're talking mainly on Bill Pr61, the ones in parks. It looks like you were talking, I gathered, in favour of the bill here. Is that correct? You're not objecting to Pr61, but are you objecting to Bill Pr48?

Mr Caragianakos: No.

Mr Hansen: I understood that any more objectors -- and you came forward as objectors, but you're in support.

The Chair: They're interested parties.

Mr Hansen: Okay. I was waiting for this objection and this is why I've been confused, because I thought you were actually objecting to the bill, these gentlemen here. Actually, I'd like to hear from the parliamentary assistant if there are any objections from the ministries. He just walked back in. I'll hold my questions.

The Chair: There is an Anne Valliere and a Gary Fox. Did you have any other comments that you wanted to make on this as well? You didn't step forward when I --

Ms Anne Valliere: Yes, I would.

The Chair: You would actually like to make some comments? Okay. If I could ask these gentlemen to allow these two folks to come forward and then maybe more comments and questions will ensue from the members. If you would then introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and begin your presentation.

Ms Valliere: My name is Anne Valliere. I work with the parks and urban forestry division in the parks and recreation department. I just have a few matters that I would add to the discussion in support of the bill for removal or seizure of vending carts in our parks in the city of Toronto.

In the videotape we had actual evidence of various sites, in particular the western beaches area, in support of Mr Caragianakos, who spoke about illegal vendors in that area, where you would see that vending carts were obstructing certain entrances to parks, including parking spots for disabled.

Also we had a recent incident, in the summer of 1993, where there was an emergency call where ambulance attendants had difficulty entering the pool complex at the Sunnyside pavilion as a result of illegal vendors in the area.

Vendors have an opportunity to register with the city of Toronto so that when we issue a tender for vending at a particular park location, they can submit their bid at that time. So we do have a process in place with our various vending spots in our parks.

The contracts vary from anywhere from two years to five years to 10 years, depending on the amount of financial input that the vendor would be required to put towards the project. For example, for the western beaches area we have a 10-year contract as the result of a request for a café to be developed inside the pavilion, along with vending outside the building.

In terms of requesting approval for this seizure bylaw, it's in a way to deter the illegal vending activities. The videotape shows numerous tickets being issued to one vendor -- that's just one example in the western beaches area -- who looked upon it as being part of the normal business of the day. The Metropolitan Toronto Police issued I think it was up to six to nine tickets. It just does not deter the illegal vendors from continuing their operation.

Many a time vendors will operate on the street allowance. Upon being asked to move by park staff or by public works staff or Metro police, they will move their vending cart and move into an adjacent park and continue vending. So there's this back-and-forth kind of motion from the park on to the street allowance. There is a commitment from the parks department and the public works department to monitor this to the best that we can, but without the seizure of the goods from the parks we're having great difficulty in doing so.

That basically concludes my comments with regard to this. I think you might find it quite helpful to view the videotape where it actually shows some of the problems associated with illegal vending. It quite illustrates what Mr Foulidis and Mr Caragianakos explained. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Does your colleague with you wish to say anything?

Mr Gary Fox: My name is Gary Fox. I'm with the city of Toronto department of parks and recreation. I was involved in the making of the videotape. On numerous occasions, particularly in the western beaches, I have been threatened while making the videotape.

We're involved with such things as Ms Valliere has stated where particular parking spots are being blocked off. Access to parking areas is being severely limited, especially in the western beaches, coming from Lake Shore Boulevard into a parking area where the Martin Goodman Trail crosses the entrance to the parking areas and fast access and clear access are very important.

Some of the other difficulties that we found were litter being left around the locations, grease spots being left in the parking lot, which of course attract all kinds of beasts, situations such as foliage being damaged, the park areas themselves being damaged, and again the public being subject to unsanitary conditions from definitely illegal people selling goods that really are not fit for human consumption.

I don't have any more. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Did you wish to say something, sir? Go ahead.


Mr Henry Kelly: I'm Henry Kelly. I'm with the department of public works and the environment. I'd just like to clarify some matters.

Businesses were consulted. The way the street vending system in the city of Toronto developed was that we had a committee which consisted of council members and members of the business community.

The system has developed to where it's at the point now that the business community is in favour of seizure and the licensed vendors are in favour of seizure. The only ones who are not in favour of seizure would appear to be the illegal vendors themselves. First of all, the illegal vendor is warned; then the cart is seized and removed. It costs a minimum of $500 to get your cart back.

When we were giving out tickets before seizure came into force, our inspectors were laughed at. They would give a person they knew by name a ticket. That person would pull out a roll of tickets, maybe 100 or 200 tickets, that he had already been given, add the one given to it and just continue vending.

Like the representative of the parks, our inspectors' lives have been threatened. They have had anonymous phone calls at home saying: "We know where you live now. We know who the members of your family are. Leave us alone." Our inspectors have been warned by the police to keep out of certain areas because not only are the illegal vendors selling hot dogs; they're selling drugs. There are guns and knives involved. We are in the position now where our inspectors go around in pairs for their own safety.

One of the main problem areas we had with regard to vendors in particular was around the SkyDome. Before we had seizure, you'd go down to the SkyDome and there would be a wall of vendors lined up along the sidewalk so that people crossing the road could not get through to where they were going. Other places it happened were around the new CBC building and the Metro Hall.

When we get target areas where we have problems, we do a study. We find the maximum number of vending locations that we can in that area and we get people licensed to operate there. It's funny: When the vendors become licensed, they tend to be self-regulating, because if you're paying the city money to sell hot dogs at a spot, you don't want someone setting up beside you selling cheaper than you can because that person is not paying the city any money at all.

Now, with respect to ice cream vendors, they are kind of given favoured status in the city, because if you have an ice cream truck, you don't have to get a licence from the city to operate. You can go into a residential area, you can stop for 10 minutes at one location, 30 minutes in a block, and you don't have to pay the city anything to do this. In a commercial or an industrial zone, you have the same formula except that you can stop for one hour at one location and three hours in a block. City council did this because ice cream vendors have a tradition in the city of always being there. Yes, if you want a permanent spot where you can stay 24 hours a day, then you have to have a licence. I think that's all I have say. Thank you for listening.

Mr O'Neil: One of the questions that was raised was as to how long the licences were given for, whether three, five or -- you mentioned 10 years in some cases. What sort of criteria does the committee use to say whether that licence is going to be given again or taken away? I think there was some concern in one of the letters saying that they could have been there five or 10 years and somebody comes along and takes that licence away from them. How is that handled?

Mr Kelly: Up until this year, the bylaw allowed you to renew your licence every year for a maximum of five years. Then that location would be put out to tender. However, city council realized that a person was building up a business; he had customers who always came to him. So that was removed completely. Right now, a vendor can renew his licence in perpetuity, provided he's operating in conformance with the bylaw.

Mr O'Neil: In other words, the person who is at that location could go on continuously as long as he's doing what he's supposed to do.

Mr Kelly: Correct.

Mr O'Neil: In other words, that letter is not correct in what it's stating.

Mr Kelly: No.

Mr David Johnson: The seizure you're talking about would pertain to Bill 61, I guess, for the parks.

Mr Kelly: No, I'm talking about within the public highway.

Mr David Johnson: All right, this is one thing I wanted to get clarified. Let me ask you: Today, do you feel you have the right of seizure?

Mr Kelly: Yes.

Mr Perlin: We already have that.

Mr David Johnson: You have that right.

Mr Perlin: That was a bill that was already passed by the Legislature.

Mr David Johnson: Have you in fact seized various properties?

The Chair: Could you actually indicate your answer, because the nod will not be picked up by Hansard.

Mr Kelly: Sorry. Yes, we have.

Mr David Johnson: But that's just on the boulevard.

Mr Kelly: Sidewalks and boulevards, yes.

Mr David Johnson: And you're unclear in terms of parks, so Bill 61 would give you the authority to seize in parks as well.

Mr Kelly: That's correct.

The Chair: Mr Hansen, did you have any additional comments?

Mr Hansen: I'm a little bit clearer now on the issue.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): You speak about people who wish to do this tendering. I thought I understood tendering. I just have to ask the question, how do you tender to have a spot on a street with a cart that's going to sell whatever? Do you tender to say how much rent you'll pay or what?

Mr Kelly: No, we do not have a tendering system. The way it works on city streets is that the vendor will come in and apply for a spot. If it meets all our requirements, we notify the adjacent property owner and business operators. If they have no objections, we have the authority to grant the permit. If there are any objections, then it's heard by the city services committee and city council. City council can either say, "Yes, you can have this spot," or "No, you do not have the spot because of the objections we received." Then that person gets the permit and they can renew it for ever.

Mrs MacKinnon: Why did you use the word "tender?"

Mr Kelly: Up until this year there was a tendering system. In other words, you could only renew the permit for five years, then it was put out to tender and the highest bidder, I assume, would get the spot.

Mr O'Neil: But that's been done away with.

Mr Kelly: That has been done away with.

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

Ms Valliere: Madam Chair, may I just add to that question by Mrs MacKinnon on the tendering process, just to clarify something?

The Chair: Okay, Ms Valliere, if you'd like to continue, then we really do have to get on. I think we've had a lot of discussion on this point.

Ms Valliere: Just to clarify, the tendering I spoke about was for the city parks. We do have a tendering program for our concession operations, which generally are buildings. We've just introduced vending carts as part of that in certain locations. But we do have a tendering system we continue to use for the award of specific sites.

Mr Perlin: In the parks.

Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you very much, but I'm a little more confused than ever now.

Mr Hayes: Just to kind of clear the air on the one issue, I know there was a comment made about people not getting the information. In all fairness, if the clerk's office or ministry staff are not notified that people are going to be here to object, we don't know who those people are, so that's probably one of the reasons why individuals did not get some of this information.

However, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and also other ministries have not indicated any objections to these bills. But really I think it would be proper at the same time if the city were to maybe give a breakdown, because of some of the questions that were asked, on what is in its bylaw now and how does it really dovetail with this particular private bill. I think a question was asked on extra authority and things like that and I know some of the members were concerned. If you could do that, I think it would help the committee.


The Chair: Mr Perlin, could you make a comment, please.

Mr Perlin: Let me give the undertaking that Mr Paton indicated. There is nothing being sought in this bill that is not already in the system that exists at the city of Toronto in bylaw format. With the City of Ottawa Act, 1992, combined with the Supreme Court decisions, it could put that system into jeopardy. Those of us who have experienced great difficulties in terms of going through a court system -- Sharma and Greenbaum, for example, took from 1987 to 1993. In the meantime, tickets weren't being processed, hearings weren't being heard as we awaited the court process to move through. So we are not asking for anything other than what is already in existence in the city bylaw system.

In terms of notice and procedures, in terms of due process, that's already provided for in the Municipal Act. Councils have to act in good faith, they have to act with due notice and natural justice principles, that the Legislature has already ensured in terms of the Municipal Act. So when councils act, they already have to act in a fashion that respects those principles, or people have rights to go to court and quash any decision that a council has taken if it hasn't done so in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in good faith. Those protections are already in existence.

We are not asking for anything that is not already in the bylaw system of the city, a system which in fact does work to protect people like Mr Bougadis or indeed the flower vendors in terms of ensuring people get certain locations and live to certain regulations. I want to make sure the committee understands that.

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the combination of Sharma and Greenbaum and an act, the City of Ottawa Act, that you passed last year, which sets out the express powers and which then throws into question precisely how much power we do have and whether the existing system, which works well in the city, can continue. That's why we're here.

Mr David Johnson: I'll just ask a question on that. There may be three levels of power that we may be talking about. One is the kind of power that you thought you had in the first instance. The second level may be the kind of power and authority that you've exerted visibly that the vendors see. Those could be two different levels. The third is the level of power that the courts have told you or that you've interpreted from court decisions that you've had.

So when you say that there's nothing new here, which level are you comparing with: what you thought you had in the first instance, what you have visibly exercised that the vendors would see, or vis-à-vis what the courts have now told you that you have?

Mr Perlin: I'm not sure I understand the three levels of power that you're speaking to. What we are indicating is that we don't intend to change the system that we already have. What's in front of you would allow us to continue the system we already have.

Mr David Johnson: So the vendors would not see anything different.

Mr Perlin: In terms of what we are already doing in terms of vending, boulevard cafés, street displays, sidewalk sales, they won't see anything different.

Mr David Johnson: They wouldn't see anything in terms of -- for example, they've questioned in one of the letters here your ability to tell them what sort of display they must have, that there is no extra authority in that regard.

Mr Perlin: We already do that as part of the system.

Mr David Johnson: And as part of the system you already tell them what sort of food they can sell; you have some authority on that and you've exercised that authority.

Mr Perlin: We believe that we did. I've been very frank with you before by saying it is open to some question.

Mr David Johnson: That's why I'm saying they're different levels.

Mr Perlin: What we're asking is to be able to confirm the system that we have, and that shouldn't be open to question. Where there is a concern, this entire system is dealt with by municipal council, and a very open system, as you know, at the city of Toronto in terms of people being able to change the system, come to the municipal council and ask for changes, and those changes can be made in the bylaws. All this gives is bylaw power to do what we're doing.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Skells questioned, would they get a fair or impartial hearing. Are the system that you have set up today and the system that you envisage under this bill similar? His concern was that they would not get a fair, impartial hearing, they would lose their rights without cause and they would go before a city services committee where the main person who would advise is the person who's already revoked their licence. Is the system any different in that regard?

Mr Perlin: I don't accept Mr Skells's description of the system. Sometimes people aren't happy with the decisions the city services committee or council makes after they make their presentations, but there already is a system where they come and make their pitch to the city services committee; sometimes they are successful and sometimes they aren't.

In terms of whether there should be a change in whether the commissioner of public works should have a right to speak any longer than anyone else, that can be dealt with by coming to city council and saying, "Put it in the procedure pile." There's already a way that this can be dealt with.

Mr David Johnson: But this bill doesn't change that.

Mr Perlin: That doesn't change that, exactly. An independent committee could be set up by city council as an independent situation. I know what Councillor Silva said in terms of limiting what city staff can say, or time limits. I thought that was a pretty good idea and I might very well take it up when he gets back to the city council.

Mr O'Neil: That was one of my concerns too, that although the bill doesn't deal with that, maybe after hearing the comments of some of the people who have given testimony here, or the comments of the committee, the city of Toronto should be looking at a few of these suggestions of not limiting some person to just five minutes or three minutes or whatever.

Mr Perlin: Or some independent committee in between that might have more time or something to look at it.

Mr O'Neil: Yes.

Mr Hansen: On the list that you have, where you're moving up to be qualified for a particular area, there was a comment made that your name could actually go down on the list. So I'd just like to hear, if it is public, that you can walk in and say: "Everybody knows where I am. I'm number two on the list. I shouldn't be number eight." Is there any comment on that?

Mr Perlin: I'll let Henry speak on how it actually operates. We are governed, however, by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that information does fall under the category of private information once we provide it, so that becomes a difficulty.

Mr Kelly: City council's policy is first come, first served. In other words, if you applied first, then you would be considered first for a particular location or when we study an area for that block, so there is no hanky-panky going on.

Mr Hansen: So there's a date that actually goes down of when you put it in.

Mr Kelly: Yes, the date the application is received in our department. The list is made. In the case referred to by Mr Bougadis, he was third on the list. There were only two feasible locations. Two people had applied before him. City council decided that one of those should be for a French fries truck and one for an ice cream truck. In accordance with council's policy of first come, first served, the first two people on the list got the spots.

Mr Bougadis: Madam Chair --

The Chair: You'll have to actually come forward to the mike and one of the folks here is going to have to move.

Mr Hansen: You'll have to sit down close to the mike, sir.

The Chair: The other thing is that we are not in the dispute resolution business here, so that if you have a concern with how this is all going to be resolved, I'm sorry, you are going to have to do that within the confines of the city of Toronto. We will hear a few brief remarks, but beyond that you are going to have to deal within the city of Toronto to get your particular concern addressed. Mr Bougadis, a few brief remarks, thank you.

Mr Bougadis: Madam Chair, thank you very much. The city council, or Henry Kelly, said they had decided on one ice cream truck and one French fries truck. The two people ahead of me had French fries trucks. Any time we write an application to apply for ice cream, for French fries, for hot dogs or anything, he can't change it. That's the bylaw with the city; city council has made it. What happens is -- Mr Henry Kelly; I don't know who is doing it -- he twists the application. For the French fries guy, he goes out and says to him: "Listen, we don't want two ice creams or two French fries. There is going to be one and one. If you wanted to get Peter Bougadis's spot, go buy ice cream. We'll wait for you. I'll wait three months for you to get an ice cream truck." He's never been with the ice cream business. "I'll wait three months for you to get an ice cream truck, and I'll give you the spot, not Mr Peter Bougadis." That's fair?

I'm going with whatever city council says: "One ice cream truck, one French fries truck. Whoever is on the list with the first ice cream truck and French fries truck." My application is in ahead of the other application. That's why I say it's not fair. The system at city hall is not fair. We want some fairness.

The Chair: At this point I'm going to interrupt and say, Mr Perlin, that I think you recognize there is an issue here and, Mr Silva, you have some concerns here and I hope you will take some time before leaving today to consult with Mr Bougadis and Mr Skells to try to find some resolution to this. At this point I think we have had ample discussion on this, so I am going to ask the members if they are ready to vote.

Mrs MacKinnon: What would the committee feel if we caucus for a few minutes?

The Chair: You can move that.

Mrs MacKinnon: I would move that, yes.

The Chair: Is there a supporter for that?

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): She can ask for five minutes, no matter what.

The Chair: Okay, we could have a five-minute recess then.

The committee recessed from 1151 to 1156.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to begin again. If members would take their places so that I can put the question: Are members ready to vote? Agreed.

Mr David Johnson: Is it possible to just say a couple of words before we do that?

Interjection: No.

Mr David Johnson: I know we're running out of time here, but --

The Chair: We've started the voting procedure.

Mr David Johnson: I thought we were just in questions up to this time.

The Chair: The majority has in fact agreed that we should have a vote.

Mr David Johnson: So I'm overruled.

The Chair: Basically, yes.

Mr David Johnson: Democracy in action.

The Chair: I try to do it nicely, Dave, but what can I say?

This is relating to Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.

Shall section 5 carry?

Mr Hansen: Madam Chair, I have some amendments here.

Subsection 5(1): I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "or a municipality official named in the bylaw" in the second and third lines.

The Chair: Can I make a point? The copy I have says "municipal official," just to be clear for the purposes of Hansard.

Mr Hansen: Okay. What did I say?

The Chair: "Municipality."

Mr Hansen: "Municipal official." Okay.

The Chair: If you'd just like to repeat that phrase then?

Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "or a municipality" --

The Chair: No.

Mr Hansen: -- "a municipal official named in the bylaw" in the second and third lines. Boy, when I get it right, I get it right every time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hansen. All those in favour of the motion? Anyone against? The motion is carried.

Mr Hansen: I have another motion, subsection 5(2.1): I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"No hearing

"(2.1) Despite subsection (2), a municipal official named in the bylaw may, after giving notice to the permit holder, suspend or revoke the permit without a hearing for failure to,

"(a) provide proof of insurance coverage if that coverage is required as a condition under clause 4(a);

"(b) enter into agreement that is required as a condition under clause 4(a); or

"(c) pay a fee required under clause 4(d)."

The Chair: A minor correction: Under (b), it should be "any."

Mr Hansen: "Any agreement." Okay? In (b) it should be "enter into any agreement."

The Chair: All those in favour of that particular motion? All are in favour, so it is carried.

Mr Hansen: I have one more amendment here, subsection 5(3): I move that subsection 5(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "under subsection (1)" in the first and second lines.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? None are opposed, so that motion carries.

Just to be clear, that clause has four sections.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Any opposed? None, so that section is carried.

Shall sections 6 through 7 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your cooperation. We go to Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Any comments, Mr Johnson, at this point?

Mr David Johnson: It's a little late now.

The Chair: I thought I'd at least give you the opportunity.

We will meet next week, ladies and gentlemen. We have an additional bill, I believe, from the city of Toronto relating to parking that we will be dealing with.

We'll see you at 10 o'clock next week. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1202.