COBALLOY MINES & REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994 COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994
PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994
PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994.
SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994
CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM INC. ACT, 1994
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF HOME INSPECTORS ACT, 1994
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994
COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994
COUNTY OF KENT ACT, 1994
CONTENTS
Wednesday 7 December 1994
Coballoy Mines & Refiners Limited Act, 1994, Bill Pr143, Mr Murphy /
Columbia Metals Corporation Limited Act, 1994, Bill Pr144, Mr Murphy
Tim Murphy, MPP
George S Dubé, solicitor, Coballoy Mines & Refiners, and Columbia Metals
Parkway Delicatessen Limited Act, 1994, Bill Pr145, Mr Phillips
Hugh O'Neil, MPP
Ron Carinci, solicitor, Parkway Delicatessen Ltd
S.A.W. Gallery Inc. Act, 1994, Bill Pr152, Mr Grandmaître
Bernard Grandmaître, MPP
Penny McCann, president, S.A.W. Gallery Inc.
Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited Act, 1994, Bill Pr155, Mr Ramsay
David Ramsay, MPP
Gordon Deeks, director, Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Ltd
Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge Act, 1994, Bill Pr120, Mr Cooper, T-435
Mike Cooper, MPP
Don Pavey, solicitor, Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge
Bill Irving, president, United Kingdom Club of Cambridge
Sarnia Community Foundation Act, 1994, Bill Pr139, Mrs MacKinnon
Ellen MacKinnon, MPP
Graydon Baines, executive director, Sarnia Community Foundation
Canadian Automotive Museum Inc. Act, 1994, Bill Pr142, Mr White
Ron Hansen, MPP
Ralph Turner, board member, Canadian Automotive Museum
Ontario Association of Home Inspectors Act, 1994, Bill Pr158, Mr Mills
Mike Cooper, MPP
Ron Segal, solicitor, Ontario Association of Home Inspectors
Terry Carson, founder, Ontario Association of Home Inspectors
Peter Kodeda, member, Ontario Association of Home Inspectors
Tax-exemption bills
City of Hamilton Act, 1994, Bill Pr140, Mr Abel
Mike Cooper, MPP
Lorne Farr, solicitor, city of Hamilton
Nina Chapple, architectural historian, planning and development department, regional municipality
of Hamilton-Wentworth
County of Kent Local Municipalities Act, 1994, Bill Pr159, Mr Hayes /
County of Kent Act, 1994, Bill Pr160, Mr Hayes
Mike Cooper, MPP
David Langstaff, warden, county of Kent
Mary Elizabeth Kuchta, acting clerk, county of Kent
Review of regulations report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
*Chair / Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)
*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
*Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton PC)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*O'Neil, Hugh P. (Quinte L)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Perruzza
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Mills
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Murray, Paul, legal counsel
Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel:
Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 0907 in committee room 1.
COBALLOY MINES & REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994 COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines & Refiners Limited; and Bill Pr144, An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited.
The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Good morning to all. We would now like to start the regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Our first order of business is Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines & Refiners Limited. Mr Murphy, welcome, and if you would introduce the applicant, feel free to say a few opening remarks.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'd like to introduce Georges Dubé, who is the solicitor for Coballoy Mines & Refiners, and I would ask that the committee please consider this and pass it. I will introduce Mr Dubé to answer any questions and provide some background.
Mr Georges Dubé: I'm here representing Alexander Gray, who is the executor of the estate of his father, James Joseph Gray. A little history on the company: Mr James Joseph Gray was very much like Harry Oakes. He explored much of northern Ontario and had a large portfolio of small mining companies at his death. His widow, who became executor of his estate, tried to manage, unfortunately unsuccessfully, the wide portfolio and failed to pay certain taxes on the properties and on the companies. She died in 1992, at which time the son, Alexander Gray, became the executor of his father's estate and took it upon himself to revive what he could of the remaining interests in his father's estate.
We're left with this company, Coballoy Mines and Refiners Ltd, as well as another company that will be up shortly. Coballoy has, to my knowledge, been given consent by Mr Victor Wilkinson at the corporations tax branch of the Ministry of Finance and also has obtained the consent of the public trustee for past legal services rendered. Also, the notice of publication under the standing order rules has been satisfied. As such, it is now being presented to you to be considered to be passed.
The Chair: At this point, I'm required to ask if there are any interested parties who wish to come forward to speak to this matter. Seeing none, I would ask Mr Hayes to make any remarks regarding input from the ministry.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The Minister of Municipal Affairs does not object to this revival.
The Chair: Any questions from members?
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I can say that we will support this bill. If we could, to save time, the other bill, Pr144, is identical to the first one, Pr143. Maybe we can possibly go right into 144, if there are no objections, and go through it and get it done with.
The Chair: Other members, any objections to proceeding in that manner? Mr Dubé, if you'd like to make any remarks regarding the next one, Bill Pr144, at the same time, then we'll deal with both in numerical order when it comes to the vote.
Mr Dubé: Great, thank you. There's nothing really to add with respect to Columbia Metals Corp Ltd. It as well fell into dissolution because of a failure by Mrs Gray, the executor of her husband's estate, to pay certain taxes. Now Columbia Metals is up to date. The notice of publication has been satisfied as well with regard to that company and I believe Victor Wilkinson has given his consent, as well as any other necessary government agencies.
The Chair: Again, are there any other interested parties who wish to come before us on the matter of Bill Pr144, which relates to Columbia Metals Corp? Seeing none, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: The ministry has no objections to Bill Pr144.
The Chair: Mrs MacKinnon, do you have a question?
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Yes, I guess it's because I don't have a legal mind. One says the province of Ontario and the other says the province of BC. Have we got jurisdiction for BC in this matter?
Mr Dubé: Both companies are incorporated under the relevant statute here in Ontario. Columbia Metals Corp at the time of its dissolution owned properties in British Columbia. It wasn't a British Columbia chartered company. What we're reviving is the charter of the company, which is an Ontario charter. Both are Ontario companies.
Mrs MacKinnon: I wish I'd never asked.
The Chair: It's all right, Mrs MacKinnon. Obviously, you saw something that some of us had not seen.
Mr Dubé: That's why you're here.
The Chair: That's exactly right, absolutely right. In any case, I don't believe there are any further questions from members. At this point, are members ready to vote on the two items, that is, Pr143 and Pr144? Agreed. We'll go through them in the proper numerical order.
Relating to Bill Pr143:
Shall sections 1 through 3 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.
That one is carried, Bill Pr143.
Now to Pr144:
Shall sections 1 through 3 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.
I think we just set a new time record. Thank you to both of you, and I hope that meets with your satisfaction.
PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited.
The Chair: This is relating to Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited. I would ask Mr Carinci and, on behalf of Mr Phillips, we have Mr O'Neil.
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Mr Phillips asked if I would introduce this bill for him this morning. I would like to turn it over to Mr Ron Carinci, the solicitor.
Mr Ron Carinci: Good morning. There's an elderly couple who had a corporation, a delicatessen, and they did not even realize that their charter had been revoked due to the fact that some tax returns had not been filed. The only way that we found out about this was that they were trying to sell their business and, through due diligence, they found out that the charter had been revoked. I think the reason that this had occurred is because they had switched accountants around 1986-87. The old accountant was not very friendly with the new accountant and many of the important working papers had not been transferred. Although at that time the tax returns had not been filed, subsequent tax returns were filed until 1990, when some of the tax returns were returned to the new accountant and they stated that the charter had been revoked in November 1988.
All the requisite publications have been done -- Toronto Star and the Ontario Gazette -- and I ask that you consider the passing of this bill.
The Chair: At this point I ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward on this matter. Seeing none, I would turn to Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and also the corporations tax branch of the ministry of revenue have no objection to this; therefore, Municipal Affairs has no objections to it either.
The Chair: Any questions from members? Are members at this point ready to vote? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Thank you very much, and I hope that meets with your satisfaction.
S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc. Mr Grandmaître, good morning. Would you introduce the applicant.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On my left, Madam Chair and members of the committee, is Penny McCann. Penny is the president of S.A.W. Gallery Inc. This bill is straightforward: It's to revise the incorporation status of SAW. SAW is an artist-run centre in the city of Ottawa. It was dissolved back in 1982 for failing to file. If you do have any questions, Penny McCann will answer them.
The Chair: Ms McCann, did you at this point wish to make any remarks?
Ms Penny McCann: Just for the information of the committee, what seems to have transpired was that in that period of time in 1982 the gallery moved twice in a fairly short period of time, and essentially what seems to have happened is we forgot to send a change of address. We have existed in Ottawa for 20 years and still continue to, and it was only when we went to change the name of SAW Gallery Inc and we spoke to the ministry that we realized we had been dissolved as a corporation. It was a big surprise.
The Chair: Very good. Any other interested party who wishes to come forward at this time to speak on this matter? Seeing none, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Finance does not object to this and Municipal Affairs does not object to this bill either.
The Chair: Any questions by members at this time? Seeing none, are members ready to vote? Agreed.
Therefore, relating to Bill Pr152:
Shall sections 1 through 3 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.
Mr O'Neil: Madam Chair, if I may, I move that the committee recommend that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.
The Chair: Thank you. All members have heard the motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour? Any opposed? That's carried. Thank you.
0920
PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994.
Consideration of Bill Pr155, an Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr155, an Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited. Mr Ramsay, if you would like to make some opening remarks and introduce your applicant.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm the sponsor of Bill Pr155, and I'd like to introduce Gordon Deeks.
Mr Gordon Deeks: Members of the committee, I'm the director of Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions, which is a summer camp located in Temagami. The charter was revoked due to failure, for a number of years, to file returns. Perhaps we're better at canoe tripping than we are at our paperwork. We didn't realize that the charter had been revoked until the cheques were returned and our accountants advised us. My understanding is that we've filed all the necessary papers, completed the publication and paid all the amounts that were due.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties who wish to come forward? Seeing none, Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance do not object to this application.
The Chair: Any questions from members? Seeing none, are members ready to vote?
Shall sections 1 through 3 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.
Mr Deeks, Mr Ramsay, thank you.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994.
Consideration of Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr120, an Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge. Mr Cooper, welcome. Would you introduce your applicants.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's my pleasure to sponsor Bill Pr120, an Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge, on behalf of my colleague Mike Farnan. With me today is Don Pavey, the solicitor for the YMCA of Cambridge, and David Young, the chief executive officer for the YMCA of Cambridge.
Mr Don Pavey: Thank you, Mr Cooper. I'm Don Pavey, the solicitor for the YMCA of Cambridge. Members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Bill Pr120 respecting the YMCA of Cambridge.
The YMCA of Cambridge, and its predecessor, the YMCA of Galt, was formed in 1856. The present building we occupy was constructed in 1913 and renovations were completed in 1960 and 1981. Interestingly enough, the YMCA of Cambridge is the fastest-growing YMCA in Canada, currently having 5,800 members in a 30,000square-foot building. Half of those members are children and teenagers, and a third of the membership who cannot afford fees are subsidized in some manner by the YMCA.
As you might appreciate, we've outgrown our present facility and we've been presented with a unique opportunity to construct a new YMCA in the geographic centre of Cambridge adjoining a 100-acre Dumfries conservation area owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority. The present site of the YMCA is exempt from municipal and school taxes by a private bill passed in 1986. The purpose of this bill is to enable the council of the city of Cambridge, the regional municipality of Waterloo and the Waterloo county school board to exempt the new YMCA property owned by the association from taxation for municipal and school purposes.
Cambridge city council, on December 6, 1993, supported the proposed legislation. Furthermore, to indicate their support for the new project, and as part of the new shared facilities of municipalities, the city of Cambridge has entered into a 40-year shared-use agreement with the YMCA allowing for the shared use of an expanded swimming facility. As part of the partnership agreement, the city has contributed $1 million to the project.
The council of the regional municipality of Waterloo passed a resolution supporting this legislation on August 25 of this year, and the Waterloo County Board of Education passed a similar resolution on September 26, 1994. The province of Ontario, through the Jobs Ontario Community Action program of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, contributed $1.5 million to this project. The association, which was incorporated in 1913 by an act of this Legislature, is a registered charitable organization under the Income Tax Act. In Waterloo region, all of the YMCAs are exempt from taxation, and throughout Ontario the majority of YMCAs are also in a similar position. The Cambridge family YMCA is a charitable, community-based organization staffed by over 200 volunteers.
I wish to ask for your support with respect to the proposed legislation before the committee, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: A Mr Irving has indicated that he is an interested party who wishes to speak to this matter. Do we have any correspondence from Mr Irving?
Mr O'Neil: I understand that the legislative people are making some amendments, and I ask for a 15-minute deferral to have these people come back. We can maybe deal with some of the other business until that's done.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr O'Neil. I remind members that the letter from Mr Irving is in your package. In the meantime, all members have heard the motion. All those in favour of a deferral? That will give you a chance, 15 minutes, to carry on with some legislative drafting.
Mr Pavey: Thank you very much.
SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.
The Chair: We will move to the next order of business, which is Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation. Mrs MacKinnon, you are probably aware of the routine, if you would like to introduce your applicants.
Mrs MacKinnon: It's my pleasure today to sponsor Bill Pr139. Because of the position our colleague Bob Huget has, he's not able to be here. I would ask the person beside me to introduce himself and make his presentation. This is an act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.
The Chair: You're Mr Kohlmeier?
Mr Graydon Baines: My name is Graydon Baines.
Mrs MacKinnon: I knew it wasn't Mr Kohlmeier.
Mr Baines: I'm the executive director of the foundation and have been since its inception, which is back in 1982. The foundation is a creation of Andrew S. Brandt, if you remember Andrew.
Mr O'Neil: How could we forget him?
Mr Baines: This amendment to the original act is called for for two reasons. Due to the fact that amalgamation took place in Sarnia, which took in a great deal of territory of the surrounding townships, we wish to make it more of a community foundation rather than just strictly the City of Sarnia Foundation, so we have dropped the words "city of" Sarnia and just call it the Sarnia Community Foundation.
0930
The other reason we're asking for amendment to the act is that to cover a larger area for the board of directors, we wish to increase the board from seven to 12.
These are the two main reasons we're asking for this amendment to the act. It only deals with section 3 of the original act anyway.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Baines. I'm quite sure all members around this table remember Mr Brandt with a great deal of fondness, and some of us have a chance to see him at a few wine events every now and again. He is definitely a very admirable gentleman.
Are there any interested parties who wish to come forward on this matter? Seeing none, Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: There have not been any objections to this and the ministry does not object to it either.
The Chair: Any questions from members? Seeing none, I would ask if members are ready to vote.
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Agreed.
The Chair: Mr Hodgson took care of it for all of you.
Relating to Bill Pr139, shall sections 1 through 4 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.
Mr Hansen: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move that the committee recommend that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hansen. All members have heard that motion. All those in favour, please indicate. Any opposed? None. That motion is carried.
Some folks are getting a little slap-happy at this hour of the morning.
Mr Hodgson: Some? What about the Chair?
The Chair: We'll work on the next cup of coffee.
Mr Baines, thank you very much for coming this morning, and I hope this meets with your satisfaction.
Mr Baines: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I call our next order of business, Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the city of Hamilton. I'm looking for a Mr Lorne Farr, solicitor for the city of Hamilton. Is he present? Maybe the weather conditions have delayed him, so we'll move that down the agenda.
CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM INC. ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr142, An Act respecting the Canadian Automotive Museum Inc.
The Chair: I call Bill Pr142, An Act respecting the Canadian Automotive Museum Inc. Mr Hansen, I see you're doing double duty. Would you like to introduce your applicant?
Mr Hansen: On behalf of Drummond White, who is unable to make it here, I'd like to introduce Mr Ralph Turner. He's going to be talking on Bill Pr142, An Act respecting the Canadian Automotive Museum Inc. Welcome to the committee.
The Chair: Mr Turner, would you like to make some opening remarks?
Mr Ralph Turner: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am a solicitor and have been a director of the Canadian Automotive Museum for some 15 years. I am here in a volunteer capacity, as you can appreciate. This museum is a charitable corporation. It's been operating since 1963 in Oshawa and, like nearly all museums, is struggling. As a result of an approach made to the city of Oshawa some time ago, it was agreed that the city of Oshawa would sponsor and do all the necessary preliminary work for a bill to exempt the museum from taxation with respect to its building and land, located at 99 Simcoe Street South in Oshawa.
I am therefore before you today to support this bill, which would give a tremendous benefit to the museum in the sense that it would release the museum from the burden of nearly $30,000 of annual taxation which could be much better spent in promoting the museum itself, which is located in an old building that requires a great deal of repairs in Oshawa.
There is one problem with this which I should address, as it's been brought to my notice. We were advised by the legal department of the city of Oshawa that we should give notice to the respective school boards and to the region of Durham. That was done back in May, and acknowledgement was received from the Durham region of our advice that an application was being made for a private bill.
I am now informed that there is some concern on the part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that there should be not only notice but consent. I would suggest that it seems to me that, analogizing this to court material, if notice is given to a person and they do not respond or make any objection, then it should be assumed that consent is present and that the bill should go forward.
This means a great deal to the museum and I would therefore ask that in the circumstances, based upon the material before you, this bill be recommended for passage by the Legislature of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Turner. Are there any other interested parties who wish to come forward on this matter? Seeing none, I turn to Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: The ministry does not support this bill, because they have not met all the criteria yet. It was mentioned that you have to have the region and the school board support, and we have been told by the school board -- it was silent on it, but it is not giving its consent to this bill. That's what the ministry has been told. So we do oppose it, because it does not meet all the criteria from the ministry.
Mr O'Neil: This is something along the lines of several other bills we've dealt with over the last few weeks. Do I understand that the school board has refused, that at the present time it does not intend to support this?
Mr Hayes: At the present time they don't. At the present time the support is not there.
Mr Hansen: Could we have an amendment put in this bill, like the other bills, and it could be passed?
The Chair: I'm not sure if the applicant at this point is in agreement. Possibly someone would like to move a motion that we don't have this discussion at this venue, that the applicant work with staff to see what they can conclude in terms of some legislative drafting, much as what happened to Bill Pr120.
Mr Hansen: Yes, rather than kill the bill.
Mr O'Neil: To be fair to the applicant, can you really make changes to this bill that would be acceptable when you don't have the approval of the school board? I don't know. Maybe staff could tell us that.
0940
Mr Hayes: What was the question?
The Chair: Mr O'Neil remarked on the fact that it might be difficult to alter this bill as it is.
Mr Hayes: Yes, it would be. I guess the only move we could make on this bill would really be to defer it until all the criteria are met. That's about as far as we could go on this particular bill.
Mrs MacKinnon: Did you say the separate school board didn't support this?
Mr Hayes: The school boards, I said. I didn't say separate or public. Both boards, I guess.
The Chair: We should all be advised that Ms Grannum, the clerk, is distributing some additional materials, and I think people are probably wise to scan through some additional materials in their package. Mr Hayes, did you want to make any remarks?
Mr Hayes: I guess it's that the public board is not supporting this bill. Sorry. I didn't realize that until now.
The Chair: Mr Turner, do you have any remarks?
Mr Turner: I've already addressed the issue, and it is my position on behalf of the museum that notice has been properly given to these organizations and they have not seen fit to respond or to object. It is my submission that in those circumstances, that should be deemed to be consent. If they have not done us the courtesy of replying to our letter and advising us if they have objections, giving us an opportunity to satisfy them, then I'm rather surprised at the tactics adopted by these organizations.
In any event, if you're not disposed to recommend this bill for passage, Madam Chairman, I would ask that at least we be given the opportunity to have a deferment in order to approach these people.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Turner. I ask if one of the members would make such a motion.
Mr O'Neil: I so move, that this bill be deferred until the applicants have had a chance to discuss the matter further with the boards of education.
The Chair: Any discussion on the motion? All those in favour of voting on the motion? Agreed.
All those in favour of the motion, as stated? Agreed, and none opposed.
Therefore, you have your deferral until -- the next time we'll be meeting will be in the spring, so that will give you some time to get your approvals in order.
Mr Turner: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF HOME INSPECTORS ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors. I ask Mr Cooper to introduce the applicant.
Mr Cooper: It's a pleasure to be here to sponsor Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, on behalf of my colleague Gord Mills. With me today is Ron Segal, the solicitor, and Terry Carson, who's one of the members.
The Chair: Mr Segal, are you speaking on behalf of the association?
Mr Ron Segal: That's correct.
The Chair: Please make your opening remarks, and if Mr Carson would like to make some remarks afterwards, that's fair enough.
Mr Segal: Firstly, I'd like to state that the purpose of this bill is to incorporate the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors and to enable it to grant to its members the right to the exclusive use of the designation "registered home inspector."
I'd like to start with a general overview of the home inspection industry. Home inspectors are private practitioners who are responsible for providing impartial advice on property conditions to home owners, purchasers, occupants and other parties with an interest in property. They should not be confused with public sector building officials, who are responsible for enforcement of provincial building regulations or municipal bylaws. They should also not be confused with appraisers, who provide a monetary valuation of property.
Home inspectors are generalists responsible for identification and analysis of observable defects in property. They do not perform any repairs, nor do they do specialized analysis of any deficiencies.
The principal type of inspection is the pre-purchase inspection of a resale of an existing single-family dwelling or a small multi-dwelling building. It's estimated that 15% to 20% of all agreements of purchase and sale for such properties in Ontario currently provide for a home inspection to be conducted prior to the closing of the transaction. The home inspection is now an accepted part of the real estate transaction. Indeed, the Ontario Real Estate Association and the Toronto Real Estate Board both provide standard home inspection clauses to be inserted in such agreements.
I'd like to now say a little bit about the applicant, the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, and how it fits into this. They were formed in 1986. They're a division of the federally incorporated Canadian Association of Home Inspectors, and a chapter of the American Society of Home Inspectors. The American Society of Home Inspectors was founded in 1976 and it represents over 2,500 home inspectors across North America. Its standards for home inspection are accepted by government agencies in many jurisdictions as the definitive performance guide for home inspectors. It's the only organization of its kind with stringent membership requirements.
The Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, as I stated, was formed in 1986. That was following discussions with the Ontario registrar of real estate. The registrar was concerned that at that time, the industry, being a new industry, did not operate under a set of standards or a code of ethics and suggested that the forming of a professional association of home inspectors would be viewed favourably by the registrar and would be in the public interest.
The Ontario Association of Home Inspectors is the only active association of home inspectors in Ontario right now and its current membership is approximately 150 home inspectors throughout the province of Ontario. It could be stated that the majority of home inspectors in Ontario are members of the association and that the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors' members currently conduct the majority of home inspections in Ontario. Indeed, the association estimates that its members perform approximately 80% of the home inspections in real estate transactions in Ontario.
I just want to touch briefly on the qualifications currently for membership in the association.
Candidates are required to pass two separate written examinations covering standards, ethics, general construction knowledge, defect recognition and systems operation. Candidates must have performed a minimum of 250 paid inspections which are conducted in accordance with the standards of practice of the association.
Those standards provide that there must be a detailed listing of particular components of the property that the home inspectors must observe in doing their inspection. Secondly, they must identify major repairs. Thirdly, and most importantly, they must provide written reports of the results of their inspection.
0950
Candidates must agree to conduct their practice in accordance with a certain code of ethics. That code of ethics provides that they must conduct their practice in accordance with law, integrity and honesty. In particular, it provides that members shall not act for or accept payment from more than one party in connection with any inspection; this to avoid any conflicts of interest. Also, they shall not use inspection work as a vehicle to obtain work in any other field.
Perhaps most importantly, members of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors are required to maintain errors and omissions insurance under the group policy of the Canadian Association of Home Inspectors. The policy provides for $1 million liability insurance coverage.
Just briefly, I want to touch upon the relations between other institutions and the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors. In addition to establishing high standards for home inspectors in Ontario, they work with other institutions in the province to strengthen the home inspection industry. Some examples include the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. The association has had discussions regarding the reporting of deficiencies when an inspection is conducted for a purchaser of a new home with the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, and indeed the Ontario New Home Warranty Program has trained a group of the members to conduct construction progress inspections on its behalf.
Another example is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, which has taken an interest in the private home inspection industry as being capable of assisting CMHC's mandate of improving the quality of the nation's housing. The CMHC, according to a recent study, encourages the growth of the industry in accordance with the model set up by the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors.
The association has also developed relationships with educational institutions, including George Brown College, which has become the first community college to offer courses recognized by the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors. It also participates on Seneca College's building construction regulations advisory committee.
In addition, the association conducts an ongoing public relations campaign which includes the distribution of brochures to the media, real estate offices and the public, explaining the importance of having a home inspection prior to purchasing a property.
Finally, I'd like to touch upon the reasons or necessity of this particular bill.
The home inspection industry is growing rapidly and it's expected to continue to grow as more and more consumers become aware of the importance of a pre-purchase home inspection. Unfortunately, the Ontario consumer currently has no way of ensuring that any given home inspector which they might want to hire is qualified, is subject to any disciplinary proceedings and, most importantly, carries liability insurance. This is particularly a problem given that the recent growth in the industry has led to an influx of new entrants, including some franchises, many of which lack the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors' commitment to education qualifications and ethics.
A report done by the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in 1988 on the real estate industry reviewed several new services provided in the real estate area. It identified the home inspection services industry and pointed out that one particular problem with regard to home inspection services is that there were no prerequisites for individuals presenting themselves as home inspectors. This would also be addressed by this bill.
Consumers have also been interested in the home inspection industry. In March 1989, in the Canadian Consumer magazine, there was an articled entitled "Inspection of Home Inspectors." The article reviewed the current lack of regulation in the home inspection service industry, although it did point out that the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors had tried to standardize the industry.
The article summarized the need for regulation. I think that's best summarized in something in the materials, the compendium, but I'd like to just quote a short paragraph out of that article which reads as follows:
"As the home inspection field grows, governments and consumers would no doubt have to consider a number of thorny questions. Buying a house is the biggest financial decision most Canadians face, one that's fraught with technical details that many home buyers can't handle. A home inspector can help them sort through that complicated process -- and avoid financial headaches. But should consumers have to embark on a lengthy self-education process to be able to choose a responsible home inspector?"
The article went on to suggest that governments may want to consider a regulation system which would help consumers feel confident that the inspector they had hired was qualified to do the job.
More recently, in 1992, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp did a survey of the private home inspection industry. It made favourable reference to the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors as requiring its members to maintain errors and omissions insurance and follow a standards of practice. However, the report made reference to the non-existence of any mechanisms currently to ensure that private home inspectors were well qualified, notwithstanding that a majority of private home inspectors were in favour of standardized training and a certification program.
The consultant preparing the CMHC report recommended that the options for private sector home inspectors would include the restricted use of association logos to those who have met certain standards as well as the establishment of a private sector certification program.
In summary, both consumer groups and interested government agencies have recognized the need to provide Ontario consumers with a method to identify qualified home inspectors who maintain insurance coverage. In particular, the CMHC report specifically concluded that a private sector certification program was a good option in this regard.
In our view, given that the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors has already been noted as the organization which has played an important role in regulating the qualifications, standards and ethics of home inspectors in Ontario in the initial years of the industry, it would be a logical choice to oversee such a certification program that has been recommended.
Finally, I'd like to discuss what will be the effect of passage of Bill 158.
The bill, if passed, will, first, establish an Ontario non-profit corporation, the members of which will include the current members of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors and which will therefore represent home inspectors throughout the province. This association would operate independently of both the Canadian Association of Home Inspectors and the American Society of Home Inspectors and would set entrance requirements, discipline its members and establish education requirements specific to Ontario.
Passage of the bill will ensure that only a home inspector who has met the necessary education and experience requirements and who has agreed to be bound by the association's standard of practice, code of ethics, and mandatory insurance requirements will be entitled to represent himself to the Ontario consumer as a registered home inspector. I would like to stress that the bill will not prevent any other individual in Ontario from carrying on the business of home inspection, although it is hoped that other home inspectors would be encouraged to raise their standards to the standards of the members of the association.
Finally, I'd like to say that the objective of the bill is one of consumer protection, to ensure that Ontario consumers of home inspection services will be able, when they select a home inspector, to be sure the person is well qualified, follows standards of practice, follows a code of ethics and maintains insurance coverage.
I'd like to thank the members for consideration of this bill. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to take them now, and Mr Carson perhaps could address any specific questions concerning the curriculum.
Mr Terry Carson: Just a few brief notes. First of all, I'm overjoyed to be here. I'm the founder of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors from 1986. I have to say that from the very beginning we realized that we don't operate in isolation, that not only do we have our clients, but we interact with government officials, we interact with homeowners, with vendors, with an industry.
A second hat I wear in that is I'm in charge of the examination for the American Society of Home Inspectors, so I consider myself rather well acquainted with the qualification process for home inspectors.
1000
On November 15 of this year in the Globe and Mail there was an article called "Venting Systems Posing Problems." Some of you may be aware that a consumer advisory was issued on November 14. This was from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to some problems with furnace vent pipes. To me, one of the greatest benefits we would have from this act is that we would gain recognition as an organization so that we would have much better interaction with various government departments and other interested parties. So when problems like this arise, we would be on the calling list of organizations like this. It's this type of problem that we are seeing every day and where we know that we make a positive impact in preventing loss of life and I would say really ensuring the good housing stock in Ontario. Ontario Hydro did issue a similar type of recall on Flex-Heat, on a certain type of radiant heat, some years ago, and we have been cooperating in those efforts.
So I think my bottom line is we are here to help the consumer. We are here not only to operate on our own, but we are interacting with everyone else, and that's where we feel the act will help us the most.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carson. At this point I must ask for interested parties to identify themselves. Members will realize we had in the package a Mr Kodeda who wished to make a presentation. Please introduce yourself and make your remarks.
Mr Peter Kodeda: My name is Peter Kodeda. Being 35 years in construction, I'm assuming that to pass and recognize this private bill, 158, it's almost overdue, and with respect to knowing construction, I'm basically supporting all this stuff which is with respect to the activities with the association, to be a member and associated with a number of the associations and institutes, especially in the past time, as a national director of American institute of constructors. I do know all the problems, to a certain point, in respect of the construction industry.
What these two gentlemen just did, a small presentation in respect of the introduction of the bill, definitely I am completely supporting everything that is done with respect to the activities of the association.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kodeda. Are there any further individuals who wish to come forward on this matter? Seeing none, I would ask Mr Hayes to give the ministerial perspective.
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Madam Chair, but I do have a question before I give the ministry's response.
You did allude to the fact that others would still be able to practise even though they didn't belong to the association. But I do have the one concern, and that's my personal feeling that we've seen other groups or organizations, once they got that title and recognition, along the line come to government and say, "We can't allow these other people to practise unless they belong to our association." I'd really like to know your opinion on how it would affect other people who are qualified, meet all the conditions, but choose not to belong to your association.
Mr Carson: If I could answer that question --
The Chair: The technician has to introduce you to Hansard so that when they do the printed copy, they know who actually said these pearls of wisdom.
Mr Carson: I am Terry Carson. I would say that if we were to start looking at what a home inspection is and who performs a home inspection, we will have any number of different people who may be perceived as performing that function. I would say that the inspection role may be performed, under some circumstances, by an architect who would be going ahead and doing a design of a house, by perhaps a contractor who will be doing something very specialized as far as the future construction.
The word "inspection" and the actual process are so broadly based that it depends on the specific function that is being fulfilled. I don't see any way, with the different types of inspections and the different people who are out there, that we could claim any type of exclusivity, and we're not.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carson. Mr Hayes, did you want to continue with your remarks?
Mr Hayes: I just wanted to make that point, and I hope those things don't happen.
The ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing actually met and discussed with the applicant and they are not opposed to this application. The only thing the Ministry of Housing did, just for the committee's information, is that it has just pointed out that it is a very young organization. Outside of that, we do not object to the application.
The Chair: Do I have any questions from members?
Mrs MacKinnon: This really raises something inside me that says, "Beware." First of all, as a property owner or a homeowner, maybe I should declare a conflict of interest. If somebody wants me to, say so.
Interjection: No, it's okay.
Mrs MacKinnon: We have inspectors coming into our homes all the time. I have one who comes in to see if you've got working fire or smoke detectors, one for my furnace, one for my water and one for my hydro. How many more do we need? Further, I can see, if it's indeed started, the next thing we'll know, our offices will be jammed with these people lobbying us for something else. Where does it end?
I'm going to be pretty obnoxious and vote against it.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): That's not obnoxious.
Mrs MacKinnon: Well, call it what you like. I'm going to vote against it.
The Chair: At this point, I would turn to Mr Jordan.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing forward this bill. I apologize for being a little late coming in on it this morning.
My first question is, how does this bill and the responsibilities of these people relate to the building inspector that we have now?
Mrs MacKinnon: My point exactly.
Mr Carson: I have to point out that we operate in a totally different sphere from the public sector building officials. The public sector building officials exist to enforce the Ontario building code in the case of new construction or in the case of renovations or repairs. We also have other public sector officials who enforce municipal bylaws. We operate totally independently for either, let's say, a prospective purchaser or for an owner. We are not there to enforce bylaws. We are not there to insist that smoke detectors be present. We are there to advise people and provide information.
More specifically, when someone is buying a house, we go in there and we give them a much better idea of the conditions, be they safety related, be they the expected age they may have out of a roof, whether their electrical system is going to perform as they intend, and then of course sometimes energy efficiency. So we take it from a totally different perspective. We're providing information rather than enforcing existing standards.
Certainly, when we see safety issues, we feel that we perform a similar public service and we overlap in a sense by advising people that they have a problem.
Mr Jordan: Where do you receive remuneration? From the user?
Mr Carson: That is correct, sir. We receive remuneration from the user as opposed to other parties.
Mr Jordan: Do you have standard fees that you apply for general inspections?
Mr Carson: Yes, we do.
Mr Jordan: I just noticed this morning that there's another group that has opened an office in Toronto and across Ontario under green industry. They're doing home inspections, they're checking furnaces, they're checking insulation and they're checking windows. It's a consortium that's been formed among a group of some utilities and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. They're providing this service free of charge. They're coming out to the homes. They have a number in the Globe and Mail this morning to provide this service free of charge.
Mr Hansen: They're most likely selling insulation. You get a free inspection to put more insulation in.
Mr Jordan: No, no. They're working for your Ministry of Environment. He's brought it together as the minister. They're paid some by the Ministry of Environment, some by the utilities, some by the different groups in the consortium.
1010
I thought the Ontario building code covered everything along with the Ontario electrical code, and the inspection you had to go through. Perhaps the contractor, after 35 years' experience, would be well qualified to advise me on what I was going to gain from this inspection that I can't get -- I can get a general inspection on wiring and everything from Ontario Hydro for a fee. I can get a general inspection on my heating system for a fee. Is this a bringing together of all this?
Mr Carson: May I talk?
The Chair: Please.
Mr Carson: I want to answer the question by pointing out two things. First of all, in the past there have been any number of government programs, by both federal and provincial, where specific items would be inspected. We do bring everything together and we would not exist if it were not for public demand, the demand from the consumer. The reason we have grown to the extent we have is that the public does not have confidence in individual programs like this to provide information in dribs and drabs. We tend to be brought in to provide more of a comprehensive picture, especially from the point of view of people purchasing houses or properties or wanting far more detailed information.
The other very important point is that the codes you were referring to, the electrical code and the building code, deal very specifically with new installations and in some cases retrofit. I would say that if we look at the housing stock in Toronto alone, there would be comparatively few that would meet all the standards for the modern electrical code. The codes do not define existing standards for the most part, the exception being some of the new apartment and house regulations on the rental front. But from the point of view of a single detached dwelling that is owned and operated by a single family, it's very rare that someone would be in a position that a house like this will be looked at by someone comprehensively unless we go in there, unless someone really wants it.
Mr Jordan: So basically, having this bill and having you registered as a professional in the field is a protection for the user?
Mr Carson: That's correct, sir.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I understand Mrs MacKinnon's concern that there are so many inspections and so many different groups out there and I can understand why you would almost get sick and tired of all of this, and your question was, "Where does it all end?" But I'm going to have to support this, and I'll tell you why.
Essentially, I'm a firm believer in regulating an unregulated industry in order to establish some set of guidelines and standards. As it stands right now, anyone can say they belong to some association or do it totally independently and come up with various quotes, because we don't have standards set.
In order to belong to this association, if I understand this correctly, you have to have certain educational requirements; you have to have certain tests that you have to pass in order to get into the association. That's why I think it would be a good idea to establish this association.
Mr Hayes, of course, has some concerns; I think they are well founded, but they were answered as well: that you're not forcing anybody to belong to the association even though there will be some subtle pressure, I suppose, associated with it as you continue in your drive to try to formulate some guidelines for the association. I think that will happen in due time. In the meantime, of course, if you are a home inspector you don't have to belong to the association.
Some of these questions have been settled in my mind, and I would certainly support the establishment of the association.
Mr Fletcher: I share some of Ellen's concerns also. I have no problem with the organization advocating on behalf of the consumers. It seems that they start to advocate on behalf of themselves also, but that's a headache for any government and that doesn't matter.
Looking at, "At any meeting of the association, two fifths of the members of the association, whether present or represented by proxy, constitutes a quorum," insurance companies love to do that too where they collect all the proxies. You could have two people at a meeting who have all the proxies, constituting a quorum, passing bylaws, making judgements, and the whole membership is not aware of what's going on. If it became a political movement, which is very possible -- that happens in some of the biggest organizations where the proxies are being used -- people actually do not realize what is being passed until it's passed. No safeguards?
Mr Segal: As you say, I think it's not an unusual provision just to ensure that business is conducted. The membership is from across Ontario, and it would be expected, certainly, that more members than that would come to a meeting.
Indeed, an important reason members would come to an Ontario Association of Home Inspectors meetings generally is because one of the requirements to remain a member is to achieve 40 hours of continuing education in every two years, and these hours also happen to take place at the same time as meetings are held. So that's a good reason to ensure there will be a large number of members showing up at any given meeting.
In terms of what the membership can do, of course they cannot amend the legislation itself, and I think there couldn't be any fundamental changes made to what the association does, nor would there want to be any. I don't know. Mr Carson might know specifically how they conduct themselves, but I don't perceive any particular problem with the fact that there is that quorum which, as I say, seems to be a standard quorum number in the models of the legislation that we relied on as precedents for this legislation.
Mr Carson: The only thing I would say is that in the past we have worked more by consensus than anything, and I'm pleased that has happened and that's allowed us to go forward.
I just want to reiterate what was said. We put that provision in simply because it reflected what other organizations had and we felt this would be the most accepted. That's the only reason that was there.
Mr Fletcher: I know there are many organizations that do it, as I said, but there are more and more that do not do that. I'm not going to belabour or belittle the point or make it a big point or anything else, but the one thing I can see is, supposing that section 13 of this bill were to be debated by proxy with 10 people at a meeting -- and I don't know what your membership is. Suppose it's 500 and there are 10 people at this meeting and they have all the other proxies and they vote to delete that section. Then all of a sudden we have a closed shop and it would make changes.
All I'm looking at are the safeguards in terms of changes to the bylaws or anything else that is in your constitution or any other part. There is a possibility of an abuse if there is not a safeguard in place to make sure that someone is not collecting proxies for certain functions or for certain pieces of your organization, to change certain aspects of your organization. That is a concern I have as far as the proxy is concerned. I probably shouldn't have that concern, because I think you'll probably look after it, but it's something that maybe you should look at in the future.
Mr Hansen: I'm going to support this bill. As a homeowner, and I'm sort of a handyman too, but there are a lot of people out there --
Mrs MacKinnon: That's the kind of people I like.
The Chair: It's the blue thumb club.
Mr Hansen: There are a lot of handymen out there, I can tell you. But the thing is that purchasing an older home, say, built in the 1920s --
The Chair: How about the 1870s, like mine?
Mr Hansen: Well, whatever. The thing is that I would like to know, if I called the Better Business Bureau to find out about a person inspecting homes, even though the rate could be $100 for one and $200 for the other -- you could be paying $200 for this inspection which is poorer than the one you're getting for $100 if the man isn't qualified to do the job. He might have a fancy sign and a big ad in the telephone directory, but he doesn't know beans about hydro, he doesn't know beans about house inspection, just a fancy card or a fancy sign.
This way you can regulate. You know what you're getting for your money. I think that if you're going to regulate yourselves and set the standards, then the standards most likely will keep going up as the organization grows.
We had the town planners in here I believe two weeks ago with a bill. There were objectors, people who just object to joining anything. You're going to get that, but I don't see anybody objecting today. They had the opportunity to come forward to this committee. So, therefore, I'm going to support this bill.
1020
Mr Jordan: Supposing you inspect my home and it meets all requirements, in your opinion. Do you have a stamp or certificate or something I can have or just a receipt that the inspection has been done?
Mr Carson: Normally, after we complete an inspection on the home, if you hired us we would provide you with a report, and the report would outline the conditions that we observed at the time. We are not out there to provide you with a guarantee or with a certificate as such, but yet we do have responsibilities for the accuracy of what we do state.
Mr Jordan: But there wouldn't be a sticker on my furnace or on my electrical panel or on my septic system that said it's been inspected and passed your requirements.
Mr Carson: No, there isn't, sir, because we have viewed ourselves as not being code enforcers or working to the code, so we prefer to stay away from that. That doesn't preclude us from getting into some sort of program like that in the future if some ministry or that asks us to get involved. But no, we currently don't have such a program.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm pleased to support the bill. Noting Mr Hansen's speech, I would have preferred if he'd said he was a handy person around the house rather than the term he used, but we'll let that go by. I think the self-regulation of professions and people who gear themselves for professional status is very important in our society today, and I agree with the application.
Mr Hansen: Would you like me to, on Hansard, change the word --
The Chair: Mr Hansen, thank you.
Mr Hansen: I'm sorry.
The Chair: We do have a list. We do try to keep some order.
Mr Hayes: You've got to address Mr Hansen the proper way, I think. He said a handyman; it should be a handy person. But I think it's really the blue thumb club, like the Chair said earlier.
In regard to Mr Fletcher's question, and I don't think you responded to that, in terms of voting by proxy or any other way, they can't just vote to take the section out of this bill, because it's in the statutes.
Mr Fletcher: The bylaws can't be changed.
Mr Hayes: Yes. They can't be.
The Chair: At this juncture, I would ask if members are ready to vote. Agreed? Agreed.
Shall sections 1 through 15 carry? I declare the motion carried.
Shall the schedule carry? I declare the schedule carried.
Shall the preamble carry? I declare the preamble carried.
Shall the title carry? I declare the title carried.
Shall the bill carry? I declare the bill carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Gentlemen, my 1870 house appreciates your being out there. Thank you.
Mr Hansen: You should have had them check it before you bought it.
The Chair: I know, with the urea formaldehyde insulation.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.
The Chair: We will now return to a previous bill, which is Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge. All members have, in the meantime, received copies of a series of motions that will be amending sections in that bill, Pr120.
I welcome back the Y from Cambridge. Mr Pavey, do you have any remarks to make at this time?
Mr Pavey: We have discussed and were aware prior to coming to today's meeting of the request for these amendments. We accept these amendments; they are quite agreeable to the YMCA of Cambridge.
The Chair: Mr Irving, would you like to join us here at the front. Mr Irving, you're an interested party who obviously has some concerns relating to this bill, and this is your opportunity to put your case on the record.
Mr Bill Irving: I am Bill Irving, president of the United Kingdom Club of Cambridge. We have an ongoing dispute with council regarding the tax-exempt status for our club based on a problem which arose. That is not a problem for this meeting. The reason I'm stating that is that I come representing 80% at least of the citizens in Cambridge, and that's without a word of a lie.
We are not asking at this particular time that you dismiss this application. We are asking that you return it to Cambridge council. This council has no credibility in the method it gives release to go for tax exemption. This problem has never been presented to the citizens of Cambridge. There was a headline article in the paper that "Council Decides to Pass it Without any Representation." When that headline appeared in the paper, I had enough of those pages with that headline on it offered to me, I could have papered a room in my house with it. That's how much they're objecting to it.
The problem is that this thing is not as open as it seems. For instance, we're contending that council is attempting to railroad this application through by avoiding any input from the citizens of Cambridge. As I said, we have the support of the citizens of Cambridge. The reason council is so anxious to get the YMCA tax-exempt is that it's going to take the onus off them to build a much-needed swimming pool in Cambridge.
According to the YMCA's status on saying, "Okay, the citizens of Cambridge will be allowed access to it," it amounts to three and a half hours per day. They've had $1 million from the council and they have had $1.5 million and $1.6 million from the infrastructure. They're now looking for tax exemption and they're asking for another $2.5 million from the public in Cambridge. For what? Three and a half hours a day? There's a little town in Ontario here, Hanover, that is building a swimming pool. They're using the infrastructure; they built it themselves.
However, there are two points we'd like to see clarified, and that's why we're asking that it be returned. It is noted that the Rotary Club is going to be located in the YMCA's premises. If they get tax-exempt status, how many clubs are going to locate in there under the banner of the tax-exempt status? Also, the YMCA in its existing building has been paying volunteers by giving them free membership, a paid membership. That is in dispute. They've stated they're not going to pay volunteers any longer, but that problem's still in dispute; it hasn't been settled. What we're afraid of, if the tax-exempt status gets through, is: "Oh, we're okay, we're in the clear now. We'll give them the membership."
There is another point too, and I think what's happening is that Cambridge council is asking this committee to take the ball off its shoulders. The present YMCA has a grant from the council in lieu of tax-exempt status, and I think what's happening here is, because they're trying to do it by a tax exemption, they don't want to make the decision and have all the citizens of Cambridge down on them. They're passing the buck to you people to say, "Okay, we agree to it."
1030
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Irving. Mr Hayes, did you have any additional remarks to make?
Mr Hayes: We do have a number of motions to go into this bill for amendments, but the ministry will not object to the request if the following conditions are met: that the bill reflects the consent of upper-tier and school boards affected, that the exemption applies to a specific property, that the YMCA should apply for each exemption, and the schedule is required to describe the property to be exempt.
Mr Hansen: Some of the items the objector has stated to the committee, if the presenters wouldn't mind responding -- for instance, with the Rotary Club, I take it the Rotary Club could not get an exemption on the property if the YMCA didn't own the building; they'd have to own the building in order to get the exemption. If the Rotary Club owned its own building, a Rotary Club building, on its land, it would have to pay tax. Maybe the ministry can answer that one also, but I would appreciate the presenters reply to the objector's concerns.
Mr Pavey: Certainly. To the members of the committee, I'd like to correct Mr Irving's comment. What is going in as part of the shared use of facilities is the Rotary Children's Centre, which is a facility that provides services to what I would call disadvantaged children; handicapped children, in the old vernacular. It is a centre financially supported by the Rotary Club throughout Cambridge. It is not the Rotary Club premises that we're talking about here at all. It's a children's centre.
Dealing, if I may, with some of the other comments, I would take issue with Mr Irving's comment that he represents 80% of the citizens of Cambridge. I'm not sure where that came from.
I should give you a bit of background, because I knew about the United Kingdom's objections in our previous appearances before the committee in June of this year. The United Kingdom Club purchased a parcel of land from the city of Cambridge in July 1990. The actual deed to that property contains a series of development covenants, and it specifically says in that document that the club would in any event pay all municipal realty taxes on the lands during its period of ownership.
These particular lands occupied by the United Kingdom Club are in an area which the city of Cambridge called International Village; there are located the United Kingdom Club, the Galt Curling Club, the Armenian Community Centre, and the Islamic Centre. Apparently the Islamic Centre and the Armenian centre have been exempted from taxation as lands being held or used by religious organizations. The Galt Curling Club and, obviously, by Mr Irving's remarks, the United Kingdom Club pay realty taxes.
The United Kingdom Club early in 1994 requested the city of Cambridge to pass a resolution supporting their request for an exemption from taxation which, I understand, they would not do. It would appear to me that the United Kingdom Club, rather than pursuing its concerns with the city, is now objecting to the bill being presented on behalf of the YMCA of Cambridge. I would suggest that the concerns of the United Kingdom Club, although they certainly may have merit, are a separate issue from the YMCA private member's bill before this committee.
Mr Irving: We accept the fact that this issue is not to do with the YMCA. What we have to do here is get some credibility from Cambridge council.
The man is making the statement here the same as council made. He states that we agreed to pay our taxes; so did the Islamics, so did the Armenian centre. The Armenian centre paid its taxes for three years until they built a mosque.
In that covenant on International Village Drive, churches and schools are not allowed. However, council was having difficulty selling the property and allowed a school to go through. The Islamic society held it from 1985 to 1987 and never built anything on it, although the religious clause was lifted for the whole International Village. In 1987, council then decided, "We'd better recognize that they're building a mosque." That mosque was built under the recognition of council and the Islamics then went to the regional assessment board and got tax-exempt status.
The Armenian club sued them for $2 million because they signed the same covenant as everybody else: no religious services. In the settlement with the Armenian club -- by the way, our friend from the YMCA brings up the religious clause. In the settlement with the Armenian club, the club told council they were not prepared to accept anything on religious grounds, simply because they had got a huge grant from Wintario and if it was accepted that they were building a church they'd have to give it back.
So in its wisdom, council agreed to come to provincial government, which you people passed in September 1991, an act granting the Armenian club tax-exempt status. However, in that agreement with council, you should recognize the fact that not only did they agree to allow them to go to tax-exempt status but, if this government failed to pass it, council in its own right would allow them the same status as the Islamics. Not only that, but they also agreed they would allow the Armenian club to buy lot 6B on the drive at a nominal sum and it would carry the same exemption as their original property.
We bought lot 6B in April 1991. The bill didn't pass here until September 1991. If the lot was going to be tax-exempt for the Armenian club -- and this is our objection -- we think we have a very strong case. As a matter of fact, it's not a question of tax exemption. We have stated quite frankly from the beginning that we are only after equality of tenure. If they remove the tax exemption from those two clubs, we're quite prepared to pay our taxes.
What you have to remember here is that only three clubs are ever going to be on that. The Armenian club has bought the rest of the property for a school, and it's going to be tax-exempt. The covenant on these three properties is the same for each of the clubs, and yet it's been used in three different directions by council. That is why we're taking exception to the YMCA.
Mr Cooper: To straighten something out here, I think these arguments should be made at Cambridge council. What we're doing is passing enabling legislation, that the corporation of Cambridge can pass bylaws exempting them; we aren't giving the exemptions here. The arguments you're putting forward should be argued at council.
Mrs MacKinnon: My question is to you, Mr Cooper. Don't look so surprised; I do this once in a while.
The Chair: I'm not sure that's in order.
Mrs MacKinnon: Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr Cooper, if I may. Are you saying that when we pass bills here for tax exemptions -- which I have a great deal of difficulty with, I might add -- it's only enabling legislation for the municipality from which it's being applied?
Mr Cooper: That's right. It enables the corporation of the city of Cambridge to pass certain bylaws.
Mrs MacKinnon: Therefore, if the municipality of Cambridge council sees fit not to grant this or any other tax exemption, it can still do so?
Mr Cooper: That's correct.
Mrs MacKinnon: I wonder how many people really know that.
Mr Pavey: I knew that.
Mrs MacKinnon: I'm sure you do. That's all the legal minds. I don't have a legal mind.
Mr Cooper: If I may, Mrs MacKinnon, some of the things stated in the committee are, do they have agreement with the boards of education or with the corporations? That's one of the things that is always brought forward, because if there is no agreement, what is the sense in us passing enabling legislation?
Mrs MacKinnon: I'm aware of the boards of education situation. I wasn't aware of the municipality situation. I was under the opinion that if we granted it here, that's it.
Mr Cooper: No.
Mr Eddy: I knew that, that it is enabling legislation specifically to the city of Cambridge.
Mrs MacKinnon: Good for you, you municipal warhorse.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate that.
The Chair: I think these midnight sessions are doing something to members.
Mr Eddy: They do affect most of us, Madam Chair. They've affected me somewhat, but not in the same way.
1040
I think it shows the importance of having general legislation in the Municipal Act that enables any municipality to grant similar tax exemptions, providing they follow certain rules, and the rules are in place for this. It is important at some time to proceed with that, and then it would be up to the municipal councils to deal with the applications, as it will be to deal with this application by Cambridge council if this is passed. I do support it.
The Chair: For the information of members, Mr Hayes has requested a few minutes after we complete the vote on Bill Pr120 to put on the record some thoughts from the ministry regarding these kinds of requests, and we've received a number of them in recent weeks. We've had a consistent policy, but this is definitely to put it on the record once again, for all to know and understand.
If there are no further questions at this time, I'm going to ask members if they are prepared to vote.
Interjections: Agreed.
Mr Hansen: Madam Chair, I have a motion on section 1. I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Tax cancellation
"(1) The council of the corporation of the city of Cambridge may pass bylaws cancelling the taxes payable for municipal purposes, other than local improvement rates, on the land, as defined in the Assessment Act described in the schedule and owned by the association if,
"(a) the land is owned, occupied and used solely for the purposes of the association; and
"(b) the association is a registered charity within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada).
"Conditions
"(2) A tax cancellation under subsection (1) may be subject to such conditions as may be set out in the bylaw.
"School board
"(3) If a tax cancellation bylaw is in effect under subsection (1), a school board entitled to share in the assessment for school purposes of the land described in subsection (1) may by resolution direct the corporation to cancel the taxes payable on the land for the purposes of the board.
"Notice
"(4) A school board that passes a resolution under subsection (3) shall forward a copy of it to the corporation and to any other school board entitled to share in the assessment.
"Region
"(5) If a tax cancellation bylaw is in effect under subsection (1), the corporation of the regional municipality of Waterloo may by resolution direct the corporation to cancel the taxes payable on the land for regional purposes.
"Notice
"(6) The corporation of the regional municipality of Waterloo shall forward a copy of a resolution passed under subsection (5) to the corporation.
"Further cancellation
"(7) When the corporation receives a resolution passed under this section from a school board, it shall by bylaw cancel the taxes directed to be cancelled by the resolution.
"Same
"(8) When the corporation receives a resolution passed under this section from the regional municipality of Waterloo, it shall by bylaw cancel the taxes directed to be cancelled by the resolution.
"Duration
"(9) A bylaw passed under subsection (7) or (8) remains in effect so long as all resolutions passed under subsection (3) or (5), respectively, remain in effect.
"Bylaw ceases to have effect
"(10) A bylaw passed under this section ceases to have effect if either of the conditions set out in clauses 1(a) and (b) is not met."
The Chair: I would ask you to stop there, as you are going into a brand-new section under "Notification." Is there a discussion on the motion?
Mr Eddy: I just have a question about 1(1)(a), "the land is owned, occupied and used solely for the purposes of the association." Realizing that the applicant has stated that the Rotary Club will establish a children's centre in the building, should this clause be changed in some way or is there no problem legally in interpretation? It was simply a question.
Mr Pavey: If I may, Madam Chairman, the children's centre in its own right is an exempt organization, so we aren't concerned.
Mr Eddy: Thanks. That answers my question.
The Chair: Members have heard the motion. All those in favour, please signify. Any opposed? Seeing none, that is carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Mr Hansen, if you'd like to continue with new section 1.1.
Mr Hansen: "Notification
"1.1 (1) The clerk of the corporation shall forward a copy of a bylaw passed under subsection 1(7) to the Minister of Education and Training and shall notify the minister if the bylaw ceases to be in effect.
"Same
"(2) The clerk of the corporation shall forward a copy of any bylaw passed under section 1 to the assessment commissioner and shall notify the assessment commissioner if any bylaw ceases to be in effect.
"Collector's roll
"(3) The treasurer of the corporation shall strike from the collector's roll each year that portion of the taxes that is no longer due and payable by reason of a bylaw passed under section 1."
The Chair: If you'd like to hold again, we have another new section. We're voting on new section 1.1, an addition to the bill. All those in favour of the motion as read? Any opposed? Seeing none, that amendment would be carried, or the new section would be carried.
Mr Hansen: "Chargeback
"1.2(1) For the purposes of section 421 of the Municipal Act, the entire amount of taxes cancelled by a bylaw passed under subsections 1(7) and (8) shall be charged back in each year to the school board and regional municipality to which they would otherwise have been payable.
"Notification
"(2) The clerk of the corporation shall notify the Minister of Education and Training of the amount of taxes charged back to a school board under subsection (1)."
1050
The Chair: Thank you. So we have a new section 1.2. All those in favour of 1.2 as read? Any opposed? That is carried.
Mr Hansen: "Retroactive
"1.3 A bylaw or a resolution passed under this act may be retroactive to January 1, 1994."
The Chair: Everyone has heard the motion. All those in favour of 1.3, as read, please indicate. Any opposed? That motion is carried.
Section 2: Mr Hansen?
Mr Hansen: The motion is that the government recommends voting against section 2.
The Chair: Okay, it's not an amendment; it is to be repealed. There is that thing called "to repeal."
Shall section 2 carry?
Interjections: No.
The Chair: That is defeated then.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 carry? Any opposed? Seeing none, that's carried.
The preamble.
Mr Hansen: I want to make a motion on this, Madam Chair. On the preamble, I move --
The Chair: Hang on. I've been informed by the clerk you should do the schedule next.
Mr Hansen: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following schedule:
"The land situate in the city of Cambridge, being lot 46, registrar's compiled plan 1376, in the land registry office for the registry division of Waterloo South (number 67)."
The Chair: All members have heard the motion that is before you. All those in favour, please indicate? Any opposed? Seeing none, that's carried.
Mr Hansen: Now may I go on with the preamble, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr Hansen: I move that the preamble to the bill be amended by striking out "to enable the council of the corporation of the city of Cambridge to exempt that land and any other land acquired by the association from taxation for municipal and school purposes" at the end of the first paragraph and substituting "to authorize the cancellation of taxes for municipal and school purposes in respect of that land."
Do I go like this when I've got those little marks?
The Chair: You can say "quotation marks," if you'd really like. It's a little hard to record that on Hansard. It's getting worse, I know.
Mr Hansen: And it's only 11 o'clock.
The Chair: I know, and it's going to midnight tonight.
All members have heard the motion regarding the preamble. All those in favour, please signify. Any opposed? That's carried.
Mr Hansen: I have another motion here, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That'll be at the end, please.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
Mr Hansen: My final motion on this particular bill:
I move that the committee recommend that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.
The Chair: All members have heard the motion. Please signify if you're in favour. Any opposed? Seeing none, that's carried.
Gentlemen, I hope that meets your satisfaction. It put you through a few more paces this morning than expected, but I think you've probably got your desired result.
Mr Jordan: I think it's right to point out to Mr Irving, who says he represents 80% of the taxpayers in Cambridge, that this is strictly enabling legislation.
The Chair: It's back in the municipality's hands, yes.
Mr Jordan: Democracy is still with he and his council and the town of Cambridge. We haven't dictated anything here.
Mr Irving: Yes, and I'm going to use public financing, along with the United Kingdom Club, to the member, from the YMCA, where I will debate with the citizens of Cambridge this matter.
The Chair: At this juncture I'm going to turn to Mr Hayes to read into the record the ministry position on these kinds of matters.
TAX-EXEMPTION BILLS
Mr Hayes: I'd like to actually make a statement regarding the tax-exemption bills. Of course, these past few weeks we've been asked to consider more bills from organizations requesting that municipalities be empowered to grant tax exemptions. All of them were deferred when they initially came to this committee. The main reason for deferrals was that organizations were not clear on what was expected of them before they came to the committee.
More specifically, they had failed to secure the clear support of the relevant school boards and, where one existed, the upper-tier municipality. Staff from the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Education and Training worked with some of the organizations to redraft the bills to make it clear that upper-tier and school board support were required before their taxes were forgiven.
In effect, the redrafts incorporated the committee's criteria in the body of the bill. I think that this will make the conditions for tax concessions clearer to future applicants and will help to improve the process related to these bills by ensuring that accountability provisions are satisfied.
In reviewing the bills, staff raised some fundamental concerns. For example, should organizations come forward to ask that municipalities be empowered to grant them tax exemptions? That's one question. Or, since it is the municipalities that are being empowered, shouldn't it be on the basis that those municipalities requested that authority? If municipalities came forward instead, the process would be significantly streamlined.
Maybe what we should be doing, committee members, is discussing this and other issues before any similar bills are heard at the next session. I think it's an issue that we should be certainly looking at and I think we all have some concerns about what is happening here. You've heard me say before that the municipalities will ask to give some organization a tax exemption and then of course at the same time there is the concern there that the municipality will see a shortfall and will come to the provincial government for further funding to make up for that. I think it would streamline the process, because sometimes some municipalities may not really know or realize some of the concerns that may be there, and if they support it then they should be coming here.
Mr Eddy: I appreciate the paper that you've just read, parliamentary assistant, and it is what I would term a small step towards streamlining it. I'm not completely familiar with the rules under which applicants can receive an appointment and make an application to this committee for passing of a private bill, and I don't agree with precluding any organization that wishes to come forward. However, I do agree that it would be excellent if the municipality was the sponsor of a bill enabling itself to indeed do these things.
1100
But in the case of a municipality that does not wish to come forward and bear the cost -- and perhaps that's indeed why organizations make the applications and come forward and are willing to bear the cost, in the hope that there will be gain by reduction of taxes.
I don't know the mechanics for agreeing to this or whether it's a ministry that decides this or indeed officials under the direction of this committee, and I'd like an explanation of that. But I can see, where an organization makes such an application to enable the appropriate municipal council to pass such a bylaw, that they would be requested to do the following things, along the lines you've pointed out. It would help in that way, but we would still have organizations come forward.
But I really feel that we should look at the Municipal Act and go much further and have an amendment to the Municipal Act enabling all municipalities to pass such bylaws, "providing the following rules are met." Now I know there would be a list of conditions to be met, and would have to be.
Interjection.
Mr Eddy: Yes, I know it would be lengthy, it would take a bit of time to do that. But do you realize the amount of time it would save the Legislature when you consider the amount of work the committee has and then presenting them to the Legislative Assembly? And it would save the time, because we have applicants coming from all across this province, having to journey to Toronto, sometimes in adverse weather, sometimes worse than today even. Is it really necessary?
If the local municipality wishes to take the responsibility and wishes to deal with organizations that apply, to exempt from municipal taxes, and wishes to go through the procedure to obtain the approval of the upper tier, follow the same procedure -- upper tier by resolution -- agreeing to that and also the appropriate school board, what's really wrong with doing that? It would seem to me that we really should go that route and make it much more efficient.
We're really not making the decision to exempt anyone from taxation, as has been pointed out by several of the members. We're not doing that at all. All we're doing is saying, in this case to the city of Cambridge, "You may deal with an application and you may exempt an organization from municipal taxes under certain conditions, and you may do it also for regional taxes or the upper-tier taxes, if the upper-tier council agrees, and for education purposes if the appropriate board of education agrees."
In looking at the whole thing -- and I'm disappointed that it hasn't come forward in this regard because, as you know, I would go much further. I would go as far as enabling municipalities to do whatever they deem necessary for the health and welfare of their constituents and such other things as they deem necessary and appropriate, realizing that it's the elected municipal councils that make the final decision and stand for election before the local people to justify their decisions. So I think it could be much more efficient.
I would go even further and say that municipalities are enabled to pass bylaws to do anything, take any action, unless prohibited by some statute. Now that's going to the ultimate, but I think we're at a time in our society when people are absolutely upset and averse to various levels of government dealing with so many aspects of their life which really aren't necessary. That's my view, but thank you very much for bringing this forward because it is a help and it does assist in streamlining.
The Chair: Members of the committee, I understand that Mr Hayes has put forward something that we'd all like to debate. Mr Eddy has made the first salvo and we have two or three other speakers on the list. I know we scheduled some extra time on this matter, but the problem is, to be very clear to all of you, we have three other bills to deal with and we still have additional business regarding our report. I'm in your hands, and obviously you feel that you want to discuss this, but I think we do have to remember we have people on our agenda. Probably at the end of the day, we could set aside some time when we next meet to deal with this situation.
Mr Fletcher: It's too late. The debate's started.
Mr Hansen: The debate's started, and I had my hand up. I could have said what you said in all that length of time in one short sentence.
The Chair: That's one of the privileges of the Chair.
Mr Jordan: I was going to say everything Ron said in two words.
The Chair: Mr Jordan, you're next.
Mr Jordan: I'm not going to make a long preamble, as my colleague has here. I think what he's saying, really, and what I wanted to say is that it's time to amend the Municipal Act. I would like to give that direction to the ministry.
The second point I would like to make is that these people coming forward asking us for this enabling legislation should be accompanied with a motion from council stating to the effect, "We're willing to act on your behalf, provided we are given the authority by the upper tier or by the provincial government." Then, when they come in here, they are not getting power here to go back and say to their local council, "Look, you've got the power; now get off your so-and-so and do something." They have the authority from municipal council when they come here and it's at their cost to ask for this enabling legislation, so when they go back, they know there's going to be some action on it, because they can go back and nothing can happen and they've spent all this money.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, did you want to quickly explain a couple of points?
Mr Hayes: I guess my timing wasn't very good here. I did say we should discuss this issue prior to similar bills for tax exemption coming back to this committee, and I wasn't suggesting that we start debating this issue now. I agree with the Chair that we have other bills and we have people who have been waiting here very patiently to get on, and this is just an issue we want you to look at and think about, and I agree with most of the comments that were made on it too.
Mr Fletcher: If it is our mandate to discuss this, we should set some time aside to discuss this issue. I know time is short right now --
Mrs MacKinnon: It's on today's agenda.
Mr Fletcher: Where is it?
Mrs MacKinnon: Right at the very bottom.
Mr Fletcher: That's review of business and regulations, 1993-94. What I was thinking, along with Mr Eddy, was that perhaps there should be an amendment, but we have to be careful about whatever amendments we're suggesting. We don't want competition between municipalities or anything else and exemptions or loopholes that can allow certain practices to occur that we don't wish to see occurring throughout the province of Ontario, and I think that's why there were amendments put into the Municipal Act way back to prevent that sort of thing. I think that's something that we have to be looking at when we do discuss, but I do agree, we should have this up some time in the future for discussion.
Mr Hansen: What I'd like to say is that we have to look very closely at shifting taxes in the municipality. I realize that the one gentleman who belonged to the United Kingdom Club is a taxpayer in Cambridge, and all they're doing is, if that tax of $30,000 is not being paid by the YMCA, someone else has to pick it up, so it shifts. So if he's got a club, his rates will go up a little bit more because some other organization's been tax-exempt for the services. I think we have to be very careful, and I don't want to get beat up, as a provincial member, with people at the municipal level saying, "Well, the province didn't do it," or, "The province did it; that's the problem." We have to work together and we have to come up with a solution to this that's acceptable to all parties.
1110
CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.
The Chair: At this point, I'm going to call our next order of business, which is Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the city of Hamilton. I don't see Mr Abel, so Mr Cooper, if you would please shift your chair over a notch and introduce the applicant, please.
Mr Cooper: As committee members know, Mr Abel's taking the employers' health and safety course, so he asked me last night if I would sponsor Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton, on his behalf. I am pleased to present Lorne Farr, the solicitor for the city of Hamilton, and Nina Chapple, the planner for heritage.
The Chair: Mr Farr, if you would like to make your opening remarks.
Mr Lorne Farr: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee and Mr Cooper. This is an application by the city of Hamilton for special legislation to allow the city to delay demolition permits of designated historical properties longer than the 180 days allowed under the present Ontario Heritage Act.
As noted, the Ontario Heritage Act presently only allows the municipality to delay the demolition permit on a designated heritage property for 180 days. The proposed bill would allow the city to delay that demolition permit until the applicant-owner of the property has applied for a building permit for a new building on that site and received the building permit.
The applicant-owner of the property has the right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for any council decision and this bill is modeled on many other bills that have come before this committee: the City of Toronto Act of 1987, the Town of Oakville Act, the Town of Markham Act, and the recent City of Burlington Act of this year.
Ms Chapple has just a few comments on the technical aspects of the bill.
Ms Nina Chapple: I would just like to speak to the need for this legislation in Hamilton. We've been experiencing quite a bit of demolition in the downtown area, as a number of other municipalities have, and there is a growing concern that good buildings -- historic buildings or just good, solid buildings -- are coming down because the taxes for a parking lot or a vacant lot are much lower. According to Marc Denhez, a lawyer in Ottawa, the rate is reduced by two thirds when it becomes a parking lot, so it's a very serious economic concern.
We haven't lost many designated buildings to date in Hamilton, but this legislation would extend demolition control to about 33 other buildings which would include churches -- and we are now experiencing vacant churches too -- and schools, as well as downtown commercial and industrial buildings. It was unanimous support from the advisory committee to council and a unanimous vote in council for this request for special legislation.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties who wish to come forward? Seeing none, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation has not objected to this bill. If amendments are made to the Ontario Heritage Act, for example, it would be intended that general legislation, if and when it comes, will eventually supersede all these private bills. Therefore, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object on that basis.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayes. Any members who wish to make any comments or questions?
Mr Jordan: I'd just like to point out that the 180 days is renewable. As you come near the end of it, the municipal council can delay again, as I understand it, for another 180 days.
Mr Farr: If you would like me to respond, that's not our understanding. It's that at the municipal level, there's only one denial or one approval of the demolition, and I believe other municipalities believe there's only that one time that council can deny it.
Mr Jordan: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would be able to advise on that.
The Chair: Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: What's the question?
The Chair: Mr Jordan asked if a demolition permit can be extended, more than one kick at the can. Basically, Mr Farr said his opinion is no, but Mr Jordan is under the impression that maybe it can.
Mr Hayes: We'll let our legal staff respond to that.
Mr Paul Murray: Paul Murray, solicitor with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. My understanding of the act is that it provides that it can only be extended with the agreement of the municipality and the applicant whose property's in question. So you'd have to have the agreement to have the time extended. If the applicant didn't agree, then the six months would end. That's my understanding.
Mr Jordan: That's what I wanted, the explanation. But my experience has been that normally the applicant and the council -- if the council is strong on wanting it extended for good reason. If, as they pointed out, the replacement structure or whatever it's going to be used for is not acceptable to council or there's some conflict with the official plan, you can renew your time period there, as I understood it, with the agreement of the person wanting to demolish the building.
Mr Murray: As to what the actual practice is at the local level, I think perhaps the proponent could speak better to what actually occurs in terms of how readily agreement is obtained. But in terms of what's permitted under the act, my understanding is that the applicant's agreement is required.
Mr Jordan: It's just like any other law or regulation: If the will is not there, of your local council and the will of the owner of the property, it's very difficult to keep the lid on because it's going to happen. Laws can be guidelines, but you still have to have that will to serve and the will to represent the people and, in this instance, the heritage of the property and so on.
We have some experience in my own riding with it and we were able to control it through getting more time and eventually, in some cases, we got cancellation of it completely. What we did was put enough restrictions on what was going to be replaced that it wasn't a moneymaking venture any more, so they walked away from it. However, I'll be supporting the legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jordan. Any other questions? Seeing none, are members ready to vote? Agreed.
Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 carry? Carried.
Mr Hansen: Madam Chair, I have a motion.
I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "2(6)" in the sixth line and in clause (a) and substituting "2(7)" in each case -- with those little quotations.
The Chair: I hope Hansard recognized Mr Hansen's movements indicating quotation marks.
All members have heard the motion regarding the amendment. All those in favour of that motion, please indicate. Agreed.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 5 through 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
I'd like to thank the city of Hamilton for taking this very good step to protect its heritage.
1120
COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994
COUNTY OF KENT ACT, 1994
Consideration of Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it, and Bill Pr160, An Act respecting the County of Kent.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it. I thank Mr Cooper for acting on Mr Hayes's behalf. I'll bet you Mr Hayes does too. Mr Cooper, would you like to introduce the applicant.
Mr Cooper: Once again, it's a pleasure on behalf of my colleague Pat Hayes to sponsor Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it. With me are Ms Kuchta, acting clerk, county of Kent; David Langstaff, the warden; and Sheldon Parsons, the clerk for Wallaceburg.
The Chair: Could you introduce yourself for Hansard, please.
Mr David Langstaff: I'm David Langstaff, warden of the county of Kent. My remarks are put together to address both Pr159 and Pr160, which are two bills that interrelate. Bill Pr159 addresses changes to local government while Bill Pr160 represents the composition of county council.
The Chair: I will just ask members: Mr Langstaff would like to deal with these two bills which, as he indicates, are interrelated. Any problems in allowing his remarks to embrace both bills? Then we'll deal with the votes separately when it comes to that point.
Mrs MacKinnon: So moved.
The Chair: Agreed? Agreed. Mr Langstaff, please continue.
Mr Langstaff: These bills that are being requested by Kent county council are the result of a very lengthy study process that we have carried out throughout the last three years. That study process had a very extensive consultation with both the public and local municipalities, as well as county council being involved. They are part of a number of changes that are going to be made that will result in major changes to the government process in Kent.
The changes asked for here have the unanimous support of county council and our member municipalities and address the service issues of Kent county council and the composition of the council. Briefly, those changes are:
-- The heads and deputy heads of local government will be on county council according to population. A number of towns are able to downsize their local councils, so there's a desire to restructure at that level and we were able to fold that into the bill.
-- It also addresses a serious inequity in the voting structure that will give larger municipalities such as Wallaceburg -- there are five municipalities altogether that will receive more votes on county council, and it will come a bit closer to representation by population. We think it is extremely important to try to get this clause put in as soon as possible.
-- It also allows for the substitution of head of council for lengthy absences. This is probably the most controversial clause, I believe. Our council believed there were possibilities that the clause that's included in the Municipal Act might be subject to some abuse. Although we agreed that substitution should be allowed, we were somewhat concerned that a mayor might be able to call his substitute on the morning of county council, and he or she would be at county council without being prepared to deal with the types of issues that we deal with.
-- The other issue is that there will be a change of names, which is mayors, and will allow for the election of a deputy mayor if the population warrants it.
I have two major points for which I ask your support: The first one again is the serious issue of voting structure, and we ask that you give this request consideration for immediate implementation; and we urge you to consider whether we can keep the substitution clause or clarify what the substitution clause means within the Municipal Act. I would remind you that many of the issues that county council considers have major impacts on our local municipalities, and it can be a real hardship for a municipality to be without a representative for an extended period of time.
I want to thank the committee on behalf of Kent county council and particularly the part that Mr Hayes, our member, has played in the development of these bills. We are pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: I'm obligated to ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward at this time. Since the room is almost empty, we can assume that no one is going to be coming forward. Mr Hayes, it's your turn.
Mr Hayes: I must say that the people in Kent county, the politicians and the staff, worked very hard and long for this to try to restructure or streamline their own process, and I compliment them on that. I just want to say that the ministry is not objecting to the bill; however, the ministry does not support section 3 of the bill regarding the substitution at county council.
The Chair: Bill 160.
Mr Hayes: On Bill 160, yes. Members of county council have to consider all the views and not one particular municipality.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs also recommends an amendment to paragraph 5 of subsection 4(1) of the bill. Each paragraph in this section sets out the number of votes a local municipality has at county council based upon its numbers of electors. For consistency, paragraph 5 should be amended to establish an electoral range of more than 4,500 and not more than 7,500 electors. That's more just a technical amendment. But if section 3 is removed from this bill -- the ministry, I think I said, made its recommendations on this section 3. We don't really object to it, but we'd like to see the amendments made. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: I open the floor to questions from members.
Mr Eddy: We're dealing with both bills in the discussion?
The Chair: As far as comments, yes.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to compliment the representatives of the county of Kent for coming forward with these changes. There could be a simpler procedure, of course, and that would be to amend the Municipal Act to allow any county, with the approval of its constituent municipal councils, to deal with all these matters, particularly the second one, having to do with the composition of county council based somewhat on population.
The first bill, Bill 159, is a very important issue, and it's something that should be across the province. The elected head of any local municipality should be the mayor, and then the deputy mayor is a position that is optional. But the importance of that is simply that there's confusion in the minds of the electorate about the different positions. The head of a town council of course is a mayor. The elected head of a township or a village is a reeve, except in restructured municipalities, where they are mayors. I've long supported that particular issue, and it's great to see it come forward.
This means, of course, the big change here is that now the elected heads of the towns, who are mayors at present, will now sit on county council for the first time. I think that's awfully important and a good measure.
Going to Bill 160, the substitution clause is interesting in that it's one of the most debated issues, has been over the years, by municipal associations and municipalities, and I do agree with the wording here. I think you've faced the matter and come up with a proposal that suits your purposes, so congratulations. I'm certainly pleased to support both bills.
Mr O'Neil: Do the petitioners agree with the amendments that have been suggested by the government?
Mr Langstaff: We would like to be able to keep the substitution clause in. However, the most important thing is that we have the bill passed, that we're able to implement issues that are very serious. Having mayors on county council is one of the major thrusts of the bill, and certainly we do need that in place. Therefore, I do urge you to pass the bill and pass it with changes if they are necessary.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Warden, and your members for coming forward with this. My question is, what is your opinion on the requirement of having the reeve and deputy reeve or the mayor and deputy mayor both representing the municipality at county council level? Have you ever assessed the actual need for that, relative to cost? Everyone is looking at the costs of government today, and in my riding there's considerable discussion around that matter. In fact, Renfrew county has gone to reeves only at county council. I was wondering if you might comment on that for me.
Mr Langstaff: Yes, I would, sir. Our council gave very lengthy consideration to that issue as part of the process. It was very hotly contended. If we had gone to one per municipality on county council, it would have reduced us to 21. Some of those members would have represented large municipalities such as Wallaceburg, which has a population of 12,000. For that reason, we decided to stay with the deputies.
1130
The other point is that I believe it's unanimous that council considers that there will be changes within the structure of the municipalities in the future. If that had taken place, it would have dropped us from 21 members to possibly 15 or 16. We thought that this would be much too small for a municipality such as Kent.
Mr Jordan: Because you use the committee system?
Mr Langstaff: We use the committee system. Our council was very active. We're involved with all the normal boards that a council normally is, and we expect our members to be active members on those boards.
Mr Jordan: This would be off the topic a bit. Would you have any comment on the level of representation we have at the provincial level? Not the quality, now, just the quantity of representatives.
Mr Hansen: We're not getting into Common Sense today, are we?
Mr Jordan: We should be into that every day. Thank you for bringing up that title.
Mr Langstaff: Since you asked me, I am very satisfied with the type and the quality of representation that we have in Kent county.
Mr Hayes: Including the MPP.
Mr Jordan: Thank you very much. You see what I got? You owe me one now.
The Chair: Yes, and I'm quite sure there's going to be a drink exchanged or something like that.
Mr Eddy: That was not the answer we were looking for.
Mrs MacKinnon: Having gone through that wonderful Bill 35 for Lambton county, Mr Langstaff, you'll know where I'm coming from, I hope.
Mr Eddy: We should revisit that.
Mrs MacKinnon: What?
The Chair: No, no. Don't get into it.
Mrs MacKinnon: Why do you have an asterisk on page 8 beside Erieau, Erie Beach and Highgate?
The Chair: It's not in the printed bill; it's in the compendium. We have page 8, table 1.3, structured Kent county council. Mrs MacKinnon raises the point that at Erie Beach and at Highgate there are asterisks beside the numbers there. Mr Langstaff, I'm not sure if you've got the same information in front of you.
Mr Langstaff: I'm not sure I have the answer. It may be that they are represented only by a reeve on county council, having one representative, or it may be that they're the smallest municipalities in the county. Those three have populations of under 1,000.
Mrs MacKinnon: The other question I had is, I notice there are letters of consent from various municipalities throughout that area, but I don't see Blenheim. Do they not have representation on county council at the moment?
Mr Langstaff: Yes, they do. Not all of the municipalities sent separate confirmation that they were in support, but they did indicate that support through county council, where they're represented.
The Chair: Any additional questions? Seeing none, I would ask members if they're ready to vote. All right, we will deal with them in numerical order. You will hopefully keep your amendments relating to Bill Pr160 separate. We will deal with those next. So we will be dealing only with Bill Pr159 at this moment.
Shall sections 1 through 9 carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule 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.
One down. Now Bill Pr160.
Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 carry?
Interjection: No.
The Chair: No? Oh, sections 1 and 2, I'm sorry.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
Section 3? No? It's defeated.
Mr Eddy: I think we should all have the opportunity --
The Chair: Would you like a --
Mr Eddy: No. We agree with it, I think.
Mr Jordan: That's a different story.
The Chair: All right. We won't get into the municipal debate here.
Section 4.
Mr Hansen: I move that paragraph 5 of subsection 4(1) be amended by adding after 4,500 and not more than 7,500.
The Chair: You forgot the quotation marks.
Mr Hansen: Do you want me to put them in?
The Chair: I think it would be wise.
Mr Hansen: Okay, "and not more than 7,500."
Mrs MacKinnon: End of quotation.
Mr Hansen: End of -- period.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion as read? Agreed.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 5.
Mr Hansen: I have an amendment here.
I move that subsection 5(1) and subsection 5(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "sections 2 and 3" and substituting "section 2" in each case.
The Chair: All members have heard the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate. Agreed.
Mr Hansen: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Transition
"(4) Despite the references to `head' and `deputy head' in section 4, the reeve and deputy reeve who are the members of county council when this act receives royal assent are entitled to the votes set out in section 4."
The Chair: All members have heard the new clause. All those in favour, please indicate. Agreed.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
1140
I hope this meets with your satisfaction.
Mr Langstaff: We certainly appreciate what the committee has done today, and it certainly does meet with our satisfaction. Thank you very much.
Ms Mary Elizabeth Kuchta: As a point of clarification, with the deletion of section 3, will the sections be renumbered appropriately?
Ms Lucinda Mifsud: Yes.
Ms Kuchta: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Always a very valid point, for those of us who don't always see what happens in the back rooms of this place.
At this point, we move to our next order of business, which relates to our report on --
Mr Hansen: I have a quick motion.
The Chair: On what?
Mr Hansen: A motion; can I put the motion on the floor?
The Chair: We have other business. What's the motion?
Mr Hansen: It's on other business, yes. It's nothing to do with the last bill.
I'd like to put a motion on the floor that as Mike Cooper represented all these members here today, they would do House time for him in the House in lieu of the time he spent here. Can we have a recorded vote on this?
The Chair: I have a feeling it's unanimous.
Mr Hansen: Okay. It looks like everybody's unanimous. Thank you, Mr Cooper.
The Chair: It'll appear in Hansard for everyone's edification.
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS REPORT
The Chair: Our next order of business is to ask Mr Philip Kaye to join us and to give us the regulations report. If he would join us, I think he has some good news for us.
Mr Philip Kaye: The report on the regulations filed during 1993 and the first 100 filed this year is found in two documents, one of which is dated October 1994 and has a covering memo of November 1, 1994. Then there is a supplement dated November 28 which I prepared after a further response was received from the Ministry of Health regarding a particular regulation.
This report is organized the same way as two other reports on regulations which this committee approved earlier this year, the first and second reports of 1994, in that it's divided into three parts. There's an introduction, then there's a section on statistics -- by the way, the introduction deals with the committee's mandate -- and finally, the third section provides a review of the reported regulations.
Considering the limitations of time, I'll jump to the third part of the report on the reported regulations and just say, by way of background, lawyers in the legislative research service on behalf of the committee conduct an initial review of the regulations for compliance with guidelines stipulated in the standing orders. Where the research service feels there's been a potential violation of these guidelines, a letter is written to the legal branch of the ministry concerned for an explanation.
In the case of the report before the committee today, letters were written to six ministries inquiring about 44 regulations. What the research service brings to the committee's attention in the form of a draft report are two kinds of regulations, the first kind being the regulations which the ministries agree have a problem, and the second being those regulations which the ministry feels have not violated the guideline and the research service disagrees with the ministry.
In this report, as noted at the bottom of page 2, 19 regulations are commented upon, falling under six ministries. The guidelines violated are those on statutory authority, precision of language and retrospectivity.
As mentioned in my covering memo of November 1, as modified on November 28, the ministries have in effect agreed that all the reported regulations may have violated the committee's guidelines, with one exception; that's Ontario regulation 953/93 under the County of Simcoe Act, where the violation appears to be quite technical. I wish to discuss that regulation as well as Ontario regulation 20/94 with the committee, and it's this second regulation where a further response was received from the Ministry of Health.
Just to begin with the Health regulation, it deals with grants for the transportation of patients in northern Ontario, and the discussion of this regulation is found on pages 3 to 5 of the memorandum dated November 28.
There are two problems with this regulation. First of all, it was made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council when it should have been made by the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health agrees and says it will ensure, the next time the regulation is remade, that this is corrected. In any event, the Ministry of Health also feels that since the regulation is recommended by the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in fact the spirit of the act requiring that the regulation be made by the minister has been complied with.
In the draft at the bottom of page 4 of the supplement, the committee is saying: "The committee wishes to point out, however, that its guidelines require that regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power....It is not sufficient, then, for regulations to comply only with the spirit of the authorizing statute; there must be compliance with the letter as well."
The second problem with this regulation has to do with its scope. The Ministry of Health Act provides for regulations for the transportation of patients from one hospital or health facility to another hospital or health facility, but the travel covered in this regulation is slightly different. Grants may cover travel "between the place in northern Ontario where the patient ordinarily resides and a health care facility or the office of a specialist...." The Ministry of Health, in its letter in mid-November, agrees that the scope of the travel covered by this regulation is apparently without authority. As mentioned in my memo of November 28, the committee has three options, now that the ministry agrees that part of the regulation appears to be without authority. The three choices are:
First of all, the committee may simply make an observation, and that is to say, "The exact nature of the travel covered by the grants appears to be without statutory authorization," and end it at that point, not say anything further.
Another option for the committee is to say, "If the Ministry of Health wishes to keep the regulation as it's currently drafted, then this committee recommends that the Ministry of Health Act be amended so as to authorize the regulation." That's taking the approach of, amend the statute so that it's consistent with the regulation and authorizes the regulation.
The third option for this committee is to recommend that the regulation itself be amended in such a way that is authorized by the existing Ministry of Health Act.
In a nutshell, the three choices -- considering that the Ministry of Health agrees that part of the regulation may apparently be without authority -- are (1) just observe that's the case, (2) recommend that the Ministry of Health Act be amended and (3) recommend that the regulation be amended.
1150
Mr Fletcher: I would like to move that we consider option 1.
The Chair: Very good, Mr Fletcher. Any comments?
Mr Eddy: I prefer option 3 because, in my opinion, it's the proper way to go with the regulation and what's involved in amending the regulation. I certainly don't see going through the procedure of amending the act. That's time and, considering where we are in the legislative agenda, rather impossible anyway. What's involved in amending a regulation? Is it that the Minister of Health amends that and it's approved by whom? By cabinet, is it?
Mr Jordan: Cabinet.
Mr Eddy: And then published. We know it's incorrect. It's not being overcritical, but it's incorrect, so why wouldn't we want to correct it? I don't think option 1 where we say it appears to violate the act is really correct, because we know and we've been told that it does violate, so why not correct it? Do it, but the simpler of the two ways for sure. That would be my preference.
Mr Jordan: I will support option 1 because it leaves the flexibility there. We're just observing what has been presented to us and it's up to others to follow through.
The Chair: Very good. Any further comments? Seeing none, I'm in the hands of the members. We have several opinions. Is there a motion that someone would like --
Mr Fletcher: I did move it.
Mr Hansen: Do you want to read the motion again?
The Chair: I don't have a written one.
Mr Hansen: Read option 1 so I will know whether I want to agree with it.
The Chair: Mr Kaye, option 1.
Mr Kaye: Option 1 holds that the committee simply observes that the exact nature of the travel covered by the grants in Ontario regulation 20/94 under the Ministry of Health Act appears to be without statutory authorization and does not go any further.
Mr Hansen: That would be my choice.
Mrs MacKinnon: From the way you've just read that, sir, it appears to me -- correct me if I'm wrong, but that really doesn't go far enough.
Mr Kaye: It's really a case of the committee deciding how far it wishes to go. The terms of reference of this committee empower it to express its observations, opinions and recommendations. If the committee decides to observe only, it is entitled to do that. If the committee decides that it wishes to make a recommendation, it can do that as well.
Mrs MacKinnon: Could I hear option 3, please?
Mr Kaye: Under option 3, the committee recommends that Ontario regulation 20/94 be amended in such a way that it is authorized by the existing Ministry of Health Act.
Mrs MacKinnon: What basically does that mean?
Mr Kaye: It means that the regulation would be changed so that the kind of travel which the Ministry of Health Act provides for would be the travel covered by the regulation because the act says regulations may be made for the transportation of patients from one hospital or health facility to another hospital or health facility.
The regulation says something slightly different from that. It provides for grants for travel not from one hospital or health facility but between the place in northern Ontario where the patient ordinarily resides and a health care facility or the office of a specialist. If the recommendation of the committee is that the regulation be amended, the wording of the regulation would have to change so that the grants would cover travel from one hospital or health facility as opposed to from the place in northern Ontario where the patient ordinarily resides.
Mrs MacKinnon: It would appear to me, and I could stand to be corrected, that there should be some provision whereby somebody in northern Ontario can indeed, if necessary, be transported from their place of normal residency and/or a health facility that they may find themselves in at the time that it's deemed necessary to transport them to another health facility, be it hospital, specialist or whatever. It seems to me that they should have it so it can either be from the home or from the doctor's office or from the hospital, because if you're sick, you're sick; it doesn't matter where you are.
Mr Eddy: Sorry to ask another question. It seems to me, though, that by going to option 3, we're not only correcting what has been done, we're providing for the same action in the future which I think we agree with. Is that the way you see it? If the regulation is changed and if there's a similar occurrence in the future, it's covered. I think it needs to be covered. Am I off base in saying that?
Mr Kaye: It would be covered under the new regulation, but the regulation would provide for slightly different grants if it's changed. A recommendation to amend the regulation would change the grant program slightly.
Mr Eddy: But it's already been changed because of what has been, you might say, mispaid under the present regulation if the regulation doesn't cover it. What I'm really asking is: If we go to option 3, does it mean that in addition to correcting, making the payment agree with the regulation -- in other words, the regulation covers the expenditure that's been made -- will it also cover future expenditures that may be made for similar occurrences?
Mr Kaye: It's my understanding that would be the case.
Mr Eddy: That is the case? That's why I'm more anxious to go to 3, because I think we're doing more than just the past incident or occurrence. I don't know whether others agree with that.
Mrs MacKinnon: I think number 3 is just a little more comprehensive.
Mr Eddy: That's the way I see it.
The Chair: If I may remind members, Mr Fletcher has moved a motion, just to be clear in terms of how we would vote on this. Obviously, members are free to decide for themselves, but Mr Fletcher has put forward a motion that he moves option 1, which is strictly the observation. At this point I'm going to ask members if they're prepared to vote.
Mr Eddy: The problem is --
The Chair: No, no. All those in favour of Mr Fletcher's motion to support option 1, please signify. Opposed, please indicate. Option 1 is carried.
Mr Eddy: In that case, that we're just observing it, should we notify the Ministry of Health that it shall not make similar expenditures in contravention of this regulation in the future? That's what we're saying.
The Chair: Mr Kaye, your next procedure would be? I just want to get a procedural question addressed. Would you be informing the ministry yourself about what the vote had been at this committee, or is it up to the committee to inform?
Mr Kaye: It's usually up to the committee in the form of its report to express its conclusions.
The Chair: Very good.
Mr Jordan: Relative to my colleague's statement, I would like the Minister of Health to have the freedom to exercise his or her authority. We're getting everybody so regulated nowadays, for God's sake, that the minister can't really do very much without some documentation from the bureaucracy. I would say, let the minister have the authority and exercise it as need be, and especially for northern Ontario.
The Chair: We have one more piece of business before we close.
Mr Eddy: But that is precisely the problem here. You've got a restrictive regulation and by going to option 3 you'd open it up so that this similar thing could be --
Interjections.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we've moved a motion and it's been passed. You may have some disagreement with it, but I think that's the nature of the beast here.
We have one other small piece of business I'd like to conclude before we come up to this.
Mr Kaye: There's just one other aspect of the report I wish to raise with committee members. It's a very technical question and it has to do with a regulation under the County of Simcoe Act. It's discussed on pages 9 and 10. Part 1 of this regulation appears to have been made under a provision which says: "The minister may during 1994 make regulations." Part 1 did not come into force until January 1, 1994, but it wasn't made during 1994, it was made on December 23, 1993.
The question I have for the committee really has two parts: Does the committee consider this to be a violation of the guideline that regulations should be in strict accord with the authorizing statute because it was made a few days prior to January 1994? Secondly, even if the committee considers this to be a violation, is it just so technical that it should not be included in the report?
Mr Jordan: I agree, it should not be included.
The Chair: There's a consensus around the latter. That's, I think, what should be reflected in the report. Is there anything additional you wish to raise?
Mr Kaye: No, that covers the points I wish to discuss.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to commend my colleagues; you have been extremely helpful. But don't run away, we have one more point.
Shall the report carry? Carried.
Shall the Chair be authorized to table the report in the House? Agreed.
I have a couple of notes here; just one second. Do they want the report tabled by tomorrow before it is printed, since we will probably prorogue and end this session? The other option is to table it in the new session, or if the House passes a motion to allow committees to table reports during the intersession or recess.
Mr Fletcher: Let's do it tomorrow.
The Chair: Do it tomorrow.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): Before it's printed? Okay.
The Chair: We've obviously done something that other committees have not been able to do. We've done three reports. We've actually done a lot of legislation, and I appreciate your cooperation throughout.
My final point: You can in fact give the Chair and the parliamentary assistant a wonderful vacation by joining the conference of delegated legislation committees and scrutiny of bills committees in the Northern Territory of Australia.
Interjection.
Mrs MacKinnon: That's open for debate.
The Chair: I suspect it would be. In any case, I should advise you all, we have received an invitation from Australia, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, which is hosting a conference in 1995, in July -- their winter, not summer. They had asked that we give them some idea if we would be going by the end of November. We've passed that by two weeks, but that's a minor detail, I suspect. The registration fee is $200, for those people who are not members, what have you. I'm in the hands of the committee on how best to proceed.
Mr Hayes: Looks like a lot of interest.
The Chair: They're dumfounded, I think, is really the case.
Mr Jordan: I think we should have representation.
Mr Hayes: I think the Chair and PA should go.
The Chair: We have many volunteers at this point.
Mr Jordan: I could volunteer as a flight attendant.
The Chair: My own reading of this is that in all likelihood, this won't happen. Knowing what is happening with any travelling committees, this would not be high on a priority list, but it's always wise to inform members of our correspondence. I'm in your hands. You're nodding your head, Mr Cooper. What is the motion?
Mr Cooper: I think, judging from past experience, that this just be filed.
The Chair: I don't think we're going to get this, but I thought you should know that we've been invited.
Mrs MacKinnon: If you want to go, go yourself.
The Chair: Noted and filed. I'd like the trip, but I know it's not going to happen.
Mr Hayes: I'd like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
The Chair: I see you're wearing your Santa Claus tie. I hereby adjourn. Thanks to all.
The committee adjourned at 1205.