Thursday 28 January 1993

Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993, Bill 61

Lantana Non-Profit Homes

Christopher Wilson

Algonquin Island Association

Leida Englar, member

Martin Earle, member

Joey Gladding, member

Toronto Islands Residents Association

Mary Anderson, co-chair

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Gerard Coffee, representative

Sheila Murray

Cheryl West

Morris Hill

Gordon Cressy

Lindsay Stephens


*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)

Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)

*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)

Poole, Dianne (Eglinton L)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Ms Poole

Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Mr Farnan

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr McClelland

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Hope

Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND) for Mr Fletcher

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Murdoch

Swarbrick, Anne (Scarborough West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Ferguson

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Arnott

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Danielson, Dan, executive assistant, parliamentry to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Chen-Yin, Debbie, senior economist, municipal finance branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Davies, Joanne E., solicitor, legal branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Mills, Gordon, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel:

Luski, Lorraine, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel

The committee met at 0945 in committee room 2.


Consideration of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Chair (Mr Mike Brown): The standing committee on general government will come to order. Before I start, I'll remind members again that the committee would like copies of proposed amendments as soon as possible this morning, seeing as we're hoping to get to the clause-by-clause this afternoon.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): We're working on it now. We have a last-minute thing that we're working on right at the back there, and we'll get into it right away.


The Chair: The first presentation this morning will be Lantana Non-Profit Homes, Mr Christopher Wilson. Just have a chair there, sir. The committee has allocated one half-hour for your presentation. We always appreciate it if you reserve some of that time so that the members may have a conversation with you about your presentation.

Mr Christopher Wilson: Okay. I don't think I'll need nearly that much time. My name is Chris Wilson. I work for Lantana Non-Profit Homes, and I'm a consultant to the Toronto Island community, to both the residents association and the new housing cooperative.

There are a couple of issues I would like to address today that I think are really of paramount concern. The first thing I want to talk about has to do with the qualifying age for the seniors' discount. As you know, in the legislation as it's laid out, the age is set at 65. We understand quite clearly the reasons for this. I know there have been concerns in the past about human rights legislation. But we strongly feel that an age of 60 would be much more appropriate.

You have to understand that the seniors' discount captures a fairly narrow band of the island population. It allows a slightly larger group of people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for a mortgage to receive a discount, a slight benefit, which then bumps them into the category that will qualify. That need is obviously not restricted to people who are 65 years of age and older.

We would like to see something that comes closer to paralleling the precedent that already exists in the housing field. The clearest precedent is in the area of non-profit housing. In the Ministry of Housing's non-profit programs, for many years now the age of 60 has been the qualifying age for being designated as a senior, both for the purpose of seniors' admission to seniors' housing and for rent-geared-to-income assistance.

I think you can see that there's a fairly clear parallel between a senior who is applying for this discount on the basis of financial need and a senior who is looking for non-profit housing or rent-geared-to-income assistance on the basis of need. At any rate, the age that's recognized in the housing programs under successive governments, including the current government, is 60 years of age, and that age is used and followed by local housing authorities and most non-profit providers. There are some instances of lower ages being used, but 60 is pretty much the common denominator.

One way I would suggest of handling this in the legislation is that it may in fact be unnecessary to designate an age in the legislation. It may simply be possible to enable the government to set a qualifying age and handle that by regulation. That allows for some flexibility in the future if there are clear decisions made on the basis of human rights. But it allows us, currently, to follow the precedent and to parallel the practice elsewhere in the government.

The other issue that I want to address is the issue of representation on the land trust board. I know you've heard about this already. I hope that what I will say may amplify this issue a little bit and not be redundant. Obviously, in establishing the land trust board there are a number of key concerns. There's the overall objective that's inherent in this legislation of preserving a long-term residential community on the island and balancing that with the need for public access and a variety of other uses and of course the preservation of the natural environment of the islands.

Our concern with the legislation in its present state is that the legislation does not provide for a majority island representation on the board. Instead, it leaves that issue to the regulations, and in the regulations it says that there will be 15 members, two thirds of whom will be islanders.

The concern we have is for the long-term. In the long-term there's a need to balance what I would call the public interest with the community interest. There are obviously a lot of interests that are at stake in the island, but probably none as great as, on the one hand, the interest of the general public for access to the island and preservation of it in the public trust, as it were, and on the other hand, the needs of the island community for a stable community and a community that they really feel a part of and that they have influence over.

We would suggest that a better balancing of public interests would be achieved by allowing in the legislation for a clear majority of the trust board to be islanders. The public interest is very firmly protected. The members of the trust board are appointed by the government. They can be removed by the government. If there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, policies or practices that the government is unhappy with, certainly changes can be made to the board. But the concern is that if there isn't some provision in the legislation, in the long-term a future government could set up the board of the trust on a very different basis that would, say, be primarily off-island representation, people who are not particularly concerned about the needs of the residential community. The needs and interests of a residential community could really be undermined over time.

Clearly, we don't think that's something that's on anybody's agenda, but it remains a possibility. What we're looking for here is checks and balances, in a way. If there is a majority of island representation, then the islanders have some assurance of a continued voice in the operation of the land trust. On the other hand, the government and the public's interest is protected by the power to appoint and remove, which can be used quite freely.

There's another issue here, which is that land trusts have been set up as a kind of unique vehicle for balancing different uses of land. That's one of their enormous strengths. They've been used elsewhere to, for instance, balance residential development with agricultural use, with a recreational use in a broad stretch of land while keeping the land overall in the public trust. As set up, there's no assurance of a representation of the balance of interests. The great strength of land trusts is that they have been community controlled. The various interest that have been involved have been represented within the trust and there's been kind of a check and balance between those interests being represented and the overall community interests.

The community sets the general ground rules, the covenant, as it were, about how the land is going to be used; for instance, that it will stay in the public trust and that the environment will be protected, or whatever else the community decides, with the various interests, whether they're residential or park users, in this case, or people who are concerned about preserving natural habitats, with those users being represented and being able to be sure that their concerns are heard and their interests are met. We think that it would be a much stronger way to set this up to ensure that some of those interests are represented.

It seems clear that the islanders are the ones who have the most stake in this situation, in the island community. The focus of this has been the preservation of a residential community. The actions of the trust will impact most profoundly on the people who are living there.

Another issue has to do with democratic representation. The trust is being granted many of the powers of a small municipality. It's going to be able to raise levies. It's going to have a certain amount of control over planning. It's going to be able to make a lot of decisions that will greatly affect the day-to-day life of islanders.

In a normal municipal setting, we allow people representation and a control over those processes. I think there's a strong argument to be made for that on the islands as well. Islanders should be able to have some long-term assurance of representation on the trust that's making decisions for them which are on the same level as decisions made by many municipal governments.

There's also the question of protecting the long-term stability of the community. I do a lot of work with housing cooperatives. The great strength of housing cooperatives has been that the residents of housing cooperatives feel they have a measure of control over their community. They have a stake. They buy in. They feel a sense of ownership. A land trust is something like a housing cooperative. People don't actually own the land, but in this case, they have some limited equity in the homes, and of course there will be a housing cooperative as well.

The point is that it's very important for the people's sense of commitment to the community that they have a feeling of representation and a measure of control, obviously not complete control, in this case that wouldn't be desirable, but a strong measure of control. I would argue strongly that just as in co-ops, it makes a big difference, people feeling that they have a voice in things, and in a land trust even more so. It's very important for the various interests that are involved to feel they have a voice and a real stake. I would say that the island residents clearly are the ones who have a very great stake.

I'd suggest to you that it would be very beneficial to the long-term stability and cohesiveness, particularly because what I think none of us wants to see is a situation where you have the land trust board going in one direction and an island community going in a completely different direction, that we have a re-emergence of the kind of endless skirmishing we've seen over the years, unfortunately, between the island community and municipal governments.

I think we're all looking for a solution that will avoid that and lead to long-term peace and stability on the islands. My gosh, it sounds like we're talking about the Balkans, but I think you know what I mean. We want to get out of a situation of cold war or hot war. I think we want a situation of partnership. What we're looking at here is a real partnership between the larger community and the island community, between the public and the government and the local residents.

I think the great strength of this whole land trust concept is that it finds quite an imaginative and creative way of doing that, where the public is protected because the land stays in the public trust -- the government retains the overall control -- but the residents buy in. They feel they have long-term stability and, I would argue, if there's clear guarantee of representation, they feel they're going to be heard. That's a recipe for continued partnership, and I would urge you to enshrine that in the legislation so that the partnership can't be unravelled and it continues, and the ultimate goal of the legislation, which is a long-term, stable community, is assured.


Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Wilson is not the first person to bring to our attention the importance of this partnership in the land trust board. When the parliamentary assistant gets back, I'd like to ask him a question or two, but for the time being --

The Chair: Right now, you should be conversing through me to the presenter.

Mr Grandmaître: Very good. Mr Wilson, I can understand your concern about the balance and the membership or the appointees to this board, even if the government will have, let's say, the last say as to who gets appointed and for how long. I'll get back to this. Will this board become an agency? That's my question for later on, Mr Chair. I'm not addressing this.

The Chair: I'm certain the parliamentary assistant will take note of that.

Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that it's very, very important, because you're absolutely right when you say you want to become responsible people in the planning, in the future of those islands. Planning is so important. Planning is your future. Yet those islands -- you want to be part of the future development -- will be exempt from the Planning Act. I've been repeating myself for the last three days --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, you haven't.

Mr Grandmaître: Thanks, Chris. Again, I think it is a very serious mistake on the part of the minister to exclude the islands. You're not the first one. Everybody is saying, "We want to be part of the future of those islands; we want to be part of the planning," but you're excluded under the Planning Act, and there is nothing in all of the briefs that I've seen that really protects you, protects the islanders. I'm very concerned, because I haven't received a satisfying answer from the parliamentary assistant or the minister or the ministry about why the islands have been excluded from the Planning Act. You're absolutely right. I think you should push the minister or the ministry that the islands should be under the Planning Act, because you want to play a very important role in the future of the islands.

Mr Chair, I did ask: Will this land trust board become an agency? Will they be appointed by cabinet? For how long? Is it a three-year term? All of these questions remain unanswered.

As far as the qualifying age for seniors is concerned, I've read Mr Johnston's report, and I'm asking a fair question: Is it Mr Johnston's recommendation that to qualify as a senior you must be 65? Where does this 65 come from?

Mr Christopher Wilson: I'm afraid I can't speak to the actual wording of the Johnston report because I don't remember what that report said. But the way it's been presented to us by the minister's office, I believe 65 was put forward because there was a concern over consistency, particularly because of the challenges that have been made under the charter. There was concern for consistency in age. Essentially what we're arguing is that there is actually a better precedent for the age in the housing field being 60 than 65.

Mr Grandmaître: You're right. I don't know why we should change this precedent. What are your thoughts on being excluded from the Planning Act?

Mr Christopher Wilson: I have to say, first of all, that this isn't really my area of expertise; this isn't the side of things I've been particularly involved in. It is obviously important that the island community have a strong voice in the planning of its local community and that the trust be vested with the authority to make planning decisions. If you were going to include it under the Planning Act, presumably you would have to ensure that the trust has the resources available to it that are available to municipalities to have planners to develop planning tools. As we're looking at the trust now, it's a much more minimal affair, which will certainly be able to carry on the day-to-day operations but wouldn't have the resources to engage in developing sophisticated things like an official plan. I'm not really expressing an opinion on that except to say that it is certainly critical that the trust have that kind of authority.

Mr Grandmaître: Tools to work with.

Mr Christopher Wilson: Yes, because that's the nature of land trusts. Land trusts establish rules; they establish a kind of covenant that all the users, who are viewed as the stewards -- I'm sure you've heard lots about this lately -- have to abide by. So you need to ensure that the community has the ability to make those ground rules, to establish what the covenant in effect is.

Mr Stockwell: In your typical land trust -- and maybe you can tell me about this land trust as well -- where does the jurisdiction begin and end from a real estate point of view? Where does the land trust jurisdiction begin and end?

Mr Christopher Wilson: Of course, this is not a typical land trust.

Mr Stockwell: No, it's not. That's why I asked the question.

Mr Christopher Wilson: In a typical land trust, the land is in effect placed in a trust, which is a legal entity, and that legal entity is bound by a charter which sets out certain things, as I said, a kind of covenant that establishes the purposes for which the land is going to be used and how the trust is going to be regulated. It's both a vision, let's say, and a constitution.

Mr Stockwell: I understand all that. I'm asking about this specifically. Where do you see it beginning and ending? How much land are they going to be entrusted with?

Mr Christopher Wilson: I think the legislation is pretty specific on that point.

Mr Stockwell: It's 29 acres.

Mr Christopher Wilson: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: Then you've got to find a site for the co-op.

Mr Christopher Wilson: That's right.

Mr Stockwell: How much land would then be needed for that site? Then would the land trust be able to build another co-op? If they thought it was a nice idea and they had two beautiful co-ops and 250 homes, and they found a nice piece of property, could they build a co-op there?

Mr Christopher Wilson: First of all, I think the legislation sets a clear limit to the amount of co-op housing that would be built, which is 80 units, with possibly more units being transferred from existing homes but without any new construction. If your concern is about the islands being overdeveloped, believe me, I've now attended a whole series of planning sessions among the island community, and there's no danger of the islands being overdeveloped.

Mr Stockwell: Frankly, I think 250 homes is overdeveloped, but that's beside the point.

Mr Christopher Wilson: Just to address your concern about more units being developed, I think the strong sentiment on the island is to see what's in the legislation as an absolute maximum. In fact, people would like to have less, because they'd like to see a good balance between residential housing, parkland and the preservation of natural habitats. I would say there has been much more emphasis placed on the preservation of habitats or parkland, for instance, than there has been on housing. Housing has had to fight its way in, so I don't think you need to be too concerned about that.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sure in 1956 they said: "Don't worry about getting rid of these homes. We'll have parkland in no time." Call me a cynic.

Mr Christopher Wilson: I sense your concern really has to do with the existing island homes.

Mr Stockwell: I just don't know what the next government decides.

Mr Grandmaître: We'll tell you in two years.

Mr Stockwell: The next government is saying: "Gee, there's 660 or 700 acres of property over here. Why shouldn't we build some more housing?" There's a lot of argument: "There's a lot of public open space here. Why shouldn't we build some more housing?" The arguments Mr Marchese makes are the same arguments you could make tomorrow about why we should build another co-op: "Nobody's using the park. It's vacant etc. We could bang up two or three more co-ops in the land trust."


Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Oh, Chris, come on.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Marchese says, "Come on." I think if you had gone to the island three years ago and said to these people, "In three years, they're going to recommend building a co-op on this island," they would have looked at you like you had two heads. When does it begin and end? I guess that's the question on these land trust issues. What's enough?

Mr Christopher Wilson: What I would say is that I think the legislation is obviously trying to establish a balance between a residential component, parkland and natural habitat. For the future, my guess is that the interests that are competing on the island will continue to compete. I think the desire for parkland and the preservation of parkland is going to remain a very powerful desire.

Mr Stockwell: You're opposing any more development, then.

Mr Christopher Wilson: I'm saying that in the future I think there will be a very natural constraint on any future development, probably coming from, first and foremost, the island community.

Mr Stockwell: You're not prepared to say categorically today that you're opposed to any more development than what's in place.

Mr Christopher Wilson: Mr Stockwell, what I think is not very important, frankly. It's what the islanders think, what the government thinks, what the broad community of Toronto thinks that's important.

Mr Stockwell: Well, the broad community of Toronto may well think there shouldn't be any development on that land.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I think if Mr Stockwell had his way, he'd grab a bulldozer and bulldoze all the homes and the people into Lake Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, that is just unfair. It's not true. It's categorically untrue. I never said that.

Mr Marchese: Death by attrition is what he said.

The Chair: Order. Mr Mammoliti has the floor.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure whether Mr Stockwell's had his coffee yet.

The Chair: If you addressed the Chair, it would be really helpful.

Mr Mammoliti: Chris, nice to see you again, by the way. Chris has given me some really excellent advice in the past in terms of conversion of public housing into a co-op system or a non-profit type of approach, which leads me into the question. I like this proposed legislation for two reasons: First, the residents are getting what they want, which is of the utmost importance to me and the government; second, I see this as a first step, a model of some sort for the future, as perhaps a step for government to learn from -- if this works, of course -- for things like conversion of public housing into a co-op or non-profit type of approach or a trust approach.

For that reason, I'm going to vote in favour of this piece of legislation, because I think the precedent this will set will be a good one. I think people like Mr Stockwell and some of the others, perhaps from the Liberal Party, would not agree with me. As a matter of fact, they'd say that the precedent we're setting is dangerous. I disagree. I think this is going to be a learning process for us and I think we will learn a lot in terms of where housing should go in the future. Would you agree with me on this?

Mr Christopher Wilson: Yes. I think you've actually raised a good issue: the question of precedent. I think the island land trust is a very positive precedent. It's a precedent for preserving land in the public trust in a way that guarantees a variety of uses, and I would hope also guarantees the community a measure of real control over it. I think you're right in identifying it as a possible model that can be used in other situations. For instance, if some conversion of public housing to cooperatives went through, you could see that there might be a model, in a larger complex, for the overall land being part of a land trust, with the individual co-ops being involved and the public parkland that's contained in it also being part of the trust.

In that situation, as, I would say, in the island situation, it's critically important that the community have a clear and guaranteed voice in things; otherwise, it becomes, in effect, like one more government agency, like the harbour commission; I can't think of a more appropriate example at this point. For the community to feel it is truly involved in the control of the community, there has to be clear representation. So I think it is important, in this situation with the island trust, to set a precedent that establishes, "No, this isn't just an agency or a crown corporation or something; it is a partnership, where the local residents, the local users, are given a clear voice." That's what I think will lead to a trust that is really strong and enduring.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. We appreciate you coming today.

Mr Christopher Wilson: You're welcome.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître had posed a question to the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant has indicated to me that he's willing to respond -- he's desperate to respond -- at this moment.

Mr Mills: I'm not desperate. I heard the honourable member mention they'd be forming the government in the next two years, and I'd just like to --

The Chair: Now, now. Let's not tease the bears.

Mr Mills: No, I'm not, but I think the new logo is designed to capitalize on their popularity.

However, Mr Johnston, in his report, just referred to folks over there as seniors. He never put an age on it at all. Notwithstanding that, I think the committee can examine that and there's a possibility, I would think, of accepting a lesser age and after some discussion to define a senior differently than 65, because when we look at housing, we all recognize that 60 is the age and really this is a housing issue.

In so far as your question as to if this board is going to be an agency, it's not going to be an agency for a very simple reason: An agency is closely aligned to the government and it's the government's intention to be completely at arm's length on this trust and this organization. So that's the reason it will not be an agency.

Mr Stockwell: There is a question begging.

Mr Grandmaître: When you say it's different, tell me the difference between this trust, this board, and the OMB. They're at arm's length.

Mr Mills: Yes, I agree.

Mr Grandmaître: Why can't this board be at arm's length?

Mr Mills: That's the intention, to be at arm's length, and not as an agency. When you get an agency, notwithstanding your argument about the OMB, it does tend to be closer to the government, and the government intends to keep it at a distance and let those folks make the decisions.

Mr Grandmaître: But they're still appointed by cabinet on the OMB.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: They come under the ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr Mills: I think that's fair, yes.

The Chair: Mr Stockwell has a supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: Just quickly, how long do you think it'll take before you start paying them?

Mr Mills: I'll leave that up to you to suggest. There's nothing in the bill that would indicate that there's going to be any payment or fees or whatever.

In so far as Mr Stockwell's question about 250 and then we develop the whole island as a maximum of 110 units --

Mr Stockwell: Under this legislation.

The Chair: I think in the interests -- just a supplementary?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, because he went beyond what I asked about.

Mr Mills: I was encouraged.

The Chair: We do have presenters. I was hoping to clarify things.

Mr Grandmaître: Let's clarify this. Presently, under the Toronto official plan, is that the maximum?

Mr Mills: We don't know that.

Mr Grandmaître: The answer is no.

Mr Mills: I don't think I could say unequivocally no, because I don't know.

Mr Grandmaître: So you would need an official plan amendment.

Mr Stockwell: Unless you're exempted from the Planning Act.

Mr Grandmaître: How can you do this when you're exempt from the Planning Act? Thank you.

Mr Mills: We could pass legislation, that's for sure.



The Chair: The next presentation will be made by the Algonquin Island Association executive, if you'd come forward please, Joey Gladding, Leida Englar and Martin Earle.

Good morning. Welcome to the committee. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation. You may introduce yourselves for the purposes of our Hansard reporting and then you may commence your presentation.

Ms Leida Englar: I'm Leida Englar. I've lived on the island since 1974. I've been a member of the Algonquin Island Association since then and have been on the executive on and off three times over those years.

Mr Martin Earle: I'm Martin Earle, and I'm a long-time island resident on and off. I think this is my first year on the Algonquin Island Association executive.

Ms Joey Gladding: I'm Joey Gladding. I've lived on the island for 10 years and I've been a member of the Algonquin Island Association since moving there. I have been on the executive three times as well, and also as project coordinator of the rebuilding of the AIA after a fire in 1989.

Mr Earle: I'm going to start by basically explaining what the Algonquin Island Association is, and then we'll discuss it and give you some idea of what it means to the community, because it is a real focal point of the community, I think.

The Algonquin Island Association basically is a clubhouse which makes the association, and we're just affiliated with the clubhouse, I guess. It was built in the 1950s by a group of people, islanders basically, who -- I'm not really sure how it all came about, but it was all volunteers and they would come out every Saturday during the summer and create this clubhouse which they could use subsequently, particularly during the winter. It was a winterized clubhouse so that in the winter people had somewhere to go, because there was another clubhouse but it wasn't winterized, so I guess that was the impetus behind it.

Anyway, it's a non-profit organization or centre and its equivalent in the city would be a community centre, except that it is run by an executive made up of people who live on the island, both Algonquin Island and Ward's Island, and it has no government funding and it's self-sufficient in that it raises its own funds and puts on its own shows, so to speak.

People from both Ward's and Algonquin Island use the clubhouse frequently, but it is also open to anybody who comes over to the island, who wants to visit the island. There are always events going on at the clubhouse, and it is a place for people to go and meet other people from the city, from the island, all mixing up. There's no exclusiveness to it. So it is run by an executive, and we're three of the people on the executive of 11 this year, which is a big number for us. We're all unpaid volunteers. The reason we do it, I guess, is -- there are a few reasons. Not to get money, obviously, or for the prestige --

Ms Englar: Prestige, prestige.

Mr Earle: Just for fun, I guess it is, and because it needs to be done.

Our mandate is to keep the clubhouse in running order, because it is a big building. It's approximately 5,000 square feet and it has plumbing and electrical and a roof and everything that can break down or that needs to get fixed or painted. The executive is also in charge of organizing events and making sure that it is a vital place and that things are always happening there.

Besides the executive, the clubhouse relies on the whole community to give input into it and maintain it. A sterling example of this was 1989: The clubhouse in June had a little fire, a little problem. It burned to the ground. Joey will be talking about how we rebuilt it and had fun doing it at the same time.

Some of the events that go on at this clubhouse -- by the way, the clubhouse is located on Algonquin Island, as you might have guessed, on the northwest corner situated away from the houses a little bit, in a meadow. One side overlooks a meadow, and the other side has a wonderful view of the city, so we get a good perspective on both.

Some of the events: Perhaps the most exciting or most memorable for most people, and I think it's happened every year since it was built, is the New Year's Eve party. You get about half the island out to the New Year's Eve dance for dinner and dancing and lots to talk about afterwards. During the year it will have an art show where you have both city and island artists displaying their works, up to 20 or 30 artists, I guess, and people coming through. The bar's open and we have lots of fun. There's a crafts show that happens once a year, where people get to sell the crafts they make. Usually it's a Christmas crafts show, I think.

Sports activities go on now -- not so many right now, although we're trying to revive that -- things such as Nerf soccer, badminton and pool; I guess that's a sport. Boy Scouts and Girl Guides often have taken place there, although I don't know if they're running right now. There's a children's Christmas party every year where we have Santa Claus and some entertainment for the children, stuff to do. There are always meetings of the Toronto Island Residents Association executive or the AIA executive. We have fund-raising events. Whenever the coffers get a little bit low, we decide to put on a fund-raiser -- a dance, actually -- and try to raise funds for the AIA, which is always a lot of fun.

There's a full-time day care which occurs there from September to May. There's always the school going on there. Other events are dart tournaments, Valentine dance, Hallowe'en dance and various classes throughout the year such as yoga, meditation and dance classes. During the summer, when the community is not using the clubhouse as much, there are always a lot of private functions such as weddings and anniversaries and parties and family get-togethers going on there.

It is a very busy clubhouse and is a focal point for the community to come and hang out and talk, which islanders love to do.

In summary, it is built and run by volunteers, it is self-sufficient in that it raises its own funds and puts on its own shows and usually it works on a day-to-day basis. Hopefully we'll get some money in the bank to do improvements. It is a focus for the islanders and events. It's a place where we all get together and, as I said, get to talk to everybody.

It is also a place, I think, where people who are not in the community can come to the island and go to an event at the AIA and get to know everybody on the island. A lot of people whom we know now from the city we've known through the clubhouse, getting to know them because they've come over to all the events.

What else is there? I was just going to say it's very non-political -- at least, I think it's non-political -- amidst all the politics that are going on here.

In the future, I think I'd like to see the clubhouse retain its character in that it will be run by volunteers and self-sufficient and just a place for islanders to do whatever they have to do. Also, as it is, since we're going to be having new people coming to and living on the island, it will be like a community centre or a focal point for them to come and mingle with all the islanders and get to know all of us.

That's what it is, basically, although there's more to be said here, so I'll let Joey take over.

Ms Gladding: As Martin mentioned, on June 26, 1989, we had a terrible fire which did destroy our clubhouse, an unfortunate accident. That initial sense of devastation about this fire turned into a determination to rebuild, and we knew that we could do it the way it had been built in the early 1950s, by volunteer labour. Indeed, the clubhouse was mainly built by volunteer labour. I actually have photos, if people want to take a look at what happened. The photos show the destruction. This was a record which was kept by a member of the community who came out every weekend and took photos of the rebuilding process.


We started to rebuild, actually, on July 1. We gutted the building and every weekend people could come out and join the AIA Fitness Club, as we called it, because there was a tremendous amount of work to be done, from the most menial task to skilled carpentry etc. The other way people could contribute, of course, was through their cooking. We had meals for the volunteers, baked goods, and that was all donated by members of the community.

But it wasn't just people from the community who came and helped rebuild. We had people who came every weekend from the city, diligently. Sometimes there were 70 people on a weekend. It was like a barn-raising. On the coldest winter days, people would still come and help.

This went on for over a year, and now, two-and-a-half years later, we have this beautiful building which is available for use by everyone, not just islanders. City people come and use this building for conferences, weddings, as Martin said, and family get-togethers. We feel very fortunate that we were able to do this. We feel that it's a testament to island spirit and a real belief in what we were doing. As Martin pointed out, a fundamental aspect of how we operate is that we are self-sufficient and we haven't had to rely on government funding to keep it going.

I think that's all I have to say.

Ms Englar: I was asked to come here and speak from my heart about the heart. Our clubhouse was called the heart of the community. Our clubhouses are the hearts of the community.

They're places to go. You've heard evidence of this. The pictures that are going around are living evidence of how we love something that we didn't own, actually. We found out that we were paying an insurance policy on something we didn't own. The building was owned, they said, by -- this is the political part. Martin and I kind of separate a little bit here, because I think it is political. I think the island's political. It's a wonderful place. The heart's political. It takes political action to get things going.

We paid insurance on a building we didn't own. We rebuilt a building we didn't own. It's open to everyone. We keep saying that and we mean it. It's not only the islanders that we take care of; it's people from all of your communities. We welcome all of you. It takes all of us to run it. It takes all of us to make it come alive and stay alive.

We have a demolition bill. We actually have a demolition order on the building. Some members of government would rather see this building demolished than become a living, productive place.

One of my favourite stories is about two old men who have been turning up at the building, Joey, I think, since the fire. They come about six times a year. One of the men used to live on the island. His home has since been demolished, but what he remembers is the clubhouse. He lives in a seniors' home now, and he brings his elderly friend and they come, and it's a place to go, a place to get in out of the weather, a place to talk to people.

I think our clubhouse and our clubhouses on the island are, as you've said, a model. We are actually a small microcosmic kind of model of a land trust. We have taken care of ourselves. We know how to do it. The people who are here in the audience, the people who have spoken over the last two days and who will continue to speak for the next day, know how to take care of each other. We're caring, loving and feisty and we'll hopefully work very hard to get what we want. We are doing a good thing. The clubhouse is an example of that.

We hope the committee can see its way clear to support this bill. We need to get on with life. Too many stopgaps have been put in front of us. We need to get on with living and being productive human beings, all of us, and we can do it with this bill. We thank you for your consideration.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I've heard a lot of presentations which have revolved around life on the island and I have absolutely no doubt that you are a caring community and one which feels very proud of what you're doing.

My concerns revolve around the fact that we have a situation where the majority of the islanders have been there for a relatively short period of time, within about the last 10 years. These people have not been paying any rent whatsoever. We can get into a great debate as to why you didn't pay rent or anything like that, but the fact --

Ms Englar: I don't think --

Mr Turnbull: Just let me pose this question. This is my concern. The fact is that the majority of the people have paid very little to get on to the island. It is owned, or it was owned, by Metropolitan Toronto and we now have a situation where you're getting a sweetheart deal. I've heard all the discussion about the fact that you don't have these services other people have. Well, you know something? There are an awful lot of communities in Ontario that don't have certain services. It is your choice that you moved there.

The fact is that if this deal were exposed to the open market -- according to the Lepage appraisal which was done for the city of Toronto some five years or so ago, you are getting a deal which is very, very sweet compared with what the open market would pay.

My question revolves around, why do we choose one community and say, "Okay, we're going to give them a sweetheart deal"? Why shouldn't we allow people to move on to other parkland and in essence squat and then get very sweet deals? I'm not challenging the validity of the community in the sense of it being a good and caring community. I'm talking about the deal which affects all taxpayers.

Mr Earle: In 1956 there was a whole community on the island of I don't know how many houses, a vibrant community, and their sweetheart deal that they got from the city was to have their houses bulldozed and burned in front of them.

Mr Turnbull: We're not talking about those people. I think that was a lousy deal, much in the same way as I would be fighting for their rights now. I'm talking about the many people who've moved there in the last 10 years who haven't paid to be there.

Ms Englar: We have paid to be there. People pay the first day they step on the island. First of all, they pay a ferry fare. They buy a house; they rent a house. We have put $80,000 into a building we do not own; $80,000 of our own money has gone in to make and to help hold the structure up over our heads. Just this small endeavour here --

Mr Turnbull: With all due respect, that was your choice.

Ms Englar: That's the idea of the island. We moved there. We pay our bills. We improve things that do not belong to us. We are stewards of the land. We take care of the parkland. This building that we are responsible for, in the city, would cost you tens of thousands of dollars to manage. We absorb that cost. We are those tens of thousand of dollars, right here in this room. This is what we represent. The rent on the land we do not own was given for $1; the Metropolitan government got it for a dollar and now gets $8.1 million for it. We take care of the land. You have to understand. This is what stewardship is about. This is what the land trust is about. We pay our bills.

You see a sweetheart deal because you see 99 years and you see what, to you, is an inappropriate amount of money. I think you should be giving this deal to a lot of members of your constituency. People are being starved to death. You are taxing people out of existence.

Mr Turnbull: We can't afford to give this deal to a lot of our constituencies.

Ms Englar: We are not absorbing money from you.

Mr Turnbull: The taxpayers can't afford this.

Ms Englar: We are being self-sufficient.

Mr Mammoliti: The islanders are getting it for 13 cents a day.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, we'll move on to Mr Mills, please.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mammoliti: They're your friends. That's a sweetheart deal.

Ms Swarbrick: George --

Mr Mammoliti: Sorry, Mr Mills.


Mr Mills: Through you, Mr Chairman, I'm sure my remarks will be of some interest to the presenters, and then through you to my friend Bernard Grandmaître about, you know, in the last explanation I said this isn't an agency. I want to clarify that.

I've had some advice from staff that it will not be an agency, board or commission; it will be a corporation. If you were to look at subsections 11(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) of the bill, you'll see that it says, "The trust shall be deemed not to be an agency of the crown" and, "The objects of the trust...." etc.

Having clarified that, it's a pity the member from Etobicoke isn't here at the moment; nevertheless, I'm sure his colleague will pass this along. There was some reference about the number of units there, and it will be this and that and it will just be built over. The city of Toronto official plan does not deal with the number of units. It designates an area as a low-density residence area on the island. This designation has a maximum of one time's coverage, and without a survey it will be impossible to determine how many units that will mean. I hope that has put to bed those problems that keep recurring.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me; one time's coverage?

Mr Mills: One time's.

The Chair: Do you have a comment on Mr Mills's -- he was obviously talking to you.

Mr Mills: I'm sorry that I used the opportunity to address you to get through this.

The Chair: Don't go away.

Interjection: We thought we'd escape.

The Chair: The Liberal caucus has an opportunity to ask questions. No questions?

Thank you very much for appearing today.


The Chair: The next presentation will be from the residents' association, Mary Anderson, co-chair.

Ms Mary Anderson: Good morning. My name is Mary Anderson. I'm a member of the TIRA executive and a charter member of the Toronto Island Non-Profit Housing Co-operative that was established in 1978. I have lived on the island for 23 years.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for the time that they are devoting to a more complete understanding of Bill 61 and the creation of the Toronto Island land trust. Part of our purpose here today is to encourage and congratulate members of the Legislature who are willing to bring this political deadlock to an end. Our judgement is that the public will respond with relief in seeing that solutions can be found to age-old problems.

We feel that the land trust solution to the preservation of the island community is a fair and sensible one, and one which is congruent with our own community principles. The remarks I have to make this morning are about the fairness of the lease price, the importance of no economic eviction, and the protection of tenants, the protected occupants. I hope, Mr Turnbull, that some of the things I have to say will actually address the concerns you've demonstrated.

The decision by Metro Toronto in 1956 to tear down all the houses on Toronto Island was part of a series of events that created an economic anomaly. After Metro's decision, no one coming to live on the island could be assured of a very long tenure. Lease extensions were hard fought for and they were often for a very short period of time. As a consequence, the island house prices remained very low when compared to those in the city.

The effect of moderate house price was twofold. Firstly, almost anybody who wanted to come and live on the island or to remain on the island, as many have since prior to 1956, could do so. Because the house prices were low, there developed a natural economic mix that was very diverse. Whether people had a lot of money or whether they had a little money, they stayed or they came to the island because they truly wanted to be there.

I know you've expressed you're not able to understand why people would come in this kind of a situation. There may not really be a rational --

Mr Turnbull: That's not what I said. I didn't say I wasn't able to understand why they went.

Ms Anderson: I think people come and they decide, and it's not necessarily a rational decision. Often it's a little bit like falling in love. You just have no choice; you have to be there.

Mr Grandmaître: Holy cow. I'll vote for the bill.

Ms Anderson: But the price -- did you hear that? Is that in Hansard? We've got one Liberal member; two more to go.

But as Leida was referring to, the price to come and remain was often the price of a large commitment of time, energy and struggle for community preservation.

Living on an island where there are no corner stores and no cars often fosters a degree of self-reliance but it also fosters, as you have seen, a certain amount of interdependence. Maybe your neighbour has the faucet washer that you need to fix this problem or maybe she's going to go and get your kids from school because you've missed the 4 o'clock boat. Looking after elderly neighbours and picking up things at the market for other people become a natural way of everyday interaction. When people begin to see that these sorts of relationships work successfully, they begin to think of other things they can cooperate in. They do beach cleanups, tree plantings, they create a parenting centre, they do the skating rinks, and slowly the web gets built.

I believe that this urge to self-reliance and cooperation was intensified by the hostile political environment. I believe if we had a 200-year view or perhaps a Buddhist view of things where we saw all of ourselves as players, we would understand that Mr Stockwell's opposition through the years has actually helped to create our determination, and for that, if he were here, I'd thank him.

Added to the almost constant political struggle to preserve the community was the never-ending battle against physical decay of buildings that we were prevented from fixing up because we were denied and still are denied building permits. So the cooperation intensified: long hours of political meetings and organizing, building bees over the weekend, when the inspector wasn't around, to make room for that new baby, intense work of rebuilding the clubhouse that you have heard about, and the web gets stronger and stronger. From these many long years of political battle, islanders, as you can see, have developed a certain sense of community pride in being able to take care of themselves in spite of many obstacles.

The object lesson became very clear. The lesson was this: that we depend on each other and that we support each other, and because we do, life is better. For instance, money is needed to put a new floor into the clubhouse, so there's an auction to raise some of the money. There are many people on the island with very limited incomes but they do have two strong hands that can do fine work. So somebody builds a beautiful birdhouse. It's bought by the local plumber. He pays a very high price for it, even on the open market. But the plumber has the money because he's just gotten it from his neighbour because she's paid him for fixing her burst pipes in the winter, and she has the money because she's been working for the community, organizing volunteers for the clubhouse reconstruction. So the money goes around and around and around and it never really leaves the community most of the time; it's recycled. The web gets woven tighter and there begins to be a rhythm and a pattern to it all. We begin to depend on these interactions, on seeing these faces and on going to these meetings and the celebrations together.

So the paradox arises. In this tiny community that has been threatened for 35 years by all this political insecurity, there's actually a great amount of security in this interwoven web. I believe that this web has been woven carefully over time by all of us who live on the island and the people who have helped us, people with different incomes, different backgrounds, levels of skill, ingenuity, talent, creativity, humour and stubbornness. The strong web of interdependence arose partly from circumstances of living on the island, partly by being threatened and also from the economic anomaly that allowed for real diversity.

The political insecurity gave us a gift and it said: "You can live out here. It's not too expensive. We don't exactly know what's going to happen. If you don't have a lot of money to contribute, you can do so in other ways. You can sew, cut hair, rake ball fields, put on plays, make food, sing, tell jokes, work with the kids, take care of the sick, teach," and the web is strengthened.

There is a direct relationship between the inexpensive housing and the strong web. There is a direct relationship between the affordable land trust solution and the ability of this community to continue to be self-reliant. Moderately priced housing that people can afford leaves space in their lives to give to their community. It allows them to spend a little time.


I would even venture to say that affordable housing allows people to be downwardly mobile. In the 1980s it wouldn't have been cool to be downwardly mobile, but I think that in the 1990s we might even see this downward mobility becoming a virtue, because I think we understand that our social services and all of the other social supports we have are breaking down. They're breaking down largely because people are struggling too hard to try and make ends meet.

There have been short periods over the last few years when the political future may be brightened or it went into limbo for a little while, and during those times we began to witness just what effect the speculative housing market would have on our community.

The promise of stability and the invasion of a speculative market began to damage and threaten the web we had created. House prices would rise and diversity was threatened. Only the people with certain incomes would be able to buy into the island at those times. Continuity was threatened. The tenants, the long-time residents, often would have to leave if their absentee landlord decided to sell their house for a higher price. That's why the sections in the act about protected occupants are so significant. Creativity was threatened. People who had very low incomes, often single mothers with kids who had struggled for many years to keep their houses intact, would sell them occasionally in these times because the prices were tempting, only to regret later what they had lost in terms of social networks and support, and for us to lose in the services they were able to give to the community.

It's clear that this web has an incredible value and that the value of the web of relationships was created by the whole community and belongs to the whole community. There's a direct relationship between affordable housing and the continued health and strength of that web. Our community principles include such concepts as a fair lease price on the land and no economic eviction and no windfall profits.

The land trust solution, Mr Turnbull, says that the social value the community has contributed -- that very strong, irreplaceable web that has been woven over the years by numerous people -- should not be withdrawn from the community. The what-the-market-will-bear solution means that housing that exists on public land will go to the highest bidder. It means that a person selling a house can make a gain and walk away with a value that in a very real way does not even belong to them but belongs to the whole community and belongs to the wider public community, which you are to protect. From your perspective, they'd be walking away with something that belongs to the public, and both are true.

The land trust solution says the owner of the house will be compensated for the value of the structure of the house that he or she has maintained and for the value of the remaining lease. That other value, the value of the strong, viable, independent and supportive community, remains where it belongs, where it was created, in that same community.

Some would say the value of living on the island is its prime real estate location. I think you would say that. Others would say the real value of the island is that it lies in the rich social, cultural and creative community life, but I don't think we have to argue about it. I think both things are true. It's a wonderful community and it's in a great spot, but that's not the point. The point is that the affordability of the existing community has to be the guideline for any solution that's arrived at.

What Mr Johnston understood very well when he came to look at the community was that this had to be addressed. Not to address the question of what was affordable for the people who live there right now would be to put a lie to this entire political process. What is being proposed is probably affordable for about 70% to 80% of the island community. There's going to be a 10% to 20% group of people who are going to do it whether they can afford it or not, because they want to hang on to their homes. Then there'll be a certain percentage of people who will be able to take the co-op option, so that they will be able to sell their house to the co-op and live there, rent geared to income.

To save the island community for only a very few rich people who might be able to afford the higher price is, of course, not a politically responsible step for any member of this Legislature to take.

The land trust solution protects the public interest and it protects the value that has been created by members of this community. It allows for a space for the web of diversity to develop and ensures that this opportunity is widely available, and it does so for 99 years and it does so over and over and over again. It's a kind of green economic theory. It's a theory that recognizes the value of non-monetary wealth-creating activity, all that activity that goes on in households, in community organizations, and it understands that that kind of wealth is necessary if the other kind of monetary wealth creation is going to take place in this society.

The land trust is a social experiment, in a sense. We are living in times that are difficult and that are very full of change and it's precisely the kinds of times that require a new approach. I think the future will demonstrate that this is a very good way to do it.

I've given you a lot of soft economic theory, but I'd also like to quote from a report done for the city of Toronto. In December 1990, the then commissioner of housing for the city of Toronto was asked by the executive committee of council to comment on the feasibility of Cityhome acquiring the island homes for affordable housing, with a lifetime tenure for the present occupants. This is very similar to the kind of proposal Metro Toronto was looking at too when the discussions were going on with Mr Johnston: "Let's take it over. If people really can't afford it, then maybe slowly, one by one, we can put it all into Cityhome or MTHA." This is what the commissioner had to report. On page 4 of his report, he says:

"I would expect capital costs to be in the range of $30,000 to $60,000 a house for a total of between $7.5 million to $15 million. Assuming a `break-even' scenario, the unrecovered rent of approximately $7 million which has been paid to Metro should also be capitalized. Though the overall capital cost `guesstimate' would be in the range of $14.5 million to $22 million, this figure must be used cautiously as we would require house-by-house inspections and a legal opinion of the potential city liability for compensation of the residents to have accurate estimates."

So this is just the cost he's figuring of, if the city took it over, what it would have to pay to fix up those houses -- not buy the houses from the islanders, but just fix them up.

Then, "Taking into account typical Cityhome costs, conservatively estimated, for managing individual houses, including financing costs, management fees, utility and operating costs and reserve fund contribution, I would estimate the break-even monthly rents to be in the range of $1,227 to $1,500 per house....I would assume that to mean `no economic eviction' with its corollary of affordable rents...that no household would be paying more than 30% of its gross income on rent. The cost to the city of this proposal, then" -- or to Metro if it was MTHA -- "becomes the subsidy cost for those households.

"Using the 30% guideline...and extrapolating to 1990 the available 1988 estimates of the average household income for island residents, about 37%" to 58% of the households would be eligible for assistance.

"To conclude, I would estimate the annual subsidy cost to the city, assuming the Ministry of Housing would be prepared to provide these subsidies, would be in the range of $500,000 to $1.2 million annually, depending on whether repair costs are high or low and on whether actual incomes are higher or lower than our estimates. This also assumes the land is transferred to the city at no cost and that there are no major compensation costs."

If this had been the solution, and this is a solution not unlike the one considered by Metro where all the houses would eventually become part of MTHA, the taxpayer would then be carrying quite a big burden.

When the affordability question is addressed, when you keep the price of housing close to something people can actually manage, you save the government millions of dollars in subsidies. You save it not once but you save it every time a new person moves in, for 99 years. Every time you don't have to give somebody a subsidy, you save that money.

In fact, the community, not the government, the land trust, is going to be the body that takes on the task of rebuilding and revitalizing the island neighbourhood. The islanders are going to be paying the mortgages, the islanders are going to be managing and operating the trust, and it's the islanders who are going to be stimulating the economy with the millions of dollars worth of repair and renovation they are putting into their houses.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns about what this is costing the taxpayers, and I think it should give you an idea of looking at the other side of it.


I only want to reiterate our concern about the structure of the board. I think the regulations now provide for two thirds of the board members to be residents of the island community, out of 15, and that's fairly sensible. We've had some discussions with the staff of Municipal Affairs about who the other people might be. Presumably there would be someone from the city and someone from Metro and someone from the province and people who are interested in the kind of broad trust issues would also be members. But I don't think it's enough to put that in the regulations. I don't understand why it's not in the act, because I think it leaves us open to another government coming and changing it too easily and leaving islanders in a situation where they have to work with perhaps a very hostile group of people.

One perspective that these committee hearings have given me is that this really is an enormous task. We've been with our heads to the ground, looking very closely at a lot of details. You can see the enormous task and the readiness we have to take it on, but it would be very difficult if another government decided it was not going to choose the recommendation of the island community for the membership on the board or if there were a majority of hostile members on the board. It would be very difficult for us to work.

I think it makes much more sense to give at least a simple majority to islanders and to put that right in the act and leave it there. What I think would make sense is that you define in the regulations how the members from the island community perhaps should be chosen through election, how many years people would serve and what sorts of other people you might want to have over the years who would join islanders on the board membership. I really urge the members of the committee to consider an amendment to the act which would take the structure of the board and put it into the act and not just leave it in the regulations.

You've given us an enormous task to do, and I think you have to show faith that we can do it. I don't think members here would argue that we don't have the skills to do it. I think you just have to take that one next step of giving us the confidence that this partnership will really be there even in five or 10 years.

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I just want to say, Mary, that you're a very wise woman. Thank you very much for the thought, the time and the feeling you put into your presentation. Actually, I personally feel enriched by the whole process of being here through this week to hear the kinds of things that many of you have put forward. Your presentation is certainly very much one of them. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Eddy?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): No questions.

Mr Turnbull: Specifically, if one goes down to the docks and looks at the people boarding the ferry and coming across in the morning -- I haven't personally done this, but I know of somebody who has taken this trouble. They said a remarkable percentage of the people are clearly senior business people. They're coming across with briefcases. We know; we have the profile of many of the people who live on the island.

Here's the point: Do I take it that you think in some way the public purse should subsidize those people to live in these communities, at the expense of the money being better spent to help people who truly can't afford your rents? By your own admission, you said 10% to 20%, you feel, under this arrangement will not be able to afford their houses and that maybe the co-op will fix this. But why on earth would we want to subsidize senior lawyers and accountants to live on the island?

Ms Anderson: That's not what you're doing, and it's not the point.

Mr Turnbull: It is the point.

Mr Mammoliti: Three lawyers, one doctor.

Ms Anderson: My experience has been that I've seen people with a fair bit of money come to the island occasionally. They think it's going to be great, but they spend one winter there and they often can't take it, because they're used to more luxurious lifestyles. I'm not going to deny that there are some people who do have some good salaries who live on the island, and they seem to be able to take it just fine. When I was 20 years younger, I used to be embittered about the people who had a lot more money, but I feel we're past the situation where -- I think there's another way to look at these things.

I think you make something affordable. In this case, a rich person could look at this and say, "I'd like to do it, but I'm not going to make any money, so why would I do it?" That's often the way people get rich: They try to think how they're going to make a lot of money.

Mr Turnbull: That just does not hold water. The fact is that if somebody has a large amount of money, they can pay the very modest amount to get this land --

Ms Anderson: Yes, they can, and so can I.

Mr Turnbull: -- and they build themselves a wonderful house and they can still have a lot of money left over. If you take a radius the same commuting distance as the Toronto Islands from downtown, which goes to the Beaches or to Yonge and Eglinton or goes to the east end of Etobicoke, and you look at the value of houses there and compare it with what they will be able to achieve building a brand-new house on the Toronto Islands at this kind of price, there is a significant economic advantage to them. They can put that money into any other investment they like. So your argument just doesn't hold water.

Ms Anderson: All I'm saying is that often the other kind of lifestyle advantages that go along with money aren't there on the island, so people leave, or they decide to only come in the summer, which turns it into a yachting community or some other kind of summer community, which is the kind of thing we fought against. That's why we're demanding people have it as their principal residence. We don't want to see this happen.

Mr Turnbull: I don't know how you police it.

Mr Stockwell: Any more time?

The Chair: No, we're out of time, unfortunately. Thank you, Ms Anderson, for appearing today.

Ms Anderson: Thank you.


The Chair: Our next presentation will be from the Toronto Environmental Alliance, Gerard Coffee. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation. You can introduce yourself, your position within the organization and commence your presentation.

Mr Gerard Coffee: Thanks very much. I'm sure it won't take half an hour. My name is Gerard Coffee and I represent the Toronto Environmental Alliance. We're a non-profit organization that works generally in the Toronto area to enhance the environmental condition of the city and its natural spaces. I'm the coordinator of that organization.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I've spent a fair amount of time recently, quite specifically from 1990 to 1992, with another person from the Toronto Environmental Alliance as a member of the city of Toronto's technical working group on traffic calming and auto emission reduction. The purpose of that committee was to examine the feasibility of various measures designed to achieve emission reductions. The major reason for the existence of the committee itself, I should say, was the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which is a major factor in the creation of the greenhouse effect, as we by now are all aware, I'm sure. While there's still a certain amount of disagreement over the eventual effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the greenhouse effect, there seems to be general agreement that global temperatures are rising and that there will be some effect which we would rather avoid.

What all of us involved in the production of the committee's final report learned, if we didn't already know it, was that the need for reduction of emissions from automobiles was critical at this point if we in the city of Toronto, as well as the citizens of Ontario and Canada itself, were to minimize the effects of the rise in global temperatures. We are aware, I think, that the cost of allowing unregulated carbon dioxide emissions to continue would greatly exceed the cost of the kinds of measures we could put into place at this point to reduce those emissions.

We also learned that the effects of the overdependence on cars was not simply limited to global warming. Pollutants released by autos include 70% of Toronto's nitrogen oxide emissions, 90% of the carbon monoxide and 75% of total hydrocarbon emissions, which also include benzene, a carcinogen known to cause leukaemia. All of the above in fact damages the health of the city's population.

The value of reducing car dependence also has application to the way we structure our cities. The environmental impacts of that dependence are compounded when cities are structured in such a way that the use of cars is unavoidable. We only have to drive -- or walk, if you're lucky enough -- out into the suburbs to see that car dependence is inherent in the way cities are structured. You basically just can't move without one.


The reliance on the automobile creates urban sprawl. Sprawl increases the amount of total energy used, both in construction and maintaining suburban services. In fact, it has been estimated that the cost of building the suburbs the way we have, making them car dependent, has increased the energy demands by about 1000%, 10-fold, when you take into consideration the extra roads, the extra servicing and the extra miles that vehicles have to drive. It's quite dramatic. The environmental impact of the energy required to build and service, including such problems as global warming, acid rain and the disposal of nuclear wastes, are consequently increased.

While the evidence of the problems associated with car dependence is clear, the options available to us are less well developed. Alternative combustion fuels and electric cars exist but are not widely available, due to a number of technical problems which remain to be overcome. Historical land use patterns are hard to overcome. Architects and designers are only now coming to terms with the need to design communities in ways which minimize automobile use and its impact on the environment. Few communities in the developed world are available, in fact, as models for the type of land use patterns which will be necessary in the coming century -- necessary, that is, if we are to find the elusive goal of environmental sustainability.

We in Toronto, however, are a little more fortunate than most cities in having an example of exactly this kind of community in our backyard. We have a lot of other things in our backyard, some of which we don't want, like garbage dumps, but this one is a little more positive. I'd say that the community that's evolved on the Toronto Islands over the last 40 years is in many respects one which can serve as a model to ourselves and to others in North America as we all search for the grail of sustainability. This community does not depend on cars to anywhere the extent common to most communities in Toronto, never mind Ontario or even North America as a whole.

While there is little doubt that the distinctive nature of the community owes a great deal to its position as an island, we believe there are, none the less, many transferable aspects of this community, which are not only the envy of many of its visitors but have valuable lessons for the whole of the country. We're all searching, we believe, for the answers to car dependence and the problems it poses, and the Toronto Islands may well provide one which is right under our very noses.

Community values are also important to the preservation of the environment, and in this area we believe the island community also provides a model for the development of similar communities in Ontario. The value of limited car access, narrow streets and small lots lies in their ability to foster the kind of community spirit all too rarely seen at the end of the 20th century.

Island residents are in fact extremely active in their community, taking responsibility for their production of waste by fostering community composting, for instance, and practising stewardship over the natural areas and public lands through promoting regeneration of natural areas and the elimination of spraying herbicides in city parkland.

The present environmental significance of the community might even be enhanced by the thoughtful planning and construction of the new units contained in the plan. The option exists to construct any additional housing in such a way as to provide a model of environmental sensitivity, from the site preparation to the landscaping. These units could be built in such a way as to minimize environmental impacts and blend with the surrounding areas.

A questionable aspect of the plan, however, from our point of view, is the use of land which is now in the process of regeneration to provide housing, as opposed to land which was originally designated, land which at this point is mowed, has been used for housing in the past and is presently being underutilized as a Frisbee course; I wonder if anybody here has played there lately. Naturalized land, in fact, as far we're concerned, is all too rare in this city, and efforts are being made by many organizations and many municipalities throughout Metropolitan Toronto to promote and to reintroduce native plants, insects and animal colonies. North York is a really good example, we believe, of what can be achieved through the regeneration of existing parkland, and would have in fact, I would say, about a dozen regenerative areas.

We think it's about time that Metro started to catch up. The city itself has done a reasonable job, but we think the island community has done an extremely good job and has been very positive in the way it has promoted this.

While we believe the need for additional housing and the use of existing natural areas should be examined, we are concerned about the political games which apparently are being played by Metropolitan Toronto and the regional conservation authority over the seawall. We have some concerns about this and we believe they should be looked into in much more detail. We don't think those concerns should hold up this bill.

We believe that the Toronto Islands community has much to offer us as an example of a non-car-dependent community and that in fact we shouldn't just protect it; we should promote it, we should examine it and we should look at it very closely and look at the lessons that can be learned, that can be transferred and that can be used in other communities.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. Could you explain further your views of the development or preservation of the island as it is for natural use?

Mr Coffee: My ideal would be that Metro and the Metropolitan Toronto parks department would look at the whole of the islands and not just try to beat the community where the houses are right now over the head, look at the whole of the island community and the whole of the island park and look at areas that could be naturalized.

If it's absolutely necessary that houses are built on the land that's now in the process of regeneration, we think there should at least be areas comparable to that which are allowed to regenerate and which are helped to regenerate in order to provide a habitat for insects and animals which we believe is sorely lacking within the city.

We are also very keen, of course, to reduce the amount of herbicides that are used anywhere, as far as we're concerned, for cosmetic purposes. That's not to say that there's no need for grass and for open grass areas; there is. There's no doubt about that. Centre Island is quite a popular spot for picnics. We wouldn't want to have bulrushes growing where people would like to sit. There's still a need for that. But we believe there's a great deal of room for natural regeneration in some of the underutilized areas.

Mr Eddy: Do you see the proposed increase of population as detrimental or not necessarily?

Mr Coffee: I don't see it as detrimental. It's a toss-up, I guess. I think in some ways the extra population on the island may in fact lead to more utilization of the existing park space because what may happen is that people will feel safer. I know this argument has been made before in terms of other parkland and in terms of the Toronto Islands.

I think it's true that leaving park space without anybody who has some sort of interest in its upkeep and who lives close by is a problem in terms of vandalism and in terms of park safety. There have been studies done by people at York University which have shown the correlation between communities and the safety of parks. I think, in that sense, that building these extra units will in fact have some sort of positive effect. I think the amount of units that are being talked about should not have a particularly detrimental effect, especially if they're kept to the existing, already developed areas.


Mr Stockwell: I've heard from the environmental alliance in the past, and the question I always have is, you believe in intensification, which is a noble thought and it's always been pushed forward by Martins and Gilberts and so on, and you believe in decreasing dependency on the car, which has always been put forward by your group and the Laytons and Amers and so on, and it would seem to me that you don't have a better place to in fact produce that than the Toronto Islands. I would have thought you were going to come in here and tell us what we need to do is develop to a greater extent on the island by creating more intensification and decreasing the car dependency. Is that not a fair statement?

Mr Coffee: If Metro would give us all the land, then maybe we'd be in a position to make that kind of decision. The problem is that at this point Metro is being incredibly obstructionist about the whole plan. It appears that they don't really want to solve the debate at all, in my view. You're absolutely right that generally speaking what we would say is we favour intensification. In fact we do, and there are many places, I believe, throughout Metropolitan Toronto where we would favour intensification.

The island debate is not just about intensification. It's coming up at this point for a whole bunch of different reasons, I believe, and we would not put the Toronto Islands, given that it's partially parkland, at the top of our list of places to develop in a much more intensive way. I think there are many, many places throughout the city where that might happen before the Toronto Islands. However, I think if you are actually going to develop, then we should look at doing it in the most energy-efficient and most resource-efficient way possible.

Mr Stockwell: That goes without saying, but the question does stand none the less. If we're going to talk about intensification and development and we're going to build a co-op, personally I'm not in favour of any building on the Toronto Islands, as you probably well know. I don't believe you build in parks, period, but that policy obviously isn't shared by the government.

If we're going to go ahead and build cooperative housing in parks, I guess the question then becomes -- I'm feeling somewhat like John Sewell at this point -- gee, it's really interesting that we could have intensification take place in such close proximity to downtown, with public transit already in place, ie, the boat, and we would have no car dependency at all. Gosh, you'd have a pretty strong argument there to develop a huge swatch of this land and say, "Boy, this may be something the people from the Netherlands can come over and take a good long look at about what a great idea we've got going here, land trusts, intensification, no car dependency." Gee, that just sounds really interesting, to steal a phrase from John Sewell.

Mr Coffee: You even sound like him.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): You even look like him.

Mr Stockwell: I sat on council for a few years with John.

Mr Coffee: I know.

Mr Sola: You don't act like him.

Mr Stockwell: But it would be really interesting, wouldn't it, to take care of the intensification problem that way.

Mr Coffee: Yes, I think you're right. I think what we should probably do is we should get Alan Tonks and John Sewell and yourself and --

Mr Stockwell: Sure. You know, it would be something if we got elected next time, the Conservatives. I'd like to meet with you to talk about that.

Mr Coffee: Yes, we should sit down and we'd just look at --

Mr Stockwell: It would be great, intensification of the island from an environmentally sensitive point of view. We'd get the islanders on side, and these people, no doubt. I look forward to that.


Mr Stockwell: Thanks, George. I feel better about myself now.

The Chair: Further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for appearing before us today.

Before we get to the next presentation, I would just have members note that they should now have in their possession the interim summary that has been prepared by the research people. I would again remind members that the Chair would appreciate having the amendments presented from the various parties to the Chair at the earliest possible moment.

Interjection: Like now.

The Chair: Like now; exactly.


The Chair: The next presentation is from Sheila Murray.

Ms Sheila Murray: Hello.

The Chair: Good morning. How are you?

Ms Murray: Fine, thank you.

The Chair: You have 15 minutes for your presentation, and members will have a copy of it.

Ms Murray: Yes, I'll give an abbreviated version.

I'm an island resident and a registered landscape architect. I'm part of the stewardship committee, a diverse group including several professionals whose expertise in technical matters, community outreach and facilitation allowed for an extraordinary amount of work to be completed at a minimum cost to the government.

The entire committee and community are deeply committed to preserving the idea of land stewardship. For us, stewardship means more than just environmental stewardship. It also means embracing the idea of social stewardship.

The following objectives were established by our committee:

(1) To outline stewardship principles which would include environmental issues such as mowing, spraying, lagoon-shoreline cleanup, community compost, replacement trees, safeguarding sensitive areas and community gardens.

(2) To create an inventory of environmental, social, structural and political constraints on any new construction.

(3) To provide a regional perspective to the planning process, including consideration of the needs of city and regional visitors to the island community.

(4) To develop a framework to balance environmental constraints and considerations with social needs, such as guidelines around the type of construction, its size, height, bulk, location, floor area, spacing and character of the building.

(5) To design and implement a full community process to allow for maximum participation by all residents to assess the possibilities presented by each of the potential sites.

(6) To draft guidelines to minimize the impact of construction, demolition and renovation and the disposal of wastes generated through these processes.

We feel very strongly that every island resident has a responsibility as a steward to care for the human and natural environments on the islands which have been entrusted to us to be passed on to future generations. We feel that the process of designing and building new housing is very important but it will have an enormous impact on the whole community. We have developed the following stewardship principles which we hope will guide the planning and construction process:

(1) Principle of planning -- organic order and growth: To allow the whole to emerge slowly to avoid overwhelming change; to value the social and environmental benefits of planning and confirm that the community will adhere to basic principles of good planning.

(2) Principle of participatory democracy: Bylaws will require regular meetings so that everyone is part of the process. The community is to adhere to planning and zoning regulations especially written for the community.

(3) Principle of patterns: All growth is to be guided by a collection of communally adopted planning principles called "patterns," based on existing and desired conditions.

(4) Principle of evaluation: The wellbeing of the community will be protected by a regular review.

(5) Principle of ecosystem approach: The island is only one part of Toronto's waterfront and watershed. Islanders have both a responsibility and an obligation to promote a coordinated ecosystem approach to planning and development in the area, including the harbour, the spit, the city and the shoreline.

(6) Principle of self-reliance: This is to foster the sharing of resources, both human and material, within the community to promote sustainability and independence and also to ensure that resources and energy are conserved, waste is minimized, air, water and soil are clean and safe, and green space is protected.

(7) Principle of diversity: To foster diversity so that the Toronto Islands can be enriched by the cultures existing in Toronto, which is now recognized by the UN as "the most culturally diverse urban region in the world."

Although we viewed our job originally as helping to create an overall master plan for the island land trust, an immediate task which took many, many months to complete came up. Richard Johnston's report had suggested that three acres of currently unused land could be added to the existing community for new island housing. Residents and environmentalists were in agreement that this was an ideal site. The MNR decided that a study of the seawall on the south side of these designated lands had to be completed before they could be considered, as it was worried about the stability of the wall as well as other shoreline problems.

Residents who were either born on the island or have lived there more than 40 years strongly disagreed with the MNR findings. One of our committee members, Steve Aikenhead, spent a few days at the harbour commission researching the seawall. Not only did he find full working drawings of this seawall, but he found photographs that had been taken daily of the construction process.

He gave these data to an engineer and an architect who wrote a report and sent it to MNR, and I quote from the engineer's report, "The heavily reinforced concrete seawall on the south side of the island has a 22-foot deep, continuous interlocking sheet-piling foundation and a 12-foot cantilevered and buttressed retaining wall with heavy stone backfilling and lakeside protection." He wrote that the seawall had been built to heavy industrial standards similar to a bridge. This is the seawall that they were saying was very weak and shallow.


In order to meet the timetable established by the legislation, and given the constraints imposed on us by the MNR, it was necessary to consider how many homes designated in the bill could be built within the existing community footprint, while minimizing the negative impacts on the community, visitors and the natural environment. This required -- in your sheets it says four; I'm only going to talk about three stages.

One was site identification. Within our committee we have three people who have taught environmental planning at the University of Toronto, so we sort of set up the committee as we would a professional environmental design office.

The first thing we did was create a series of maps. One was physical maps, where we noted vegetation, such as all the mature trees, or rows of trees or rare species. Another was soils. We were very concerned about possible contamination of soils, drainage, winter winds, sun, shade, air corridors of birds and planes, and wildlife, to name a few.

The second set of maps we made were social maps, and these plotted land use, such as recreational routes, the clubhouse or the ball diamond, which is used by city people almost every day throughout the summer. There was a political map, and that designated areas that already have some kind of legal or semilegal designation, such as environmentally sensitive areas, and a regional context map, which identified the larger planning issues and integrated problems of the entire waterfront, including transportation and access.

We surveyed every household. We conducted walkabouts and workshops to collect data. We held three public meetings to present this information and received direction from island residents. The TIRA newsletter was our conduit for getting information and articles out and for feedback.

The co-op at this time had signed Charles Simon, Walter Moffat and Marie Black as their architects, with Hough, Stansbury, Woodland as their landscape architects. We started working with the landscape architects as well and at one of the community meetings they presented a regional map showing the island in context, with all the surrounding planning issues. The second thing they presented was a composite plan showing all the maps that we had originally done on vegetation and soils.

What came out was that they presented an opportunities and constraints map. What that meant was that where there were a lot of things piled up on top of one another, like maybe a 100-year-old tree and a special area near the ball diamond, that would show as something that didn't have any opportunities for building. It had a lot of constraints, and areas that had nothing on them became areas of opportunities.

It was interesting that one of the best possible sites for some of the housing in terms of environmental, political and social factors was the land originally suggested by Richard Johnston in his report. It would also be the least expensive because a significant portion of the housing could be sited in one place and there is easy access to it.

In stage 3, the architects provided alternative prototypes of housing designs. The minimum and maximum number of units were discussed for each site and after much debate, because of the impact to the environment, a vote was taken to approve between 53 and 80 housing sites at this stage.

This land trust legislation can become a model for creating and preserving other communities. It is an important ground-breaking model for Canada but one that has been successful in the United States and England. It is a model which takes the land out of the hands of the speculator, strictly controls prices and will allow the island to remain an affordable community for people from diverse backgrounds for the next 99 years.

The future of the stewardship committee is that it's deeply committed and takes its responsibilities very seriously. As stewards of the land, we are starting phase II, which involves developing guidelines for the architects and the co-op regarding specific siting, creative solutions to protect common and environmentally fragile spaces, and allocating areas for development. We will work with the consultants on a comprehensive master plan which integrates all aspects of the community's life, park planning and environmental and social considerations. What this process has shown is that the community is developing its own planning process and methods of appeal. I welcome your questions.

The Chair: Good. Questions?

Ms Murray: If there are no questions, we brought our zoning and planning people. I brought the Planning Act. There are two things I'd like to say. When we were developing these guidelines, we were very aware of the Planning Act and tried to read it and be aware of what was going on. I also have an example of a study that I wrote for a town of 1,800 people. The whole town was a national historic district. There are only nine of these in the United States.

In order to keep this designation we had to be extremely careful that any new building or existing building -- if you even wanted to change your window, you had to go through this board. I was the town planner and we had a town architect, and the rest were just citizens. We tried to help people, if they wanted to do something to their house or build a new one, to make sure that it came within our zoning and design guidelines, which we wrote ourselves. I know that in a small community it can work.

I have one other small anecdote. I did my master's at Harvard University. When I was there I was in the chairman's office one day and his secretary came in and said: "John Sewell can't come. Do you want Toronto to send anyone else?" He said, "We don't care whom Toronto sends, as long as he can talk intelligently about the Toronto Islands community." I said, "The Toronto Islands community?" I was thinking, "Who cares about those funny little houses?" At the time, I didn't live there.

The chairman came over and he grabbed my ear so hard I can still remember the feeling and he said, "Everything you came here to learn about how to design a community, you have in aces in your own home town, and while you're here you'll have to do a case study on it." Most of the major design schools in North America teach the Toronto Islands residential community as a case study. It seems like you never appreciate it in your own home town. I felt embarrassed because I didn't even realize that. Having lived there now, I do realize it and I do appreciate it.

The Chair: You've now got some interest. Mr Sola has a question.

Mr Sola: I noticed in your brief, on the site evaluation, stage 2, that you say your consultants presented a composite plan which showed the opportunities and constraints of each possible site. Concerns have been raised in this committee about the fact that the Toronto Islands community is on a floodplain. I would like to know what your study showed as far as that is concerned. Are the concerns raised here realistic or are they being aggrandized? What is the situation?

Ms Murray: It's a very good question. Just stepping outside and looking at it as a professional, the entire Toronto waterfront is on fill. Ontario Place was built right out on the water. You could say that the whole island is a risk, even though there's been a residential community there for over 100 years. I guess it's how far you want to take it. I think that's something that shoreline engineers could maybe predict, and maybe they could predict that possibly in 1,000 years there might be something that could be a very serious flooding. But that could also be true for Ontario Place and for anything south of the Esplanade.

Mr Sola: Tony O'Donohue was here yesterday. He claimed that the water table was almost at ground level, that you didn't have to dig, that the water table was almost at the surface. I'm just wondering, since you've had a study made, can you prove or disprove that statement made by Tony O'Donohue?

Ms Murray: No, I can't prove it. I've dug down in my own garden and I know we're not right at the water table. But certainly it's not a place where you have underground parking.

Mr Sola: Maybe for boats. Also, with regard to your studies, what sort of building did they recommend?

Ms Murray: Oh, very strict. That's something I'm very glad you brought up. The Toronto Islands currently have the toughest zoning of any community in Ontario. It was worked out with the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto planners told us that it was absolutely the toughest zoning, and there was no one happier than the Toronto islanders. There are very strict guidelines being put together about the size, the bulk -- you know, whether you can protect each other's sun rights and air rights. The community wants small houses. It's not great, really. Our house is 750 square feet. Our 18-year-old son can actually not stand up full height in his room. There are a lot of inconveniences. You have to really like the community to live like that. I wish Mr Stockwell was here.


Mr Mammoliti: Where is he?

Ms Murray: Yes, where is he? I was very prepared for him. The community wants small houses. It's interesting, because people have been talking, and there are some people who are professional and some are not. To me, that's what makes the island special.

When that clubhouse burned down, my husband, who's an architect -- he doesn't carry a briefcase, but he has a leather drawing bag -- gave six weeks of our office time to producing drawings for that building with Jerry Englar, who's a landscape architect. The engineer gave his time. There was a small fee to cover his insurance, but he didn't charge for any of his time.

It's because there are some people like that in the community, who give phenomenal amounts of their time and their professional time for free, that this community works. When you go to buy a house on the Toronto Islands, you can't tell who they are. We have two lawyers, one doctor and I think we have about three or four architects now. You don't know who the mother on welfare is, or the couple struggling to get by or the artist or the teacher or the architect, because all the houses are under 1,000 square feet. There are no cars parked in the garage. There's something about living in that kind of community that gives a lot of equal feeling.

Mr Mammoliti: In terms of community, you talked about community and how you have some professional people among you and how they're willing to do the work that's necessary to improve the structures, to improve the life of the community. That's what co-op is all about and that's what this plan is all about. This comment is coming right from my heart. That's why the Conservatives and the Liberals don't necessarily agree with this. They believe that we should be paying enormous bucks to enormous contractors so that they can make a healthy little profit on all this. That's probably why they don't agree, and I like it because of that reason. People working together, improving the community and getting to know each other, that's what it's all about.

Ms Murray: It's a real community.

Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, on a point of correction, I guess: Before statements like the previous one are made, I think we should check Hansard to see how the various parties voted on the matter in the House.

The Chair: Maybe you could remind us.

Mr Eddy: The Liberal caucus did not vote against it.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to see how you vote in the Legislature.

Mr Eddy: I'm talking about the Legislature.


The Chair: The next presentation will be from Cheryl West. Cheryl? Good morning. You have 15 minutes allocated to you for your presentation.

Ms Cheryl West: As stated, my name is Cheryl West. I live on Ward's Island with my children, Carey and Kyle. My reason for coming before you today is to assist the conscience of those of you on this committee who may have doubts about why this legislation should be passed. I'd like to specifically address those of you who feel that you are passing a piece of prime real estate over to a few lucky people with little or no regard for the needs of the greater community. I wish they were here. I will grant you that we are too few in number, as the population of islanders has been diminished over the last few decades at the will of various governments.

My point today is that you should not be strictly looking at the dollars and cents of this legislation, but rather at the common sense that will turn into long-term savings and credits to this province, as it may serve as a community prototype. Our existing community is composed of a cross-section of people found in most Ontario communities. We do have work to do in opening opportunities to people of visible minorities.

I am here to speak to you about the portion of our community who are single parents. We are teachers, musicians, artists, university professors, early childhood educators, carpenters, women who work solely in our homes, nurses, secretaries, women looking for employment and seamstresses.

This mixed group of parents -- mostly women, but some men -- have one thing in common: We are able to benefit from a community that is very rich: rich in our caring for each other in a way that may be quite unique. We share in the care of our children in ways that provide people like myself with a peace of mind beyond value of prime real estate.

I'm an early childhood educator. In my field, we talk about partnerships in raising children. In fact, a good deal of tax dollars are spent creating and facilitating the partnerships for child care in communities. We might all be able to take a lesson from the island community about what such partnerships really mean.

In a very holistic and natural way, these partnerships exist for all parents on Toronto Islands, but never are they more meaningful than for those of us who are single parents. We share in the care of each other's children, we share our family holiday celebrations and we share company. Sometimes we may be stressed or lonely, but we are rarely alone, because usually there is someone who will listen to us and often guide our thoughts to solutions of our difficulties and out of despair. These things have no price, but a great deal of value.

Over the last four years, as members of a mother-led family, my children have benefited from the richness of this community. They have participated in artistic events such as the annual theatre group entry to Caribana; they have received music lessons from local artists; they have been encouraged in and escorted to and from off-island activities by members of two-parent households.

Last year my son was given a bicycle by an islander, and the teenage son of another island friend has offered to train him in cycling as a sport. On the occasions when I must work late, my after-school care giver offers to feed my son dinner and make sure he does his homework. These are priceless benefits to my family.

On the other hand, I can recite countless occasions when my family has participated on the giving end to others in the community, and this is where I believe my children will benefit and have benefited the most from our island neighbours. They are learning in a very real way to take care of themselves and others around them.

I wish to continue to live within this community. Being a single parent in a field that is low-paid and possibly headed for wage rollbacks, I was very concerned when lease prices were being determined, perhaps out of my means. I understand that the provisions outlined in this legislation were created to benefit as many people as possible and that the underlying principle Richard Johnston followed was to save this community.

I am again, in this concern, not alone. For those of us who have limited or shrinking incomes without pensions, the idea of affording a lease and bringing our homes up to standard is impossible or at least risky. As female single parents, we are already at great risk of being under the poverty line after age 65, if not before. You can imagine the relief I felt when I read about the option of being members of an island co-op that would permit us to continue to live within our community and perhaps to broaden its diversity and resources with others. I believe the co-op will offer families like mine the security of a promising lifestyle in an ever-changing world.


The benefits of including co-op housing in this legislation offer our community many opportunities to grow and sustain itself in ways that preserve our community values through diversity of class. A co-op also opens possibilities for new and different cultural experiences. The co-op will also provide security for single parents and others as we become elder citizens. Surely many of us may wish to stay in our beloved homes on fixed incomes, and it offers our young adults opportunities to continue to live outside their parents' homes while providing new leadership for the community they know and love.

I see the co-op as essential to maintaining the correct mix of people in the community while adding others. Without it, the community might surely become one for only the rich in dollars.

I want to tell you something that happened to my family just last week. My daughter, Carey, is almost 17. She was just this Friday offered an opportunity to attend a conference near Nairobi, Kenya, with an organization called Street Kids International. This organization helps homeless children develop life skills and job skills to be able to improve their quality of life. She has been invited on the strength of her work with this group and her enthusiasm to assist developing communities.

At first consideration, the opportunity was not plausible due to our financial circumstances. Even with the available scholarship offered by the sponsoring group, it is beyond our limits. But in sharing my pride at her invitation to this conference, overnight our neighbours started to contribute money to the possibility of this happening, and now this is a real goal for her. Carey was born with an enthusiasm for caring and sharing on the Toronto Islands 17 years ago, and I believe her commitment for contributing to the welfare of other people in the world is largely a credit to her community.

So I will end by telling you that I do feel like a very wealthy person. I am one of the richest people in this province, not because my house sits on prime real estate but because my neighbours care about me and my children in a very real way. That is why Bill 61 saves a community of value beyond its own geographic borders and residents. In fact, the value of this bill is limitless and will be of benefit to all of us in the province and perhaps beyond. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Questions? Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: That was very, very good. I think you've certainly gotten the message across to everybody on this committee.

Just before you started, I read an article in today's Star that talks about a landlord hiring George Chuvalo, who's an ex-boxer, to evict tenants, allegedly kicking tenants out of their apartments and hanging around the lobby and the hallways, allegedly threatening tenants to leave. I see your case and the case of the islanders as very similar. I see that governments over the last few years have acted in the way George Chuvalo is alleged to have acted in this particular case: wanting to basically punch all of you out, perhaps, and kick you off the island.

All of you, of course, have fought back and have talked some sense into politicians, some of whom have listened and some who have yet to listen. I note in the article that Mr Turnbull is going up to bat for the tenants in this particular high-rise. If he were here, I would certainly commend him for that. I would also ask him to look at the similarities between the two: the islanders and this particular case. Would you agree that once this piece of legislation goes through, it can be put to rest and you can now live a normal life on the island?

Ms West: That's my hope.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Mr Farnan.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): With all due respect to Mr Chuvalo, I think his comments in today's Star are very indicative that he did not endorse pressuring of tenants. I think they should be read into the record. Mr Chuvalo, who is a former Canadian heavyweight boxing champion, did say:

"`This whole thing is a joke. I'm sick about it. Marvin's wasting his time,' Chuvalo said last night. `They don't have to move out. It's a distasteful thing in the first place' to try to pressure tenants to leave."

I'm sure my good friend and colleague Mr Mammoliti would want to distance himself or remove from the record any remarks -- I know you did use the word "alleged," but I think Mr Chuvalo's comments are very clear, and you'd want to rectify the record.

The Chair: Further questions for Ms West? No? Thank you very much for coming this morning.


The Chair: The next presentation is Morris Hill. Good morning, Mr Hill. The committee has allocated you 15 minutes for your presentation. You may commence.

Mr Morris Hill: Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Morris Hill. I'm a Toronto Island resident. I'm also a member of the Toronto Island Residents Association executive. It's going to take me a minute to recover from the last presentation. It digs right at the heart.

I'm sure you've all, over the last few days, heard enough information on the islands to last a lifetime, so if you can bear with me for another 10 or 15 minutes, I'll give you some more.

I'm actually here to respond to the city of Toronto's deputations recently presented by Dennis Perlin, I think, city solicitor. I'm specifically responding to the claim they have for recoverable expenses to March 31, 1993. Before I get into the details of the response to the certain areas I'd like to deal with, I'd like to touch on some of the long-held island principles the community has developed to help to find a solution to the long-term future of the community.

I think from time to time some of our speakers have touched on this. There are 13 principles the community has developed over the years, and I'd like to bring three of them back to the table to remind people, because I think they do deal in an abstract way with responding to the city's claims on some of the funds it would like to recover.

The first principle we've held -- I'll read it verbatim: "The city is to be made whole for reasonable and proper expenses." The island community has never denied that the city has suffered an unnecessary financial burden because of Bill 191, and always has said that it should be paid back for whatever reasonable and proper expense it's incurred. That is an island principle.

The second one I'd like to touch on is number 5, "a fair land lease." That principle speaks for itself, but it also includes in there the repayment to the city as per the above-stated principle.

The last principle I'd like to touch on is number 9, which is "no windfall profits."

The whole idea of all these principles is that we want to save our community, not make profits. When you look at Bill 61 and you consider the resale restrictions imposed, it will be impossible for anyone on the island to benefit from another real estate price frenzy as seen in the late 1980s and the result will be what we're looking for, long-term affordable housing. Believe me, under this bill no one's going to leave the island with a nest-egg.


As previously mentioned, I'm here specifically to deal with the city's claim for recoverable expenditures, and I want to specifically deal with the water and sewer installation and the interest on rent paid to Metro. The first topic I'd like to deal with is the water and sewer installation. I've broken it down two ways. The way I'd like to address it is that there are two arguments to look at this. One is the moral one, as I put it, and I break it down as to what is fair and what is unfair. The second part I'll deal with is the technical or policy side and dealing with what precedents the city might have dealt with or what policies might support or not support its claims.

In dealing with the moral issues, I think the easiest way to do that is to look at the claim from a third party, a non-partisan, an outsider. If you look at the self-interests, Metro, the city and the island all had self-interests here, so if you want to decide what's fair or unfair, you look at somebody who's not involved, a third party. There have been three major studies, if you like, done on this by independent people who seemingly have no vested interest. For the sake of this, I call them "devised," "defined" and "refined."

The first one is the devised, and that was when the Conservative government commissioned a study of inquiry into the Toronto Islands. They hired Barry Swadron. He was appointed by Tom Wells, who was the Conservative Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on August 1, 1980. His report was completed January 12, 1981. It's 575 pages long and it contains 33 recommendations. This is it. It's called Pressure Island. In that study, one of the things Swadron looked at was the sewer installation. I can recap some of the things that were mentioned by some of the people who talked to him in the hearings.

The problem with the sewers goes back as far as 1973, when Dr Moss, who was the medical officer of health of the city of Toronto, said on August 1, 1973, "The time has come for the installation of a community municipal sewage disposal system." He repeated that to John Sewell on November 28, 1978. So you can see that, well before Bill 191, the city of Toronto considered the existing sewage system on the island inadequate and felt that a proper sewage system should be installed.

During the hearings themselves to Mr Swadron, George Cook, the deputy commissioner of buildings and inspections for the city of Toronto, described the current sanitary conditions as intolerable. Douglas Doherty, deputy commissioner of public works for the city of Toronto, stated that if the community were to remain, the installation of a sewer system was a necessary expenditure. Also during those hearings, the legal representative for the city at the hearings -- and this is in Mr Swadron's report -- was quoted as saying,

"It will be no part of the city's position that the services that are required to be installed should the community remain could in any way be paid for by the residents who live on the island now or any that might be contemplated to move there should there be some sort of infilling or something of that sort."

This was during the Swadron commission. Now, out of the Swadron commission came 33 recommendations, and if you look at the recommendations, I think it is clearly pointed out that Mr Swadron certainly did agree that the sewage system had to be installed, and he also clearly points out who he believes should be responsible for the cost of that sewage system. If I can just read from his report, in a preamble to his recommendation he states:

"If and once it is decided to retain the residential community, efforts should immediately be directed to the sewer installation. The earliest completion date that can be hoped for is some time in late 1982. In keeping with general practices, the capital construction costs should be borne by the local municipality and connection costs from the lot line should be the responsibility of the individual householder. Operating costs of the system should be shared between the city and Metro according to an equitable formula relating to use."

That's the preamble. As I say, there were 33 recommendations. Number 24 was:

"I recommend that the contingent plans and proposals for the installation of a sanitary sewage system to service the residential community be immediately reviewed and refined as necessary, with a view to early construction and connection to the existing system on the Toronto Islands recently built and now operated by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

"Capital construction costs should be borne by the city of Toronto from general tax revenues. Connection costs should be paid by the individual householder. Operating costs should be shared equitably between the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto according to usage."

I think it's quite clear that Commissioner Swadron feels that the capital cost of the sewer and water installation are the city's responsibility, and if you read all the recommendations in his report, you will see they bear a very strong resemblance to the resulting legislation. So including the sewer costs as a recommendation was not an exception to the rule. It's something that, with all the recommendations, became part of the resulting legislation.

Moving along, after the Swadron report and the bill was introduced, Bill 191 called for arbitration to settle any cost disputes that might arise. I say that tongue in cheek because we all know that Metro and the city were not too agreeable on what they felt the costs were.

The result of that meant hiring an arbitrator, and that arbitrator was Gordon Atlin. The arbitration took place in 1985. It took many months, many submissions and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr Atlin also dealt with the sewer issue, because the city argued during the arbitration that it wanted to levy the capital costs and sewer installation to the residents. In response to that, in his conclusions Mr Atlin, the arbitrator, said:

"It is clear that for all other sections of the city the provision of water mains and sewers has been a charge to the general tax rate. The installation of sewers has never previously been charged to the occupants of the houses being serviced. It seems strange to me that the city proposes to make this one exception to the general rule that the provision of sewers is a municipal responsibility, not to be charged to the individual household.

"It was indicated that where a new subdivision was being installed, the sewer might be charged as a local improvement, but the island community is a long-standing community and apparently is being treated differently from any other established community in the city."

That was my defined section.

Mr Stockwell: I gathered that.


Mr Hill: The refined section takes us up to where we are now, when the new provincial government decided that it had to deal with the island issue and retained Richard Johnston.

Mr Stockwell: The impartial third party.

Mr Hill: That's right. He was appointed March 13 by David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Johnston's mandate was, in 60 days, to advise the provincial government as to "the fairest way to ensure the preservation of a residential community on the Toronto Islands."

Of course, we have probably been dealing with Mr Johnston's report; I have it here. In his discussions regarding all the financial implications that have taken place over the last few years, Mr Johnston also dealt with the city as far as the sewer costs were concerned. If I could, I'd just like to deal with that and some of the excerpts that he has in his report. I can quote him here, page 30, "The final matter of cost to the city that is disputable is the 100% charge to the islanders for the installation of sewers and water that keeps cropping up in the city tally sheets." He goes on to quote Atlin, the quote I just gave you, saying that Atlin felt that this was unfair and unjust.

He does go on to say, however, that: "The city has also made other expenditures on behalf of the island community and other city residents should not pay an undue burden. Therefore, 50% of the costs of the sewer and water installation should be assumed by the city and 50% by the community as recognition of its somewhat nebulous status."

He concludes by saying: "I hope islanders will not see this as an undue hardship and that the city will see it for the generous gesture that it is. In future, all sewer installations and hookups should be arranged in the normal fashion."

This takes us back to the initial question of what's fair and what's unfair. While the Toronto Islands community supports the views of Swadron and Atlin, we also feel that Richard Johnston's report has fulfilled almost all the long-held principles of the island community. In that context, we feel that he has devised a fair land lease and at the same time treated the city and the island community in a fair manner with respect to reimbursing the city for reasonable and proper expense of sewer and water installation.

With all that good stuff aside, there is the technical side of, I suppose, policy such as that. One of the interesting facts that I was able to research and find was the sewer policy of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, up to and including April 1985, which states:

"Communities of 7,500 people or less require provincial and/or federal grants to carry out sewer projects to replace existing septic sanitary systems. Therefore, the Ministry of the Environment's policy is to limit the home owners' cost to 25% of the capital cost or approximately $1,400."

I have here, if anyone's interested, an example in Durham region, in the town of Sunderland, where they did provide 75% of the sewer installation cost, the capital cost.

The city of Toronto: In 1967 the policy changed so that sewers were paid for out of the capital program, which draws its funds from general tax revenue or sewer impost. The sewer impost requires developers who build on already existing public roads to pay a charge of 50 cents per square foot of building floor space. All buildings under 3,300 square feet and all single-family or duplex houses are exempt from this charge. Developers are required to pay all the costs of sewers for a new subdivision.

Since the island community was already in existence and consisted of single-family dwellings on open public streets at the time of the sewer construction, it should not have been charged for its sewers the way a new subdivision is. That's our response to the city and its claim for the entire sewer charges as well as debenture interest, which totals $4 million.

Very quickly, the next thing I'd like to respond to is the city's claim for interest on total operating expenditures. I think it should be explained that most of this is called imputed interest. Imputed interest is a claim for the moneys it could have earned had it had it in a bank or some other source. Normal interest charges, as most of us know, are charges for money that somebody has borrowed on credit and you get charged interest.

Our dispute with the claim lies in the fact that while we've never denied the city is out of pocket, we have also, with it as partners, been trying for the last 11 years to have Bill 191 changed. I'd like to take the opportunity to give you some evidence supporting our response in this matter.

Bill 191 was proclaimed on December 18, 1981. In April 1982, four months later, city council adopted the following resolution: "That the city of Toronto and the Toronto Island Residents Association jointly request the province to amend Bill 191 to ensure that no rent is payable on island structures by either party." That's four months after the bill was proclaimed. There were already indications of problems.

That's it?

The Chair: We're pretty close.

Mr Stockwell: Just a small, small question.

The Chair: No, really we're out of time, unless the committee wishes to grant you unanimous consent for a question.

Mr Stockwell: It's up for unanimous consent. I just want to ask about where that trust fund was that you were apparently paying your rent to for 10 years. What happened to it?

Mr Hill: I have an answer for that. In September 1982, city council decided the sewer costs would be collected as rent from islanders. At the same time, city legal tells council, "No interim rent can be collected prior to signing of leases." On February 14, 1986, a letter was sent from the Toronto Islands residential community -- this was after arbitration; the city hadn't paid any money till the arbitrator made his final decision. Right after the arbitration, the Toronto Island Residents Association sent a letter to the mayor of the city of Toronto asking that we pay an interim rent. The mayor responded on March 10, "The city solicitor has advised me that no payments can be accepted by the city until valid leases have been entered into with individual occupants." He also says, "I continue to support your efforts to obtain amendments to the Metro act which will return ownership of island homes and provide for a fair agreement."

The island community did try to establish --

Mr Stockwell: You said you were putting it in a trust fund. You said you were paying your rent to a trust fund for the 10 years. Where's the rent? Where's the trust fund? Where's the money?

Mr Hill: Respectfully, Mr Stockwell, can you prove that?

Mr Stockwell: That's what city council was told.

Mr Hill: I have done a lot of research, and I have never seen that in any notes.

Mr Stockwell: Then the mayor was a bald-faced liar; the mayor was a liar in suggesting that nobody told her that.

Mr Hill: What can I say? I have no research that shows that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hill.

Before the next presentation, the clerk is distributing the government's amendments to the bill that many members may want to consider.



The Chair: Mr Gordon Cressy is the next presenter.

Mr Gordon Cressy: My name is Gordon Cressy. I'm here as a private citizen. I'm speaking in favour of the bill. I'd like to give a little background to myself in that context.

I'm not an islander. I visit the islands very rarely. However, the issue has been a large part of my life for 25 years. I was on the school board in the 1960s and 1970s and chaired the Toronto board when there was a lot of discussion about students at the island school and students from the city of Toronto attending. I was on city and Metro council in the 1970s and 1980s when there was a great deal of discussion, and since then I've been an interested observer.

The amount of time, energy and cost that has gone into the debate is probably larger than anything that is being discussed at the moment. We have consumed thousands and thousands of hours of people's time and money trying to resolve an issue.

When I first arrived on the scene, the recommendation was to bulldoze the area, get rid of it. That seems to have changed. The islanders will be with us always. So the issue is: What is in front of us? Is it an innovative solution? Is it pioneering legislation for a pioneering community? Does it provide stability for the moment and for the long term? I believe it does, and I guess that's what I want to speak to.

First, let me give an example in a similar light that I was involved with. For a number of years, I was president of the National Council of the YMCAs of Canada. It has a very large tract of land known as Geneva Park on Lake Couchiching. Many of you have been there for conferences. It's a lovely conference centre, and it's quite inexpensive. That's why the government's used it.

There are some cottages there that have been there for many years. In the late 1960s, the Ys decided, to make more money, that they should bulldoze the cottages and put up more permanent buildings. The cottagers were upset. They'd been there since the turn of the century. A task force was established. In the end, the judgement was made that the cottagers should stay because they provided a sense of tradition and support to the larger community. It worked out; it works out to this day.

The idea of bulldozing history should go on the scrap heap of history. Rather, we should look at things that enhance a community and provide support for those coming to a community as well as those who live there.

My view of this bill is that it is fair and balanced, and provides the appropriate checks and balances. There are no windfall profits to be made by anybody. The cornerstone of it, in my mind, is the Toronto Islands community trust. If there's a weakness in the bill, it is that it is not spelled out clearly enough. It leaves the power with the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It doesn't set terms of appointments -- people could be there for ever -- and it doesn't set numbers: the representation from the island and government. I know it's alluded to, but I think that needs to be more precise, because this is not an act for this year; it's an act for the next 90 years. In that sense, you're building for the future, not for the past.

I was one who lived in a community called Donvale for a good chunk of my life. In the late 1960s, there was a concern that that area was going to be bulldozed, as happened just to the west of us for an area called St Jamestown, where all the houses were taken down and high-rise buildings occurred. The fight was to save that area for the working class. The area was served. The working class doesn't live there in the 1990s. So despite the best intentions, the result didn't come through.

The issue here is to deliver on the result, and my sense is that that's what the Toronto Island community trust is all about. I am one, like many citizens in our city, who has come, on balance, to believe that this is good legislation that provides a sense of stability in a community, that enhances not just the community that's there but enhances the community that visits it. It provides for safety and security, in that sense.

It's something the people of Metro have always wanted, and it puts this behind us. I think something that puts this behind us and gets us on is worth doing. Otherwise, what will occur is what has occurred for 25 years: The debates will rage once again at city hall, at Metro council, at the provincial Legislature and at the school boards. Is it worth it? My sense is that we've got the best we're going to get, and it is in that regard that I'm here today to support it. That's all I have to say.

The Chair: I'm sure we must have some questions.

Mr Cressy: I'd be happy for none. People want lunch.

Mr Grandmaître: Just a short question. You worry about the future of the islands, and I think we should set the record straight. This party believes the same way you do, and that's why this piece of legislation, Bill 61, isn't clear enough. Too many things are left to the minister, to the ministry, to resolve. I think you're absolutely right. This is the beginning of a 25- or 35-year war. I'm not kidding. With the future development of the island exempt from the Planning Act -- I keep repeating myself, but I will continue to repeat myself -- this is only the start of another cold war.

Mr Cressy: I don't believe that's what I said.

The Chair: This is politics; it's okay.

Mr Cressy: I've been around politics: I tried to lead the Yes committee. I learned.

Mr Grandmaître: But you're worried that the bill isn't clear. I agree with you that the bill isn't clear enough. Isn't that what you said?

Mr Cressy: The only piece that I believe deserves clarity is around the board on the Toronto Islands community trust. That's the only issue I raise, and I don't think that's very hard to do.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, that's the bill. That's the future of the islands.

Mr Stockwell: Just a quick question. I honestly never thought I'd see the day when I would be sitting in a room with you, where you'd be advocating support of a bill that exempts a development and a parcel of property from the basic tenet of the Planning Act. In essence, this is what this bill does. It exempts this property and future development on these properties from zoning, official plan amendments, the Planning Act etc. I know how dear you hold these specific pieces of legislation, and I ask you, do you think it's a responsible action for a government to take to exclude any development, let alone specifically this development, from the Planning Act?

Mr Cressy: My answer would be in two parts. The context you put this in is that there's going to be massive development. I don't see that --

Mr Stockwell: Who can tell?

Mr Cressy: Yes, but there's an upper limit to it, as you're aware. Exemptions are rarely done, and they have to be done in the context of something that makes sense, which to me is the greater good of the community. It is in that sense that in reviewing this, quite seriously, I don't see that problem you raise.

Mr Stockwell: Obviously legislation could change, future governments, future owners on the island etc. There's no doubt that 99 years is a very long time.

Mr Cressy: You and I won't be here.

Mr Stockwell: Exactly. In 45 years or 52 years or 27 years, a different government could come forward and say: "Gee, since we're not applicable to the Planning Act, we can pretty much do as we please there. We don't need any authorization. We don't need any public hearings. We don't even need to be taking it to the Ontario Municipal Board if we choose to develop this property."

Can't you see the inherent difficulties and dilemmas that the islanders could be faced with, let alone the greater good of Torontonians who just simply want to go to the island as recreation? I just can't believe that you and others can't see that as being a very tight rope to cross. I just can't understand why you don't think that could be a problem, depending on what government is in in the future and what legislation.

Maybe it's not a question; maybe it's a statement and maybe it's a response I'm looking for. Having said that, can't you see the difficulty you face when you exempt them from this?

Mr Cressy: I've been around this a long time. You've been around it probably half as long. I believe this leads to stability. I really, fundamentally, do. Others don't. But I've got to tell you, I don't think a future government of any party -- certainly to the best of my knowledge, everybody's who has ever represented that area, of all three parties, has supported stability for the islands. I worked with Larry Grossman when he worked down there. The only people who won down there one year for the city were the Hummer Sisters. They won the islands. I don't know that they've had a lot to do since then.

But the simple point is that people are going to think very carefully before making any kind of fundamental change once this is enacted, I really think of any party. You're not going to screw around with something that has been fought as hard as this one has. Fifty years from now when you and I aren't here, I don't know, but I think this points a very good direction. That's why I think the island community trust is the centrestone of making it work.

Mr Stockwell: Well, we disagree. That's about it.


Ms Swarbrick: Gordon, we've also heard some comments from colleagues at this table and from the odd deputant, such as city Councillor Tony O'Donohue yesterday, referring to this as a sweetheart deal. Councillor O'Donohue made references to appraisals that were done by real estate companies over the last number of years that appraised the land on Ward's Island at $79,000 and on Algonquin Island at $116,000 per lot. Could you give your comments please as to why you believe this is not a sweetheart deal?

Mr Cressy: I guess that's the one that of all the troubles that have emerged since the bill has been talked to the most. Appraisals are a very fluid thing. What it would be today wasn't what it was three years ago and wasn't what it was 10 years ago.

I guess my view has always been one of the value and the hardships. I am one whose parents -- my father used to summer on the island when the island was a different place than it is today. I am one who views this as fair. It makes some sense and gets things moving. The kinds of questions before of trust, money in and money out -- let's get on with it.

The differential, if you take Alderman O'Donohue's multiplied by everybody, is not all that significant, but I don't agree that the assessment now, I suspect, is very close to what we have in front of us, if you went and did it in 1993. As for market value assessments, this whole game is very fluid. I don't think there are any guarantees in life. I think you have an amount there that works. Let's get on with it. That would be my view.

Ms Swarbrick: Are you also familiar with the fact that of course the details of this bill mean that this land isn't fair to compare to a market value assessment?

Mr Cressy: Absolutely.

Ms Swarbrick: Because there are clear restrictions with regard to the amount of equity that people will be able to get out of the deal afterwards.

Mr Cressy: Yes, I well understand that.

Mr Farnan: Mine is just a brief comment. I appreciate very much the brevity and succinctness of your presentation. I believe that you have captured the reality, and coming from someone such as yourself, who has spent so long with this issue, the reality is that failure to come to terms with the issue means that we continue a process of conflict, ongoing debate and continuous rehashing of an issue.

I think what we have here may not, as you have suggested, be the perfect solution, but it is as close as we're going to get. I do believe wholeheartedly with you that there is room for fine-tuning, but I would venture to say that once we have taken this giant step forward and reconciled the differences of the past, it would be a foolhardy issue for any political party to reopen.

I thank you very much for your presentation.

The Chair: Is there a response to that, Mr Cressy?

Mr Cressy: I would have said vote yes if it was a few months ago. I think it's a moment in time that shouldn't pass. Something that drags on too long becomes a drag. This has become a drag. It's time to put it behind us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cressy.

Before I call the next presentation, I think the committee should thank the clerk and her staff for doing just an astounding job of rescheduling, given the fact of Monday. I should also thank the presenters, who managed to rearrange their schedules to meet our rather strange and often changing schedules.


The Chair: The last witness I will call is Lindsay Stephens. Thank you for coming, Ms Stephens. You have been allocated 15 minutes by the committee.

Ms Lindsay Stephens: Great; thank you. My name is Lindsay Stephens. I've lived on the island for 11 years. I started going to school there when I was two, three years before we moved there.

Just before I begin, I'd like to say that Carey West, Cheryl's daughter, is one of my dearest friends and has been for many years. I volunteer with her at Street Kids. I can't go on the Kenya trip, but I'm going to be fund-raising with her. I think it's a mark of our faith in the community that we've grown up in that even though we know a lot of people can't afford to give money, the community will do everything it can to send her there.

Today I'd like to read a letter that was written by Luise Schoenborn, who is a senior on the island. She's lived there for over 40 years and she's been intensely involved in the island's political history. She can't be with us today because her husband's ill but she asked me to pass this letter on to you. She says:

"If my husband had not discovered in the very last minute that there was a Toronto Island, our whole family would not have been able to emigrate to Canada. He came to Canada in 1951, before the rest of us, to see if he could find a job.

"He did find a job, but he could not find a home. Nobody in the city would rent at a price that was affordable for a family of five. He sent us a telegram that said, `Do not come here -- I will return.'

"Fortunately, a few days later, he heard from another immigrant about affordable housing on the island. The very next day, my husband found a place for us there.

"In 1951, many people lived on Toronto Island, from Hanlan's Point all the way to Ward's. The beaches and lagoons were open to an appreciative public. Little supermarkets existed on three islands. Main Street and Manitou Road on Centre Island offered a great variety of stores. When we arrived on a warm August evening, we encountered many friendly people enjoying this wonderful place. During the summer, many city dwellers rented rooms and small apartments from islanders or stayed in one of the three hotels. There was a theatre and every year islanders wrote and mounted a play about island life called the Ferry Boat Follies. Having escaped from war-torn Europe, we felt more than fortunate about the happiness we found on the island.

"In those days, my husband's weekly salary was $35. We had to make ends meet and so did not pay much attention to island politics. However, one morning we were shocked by bulldozers on the Hanlan's Point beach. They were removing all the bushes and grass to create a smooth beach. We had grown up learning that beaches needed such plants to be protected from erosion. The very next day, a strong wind blew the sand on to the road and blocked it. Work crews were required to clear the road. Another shock came when bulldozers arrived on Centre Island to tear down those beautiful houses with their colourful gardens.

"We knew by then that the city of Toronto had given the island to Metropolitan Toronto for $1 so that it could create a park. But we could not understand why homes needed to be destroyed in order to do so. It was a terrible thing.

"Hans Blumenfeld was Toronto city planner in 1955. In his book, Life Begins at 65, he wrote the following:

"`The city of Toronto had found it burdensome to service the homes on the islands, and had transferred them to Metro for use as a park.

"`I felt that this use was completely compatible with continuing residential use. In fact, the presence of homes, gardens, stores, restaurants and people added to the attraction, in addition to giving support to the ferries and other services which were required by the park users.... I wrote a report recommending the maintenance and strengthening of the residential use, together with park development.

"`Tom Thompson, the parks commissioner...agreed that the houses were an asset more than a liability. However, when my report came before the board, Gardiner remarked that it was counter to the policy pursued for several years, and asked the parks commissioner if he did not prefer to have the entire area for park development. Thompson answered in the affirmative. I felt betrayed.'

"Thus the destruction of the houses went ahead. The owners of our house on Hanlan's Point were elderly people. They had built this house with their own hands and were heartbroken in spite of the small compensation they received. Now we had to find another home and we could still not afford the high rents in the city. When we learned that houses on Ward's and Algonquin had leases until 1968, we rented there. In 1957, we bought our home on Algonquin.

"The Inter-Island Council fought hard to prevent the destruction of the remaining homes. I personally began to attend every meeting of Metro parks and Metro council that concerned the island. By 1965, it was obvious that Metro was determined to destroy the community.

"In 1967, I asked Mr Andrew Brewin, a member of Parliament, to speak on behalf of islanders before Metro council. Although he thought the creation of a park was a good idea, he was willing to spend the time and visit the island. This visit convinced him how terrible and wasteful it would be to tear down more houses. His presentation to Metro parks committee won over the one more vote we needed to win a 20-month extension to our leases.

"I believe that this short extension saved our community from certain, complete destruction. During this time, citizens' groups were forming in the city and joining us in the struggle for our homes. City councils under mayors Crombie and Sewell did everything possible for us. You are probably familiar with the positive approach and the thorough work of the Swadron commission.


"During the years from 1981 to 1990, Metro Toronto acknowledged our lease extension to 2005, but took over the ownership of our homes. The city of Toronto would pay rent on our behalf, which would then be charged to islanders. The plan was for us to pay rent for homes we had bought or built, keep them up to standard and to pay the property taxes. Nothing was achieved to change this situation during those years. Many of us were terribly frightened of what the future might hold.

"I wrote this whole little history of the island to show how hopeless we felt, especially those of us who had tried everything we could to save the community. Therefore, when Mr Richard Johnston undertook to study this seemingly hopeless situation and then published his report, we were nearly overwhelmed by what a comprehensive achievement this was. I remember how I and my family were nearly touched to tears. The question that remained was, would this masterly report be backed by the provincial government? And yes, indeed it is.

"I realize that we face problems in trying to implement Bill 61. Those of us with limited financial means, but willing to go to any length to stay in our homes, which have truly been our homes for decades, will have to come up with the money for the 99-year lease. We would hardly be able to pay much more than what the Johnston report outlines.

"But the main purpose of my presentation is not to discuss the details of Bill 61. It is to say a heartfelt thank you to Mr Richard Johnston and to the Ontario government for a plan which proposes a rational and fair solution to a problem which municipal and provincial governments had failed to solve for over 30 years. Difficulties with small details should not be permitted to overshadow the soundness of the Johnston report proposals. Legislative steps to preserve the island community are long overdue. The Johnston report makes them possible."

I sincerely hope that the presentations you've seen have given you a taste of what it's like to live on the island and an idea of how important Bill 61 is to the survival of this wonderful community. Thank you for your time.

Mr Farnan: Again, this is in the form of a comment, and it speaks to something that you said, I think very significantly, that the report and the concept and the direction are sound. I understand the role of opposition because I've been an opposition member, and the role is to oppose, but sometimes it's to refine. It would be nice if we could hear from the opposition, rather than making a monumental issue out of a particular aspect that they disagree with -- and there are some details that opposition members do disagree with, and legitimately so, from their perspective -- to recognize the value of the achievement of what is contained in this legislation, the basis of the work done by our former colleague and friend Richard Johnston, and to put forward their opposition in a rational manner which recognizes the substance of the legislation but says, "Here are some things that we would like to look at."

That, to me, would be a reasonable approach and a much more constructive approach and would lead to perhaps a collegiality in which we might be able to work something out in terms of the final wording.

I'm certainly very proud, and I think the government's very proud, and I appreciate the good direction you gave us with your last comments. It was right on the money.

Ms Stephens: I appreciate the comment. I think that's why the presentations that have been given have focused more broadly on what the community is and what, as a whole, we're trying to maintain and establish here, and how we feel the Johnston report does this.

Mr Marchese: Lindsay, I want to thank you for coming and for making a very effective presentation.

Mr Sola: I would also like to commend you on your presentation and say that it's encouraging to see somebody so young taking an active part in the political process. I wish my daughters would sort of take you as a role model, because I've been trying to get them to show greater interest in what's going on around them. At the same time, it's a little bit disconcerting when I hear you reading about 1951, because that's the year I came to Canada as well, and I've certainly changed over the years. When you read it in the first person, it makes me realize how much time has passed since 1951.

I just wanted to commend you for showing this interest and at the same time I'd like to make a remark to my friend and colleague from the other side. I just wish he would have listened to his own advice when he was in the opposition.

Mr Farnan: Wisdom comes with age.

Mr Stockwell: You must be the smartest guy in the room.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Thank you very much for appearing today.

The committee will reconvene at 2 o'clock to consider this bill clause by clause.

The committee recessed at 1246.


The committee resumed at 1410.

The Chair: The standing committee will come to order. This afternoon we are going to proceed through the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 61. We will commence dealing with section 1. I'll give you a minute to have a look. Questions, comments, amendments to section 1? If not, shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Mr Stockwell: Opposed. I'm opposed to everything. Just make up a composite vote. I oppose it all.

The Chair: Questions, comments to section 2? Amendments? Questions, comments? Shall section 2 carry?

Mr Stockwell: Opposed.

The Chair: Carried.

Mr Stockwell: Can we get votes on all these?

The Chair: You can request a vote.

Mr Stockwell: I want votes on all of them.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr Stockwell: I want to be recorded as voting against everything.

The Chair: We can have a recorded vote, Mr Stockwell, on every section as we go through. Section 3.

Mr Mills: I have an amendment, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Yes. I think we'll have to deal with the sections one by one. When we come to your amendment, then you can --

Mr Mills: Okay.

The Chair: Questions, comments, amendments on subsection 3(1)? Shall subsection 3(1) carry? Carried.

Subsection 3(2)? Carried.

Subsection 3(3)? Carried.

Section 4: Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Mills: I have an amendment, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Your amendment, actually, would appear after this section.

Mr Mills: Okay, sorry.

The Chair: Questions, comments? Yes, Mr Grandmaître?

Mr Grandmaître: I'm giving an amendment on the government motion on section 3.

The Chair: Section 3, the one dealing with Hydro properties, subsection (4.1)?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

The Chair: We will deal with this after. That's just a numbering method the legislative counsel uses to provide for a new section in the bill.

Mr Grandmaître: Okay.

The Chair: Questions, comments or amendments to subsection 3(4)? Carried.

Mr Mills has an amendment to subsection 3(4.1).

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Hydro property

"(4.1) Despite subsection (3), all the title and interest acquired by the province of Ontario under subsection 2(1) in rights of way, property, plant and equipment reserved to, owned and operated by Toronto Hydro and located on the land described in the schedule is hereby deemed to be leased to Toronto Hydro for a period of 99 years."

By way of explanation, Mr Chair, this motion will protect Toronto Hydro's rights of way and property.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there further questions or comments on Mr Mills's amendment?

Mr Stockwell: What is that now numbered?

The Chair: It's (4.1). Carried? Carried.

Subsection 3(5)?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote.

The Chair: First, questions, comments or amendments to subsection 3(5)? Okay. We will have a recorded vote. All in favour?


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: The motion is carried. Subsection 3(6)?

Mr Stockwell: A recorded vote.

The Chair: Questions, comments, amendments? Mr Stockwell has asked for a recorded vote. All in favour?

Mr Mills: Just one moment.

Mr Stockwell: We are in the middle of a vote, Mr Chair.

Interjection: You already took a recorded vote.

Mr Stockwell: No, come on --

The Chair: Subsection 3(6): All in favour?


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Subsection 3(7): Questions, comments, amendments? A recorded vote?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, okay.

The Chair: All in favour?


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, not having had the opportunity to know the issue thoroughly, may I save my vote till later?

The Chair: No, Mr Eddy, the rules require you to vote.

Mr Eddy: I vote against.

The Chair: Mr Eddy will be recorded as opposed.

Subsection 3(7) carries.

Subsection 3(8): Questions, comments or amendments? Shall subsection 3(8) carry? Carried.

Section 4: We have a government amendment. Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Avenues leased to city

"(1) All the title and interest acquired by the province of Ontario under subsection 2(1) in the avenues and walkways on the land described in the schedule is hereby deemed to be leased to the city for a term of 99 years commencing on the day this act comes into force for the use by the public as a highway and those avenues and walkways are deemed to fall within the full jurisdiction of the city as public highways."

The explanation, Mr Chair, is that this motion will clarify the city of Toronto's rights and obligations over the avenues and the walkways.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on Mr Mills's amendment? Shall Mr Mills's amendment carry? Carried.

Subsection 4(2): Questions, comments or amendments? Shall subsection 4(2) carry? Carried.

Subsection 4(3): Questions, comments or amendments? Shall subsection 4(3) carry? Carried.

Subsection 4(4): We have an amendment. Mr Mills.


Mr Mills: I move that subsection 4(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "sixty days" in the sixth line and substituting "six months."

By way of explanation, this motion will lengthen the time for the city of Toronto to move from the old firehall from 60 days to six months -- more time. You must agree with that.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Amendments to Mr Mills's amendment? Shall Mr Mills's amendment carry? Carried.

Questions, comments or amendments to subsection 4(5)?

Mr Mills: I have an amendment here.

The Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Mills has an amendment to subsection 4(5).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 4(5) of the bill be amended by striking out "three" in the third line and substituting "five" and by striking out "third" in the fifth line and substituting "fifth."

By way of explanation, this motion will give the city of Toronto five years instead of three years to relocate the firehall.

The Chair: Questions, comments, further amendments? Shall subsection 4(5) carry? Carried.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

Subsection 5(1): Mr Mills has an amendment.

Mr Mills: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Ferry service costs

"(6) The city is not responsible for the payment of any costs related to the operation" --


Mr Mills: We're too soon.

Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Tonia Grannum): Yes.

The Chair: You'll have to excuse me.

Clerk Pro Tem: In the new packages, that one should be moved to later, after you've moved all the ones -- so subsection 5(1), that amendment.

Mr Mills: Okay. I beg your pardon.

The Chair: I don't quite understand. I'm not sure the members do either.

Clerk Pro Tem: Yours is in the right order. Their package is in the right order.

Mr Mills: Mine was a little jumbled up. So we go to subsection 5(1).

Clerk Pro Tem: Because that's creating a subsection 5(6), which we'd have to do after.

The Chair: Oh, I see. I understand.

Mr Mills: I'm sorry. I had them wrong.

The Chair: Let's try it again, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Municipal services" --

Mr Stockwell: Dispense.

The Chair: No, it will have to be read in.

Mr Mills: I have to read it:

"(1) The Metropolitan corporation, the city and the Toronto Transit Commission shall maintain those municipal services for which they are responsible, including emergency services and bus and ferry services, to the level provided in the year 1992 in relation to the land described in the schedule.


"(1.1) If an increase or decrease occurs in the level of service provided by the Metropolitan corporation, the city or the Toronto Transit Commission, a similar change, appropriate in the circumstances, shall be made in the level of service offered in relation to the land described in the schedule."

In explanation, this motion clarifies that the level of island services referred to in the bill will be those which existed on the island in 1992. Should there be a change in service levels for the city, Metro or TTC, similar changes, either up or down, as appropriate, in these service levels will be made on the island.

Mr Stockwell: What does that mean?

Mr Mills: It means what I said.

Mr Stockwell: Okay.

A little more, Gord? For instance, no neighbourhood in all of Metropolitan Toronto has a guarantee of any service level -- none whatsoever. For instance, my neighbourhood has a bus that goes by once every hour or so, and that's the service level they're provided. There's no guarantee that in perpetuity they will have a bus that goes by every hour or so rather than a ferry that goes by every 10 minutes. So I guess the question is, does this then mean, regardless of decisions that are made or costs or impacts on the city of Metropolitan Toronto, they can never reduce service at all?

Mr Mills: Yes. No. That isn't the intent.

Mr Stockwell: I'm glad I clarified that.

Mr Mills: Yes. This isn't the intent. This is to make things on the island the same as Etobicoke should the situation worsen.

Mr Stockwell: So if there's differences in service, they can be applicable too.

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on Mr Mills's amendment? Shall Mr Mills's amendment to subsection 5(1) carry? Carried.

Subsection 5(2): Are there questions, comments or amendments to subsection 5(2)?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded.

The Chair: Mr Stockwell has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour of subsection 5(2) will signify.


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Those opposed?


Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

Mr Mills: Can you be neutral?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mr Mills: Yes?

Mr Grandmaître: I just said so.

The Chair: It's required that members vote.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, I wanted to vote yes, but it's too late.

The Chair: No, you can be recorded as yes if that's what you wish.

Mr Grandmaître: Okay, yes.

The Chair: Mr Eddy may wish to be recorded as yes. The section is carried.

Subsection 5(3): Are there questions, comments or amendments to subsection 5(3)? Shall subsection 5(3) carry? Carried.

Subsection 5(4): Questions, comments or amendments to subsection 5(4)? Shall subsection 5(4) carry? Carried.

Subsection 5(5).

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have an amendment. I move that subsection 5(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"(5) Despite any other act, the city shall not, except as provided by subsection (3), levy a charge or attempt to collect any money in respect of the debt for the sewer and water infrastructure existing on the day this act comes into force."

Mr Chair, this motion is a technical change so that the language in subsection 5(5) is exactly the same as in subsection 5(3). This means that the words "of the debt" in subsection 5(5) modify the words "sewer and water infrastructure."

The Chair: Questions, comments, further amendments?

Mr Mills: Strictly technical.

The Chair: Shall subsection 5(5), as amended by Mr Mills, carry? Carried.

Mr Mills, you have an amendment?

Mr Mills: Yes, Mr Chair, I have an amendment. I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Ferry service costs

"(6) The city is not responsible for the payment of any costs related to the operation of the ferry service to the islands, including ice-breaking, after the day this act comes into force."

Mr Chairman, that motion will confirm that the city's obligation to contribute to Metro's ferry costs will come to an end with the passage of this bill.

The Chair: Questions, comments?

Mr Stockwell: The only comment I would make is that the city of Toronto entered into, in good faith, with Metropolitan Toronto to provide the payment for the services on a separate deal negotiated between Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto. Considering the fact that they negotiated that deal and accepted the costs for performing this function, I don't know why you would go ahead and suggest that it's now no longer applicable or acceptable, considering the fact that the two parties entered into this agreement some 10 years ago, I think, fully aware of the costs and the ramifications.

Mr Mills: You're asking me? Well, it was imposed by the previous bill. It wasn't an agreement as you point out.

Mr Stockwell: It was only imposed with the agreement of the city of Toronto. They agreed to provide this payment for service. It seems logical to me, since they agreed to this --

Mr Mills: But I don't think they had much choice.


Mr Stockwell: They were asked and they agreed to do it.

Mr Mills: I still don't think they have much choice.

Mr Stockwell: I guess Metro has no choice, then. They've got to provide the service and it costs the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers. Regardless of what agreements took place in the past, it's going to be taxes burdening the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayer -- case closed. They have to pay for it; no debate, no discussion.

Mr Mills: I've been advised by staff that the city has no longer any interest in the --

Mr Stockwell: I'm quite confident Metro has no interest, either. In fact, if you phoned Metro I'm quite sure they'd say, "We have no interest in providing this service either."

Mr Mills: Metro operates the parks.

Mr Stockwell: They operate the ferry.

Mr Mills: They operate the parks as well.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I agree.

Mr Mills: And the ferry.

Mr Stockwell: I agree. So now they're going to bear these costs for the 99 years, although it was agreed in the last legislation that the city of Toronto was going to pay. All parties agreed.

The Chair: Could I just ask a question of information? What would these costs amount to annually?

Mr Mills: One million dollars a year, about.

The Chair: Is that the net, after taking the fares into consideration?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: No -- oh, sure. It's a deficit.

The Chair: It's a million-dollar deficit.

Mr Stockwell: A million dollars. It's a considerable amount of money.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Turnbull: What is the portion of it that the city of Toronto would have to contribute to that million dollars?

Mr Stockwell: That is their portion.

Mr Turnbull: That is their portion?

Mr Mills: That is theirs, yes.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. So in one fell swoop, under the guise of this bill, you're moving a million dollars from the city of Toronto to Metropolitan Toronto without any consultation with them.

Mr Mills: Well, I think there have been all kinds of discussions. Metro is aware of this. We haven't suddenly sort of swooped this on to them. They're aware.

Mr Turnbull: Have they agreed to it?

Mr Mills: Yes. They're aware of it.

Mr Turnbull: I said, have they agreed to it? I didn't say whether they were aware of it.

Mr Mills: They didn't oppose it, so we must assume they agreed to it then. They didn't oppose it and they're getting money, so --

Mr Stockwell: They're getting money? I'm quite confident that they don't want to pay the million dollars.

Mr Mammoliti: Why don't you phone them and ask them?

Mr Mills: Well, why didn't they say so? They didn't say that.

Mr Turnbull: I think this clause should be stood down until we get some direction from Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Mills: Let's put it to the vote.

Mr Stockwell: Couldn't you at least --

The Chair: Have you made a motion?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I'll make such a motion.

Mr Stockwell: That seems reasonable.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull has moved that this clause be stood down. Maybe you should make it.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. I make a motion that this clause should be stood down until such time as we can consult with Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto on this change.

Mr Mills: Before the vote's taken, Mr Chairman, I'd like to say that this is not a new clause; this has been asked for by the city.

Mr Stockwell: Asked for by the city of Toronto.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Turnbull: I'll bet it has.

Mr Stockwell: Well, of course it has.

Mr Mills: For clarification --

Mr Stockwell: -- a million dollars off to Metro.

Mr Mills: For clarification --

Mr Turnbull: I'm sure that the city of Toronto --

Mr Mills: It's not new.

The Chair: One at a time. We're having great difficulty with Hansard.

Mr Mills: It's not new.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked for a motion. It's a request and we need unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to stand down -- No.

Further discussion on subsection 5(6)?

Mr Stockwell: So can I get this clarified? There isn't even unanimous consent to ask for Metro's opinion as to whether or not it would like to incur an additional million dollars a year for the taxpayers for ice-breaking services that were previously provided by the city of Toronto?

Mr Mills: They've been aware of this from the very beginning. It's not a surprise. It hasn't been sprung on them.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, there's not unanimous consent. That's all I asked.

Mr Mills: They've been aware of it from day one.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. I just asked.

Mr Mills: I'm just telling you.

The Chair: Further discussion on subsection 5(6)? Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I was distracted, as I was looking at other things, but it seems to me that it's Metro that has the responsibility for this transportation. A lot of people from all over Metro and beyond, obviously, go to the island, and in my view it's Metro's responsibility to provide that financial support.

Mr Stockwell: Although you're correct that a lot of people from Metropolitan Toronto do go to the island, I would caution you that you're arguing against yourself in a lot of respects in what you said to the committee when you suggested that during the winter, no one goes to the island except the island residents. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's the island residents who use this ferry to go over to the islands in the winter -- and as far as I know, that's the only time you've got to break ice: in the winter.

It would make it abundantly clear then that the costs are specific to the islanders. That's a million dollars of taxpayers' money that Metropolitan Toronto wanted no part of, and 10 years ago it was transferred to the city of Toronto, which accepted responsibility. So with all due respect, yes, it's Metro parks' responsibility to provide the ferry service, and it does so willingly. But in the winter it's just the island residents, and the city of Toronto accepted responsibility. I don't think you can argue both sides of that equation.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, to refer back to whose responsibility it is, I argue that it's Metro's, and that service is not just to the islanders. There are many other things on the island that I believe ferries to be used for. It isn't just the people themselves.

Mr Stockwell: Name one.


Mr Marchese: Schools are one. The yacht club is another.

Mr Stockwell: The firehall and the school are there because there are islanders.

The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor.

Mr Marchese: It's for many other purposes.

The Chair: Further questions or comments?

Shall Mr Mills's amendment to subsection 5(6) carry? Carried.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry?

Recorded vote. All in favour?


Eddy, Grandmaître, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Sola, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: The motion is carried. Section 5, as amended, carries.

Subsections 6(1) and (2): Questions or comments?

Mr Mills: Are you looking for a "carried"?

The Chair: No, I'm looking for questions, comments or amendments. You had a question, Mr Stockwell?

Mr Stockwell: The remuneration will be set out in the regulations, and there's been no thought given to what we're considering in the way of remuneration.

Mr Mills: I've been advised by staff that it doesn't say that it's going to be in the regulations but will be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr Stockwell: Has there been any thought given to what the remuneration will be to the commissioner? Has David Crombie applied? That's the other question.

Mr Mills: No. It's a cabinet decision, and it hasn't been made. Is he applying, David? We should latch on to him.

Mr Sola: In subsection 6(1), is there any idea of what the terms of the appointment are, the length of office and all those nice little details?

Mr Stockwell: How about 99 years? It seems to be a number you guys work with well.

Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, I agree with the levity, but maybe we should get an opinion from staff.

Mr Grandmaître: After 75 years, they get a pension.

The Chair: Would you identify yourself for the purpose of Hansard, please.

Ms Joanne Davies: My name is Joanne Davies, legal branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The responsibilities of the commissioner are set out in the act. He has two specific functions: first, to recommend to the minister the entitlement of ownership of the homes. That is for a specific period of time: 60 days to apply, 60 days to make the determination; that's 120 days. The second function of the commissioner is to determine who is a protected occupant. The term of that responsibility is identical: 120 days. So the expectation will be that the appointment will be for the term of his responsibilities, which would be approximately 120 days.

Mr Sola: So four months. Thank you.


Mr Grandmaître: With regard to subsection (2), due to the fact that there's no remuneration in the bill, it will have to be in the regulations, no?

Mr Mills: No. It will be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; cabinet, in other words.

Mr Grandmaître: I know. I don't trust them, that's all.

Mr Mills: Now then, be positive.

Mr Mammoliti: You can do that.

Mr Stockwell: This then is a four-month appointment?

Mr Mills: Roughly.

Mr Stockwell: And you're saying that with a straight face?

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Shall subsections 6(1) and (2) carry? Carried.

Section 7: Are there questions, comments or amendments to section 7 in its entirety?

Shall section 7 carry? Carried.

Section 8 in its entirety: Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: Just for clarification, to the parliamentary assistant: As I understand it, in the meantime, for this 120-day period, whoever is in the house will be there and have all rights and freedoms for that period of 120 days. If they're not shown to be properly tenanted, are they then subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act rules and regulations etc, to be removed or switched or changed or whatever if the owner chooses to move back in?

Mr Grandmaître: Do you mean after, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, after, if it's determined that they're not properly tenanted.

Mr Mills: I've been advised that they will be treated as protected occupants, and the regulations will set out the terms and how that will be carried out.

Mr Stockwell: So they would then become protected occupants and be put at the top of the list for the co-op.

Mr Mills: For other housing.

Mr Stockwell: And the proper owner would wait until that person has moved out before he can in fact take possession of the home.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: That whole process could take upwards of some number of years -- we're fully aware of that -- if there's any problem at all with building the co-op. I can't foresee it, but say there is.

Mr Mills: The draft regulations will provide for 30 months, so it won't go on for ever and ever.

Mr Stockwell: So two and a half years. What happens at that point? Does the person have to leave?

Mr Mills: If the regulations are not changed, yes, they're gone.

Mr Stockwell: They'll have to leave? That's interesting. There goes our unique community.

The Chair: Further questions and comments?

Shall section 8 in its entirety carry? Carried.

Mr Stockwell: Can I get a recorded vote on 8?

The Chair: You missed it just slightly.

Mr Stockwell: I did, did I? I could have sworn this member was out of the room when we were taking a vote, and apparently she wasn't.

The Chair: Section 9 in its entirety: Are there questions, comments or amendments? I'll give you some time. There are 20 subsections.

Mr Stockwell: Great pieces of legislation take time, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Further questions, comments? Shall section 9 carry?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote.

The Chair: All in favour of section 9?


Eddy, Grandmaître, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Those opposed?


Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Section 10: Are there questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: To the parliamentary assistant for clarification on subsection 10(3): It says, "If a house is occupied by a protected occupant, the protected occupant is liable for all taxes during the period of his or her occupancy with respect to the house and the land and the notice of assessment and property tax bill shall be sent to the trust which shall bill the protected occupant and remit the amounts collected to the city."

I read that to suggest that the tax bill for the protected occupant goes to the trust, which sends it to the occupant, and then the trust is responsible for collecting the money and remitting to the city. If the trust doesn't collect the money, is it still responsible to remit the taxes?

Mr Mills: Apparently not; that's why it says "collected."

Mr Stockwell: Apparently not, you're saying.

Mr Mills: Yes. "Remit the amounts collected." If there's none collected, the trust wouldn't be responsible for paying.

Mr Stockwell: Two questions spring to mind. The first is, why send the tax bill to the trust in the first place?

Mr Mills: Well, I suppose, you know --


Mr Mills: Yes, exactly what I was going to say.

Mr Turnbull: Good skating. You don't need to go to the islands to skate.

Mr Mills: The protected occupant is not the owner. That's logical.

Mr Stockwell: Then a second question springs to mind. You've got a legal problem here, because if the protected occupant is not the owner but is responsible to pay taxes and chooses not to pay the taxes, the trust informs the city that he doesn't pay the taxes and the city then puts a lien on or takes ownership of the home because of unpaid taxes, is it then up to the owner, who doesn't live there, because the protected occupant's there, to pay the taxes?

Mr Mills: That is getting a little bit too complicated for me, so I'm going to ask the staff to respond.

Ms Davies: Joanne Davies, legal branch, Municipal Affairs. There are two ways the bill has attempted to address that. The first is that there are proceedings set out further on in the bill to have the protected occupant lose his rights to occupy for failure to pay certain amounts. Those amounts include both the occupation charge prescribed earlier and the property taxes. Should the protected occupant fail to pay them, he will be removed and no longer be entitled to live in the house.

Mr Stockwell: But who's responsible for back taxes?

Ms Davies: The owner is responsible for back taxes. At this point, the person who's found to be entitled by the minister is not the owner. He isn't made the owner until after the protected occupant has left the premises.

Mr Stockwell: So the owner then has to go to the protected occupant and sue him for the taxes. It becomes a civil lawsuit. That's a hairy way to do business. I just put this out: Why would you not have the taxes paid by the occupant directly?

Ms Davies: Because the occupant's not an owner and the Assessment Act does not provide for that.


Mr Stockwell: Oh, that's right, sure. You can go ahead with that; I think you're going to have problems. In fact, I might need a recorded vote on it.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to section 10?

Mr Stockwell: This is a dog's breakfast.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I'm wondering, is there a way to deal with this question that has been raised, because I think it's a good one. Is that something we could stand down to give some thought to, or can that be dealt with later on in the regulations somehow?

Ms Davies: Staff believe they have dealt with the issue as best possible in the act and it has provided as many protections as possible. I'm not aware of any others that I could recommend.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to section 10? Shall section 10 carry? Recorded vote.

Mr Marchese: I think Chris asked a good question and that should be recorded.

Mr Stockwell: I think you just came to your senses.

The Chair: All in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.


Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Section 10 carries.

Section 11: Questions, comments or amendments to section 11? Shall section 11 carry? Carried.

Section 12: We have a government amendment to section 12(1).

Mr Mills: It's not a government amendment, Mr Chair; it's an NDP amendment.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Thank you. I hope Bernard will understand why I would move this motion.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I really understand.

The Chair: Move your amendment.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, we've heard a number of --

The Chair: No, no. Move your amendment.

Mr Marchese: Okay. I move that subsection 12(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"12(1) The affairs of the trust shall be managed by a board of directors consisting of not more than 15 members, of whom at least two thirds shall be residents of the islands residential community.


"(1.1) The members of the board shall represent and promote the goals of the trust as established under this act.


"(1.2) The residents of the islands residential community may nominate candidates for membership on the board of directors in the manner prescribed."

The Chair: Would you like to explain your amendment, Mr Marchese?

Mr Marchese: A brief comment, Mr Chair: We've heard a number of presenters make the point that the main function of the community trust is to manage the lands for the benefit of the island residential community and the public, and given that they are charged with that responsibility of stewardship, it would best reflect that responsibility if we make this amendment, and it is for that reason I present it.

The Chair: Are there questions, comments? Mr Stockwell.

Mr Grandmaître: And I have a subamendment.

Mr Stockwell: How is this going to do that? Why is your amendment going to achieve what you just suggested?

Mr Marchese: What it does clearly is to include it in the act, and that gives the stability I believe the trust would require. If you don't include it in the act, then it leaves it in a very unsure status by having it in the regulation. By putting it in the act it gives it stability; it gives them assurance that I think they need to have.

Mr Stockwell: Can I ask another question?

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, the act --

The Chair: Mr Stockwell has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Would it not make sense to you, Mr Marchese, that, considering the property is owned by Metropolitan Toronto; considering the services are provided by the city of Toronto; considering it's public land; this board I would hope or would think -- "think" is a better word -- would have the public benefit at heart, some number of seats should be set aside on the board for representatives of Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto?

Mr Marchese: The act allows for that, and there will be other representatives to obviously bring the preoccupations or concerns of other levels of governments as well. What I've proposed does not preclude that at all.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not asking that it be precluded; I'm asking that it be specific.

Mr Marchese: Are you suggesting that it be specific in the act?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Marchese: I don't think that is necessary, in my view.

Mr Stockwell: Why?

Mr Marchese: I think it's the trust that is charged with the greater responsibility of managing the lands, for the benefit of the islanders and everybody else, and I don't think it's therefore necessary to include membership of Metro or indeed anybody else in the act. It will be there and it will be in the regulations, and that satisfies me.

Mr Stockwell: Oh. Class me a cynic.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, can I introduce a subamendment at this time?

The Chair: So I can be clear, you wish to amend Mr Marchese's amendment?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, subsection 12(1).

Mr Sola: Is that a friendly amendment?

Mr Grandmaître: It's a friendly amendment which I'm sure will enlighten Mr Marchese.

I move that subsection 12(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"(1) The board of directors shall be composed of not more than fifteen members, of whom at least three quarters shall be residents of the island residential community chosen by the residents in accordance with bylaws passed by the trust."

Mr Stockwell: Is that it?

Mr Grandmaître: That's it.

The Chair: We need the written copy of the amendment, Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Grandmaître: It's fresh off the printer.

The Chair: Questions or comments on Mr Grandmaître's amendment to Mr Marchese's amendment to 12(1)?

Interjection: On the sub or --

The Chair: Yes, on the subamendment.

Mr Stockwell: Is this a sub? It seems contrary. It would seem to be a standalone.

The Chair: Actually, they are significantly different. We'll deal with them one at a time. I think we should deal with Mr Grandmaître's first.

Mr Stockwell: Okay.

The Chair: Okay? Yes.

Mr Stockwell: Why?

Mr Grandmaître: For the simple reason that my colleague and I have been harping on the fact that these people will have no appeal process, and being exempt from the Planning Act, I think these people will need all the bodies they can scrape together to protect themselves, and the more the merrier, because they're going to have a terrible time dealing with the development of those islands, their being exempt from the Planning Act, and this is why I want to see as many people on the board as possible.

Mr Stockwell: From the island.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: Any thoughts as to allowing specific representation from other levels of government, considering it's publicly owned land?

Mr Grandmaître: I don't think the city of Toronto or Metro is asking for any representation on this type of arrangement.

Mr Stockwell: They didn't exactly ask for this piece of legislation either.

Mr Grandmaître: No, I agree with you, but I'm sure that Metro and the city of Toronto have received a copy of Bill 61, and they didn't oppose the composition of the board.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on Mr Grandmaître's amendment?

Mr Marchese: Just a point, Mr Chair. The reason why we have two thirds is because it means there will be other representation from other bodies that we think is useful and important to have. Three quarters makes that a little more difficult and that's why we propose two thirds.

Ms Swarbrick: I would only briefly add that three quarters of 15 is an odd number to be able to work with, so I have to support the sentiments Rosario expressed for that reason.


The Chair: Further questions, comments on Mr Grandmaître's proposed amendment to subsection 12(1)? Shall Mr Grandmaître's amendment carry? Opposed? It's lost. We'll now revert to Mr Marchese's amendment. Questions, comments?

Interjection: We just voted this one in.

The Chair: Yes. Questions, comments? Shall Mr Marchese's amendment to subsection 12(1) carry? Carried.


The Chair: All those in favour? I didn't hear a no.

Mr Stockwell: No.

The Chair: All those in favour? Recorded?

Interjection: Yes.

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Marchese's amendment?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, would you please take your seat?

Mr Grandmaître: You're breaking up a meeting.

The Chair: All those opposed?


Grandmaître, Mills, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: The amendment carries. Subsections 12(2) through to 12(11): Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: I just have a question. I'm not sure it can be part of the legislation, but I just ask for --

Mr Mills: Where are we? Excuse me.

The Chair: We're in the balance of section 12.

Mr Stockwell: I just ask you, for clarification, if any thought has been given to terms, length of office, remuneration, anything along those lines?

Mr Grandmaître: The answer is no.

Mr Mills: I'm not privy to any of this discussion, but I don't think there has been any thought --

Mr Stockwell: Considering you're parliamentary assistant, I would think there hasn't been any, then.

Mr Mills: Yes. If anyone should know, I should know, you're saying.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. There's a scary afterthought to that, though.

Mr Mills: Now, then.

Mr Stockwell: It's obviously difficult to make amendments to as sketchy a piece of legislation as this. You don't know terms or lengths or remuneration or any of those things, so it would seem obvious that any fairminded person would have to vote against section 12. I would seek a recorded vote.

The Chair: Further questions, comments or amendments to subsections 12(2) through 12(11)? Shall subsections 12(2) through 12(11) carry? All in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Those opposed?


Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Carried. Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Stockwell: Were there any amendments to 12?

The Chair: To subsection 12(1).

Mr Stockwell: Oh, right; I'm sorry.

The Chair: Section 13: I would suggest we move through considering subsections 13(1), (2) and 3).

Mr Stockwell: Are there any amendments to this?

The Chair: There is to subsection 13(4).

Mr Stockwell: So we're going (1) to (3)?

The Chair: Yes. Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: As a question of clarification to the learned parliamentary assistant, are there any rights of appeal that a protected occupant or owner would have with respect to appealing levies etc?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Stockwell: So there's absolutely none.

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Stockwell: So in essence, once this trust levies the charges and they can be perceived to be unfair by one home owner or another, there's no right of appeal to any tribunal anywhere that would adjudicate on the fairness of it.

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Stockwell: This, then, begs this question: Even though you may feel at some time that the taxes you pay as a home owner are unfair and you have the right to appeal taxes?

Mr Mills: Yes. I think it fair to say, Mr Stockwell, that they could appeal to the courts if the decisions made by the trust were grossly unfair.

Mr Stockwell: Now there's an interesting point, because I kind of figured you'd say that. So in essence, it would seem to me, if they have the right to appeal their levies to the courts, someone in future could appeal to the courts on development activities on the island, considering the fact that they're not under the Planning Act and have no right to appear before the OMB or cabinet, because you can't get to cabinet until you go through the OMB, but if you're not part of the Planning Act, you can't go to the OMB.

Would I be safe in assuming then, considering you can appeal your levies through the courts, could you then appeal the cooperative housing development or any other development or your neighbour's lean-to next to your house through the courts?

Mr Mills: I think you could take anything to the courts.

Mr Stockwell: You can't take anything to the courts.

Mr Mills: In this vein, I think you would have that right.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. Can I consult on this, because I think it's a very important question? If you can't appeal to the OMB and have a proper process, could the cooperative housing project be appealed through the courts on planning principles alone, on zoning, on density, on height?

Mr Mills: Maybe we should get a legal opinion.

Mr Stockwell: Good thinking.

Ms Davies: It would be our view that where the trust is given express power to do something, in this case impose a levy, it could only be challenged in the courts if the trusts were exceeding their jurisdiction as set out in the act or exercising it in an unreasonable manner.

In respect of the planning powers given to the trust, the same would be true. Since there are expressed powers given, there would only be an ability to challenge it in the court if the trusts were doing something exceeding the jurisdiction given to them in the act or if they were exercising their discretion in such a way that it was found to be unreasonable.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. Then the question is, who determines whether or not they are exceeding the powers given them in the act?

Ms Davies: As far as I know, a court of law is the only body that can determine that.

Mr Stockwell: Exactly. A person, then, could go to a court of law to determine whether or not the trust was exceeding its powers as part of this legislation when it comes to the development of the cooperative. So in fact this could end up before the courts.

Ms Davies: The powers are expressed in the act, but should someone want to challenge whether the trust was exceeding them, it could be taken to court.

Mr Stockwell: This is the other angle I wanted to ask about. Could they take to court the powers of the trust as part of this legislation? Let me try and clarify that. Could someone take to court the fact that they feel their rights as a citizen are being trampled because they are not part of the Planning Act, they are not able to appear before the OMB and they have not got the same rights as every other citizen in Metropolitan Toronto?

Ms Davies: In my view, the Legislature is empowered to increase and decrease rights in statute. The only challenge would be if that was found to be unconstitutional, in violation of the charter. It's not my opinion that the legislation, as constituted, is contrary to the charter. So my answer would be no.

Mr Stockwell: Thanks.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on subsections 13(1) through 13(3)? Shall subsections 13(1) through 13(3) carry?


The Chair: We've had a request for a recorded vote. All those in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Those opposed?


Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Carried.

Subsection 13(4), Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 13(4) of the bill be amended by adding after "19" in the last line "22."

This motion is a technical change to add a reference to section 22 in subsection 13(4) of the bill. This means that the city will be entitled to enough information to determine its share of the proceeds from a sale under section 22.


The Chair: Mr Stockwell?

Mr Stockwell: No, I'm fine.

The Chair: Questions, comments, further amendments? Shall Mr Mills's amendment to subsection 13(4) carry? Carried.

Shall section 13, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 14: Questions, comments or amendments? Mr Stockwell?

Mr Stockwell: No, I'm fine.

The Chair: Shall section 14 carry? Carried.

Section 15.

Mr Stockwell: A quick question.

The Chair: On section 15?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, just a quick question. Is this the same immunity that councils and all other boards etc live under?

Ms Davies: It's the standard immunity clause to be built in.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to section 15? Shall section 15 carry? Carried.

Section 16.

Mr Stockwell: A recorded vote on 16, please.

The Chair: Let's get through the questions, comments first. Questions, comments on section 16? All those in favour of section 16? A recorded vote.

Clerk Pro Tem: They have an amendment to 16.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I got way ahead of myself here.

Mr Mills: Exactly. I move that section 16 --

Mr Stockwell: What are we doing? Are we reopening 16? We're in the middle of a vote.

Mr Mills: No. It's a question of the numbering. The Chairman -- I had touched his arm but he wasn't paying attention.


Mr Mills: If we want to get technical, this is not --

Mr Stockwell: I didn't want to get technical a minute ago when the member was out of her seat for the vote.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Mills: But I can attract the Chair's attention without being voiceful. I was pushing him.

Mr Stockwell: That's fine. I withdraw my objection.

Mr Mills: Thank you.

I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by striking out "to the city by subsections 4(1), (2) and (3)" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "by subsections 3(4.1), 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3)."

This motion is a technical change to add the Hydro lands to the exempted land from that land leased to the trust.

The Chair: Questions or comments on section 16 or Mr Mills's amendment to section 16?

Mr Grandmaître: Is this a new amendment, Mr Chair, because my copy --

The Chair: I have a copy.

Interjection: I have a copy.

The Chair: I believe it's just technical to properly realign the sections.

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Further questions, comments? Shall Mr Mills's amendment to section 16 carry? Carried. Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 17.

Interjection: Is there an amendment to section 17?

The Chair: Yes, there is one. We'll deal with subsections 17(1) through (3). Questions, comments or amendments to subsections 17(1) through (3)?

Mr Stockwell: Just by way of explanation on subsection 17(2), Mr Mills, can you just explain that to me, your understanding of what exactly that means?

Mr Mills: We're talking about subsection (2), "If the house is occupied by a protected" etc?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Mills: Just leave it with me for a few seconds.

As I thought, it's just what it says.

Mr Stockwell: It's astounding how complicated "just what it says" can be sometimes.

Mr Mills: I guess it's what people read into it that makes it difficult.

Mr Stockwell: Well, you're right. It's what makes us different, Gord. Just a quick explanation, really.

Mr Mills: I don't mean to be facetious or anything, believe me.

Mr Stockwell: So that's your explanation.

Mr Mills: Yes, that's it.

Mr Stockwell: Don't ever get into teaching, Gord. That's fine, Mr Chair. I give up.

Mr Mills: I'm very direct by nature.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall subsections 17(1) through (3) carry?

Mr Stockwell: No. I want a recorded vote.

The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour?


Harrington, Marchese, Mammoliti, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Eddy, Grandmaître, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Subsections 17(1) through (3) are carried.

Mr Marchese has an amendment to subsection 17(4).

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 17(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Special case

(4) The purchase price for a land lease that is sold under this section before the first anniversary of the day this act comes into force to an owner who is a senior as prescribed in the regulation and who meets the prescribed requirements shall be,

"(a) for land on Ward's Island, $27,000;

"(b) for land on Algonquin Island, $34,500."

The Chair: Explanation.

Mr Marchese: We've had a number of people presenting talk about some of the problems that a lot of seniors might have with this, and they talked about not just those who might be 65 years and over, but those who are age 60 and over who would have a problem. What this attempts to do is not to put age 60 in this amendment; what is here will allow the ministry to get a constitutional or at least a legal argument as to whether or not it is possible for someone who is age 60 to qualify, assuming the person meets the prescribed financial requirements etc. At the moment, it is age 65 that is there with financial requirements. We want to check out and see whether or not it's legally possible to allow someone who is 60 who meets the financial requirements, therefore allowing those people to benefit from this.

Mr Grandmaître: I don't see any problems in adding to or increasing or improving that section so that people who haven't reached the age of 65 could qualify. But Mr Marchese's amendment comes into force to an owner who is a senior as prescribed in the regulations.

In the province of Ontario, a person who reaches the age of 65 is a senior and qualifies for a pension, qualifies for Ontario drug benefits and so on and so forth and all of these great things, and that's the age of 65. If you want to lower it to 60, then I think you should do it if that's what you really mean to do.

Mr Marchese: That's exactly what I mean to do, except we don't know whether it's possible legally to do so. That's why we haven't suggested age 60 at this time. What the language does is to enable us to see whether or not it's legally possible. If it is, that would then be prescribed in the regulation. If it isn't, the regulation will specify age 65, obviously.


Mr Grandmaître: Could I get a legal opinion on this from counsel?

Mr Marchese: I was giving you a legal opinion.

Mr Mills: That's where it came from.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, she's a better writer than you are.

The Chair: Order.

Ms Davies: The act set out age 65 because 65 is the age of a senior as prescribed in all legislation in Ontario. Should we attempt to change the age to 60, we will need a constitutional opinion on whether you can take out, ie discriminate against, an age group of 60 and whether that would be reasonable under the charter. I do not have that opinion. We would be seeking the constitutional opinion of the Attorney General about whether we can use 60 in a piece of legislation.

The Chair: Legislative counsel, I believe, also has an opinion. It may be the same.

Ms Lucinda Mifsud: Of course it's the same. However, it may be beneficial if we change the word to as "defined" in the regulation; a senior as "defined," rather than "prescribed." It might make it a little clearer what they're intending to do.

Mr Marchese: I can live with that.

The Chair: So would you like to change --

Mr Marchese: I propose, therefore, Mr Chair, that we put the word "defined" as opposed to "prescribed."

The Chair: Perhaps it would be best to reread the amendment in. Withdraw the first attempt and read the second one in.

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 17(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Special case

"(4) The purchase price for a land lease that is sold under this section before the first anniversary of the day this act comes into force to an owner who is a senior as defined in the regulation and who meets the prescribed requirements shall be,

"(a) for land on Ward's Island, $27,000;

"(b) for land on Algonquin Island, $34,500."

The Chair: Further questions or comments on Mr Marchese's amendment?

Mr Sola: Do Mr Mills and Mr Eddy have to declare a conflict of interest?

Mr Eddy: I'll see him after the meeting.

Mr Mills: For the record, Mr Sola, I'll be 65 on March 30, so I haven't got a conflict.

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Marchese's amendment to subsection 17(4)? Carried.

Subsections 17(5) through 17(11): Questions, comments, amendments?

Shall subsections 17(5) through (11) carry?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Those in favour?


Eddy, Grandmaître, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Sola, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 18: Questions, comments?

Mr Stockwell: On the loan guarantee part of it, the Treasurer of Ontario is going to secure a loan to a maximum amount, and the prescribed maximum amount of the loan is not set out, as far as I can see. I'm curious to see what that is. Is it like a mortgage?

Mr Mills: No, the cumulative loan is $7.5 million, like the package.

Mr Stockwell: No. I think, unless I'm reading this incorrectly --

Mr Grandmaître: "By an owner."

Mr Stockwell: "By an owner." So they're going to lend money on each unit or on units that qualify. What is the ratio? Is it a banking ratio we're going to use? For instance, the banks can't lend more than 75% of value and so on. Is this what we're using?

Mr Mills: Yes. The normal banking criteria will apply to the mortgage, the difference being that the Treasurer will guarantee the loan.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. Now that I've heard that answer -- and I expected it -- the question is, what if an owner or a protected occupant can't qualify? For instance, what if they need the full 75% and they don't have the rest down?

Mr Mills: They won't be able to get one. It's as simple as that. They'd move into the co-op; they move out and into the co-op.

Mr Stockwell: In essence, then, those people who make this unique community, probably a lot of them seniors on fixed incomes --

Mr Mammoliti: I thought they were all rich.

Mr Stockwell: I will make this point again, as George jumped in. Gord, I said yesterday that a significant number of people on the island earn a lot of money. Probably most of them aren't seniors. In fact, the ones who are earning the least are those on fixed incomes, who invariably are senior citizens.

As I heard the deputations from these people over the last few days, the uniqueness of this community was probably in part -- I don't know how much, but maybe even a significant portion -- because of the seniors, and they were allowed to stay in their homes, create this unique community and live out their lives. You're saying that since they don't qualify for a standard mortgage, guaranteed under normal banking terms, which would mean 75% -- and that means you've got to have 25% down -- it seems to me that if you're telling me these people earn $20,000 and less, I doubt very much they're going to have 25% of $46,000. Although you probably would, they wouldn't, I don't think, George. In essence, the argument you're making is -- don't you think you take away from the uniqueness of this community by putting this in here and not allowing the seniors to stay in their homes, which you've told me is so important?

Mr Mills: Not at all. Not at all.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you. Let's move on.


Mr Mills: Seniors will qualify, first of all, for the reduced lease price, 25% of the value of the home; plus, the uniqueness --

Mr Stockwell: Pardon me, Mr Chair.

The Chair: No, Mr Mills has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: I understand that, but I get this thrown at me by Mr Morrow, saying to read this. I tried to explain it. If they don't understand it, I appreciate that.

The Chair: Mr Mills has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to listen to Mr Mills, and I don't need this --

Mr Mills: Yes, but your concern too is recognizing the uniqueness of the co-op. This is why the co-op's there, because of the things you're saying.

Mr Stockwell: Well, it will be, and the debate is when. But the question I'm asking you is, if there's any delay in this cooperative housing project -- I can see it, and I'm sure my friends from the other party can certainly see a delay in this cooperative housing project. You're telling me that the uniqueness of this community you've spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars protecting will be at risk, because the seniors -- the only ones I really want to protect, with all due respect, Mr Chair; the only people who really deserve to be protected are those seniors who've been there 25 years and longer -- will be the only ones who won't be able to afford to live there, for goodness' sake.

Mr Mammoliti: What about all the single moms?

Mr Stockwell: I'm ignoring George, and it's making me happy.

Mr Mills: Just one moment. We talk about the co-op, and you say it's not been built, but that exact house will go into part of the co-op. They will stay there, the seniors, and be part of the co-op.

The Chair: Mr Marchese's trying to be helpful.

Mr Marchese: I think Mr Mills is saying that the house will then be controlled or run by the co-op but that the person will be able to stay in the home.

Mr Stockwell: And who pays for it?

Mr Marchese: Through the cooperative, presumably.

Mr Stockwell: Who's buying the house?

Mr Marchese: The cooperative would own it, and the person would be able to stay in it.

Mr Stockwell: And where are they getting the money? There's no money. You haven't created the co-op. There's no money for the co-op. They've got nothing to buy it with except dreams and promises.

Mr Mills: The co-op already exists.


Mr Stockwell: But how much money is in the co-op's bank account, through you, Mr Chair, to the parliamentary assistant? Are they going to have enough money in the bank in 120 days, when these need to be rectified, to pay for all these homes that these seniors won't be able to buy?

Mr Mills: I'm told that the co-op is in place and has already received an allocation of funds from the Ministry of Housing.

Mr Stockwell: How much?

Mr Mills: I don't know if we have that figure.

Mr Stockwell: You've got to understand that this is for engineering, this is for planning. This is not for buying these homes from the seniors.

Mr Mills: Of course it is.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, it's to buy the homes from the seniors, and it's not for engineering studies and planning a cooperative and the consultants' fees etc?


The Chair: We'll just wait for an answer to Mr Stockwell's question and then we can maybe move on.

Mr Mills: I understand, Chris, that the co-op has been given the money to buy the existing units and the money for the 110 units of the co-op housing.

Mr Stockwell: Can I ask how much money they've been given?

Mr Mills: I don't know if we've got that figure, because --

Mr Turnbull: I haven't seen any announcement from the minister.

Mr Marchese: When was this corporation?

Mr Stockwell: It's not even a corporation.

Mr Mills: The corporation has been in existence many, many years.

Mr Stockwell: And how much money did they receive, then?

Mr Mills: I haven't got that figure available.

Mr Stockwell: Do you know when they received the money?

Mr Mills: We haven't got anyone from Housing here, so we can't answer those, but it was years ago.


Mr Mills: If it's going to quiet everybody down, I can promise to get you that information.

Mr Stockwell: I'd also like to know how they got the money before this legislation is even passed.

Mr Mills: As I've told you a couple of times, the co-op there has been in existence for a long, long time. It didn't just suddenly start up last week. Be fair.

Mr Stockwell: I know that. But Mr Chair --

The Chair: This is getting increasingly difficult for Hansard to follow.

Mr Stockwell: I know how cooperatives work. I think I have a reasonable understanding of how the cooperative system works. I know the moneys they receive up front and I know how they get paid to build cooperative housing projects. They don't send them a cheque for the price of the cooperative --

Mr Mills: It's an allocation.

Mr Stockwell: -- five years before the thing is even conceived of, potentially. They send them chunks of money over periods of time.

I just asked for clarification -- and you can do this through the Ministry of Housing -- of how much money they've received, how much money has been earmarked to buy up these houses for seniors and how much money will be needed before this cooperative is built to ensure that the payments on these loans can be made. That's all I ask.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître has a question.

Mr Grandmaître: I am being told, Mr Chair, that this co-op was created back in 1978? The islanders are indicating that this is right. How could a co-op have been created back in 1978 when the land owner issue wasn't settled?

Mr Mills: If I may, Mr Chair, it was just a corporation. They didn't have any land then. It was just a formed corporation without land.

Mr Grandmaître: And you received money back in 1978 or whatever?

Mr Mills: Not money; an allocation.

Mr Stockwell: Well, allocations aren't going to pay the mortgage.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: In view of the fact that the parliamentary assistant has undertaken to get the information to us with respect to the allocation from the Ministry of Housing, I would propose that we stand down this section until we get that clarification. Otherwise, we're voting in the dark.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Turnbull: So you want to vote on something and then you'll tell us afterwards what we voted on?

Mr Mills: Exactly.

Mr Turnbull: That's the way this government works, yes.

The Chair: Further questions, comments or amendments to section 18? Shall section 18 carry?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote.

The Chair: All those in favour.


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Eddy, Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Carried.

Section 19: Questions, comments or amendments? Seeing none, we'll have a recorded vote. All those in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Grandmaître, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Section 19 is carried.

Section 20: Questions, comments or amendments? Do we have a question or a comment or amendment?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. The transfer of ownership -- gosh, I forget the name -- of a protected occupant: Can a protected occupant transfer tenancy to someone?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Stockwell: Can protected occupants have someone move in and live in the same unit with them who isn't part of the original agreement?

Mr Mills: Yes. As a guest.

Mr Stockwell: As a guest.

Mr Mills: Not as a full-fledged lodger or whatever.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, so when that protected occupant leaves, if there is someone else living in that unit, they have to vacate the premises for the owner.

Mr Mills: Yes. They have no protection.

Mr Stockwell: They have no rights other than --

Mr Mills: They're a guest.

Mr Stockwell: Now let's ask this question: Have any studies been done to determine how many people who live on the island today are protected occupants and how many are owners?

Mr Mills: This is part of the role of the commissioner. He will make that determination.

Mr Stockwell: I know that.

Mr Mills: But not until now, no.

Mr Stockwell: But all week I've been quoted statistics of the incomes, jobs and so on of the people who live on the island. My question is, of those statistics I've been quoted, how do I know a significant number of those are not protected occupants and in fact the owners are either very wealthy or of a different income bracket and therefore I'm passing legislation that will protect a block of people completely different than what I've been led to believe live on the island?

Mr Mills: If my memory serves me right, I think Mr Johnston said that there were only about 12 of these units in dispute, and my understanding of the bill is that the commissioner will be dealing with this.

Mr Stockwell: May I ask the question then? I will be willing to bet, and maybe that's not the way to start a question out, but I'm willing to wager that once the people here who think they have ownership of these properties find out about what they're selling for, you may in fact have a significant number of people who believe they have deed to these properties who never spoke about them before, and although you say 12, I'm willing to wager it'll be significantly more.

How do I know or how am I protected in the knowledge by passing this legislation that in the adjudication that takes place with the commissioner there won't be a wholesale change, because I'll say this too: There are some very difficult determinations that need to be made on ownership of a lot of these properties. I've known through the years that I've dealt with this that it's going to be very difficult in a lot of instances to determine who actually owns these properties, because they've been turned over and flipped and changed a significant number of times in the last 35 years.

I guess the question I have is, and I think it's a really important question, is it feasible to determine, before this legislation receives third reading, how many disputes will be had over the homes and what the commissioner will have to adjudicate on? I'm willing to bet you that it will be significantly more than 12 and maybe as high as half.


Mr Mills: I'd just like to say that I agree with you. Richard Johnston says that according to his calculations, there are 12. Given the scenario that you've described, there could well be more. I think it fair to say that there will be more, but we have no idea or no way of knowing these numbers or what the commissioner will deal with until this is advertised and we get the flow back and forth of different people who say that they have ownership.

Mr Stockwell: Does that worry you at all?

Mr Mills: I think it's a concern.

Mr Stockwell: It's a great concern of mine.

Mr Mills: But we can't do anything until it's advertised and we get this information back.

Mr Stockwell: Let me just go on record as saying that I don't think this government realizes in a lot of instances who it is protecting. I think you're going to have a lot of disputes, and the people who are going to be disputing these will not be people you consider to be worthy and unique residents of the Toronto Islands. I think the islanders will probably tell you the same thing in a lot of instances.

The Acting Chair (Mr John Sola): Further questions and/or comments? Let us proceed with the vote then.

Mr Stockwell: Recorded.

The Acting Chair: Recorded. Subsections 20(1) through 20(8)? All in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Swarbrick.

The Acting Chair: Opposed?


Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Acting Chair: Section 21.

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote on that.

The Acting Chair: Any comments and/or questions? All in favour?


Eddy, Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Swarbrick.

The Acting Chair: Opposed?


Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Acting Chair: Section 22.

Mr Mills: I have an amendment for subsection 22(11).

The Acting Chair: First of all, are there any comments and/or questions?

Mr Mammoliti: I have a question, if you don't mind.

The Acting Chair: Go ahead, Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: We're on section 22, are we?

The Acting Chair: Right.

Mr Turnbull: Is that your question?

Mr Mammoliti: Somebody's rattled his cage. When an owner wants to sell, he advises the trust that he wants to sell and the trust sells for that owner. What happens if the owner doesn't necessarily agree with the price, with the going rate or the market? Would that make a difference? Does the trust hold the decision at that point as to whether it sells or not, or does the owner have a say in whether or not he wishes to change his mind? Once they've committed, is it now up to the trust? If they have a disagreement of some sort, can the owner withdraw his request to sell?

Mr Mills: Yes, he either accepts or rejects the trust's offer. That's the end of it.

Mr Stockwell: Until he signs the papers.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Marchese: But it has to be up to the trust.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, it's not very specific, that's all.

Mr Stockwell: I understood this process to be a prescribed amount of money for value of property. In essence, if you buy it for $56,000 or $46,000, you'll lose 1.1% per year for 99 years. Why is it that we have to do this war dance here to determine whether the amount is accepted or not accepted, the offer and so on and so forth? Is the offer not simply a calculation and, if it is a calculation, do you then simply not go to the waiting list, take the next name off the waiting list and say, "Here's your chance to buy in at a prescribed amount," and the owner has no option except to accept that amount of money if he wants to leave?

Mr Mills: Why that word is in there is dependent upon the appraised value of the house. It's an upper limit. You know, the highest offer could be worth less than what it is.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I get it. So you think that if somebody wanted to sell the day after he bought, the lease may not be worth $36,000; it may be worth only $18,000.

Mr Mills: It's not the lease, it's the house that may not be worth. The lease is fixed.

Mr Stockwell: This is going to be interesting. Then you go to the waiting list -- first come, first served. List 1 is Mary Doe. "Mary, we have a house for sale on such-and-such. Make an offer." "No, don't make an offer." I'm confused, to be honest.

Mr Mills: I must agree, I'm a little confused. With that, I'll turn to our legal staff to answer your question.

Ms Davies: In any sale, there are two components. The land-lease price is completely fixed by the formula as you outlined, which depreciates over time. Mary Doe is first on the list. She gets offered a house and a land lease; they're a package now. There are really two numbers you add together: the land-lease price, which is fixed, as you said, and could just be taken from a piece of paper; the second component, though, is the house.

That's a little more complicated, because the house is appraised on the very first day, and whenever that owner wants to sell it, there's a mechanism for a second appraisal to take place and then a calculation is done to determine the maximum amount of that house. You then take the land-lease price -- let's just say $35,000 -- and the value of the house, which is $50,000, and the maximum price then becomes $75,000. Mary Doe then gets offered that house and land lease for $75,000. She may or may not accept it.

Mr Turnbull: Then do you go to the next one on the list and so forth?

Ms Davies: That's right.

Mr Mammoliti: But does she have the choice to accept it?

Ms Davies: Sure.

Mr Stockwell: This is really interesting now.

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Mr Stockwell: Have I got the floor?

The Acting Chair: Yes, Mr Stockwell.

Mr Stockwell: This is really interesting now. So this house is subject to no planning controls, no Planning Act controls, subject to no zoning --

Ms Davies: It is. The planning controls were only lifted for vacant property.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, sorry. You're right.

Ms Davies: So the full planning controls apply to any house and land lease.

Mr Stockwell: So then they have a degree of equity in this property already.

Ms Davies: In the house.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. Well, you say the house, but the house happens to sit on the property so it's pretty tough to exclude that.

Ms Davies: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: So they have a form of equity because they have some form of shelter on this property. That shelter is assessed at 1993 values.

Ms Davies: It's appraised.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, appraised at 1993 values by a professional appraiser. That person values the house and the fixed value of the land. After 10 years, you go to the list. You figure out what you have still in to be paid for that house in value, the land, and then you go through the list as far down to the bottom until you find somebody who's willing to pay it. If you don't and you still want to move, you reduce the price and you go through the list again. If you don't reduce the price, you go through the list again. Is that how the system works?

Ms Davies: You can never reduce the land-lease price; that is fixed.

Mr Stockwell: I know, you reduce the house price.

Ms Davies: The house price.


Mr Stockwell: It's academic. You reduce the price. How the components are made up really is academic because that's how much money I'm putting in my pocket. So you go through the list until you can find a mutually acceptable price to somebody on the list. Then it's not necessarily first come, first served; it's whoever feels that's a reasonable amount of money to pay for the house, depending on where they sit.

So some of these homes, if they're assessed -- let's say, for instance, the highest value is -- I don't know what the houses are worth; I can't even guess -- $50,000, the highest home. To rebuild that house would cost $50,000. Their value on the lot is $46,000. They have $96,000. They buy it today -- this is really griping me now -- for $96,000. They turn around the next day, they sell a house and the lease, which they didn't have any right to yesterday but now have full right to today, and can collect $96,000, and you say there's no gain there. Thank you.

Mr Mills: Excuse me. Mr Chair, I think that requires some explanation from our financial staff.

Ms Debbie Chen-Yin: I am Debbie Chen-Yin from the municipal finance branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. You do have to separate the two components. You do have to separate the land-lease price from the structure, because a portion of the land lease goes to the province. In your example, the $50,000 would accrue to the vendor, but only a portion of the land lease would go to the vendor.

Mr Stockwell: How much?

Ms Chen-Yin: Well, you're using a fictitious amount.

Mr Stockwell: No, $46,000; that's not fictitious.

Ms Chen-Yin: If we assume that the purchaser or the vendor, the owner, bought the land lease for $36,000 on proclamation, in year 5 the vendor would receive about $37,000.

Mr Stockwell: But let's say the next day. Let's say there's an owner out there who doesn't want to live on the island, all right? They own on Algonquin. You're talking $46,000. They don't want to live on the island, but they have a house that's been lived in by somebody there that's worth $50,000. They know the value of the house is $50,000. They know the value of the land is $46,000. They exercise their right in the $46,000. The next day they put it up for sale to that list and they say the house is $50,000. How much could they lose in one day? Nothing. They put that together with their $50,000 and they have $96,000.

Ms Chen-Yin: No, what they would get is a portion of the $46,000.

Mr Stockwell: How much then for the next day?

Ms Chen-Yin: I cannot give you an exact amount.

Mr Stockwell: Ballpark?

Ms Chen-Yin: But they would get the $50,000 for the structure.

Mr Stockwell: Ballpark then for the land.

Ms Chen-Yin: I can't ballpark it.

Mr Stockwell: Well, what are they losing? What's the ratio they're losing it at?

Ms Chen-Yin: We're talking about the next day. I don't have the figures here to give you an exact amount.

Mr Stockwell: Isn't it 1.1% per year?

Ms Chen-Yin: The initial land-lease price is adjusted for inflation.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, but for one day you've got no inflation.

Mr Stockwell: It's just one year. It would be 1.1%. This is how they've explained it to me. They lose 1.1% per year for 99 years. They buy it for $46,000, and 1.1% is -- if my calculations are correct -- about $460. Correct? They sell it for $45,500, plus the $50,000 for their house, and they walk out with $95,000.

Ms Chen-Yin: But in your example we are assuming that, okay, they've paid for the land lease, so it would be $36,000. They've already borrowed the money for the $36,000.

Mr Stockwell: But I'm not saying that they live there. I'm saying that they just own it, right? I'm just saying they own it.

Ms Swarbrick: They don't own the land.

Mr Stockwell: They own the house. Okay, now they exercise their option on the lease. Granted, okay, so they pay for the $46,000. Then they get full value for the property, coming out, of $50,000, and they've lost $460.

Ms Swarbrick: No, they paid the $46,000. The next day they want to sell the land, it's still worth only $46,000, so they get $46,000. They're zero ahead.

Mr Stockwell: I know. So they get the $50,000 for the house.

Ms Swarbrick: Yes, they get the value of the house.

Mr Stockwell: And they don't necessarily live in the house. They could have had a protected occupant who couldn't afford it. They just say, "I'm exercising my right," go in there, grab the house, get their $50,000 and go and haven't lived on the island for 10 years.

Mr Mammoliti: I have another question. Mr Chair, I'd like to know whether there's a cost --


The Chair: Quiet. I can't hear Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: Under normal circumstances, when a home owner wants to sell, he usually gets a real estate agent to do that who charges a fee. Would this trust company charge them a fee to do it as well? How does that work, or would that be included --

Mr Turnbull: It is not a trust company. It's a trust.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm sorry, not trust company; the trust. Is there a fee on top of their services?

Mr Mills: The trust can charge an administrative fee only.

Mr Mammoliti: An administrative fee only. It's not specific, though, in terms of how much that is. Is there some sort of a formula?

Mr Mills: It would be whatever their costs are.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm sorry?

Mr Mills: It would be whatever their costs are. This is not a real estate company.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, I see. It would be whatever costs of the trust would incur.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Mammoliti: It would never be more than that? It would never turn into 5% or 10% of the value of the house itself?

Mr Mills: No. That's why --

Mr Mammoliti: Do you not think that should be specific in the legislation to help protect the seller?

Mr Mills: I'll get the staff to answer, George.

Ms Davies: The act refers to the administrative charge. "Administrative charge" is understood at law to be the cost related to the administration of their responsibility. It can't be a profit component. The very word "administrative" limits the amount, just like the Planning Act.

Mr Mammoliti: I know all kinds of lawyers, however, who charge you an arm and a leg for gas when they go from one end of the city to another, or they charge you an arm and a --

Mr Stockwell: How about MPPs?

The Chair: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: -- leg for paperwork and that sort of thing. I'm just concerned about it, that's all. I think that maybe there should be some specifics put in there to help protect the owner.

Mr Mills: It's the responsibility of the trust.

The Chair: Further questions, comments to section 22?

Mr Stockwell: No, I don't have any more, Mr Chair, if you want to go ahead on it. I think there are problems with that, though.

The Chair: Subsections 22(1) through (10). Recorded vote. All in favour? Will the members be seated, please. All in favour of subsections 22(1) through (10)?


Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Eddy, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Chair: Carried.

Mr Mills, you have an amendment to subsection 22(11)?

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 22(11) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Deferred payment

"(11) Despite subsection (10), the owner shall receive no proceeds from the sale of the house and land lease or vacant land lease to the trust until the trust receives the money from the purchaser and until all unpaid occupation charges for the land, charges owed to the trust, the sewer and water charges under subsection 5(3) and interest are paid in full."

Mr Chair, this motion requires that the sewer and water charge of the city must be paid or else it will be deducted from the proceeds of the sale.

The Chair: Thank you. Questions or comments on Mr Mills's amendment?

Shall subsection 22(1l) carry? Carried.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry?

Mr Mills: I've got another amendment, Mr Chair, that's nothing to do with (12). It's (13).

The Chair: I'm sorry. I'm getting beyond myself. Mr Mills, thank you for the assistance.

We'll deal with subsection 22(12). Questions? Comments? Shall subsection 22(12) carry? Carried.

Section 22(13): Mr Mills, you have an amendment?


Mr Mills: I move that subsection 22(13) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"(13) The trust shall distribute the proceeds of the sale and the payment under subsection 21(7) in the manner prescribed."

This motion is a technical change to ensure that a payment under subsection 21(7) facilitating the transfer of a land lease to a child under a will will be distributed in accordance with the regulations.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall Mr Mills's amendment to subsection 22(13) carry? Carried.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 23: Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: I have a question on 23. That's why I held my hand up. Is it up to the trust to maintain levels or standards of repair/care on all homes on the island?

Ms Davies: Section 20 requires that the land lease include a requirement for the purchaser of the land lease to maintain those standards. So it's not up to the trust; it's in the lease, the obligation on the owner. It's up to the lessee of the land lease.

Mr Stockwell: And the enforcement is done by the trust.

Ms Davies: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: The question that arises out of that in my mind is, say the owner doesn't maintain a reasonable repair. I know through the city that if the city determines a home owner isn't maintaining his house in repair, it moves in and does whatever needs to be done and then applies it to his taxes. I think even anyone involved in municipal politics would know that. I don't know anyone here who actually is.

Mr Mills: I was on council.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there: You were. That's the way it's done. How could the trust do these kinds of repairs and how would it then force the occupant-owner to pay for the maintenance performed?

Ms Davies: There's no ability for the trust to do them and charge back, but the owner is then in breach of the lease and the lease could be terminated if he didn't carry out those obligations and the trust has the full power then to sell and distribute the proceeds accordingly.

Mr Stockwell: Oh. Good answer.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on section 23? Shall section 23 carry? Carried.

Mr Stockwell: I have a question --

The Chair: I'll note that. Section 24: Questions, comments? You didn't even put your hand up.

Mr Stockwell: What if a creditor moves in? Under normal practices, if a bank moves in on a house, it forecloses. When they foreclose, they sell it. Is it possible for a standard creditor to move in, foreclose and go through the process of selling it through the trust fund?

Ms Davies: The creditor is allowed to trigger the sale through the trust but he has no occupation rights. He can't actually live in the house.

Mr Stockwell: Can he evict?

Ms Davies: Just give me one moment. The trust does the eviction on behalf of the creditor and the trust sells on behalf of the creditor and pays the proceeds back to the creditor.

Mr Stockwell: So in fact, for this nominal amount, the $36,000 or $46,000, they can move in, evict and the trust will carry out these actions.

Ms Davies: As long as you mean by "move in," exercise their rights.

Mr Stockwell: That's what I mean, exercise their rights.

The Chair: Any questions or comments on section 24? Shall section 24 carry? Carried.

Section 25: Questions, comments or amendments to section 25? Shall section 25 carry? Carried.

Section 26: Questions, comments or amendments to section 26?

Mr Stockwell: The question I have on 26 is, "The trust shall maintain a register that identifies, for every house and land lease and vacant land lease on land described in the schedule, (a) the owner; (b) the protected occupant, if any," etc. Will they maintain a list of the guests?

Ms Davies: There's no provision in the act for the trust to maintain a list of the guests.

Mr Stockwell: There isn't. So there will be no restrictions placed on the number of occupants per unit.

Ms Davies: The standard occupancy regulations for the city of Toronto would certainly apply.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. What are those?

Ms Davies: They relate to health and safety standards.

Mr Stockwell: I know. And apartments and so on. For instance, I know that the city of Toronto has one of the more some would suggest progressive -- others would not -- rules for intensification. As an owner of an island home, could I then, through intensification, put apartments in my home?

Ms Davies: There are two aspects to that answer. The first one is, there's no power to sublease, in effect, let to a tenant, without the permission of the trust. The trust does have a regulatory power. If you want, say, to lease part of your house, have a tenant come in and rent a room, the trust has the power to approve that. It's not as of right in the act.

If your second question is, "Does the houses and apartments legislation as proposed, if passed, apply?" this act does not exclude it from applying.

Mr Stockwell: It doesn't. So in fact what you're saying is, if an owner of a home wanted to make his home a triplex, he can do that.

Ms Davies: With the permission of the trust, yes.

Mr Stockwell: Surely to goodness, if the Planning Act, the official plan and zoning from the city are applicable to the units, then that supersedes the trust's power, because that supersedes all power.

Ms Davies: The trust would have to exercise its discretion in accordance with that other legislation, yes.

Mr Stockwell: Basically, then, yes, you could turn your house into a triplex.

Ms Davies: There's nothing prohibiting that in this act.

The Chair: Further questions?

Mr Stockwell: You could charge rent, generate income and so on?

Ms Davies: Yes.

The Chair: Questions, comments? Shall section 26 carry? Carried.

Section 27: Questions, comments or amendments to section 27? Shall section 27 carry? Carried.

Section 28: Questions, comments or amendments to section 28? Shall section 28 carry? Carried.

Section 29: Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: It says in 29(2):

"Subject to subsection (3), the Planning Act does not apply to the construction of houses on land described in the schedule that is vacant on the day this act comes into force or to the use for residential purposes of land described in the schedule that is vacant on the day this act comes into force."

There are lots that are vacant at this time.

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: The rebuilding of those lots is not subject to the Planning Act?

Mr Mills: Right, yes. That's what it says.

Mr Stockwell: But you said to me earlier that they are subject to the Planning Act -- the homes, not the vacant land. So even though it's in the middle of this subdivision, this vacant parcel in the middle of the subdivision is not subject to the Planning Act.

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr Stockwell: The person who buys this place can build his own home.


Mr Mills: I think it's fair to be said that in so far as the suggestion that you could run amok over there doing what you like, that's not true. Building inspectors come there now, I believe, every week to inspect and they will --

Mr Stockwell: No. I'm not worrying about the standards. I believe the standards will be lived up to. I'm worried about the size, the footprint and so forth. You don't want any monster homes over there.

Mr Mills: The trust will regulate that.

Mr Stockwell: Where would the owner appeal to? This is back to the legal arguments again.

Mr Mills: Yes. Court, I guess, bottom line.

Mr Stockwell: If you buy a piece of vacant land, you could build a house and if the trust says, "We don't like the colour of your brick or the colour of your eavestrough," that's it. If they don't like it, you change it.

Mr Mills: I think that the demands again have to be reasonable. If they are not reasonable, then you would go to court. But I think probably that if you wanted to put pink walls on or something, that would be deemed to be reasonable.

Mr Stockwell: All right. Big mistake.

The Chair: Ms Swarbrick?

Ms Swarbrick: I think my questions have been clarified. They were going to be, one, is there not an ability for the trust authority to effectively be its own planning authority and develop its own planning guidelines? You've said yes. My second would be, would there not be an ability, in answering Mr Stockwell's concern, that if somebody wanted to appeal that decision, in fact they could appeal it to the minister if they wanted? Is that true?

Mr Mills: No, there's no appeal process to the minister, but if an individual feels he's been dealt with unfairly by that trust, then he has the right to go to court.

Ms Swarbrick: I thought the minister had ultimate authority over those kinds of issues.

Mr Mills: Yes, in so far as he controls the trust itself, Anne, but not as a right of appeal.

Ms Swarbrick: I used "appeal" very lightly. I really meant that if residents didn't like what the trust was doing, in fact they could small-a appeal. They could make a request to the minister to review things and step in, could they not?

Mr Mills: To review the membership of the trust and that way look at how these decisions were made.

The Chair: I'm getting more confused rather than being helped here. Just as a question of fact so I understand: If I am a resident and Mr Mills now has the opportunity to build on the vacant property beside me, because the trust has decided that and Mr Mills is doing this with the blessing of the trust -- they've decided they would permit that -- under the Planning Act I would have some reason to be able to object --

Mr Mills: To the OMB.

The Chair: -- but under this situation, the person living beside that vacant property does not have the right to object. Even though he's under the Planning Act, the person next door may not be.

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr Stockwell: Great system.

Mr Mills: It needs a little understanding.

The Chair: Further questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: Just a comment, Mr Chair. If I were writing this legislation again, which I'm not, I would make the recommendation to this government and this parliamentary assistant: I think you could probably solve a lot of problems if you subjected the vacant land lots to the Planning Act and not, if you're concerned about the cooperative housing, the vacant lots for the development.

For example, any lot of the 250 that is not developed would be subject to the Planning Act whereas the other ones wouldn't. I think the Chair, Mr Brown, makes a very good point. The Planning Act isn't used just to protect that person's building; the Planning Act is in place to protect those people who live surrounding the development and where it takes place. In essence, 90% of developments that get appealed through the process of the OMB and so on are appealed by those who live around the development, not necessarily the developer.

But I didn't write the legislation. It would be a simple amendment, and I think it would be very helpful in trials and tribulations that you'll have in developing those vacant lots for the 250 homes.

Mr Mills: Thank you for your comment.

The Chair: As a further question of fact, perhaps someone could indicate how many of these vacant parcels exist.

Mr Mills: The staff will answer, Mr Brown.

Ms Davies: At this point the vacant land is not divided into lots; it's one parcel. The act gives the power to the trust to create up to 110 new lots, so to speak, land leases, 80 of which must be offered to the co-op.

The Chair: My question is within the Ward's Island.

Mr Stockwell: But there are vacant lots where I think houses have burned down or been demolished etc. Sorry, Mr Chair.

The Chair: My question was that within the community itself there must be some vacant property. How many of those would there be? I'm not talking about the entire parcel; I'm talking about right within the communities.

Ms Davies: I don't know the number.

Mr Mills: In general, it's a big parcel.

Mr Stockwell: As a point of interest for me maybe, just quickly, I want to be clear. I'm not talking about the 80 units you're parcelling up. I understand that you don't want the Planning Act to apply and I understand about the co-op. I'm talking about the 8 to 12 housing lots --

Mr Mills: Between houses.

Mr Marchese: The in-fill homes.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, the in-fill homes. I think you'd probably do yourself a huge favour by making it subject to the Planning Act, but let's move on.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to section 29? Shall section 29 carry?

Mr Mills: Before we vote on that, I think Mr Stockwell has a very good point that staff should take under consideration.

Mr Stockwell: Then my three days weren't a waste of time.

Mr Mills: Not at all.

The Chair: Shall section 29 carry? Carried. Recorded vote?

Mr Stockwell: No.

Mr Mills: He's getting mellow.

The Chair: At this point we did have some information the committee asked for.

Mr Mills: I'd just like my executive assistant, Dan Danielson, to make a comment.

Mr Dan Danielson: Yes, Mr Chair, the question was about the allocation from the Ministry of Housing for the cooperative. I've just been in conversation with a person at the Ministry of Housing who has told me that it's really very difficult to put a dollar figure on it. I'll try to explain why.

The fact is that the kind of housing they will be building on the island does not fit any of their maximum unit price criteria, such as a town house, which would have a garage and a basement. What they would be doing is sending in an appraiser and doing an actual cost estimate of what it would cost to build the housing that the co-op would be constructing and would then determine the actual dollar amount.

For example, if the co-op were to propose building 80 units, that might be some scattered units. Then they would determine the amount of money that would be allocated to the co-op based on their estimate of what it would cost to develop those units. They have not actually had an actual allocation at this moment, but are going to allocate the money to the co-op as soon as they become a legal non-conforming use after the passage of this bill.

Mr Stockwell: I understand about the legal non-conforming use and I understand about the co-op. The point I was trying to make was the guarantee on the loans. I think, and I'll try and recap -- if I'm wrong then I stand corrected -- I understood that the money was going to come from Housing to guarantee those mortgages.

Mr Danielson: No.

Mr Stockwell: It's not?

Mr Danielson: The moneys for the co-op, for the allocation of the building of co-op units, is coming from the Ministry of Housing.

Mr Stockwell: Then I guess I wasn't clear. What I wanted to know was where the money was coming from to guarantee the seniors' homes.

Mr Danielson: It's from the treasury, and that's a deferral. That money will be coming back once those homes are sold later on.

Mr Stockwell: So the Treasurer of Ontario is providing interim financing within 120 days --

Mr Danielson: No, the bank is providing the financing; the Treasurer is guaranteeing the mortgages.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I see what you're saying. It comes back to who is servicing the loan.

Mr Danielson: The borrower is servicing the loan and the government is providing a guarantee.


Mr Stockwell: The point I tried to make there was that if the borrowers are incapable of servicing the loan, they'll be in default because they're on fixed incomes and they don't have any money. You can levy a $10,000 payment against them a month or a $600 payment against them a month and it matters not; they don't have the money.

Mr Danielson: If they didn't qualify for the loan from their bank, then they wouldn't get it and they wouldn't be in a default position. What would happen is that the unit would be picked up by the co-op. It would be purchased by the co-op and they would become a co-op member and be paying the fees that were set by the co-op.

Mr Stockwell: Right, so then the co-op's got to have the money.

Mr Danielson: The co-op has to have the money and the co-op will be allocated that money, as soon as this legislation passes, for the number of units it thinks it's going to need, and perhaps even be topped up with more units if that becomes necessary.

Mr Stockwell: That's the point of the whole process. You know you need 80 units. You know you need that money for the -- how much money do you need for these people who don't qualify for mortgages?

Mr Danielson: We don't know how many people that will be, at this point.

Mr Stockwell: But you only have 120 days to generate the revenue. Once it's after 120 days, they're in default; they kick them out.

Mr Danielson: They become protected occupants and they get to stay there for up to 30 months until the co-op purchases their unit or --

Mr Stockwell: Who pays for those 120 days? They're protected occupants and they pay nothing?

Mr Danielson: I'd like to direct that to our legal adviser. I'm not sure I understand.

Ms Davies: There are actually two components to that. You are correct that if in 120 days, if someone is offered a land lease, he has to determine whether he is going to purchase the land lease or whether he is going to ask the co-op to purchase it on his behalf. You are correct that the co-op must exercise that obligation to purchase that unit within 120 days. The co-op allocation will have to be firmed up within that time frame. If someone is found to be a protected occupant, that means he's not bound in title to purchase the land lease.

Mr Stockwell: Right.

Ms Davies: If that person is there within that time, he is paying an occupation charge which, for the house, is held in trust for the ultimate owner.

Mr Stockwell: Right. What if they can't afford to pay that money?

Ms Davies: The occupation charge?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Ms Swarbrick: It would be rent geared to income, wouldn't it?

Ms Davies: The occupation charge formula is set out in the draft regulations. Maybe Debbie Chen-Yin would like to explain the formula. But the legal question is, if they can't pay the occupation charge, they can't stay in that unit.

Mr Stockwell: They're protected occupants, so then they would get a cooperative unit?

Ms Davies: That's correct. The list provides that anyone who is found to be a protected occupant is at the top of the list for the new cooperative units.

Mr Stockwell: Right. So now they are senior citizens. They're on a fixed income. They are protected occupants. They can't afford to pay the rent. Who pays the owner the rent?

Ms Davies: No one pays the owner the rent.

Mr Stockwell: Nobody pays the owner the rent?

Ms Davies: The protected occupant can either pay the rent as it's prescribed and stay in that house, and be first on the list for the co-op, or if he can't pay the occupation charge for that house, he can't live in the house but he is still first on the list for a co-op unit. They would have to find alternative housing.

Mr Stockwell: That's my point.

Ms Davies: But the formula, as I was suggesting that finance explain, is calculated in such a way that they should be able to afford the interim occupation charges for the house.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, so it's geared to income?

Ms Davies: I don't want to speak to that -- our financial person.

Mr Stockwell: It's geared to income?

Ms Chen-Yin: The occupation charge, first of all, on the land component is 7% of the land-lease price. So if we take a $36,000 land-lease price at the prime rate in existence today -- let's say 7% -- they pay 7% on $36,000 and that's their annual price.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that's in a year.

Ms Chen-Yin: That's annually. Divide it by 12 and you get their monthly rate.

Mr Stockwell: So $3,600 if it were --

Ms Chen-Yin: On $36,000, it's about $220 a month. That would be the occupation charge on the land. In addition to that, there is an occupation charge on the house.

Mr Stockwell: Right.

Ms Chen-Yin: If we assume that the appraised value of the house is $50,000, the same calculation applies. The prime rate which we've assumed is 7% of the appraised value, which is $50,000, so it's about $300 a month.

Mr Stockwell: It's about $520 a month.

Ms Chen-Yin: It's $520.

Mr Mills: As a senior you could afford that.

Mr Stockwell: From the numbers I see here, you're earning $20,000 a year in which, what was it, 17% are, or whatever -- 20%? Divided by 12, after taxes, don't you think that's pretty steep? You could speak to that best of all, I guess.

Mr Mills: I think it still falls in between 30% of their income.

Mr Stockwell: I will pass on this, Mr Chair. I'll just leave you with this. I think you should ensure, if you're trying to guarantee the uniqueness of this community, that those people who are in the homes now, whom you're trying to protect -- the ones who will be hurt by this if they can't qualify will almost certainly be single mothers and seniors.

Ms Swarbrick: Just following that a touch further, if it is this person who has very low income and it works out that in fact they do have difficulty financially affording that, is it the case that since they're just paying that while they are the protected occupant and while they are among the first on the list waiting for the co-op, that they'd really just need bridging money to cover themselves for that short period, and then once they're admitted to the co-op they would be eligible for rent geared to income to stay in that home?

Ms Davies: That is correct. Another aspect of that is that the trust is empowered as a trust to even deal with that issue. The community itself may wish to assist those people in that interim, bridge period until they can go into the co-op, which will be rent geared to income, or there may be other social programs -- I'm not an expert on that -- which would provide them with the assistance to meet that cost in the interim till they can go into the co-op.

Ms Swarbrick: Great. Does that clarify it for you, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, that does, but I'll guarantee you the co-op will not be built in 30-some months. I will guarantee it.

The Chair: Further questions and comments?

Mr Mills: They're acquiring existing units now.

Ms Swarbrick: Right. So in fact they don't have to wait the 30 months since they're --

Mr Danielson: The co-op will be giving them an interim allocation to acquire what existing units are necessary.

Mr Stockwell: Not building at all?

Mr Danielson: They won't need to build to acquire existing units. They'll just need to bring --

Mr Stockwell: So they will go out and buy these people's homes?

Mr Danielson: They'll bring them up to standard.

Mr Stockwell: They can't, though, if they're protected occupants.

Mr Danielson: Yes, they can. It becomes a unit of the co-op.

Mr Stockwell: I see. Okay.

The Chair: Now we'll move back to the bill.

Section 30: Questions, comments or amendments to section 30? Shall section 30 carry? Carried.

Section 31: Questions, comments or amendments to section 31. Mr Stockwell has a question.

Mr Stockwell: "Liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000." Is that --

Mr Mills: How often do you get the maximum? Is that your worry?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Mills: That's at the discretion of the judge.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you.

The Chair: Further questions or comments to section 31. Shall section 31 carry? Carried.

Subsection 32(1): We have a government amendment to subsection 32(1).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 32(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"18.1 prescribing the manner in which price is determined under subsections 21(5) and (6)."

By way of explanation, this motion adds a regulation-making power to determine the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of a house and land lease to a child or a joint tenant.

The Chair: Questions or comments?

Mr Mills: Oh, I've got another one.


The Chair: Just to Mr Mills's amendment; that's all we're speaking to at the moment.

Mr Mills: Okay. You don't want the other one, then?

The Chair: We'll deal with it next.

Mr Mills: Okay. It's also subsection 32(1), Mr Chairman, that's all.

The Chair: I'm just dealing with your particular amendment at the moment, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I've got paragraph 28 of subsection 32(1), which is really 32(1) as well.

The Chair: Yes. We'll deal with each amendment separately.

Mr Mills: Okay.

The Chair: Subsection 32(1), shall it carry? Carried -- Mr Mills's amendment, that is.

Then you have another amendment, Mr Mills?

Mr Mills: I move that paragraph 28 of subsection 32(1) be struck out.

This motion removes the regulation-making power in respect of the Land Transfer Tax Act. Instead of dealing with a possible double land transfer tax on the transfer of an island property in a regulation under this act, there will be a regulation made directly under the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Mr Stockwell: I have a question. You're amending the Land Transfer Tax Act? No, you're not amending the Land Transfer Tax Act?

Mr Mills: Let legal deal with this.

Mr Stockwell: Right. Thank you.

Ms Davies: Originally, we had the Land Transfer Tax Act in the list of acts that this act would take precedence over in the event of a conflict and a reg-making power to deal with that. The issue was that on each sale the vendor sells to the trust and the trust to the person. There would have been two land transfer taxes.


Mr Stockwell: I see. There should only be one.

Ms Davies: There should only be one. Revenue has agreed that it's more appropriate to put that regulation directly under its act rather than under this act.

Mr Stockwell: I see. That's a good point. Move on.

The Chair: If you'll just excuse the Chair, we have a slight bit of bureaucratic confusion with the sections. Further questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: On what?

The Chair: Paragraph 32(1)10 is what I think we're dealing with.

Mr Stockwell: I want to talk about 10. Didn't we just do away with that or didn't we just amend that?

Mr Marchese: I was going to make a motion on that.

The Chair: Wait a minute.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Let's deal with Gord's first.

The Chair: Well, they're all Gord's.

Mr Morrow: I meant the ones that he read.

The Chair: We're having a little trouble getting these in the right order. Just give us one second, okay? Let's back up. We're going to back this up so that we have some chance of getting these in the right order. The one I want Mr Mills to move and for us to deal with is paragraph 32(1)10.

Mr Marchese: I was moving that. I have a motion to move that.

The Chair: Well, you can move that. That's fine.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I was prepared to do that.

The Chair: Let's not get excited.

Mr Marchese: Consistent with the motions I've made earlier, I move that paragraph 10 of subsection 32(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"10. prescribing the process of nomination for the purpose of subsection 12(1.2)."

The Chair: Explanation.

Mr Marchese: If you recall the motion I made earlier, it's consistent with the previous motion that I made. Do you want me to explain that again? Do you want me to remind you of the previous motion? Is that what you need?

The Chair: It's the committee that needs to be reminded.


The Chair: Everybody remembers.

Mr Marchese: If not, I'll read the motion.

The Chair: Questions, comments?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I'll have an amendment.

The Chair: All right. Do we have a printed copy of the amendment?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I move that subsection 12(1) of the bill be struck out -- 10 be struck:

"That the board of directors shall be composed of not more than 15 members."

I guess I can't move that?

The Chair: No, that's out of order.

Questions, comments on Mr Marchese's amendment? All those in favour? A recorded vote.


Mammoliti, Marchese, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Eddy, Mills, Sola, Stockwell.

The Chair: I will vote in the affirmative.

Mr Stockwell: What are you doing that for?

Interjection: He must; he's the Chair.

Mr Mills: Does that mean it's passed?

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Mr Mills: There's another motion.

The Chair: Just a minute. Mr Marchese has one before that, I believe.

Mr Marchese: For paragraph 12. I move that paragraph 12 of subsection (1) be struck out and the following substituted:

"12. prescribing the requirements for the purpose of subsection 17(4)."

It's a motion which I made earlier on.

The Chair: Could we have the explanation?

Mr Marchese: If you recall, the motion I made was about a special case, the purchase price for a land lease that is sold under this section before the first anniversary of the day this act comes into force to an owner who is a senior as defined in the regulation and who meets the prescribed requirements. The intent of this motion is to make it consistent with that motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Questions, comments on Mr Marchese's amendment? Shall Mr Marchese's amendment carry? Carried.

Paragraph 32(1)28: Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that paragraph 28 of subsection 32(1) be struck out.

This, as I have already explained, involves the land tax act.

The Chair: Questions or comments to Mr Mills's amendment? Shall Mr Mills's amendment carry? Carried.

Are there questions or comments on subsection 32(1) as an entirety?

Mr Mills: Yes. I've got this --

Interjection: It's been passed.

Mr Mills: It's been passed?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Mills: Oh, okay; I'm sorry.

The Chair: Okay. Is everybody straight? Shall subsection 32(1), as amended, carry?

Mr Stockwell: No, no, no, no, no.

The Chair: Recorded vote?

Mr Stockwell: Subsection (1)? You're not going to deal with (2)?

The Chair: We're going to deal with (2) after this.

Mr Stockwell: That's usually how we do it, isn't it?

The Chair: Shall subsection 32(1), as amended, carry? Carried.

Subsection 32(2): Questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Stockwell: What is open for review every 10th year?

Mr Mills: Financial arrangements.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. So, in essence, can the prices be inflated and the depreciation reduced? You know, if inflation is running at 14%, can you roll it back? Are all those things open?

Mr Mills: The formulas can be adjusted, I'm told.

Mr Stockwell: Is it a unilateral decision by the --

Mr Mills: Minister. Cabinet.

Mr Stockwell: -- the minister?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: There's no commissioner any more?

Mr Mills: The Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr Stockwell: There's no commissioner any more. There's only the trust.

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr Eddy: Why are we using "shall" here instead of "may"? Having gone through the argument in another bill on several occasions, it could not be "shall" because you could not direct anybody to do it. It doesn't really matter.


The Chair: Order. Legal counsel, can you --

Ms Mifsud: "Shall," I think, is a little more encouraging for them to do so. I don't know if they're actually going to be bound. I think you can bind that cabinet can review it, but I don't know if you can, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is opposed, do much. But it certainly is stronger than "may."

Mr Eddy: I realized that, and having wanted to use the word "shall" instead of "may" but having been put down on several occasions that you cannot direct, that it can only be "may," it just seemed odd, but I'm prepared to be flexible.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there further questions or comments on subsection 32(2)? Shall subsection 32(2) carry? Carried.

Mr Sola, you have an amendment?

Mr Sola: Yes, I have an amendment to subsection 32(3). I move that section 32 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Review of act

"32(3) The Minister of Municipal Affairs shall review the operation of this act within ten years of its passing and propose amendments to the act in accordance with current economic conditions."


It's almost a duplication of subsection 32(2), except that only pertains to the regulations. This pertains to the whole act. The reason I'm proposing this amendment is twofold. First of all, Tony O'Donohue raised the spectre yesterday of this maybe being a sweetheart deal and that we could live to regret it down the road. Second, I think some of Mr Stockwell's questions today have shown us that we are stepping into some murky waters, and once they clear up we may wish to take a second stab at this legislation.

I would like to make the following comment: I respect the opinion of both Tony O'Donohue, who was leery of this legislation, and of Richard Johnston, who proposed it. The question is, who is correct? If Richard Johnston's prognostication is correct, this amendment will be unnecessary. However, if Tony O'Donohue is correct, then this amendment will be a godsend.

I would prefer if Mr Johnston is correct. However, I fear that Tony O'Donohue's fears will prove to come true. Therefore, that's the reason I'm proposing this, so we can have a second go at it if necessary.

Mr Mammoliti: I don't think it's necessary. I think that ministers have it within their mandate as ministers to look into the acts within their ministries and they could update and amend whenever they want to. This would just be a waste of space in the legislation, as far as I'm concerned. As well, the word "shall," as described earlier, would not mean that the minister would be forced to change any legislation. It would mean that the minister would review it and then make a decision, so I don't think it's necessary. I think that ministers, in order to fulfil their jobs, have got to look at their legislation on an everyday basis. Their staff is to inform them of any problems that might arise, and when they do they would inform the Legislature and make those amendments when necessary. So I don't think it's necessary to take up the space in the legislation.

Mr Marchese: Just to add a few more comments: The suggested amendment by Mr Sola has two parts. The second part is already included in what we just passed under subsection 32(2). The first part, "The Minister of Municipal Affairs shall review the operation of this act within 10 years," I don't think is necessary. I think Mr Mammoliti is correct in suggesting that if it becomes necessary, the minister may have to do a review of the act within a year; he may have to do it within two years. But I don't think that a minister or ministry needs to be told to do a review within 10 years, because it isn't necessary. If it is, they will and if it isn't, then it isn't.

Mr Mills: I'm going to repeat what my colleagues have said. We have already, in 32(2), the ability to review the economic conditions in 10 years, and the government of the day can review any piece of legislation at any time. If things go awry I wouldn't want them to wait 10 years, so I don't see it's necessary. I will be voting against this amendment.

Ms Swarbrick: I think my colleagues have done an adequate job of describing our rationale for opposing the amendment.

The Chair: There are two more of them yet.

Mr Stockwell: There's a broader public policy that needs to be debated and hasn't been debated in this committee process. The debate has centred on the present-day issues. Although there are differences among all parties as to how we see those differences, there's disagreement, I accept the fact that this government is duly elected and can carry out these kinds of decisions. Frankly, having been debating this issue for some 10 years, I'm distressed that this is the way the process is going to end. I come by that position very honestly; it's not through any dislike, distaste or hatred. I try not to think that I could have that feeling for the islanders; I don't. I sincerely do not. But there's a broader public policy that needs to be addressed.

There is little, if anything, that I would ever agree to for 99 years; 99 years is a very, very long time; 99 years is a chance for mistakes to be compounded and ruin in certain instances, certain examples. Governments enter into these kinds of decisions on a fairly regular basis. The number of times I've seen them enter into 99-year terms, it seems that at some point during that time, somebody somewhere regrets it was a 99-year lease.

I don't think any of us are capable of seeing 100 years in the future. Think back. If this particular lease had been negotiated 100 years ago, it would be 1893 when it was negotiated. Think how different this country, this city, these islands are today than they were in 1893. That's the kind of binding, long-term agreement this committee has been entrusted to debate.

I think Mr Sola makes a very reasoned recommendation. I would have gone further. I would have suggested they be opened up for thorough and total renegotiation. I would have taken 15 years; I would have taken 20; I would have taken 30; I would have taken 50. I would have taken anything less than 99 years, because when I heard the government members say, "This has dragged on so long, this debate has carried on for 30 years and we're tired and the people are tired" -- think about it: 30 years it dragged on. That's not even one third of the length of time you're going to make this agreement for; not even one third.

Ms Swarbrick: Yesterday you said within two years you're going to undo it.

Mr Stockwell: There may be suggestions that it can be undone. It may well be able to be undone, but it's going to be difficult. In 25 years, maybe the entire population will want it to be undone because we'll be a city of six million people or eight million, with no parkland anywhere. You'll be searching for areas to create park space and we'll have signed a deal for 99 years for a co-op in housing.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, and if you think 10 years is unreasonable, make it 20; make it 30; make it 40. But I just don't understand how this government -- and I'll make this the final note -- that three years ago could be so sure of itself with regard to public auto insurance, could be so sure of itself with regard to casino gambling, could be so sure of itself with regard to a lot of public policy and completely change its mind in three short years, is capable of making a decision that will affect Metropolitan Toronto residents for 99 years.

Ms Swarbrick: That was then; this is now.

Mr Stockwell: That was then; this is now. I've heard that. But it just astounds me that you of all people, who could change your minds so dramatically, so totally in a few short years, can be so sure of yourselves for 99. I'll support it. I would ask the government members, if they don't think it's long enough, if the terms aren't far enough out, extend them. Make it 50 years. But I leave you with that final thought. I knew some of you before your lives as MPPs and I remember some of the things you used to say and some of the things you stood for. I just hope you're not making the mistake here that you made pre-NDP government. You know full well, folks, the list is literally endless.

Mr Sola: The reason I proposed this -- I realize that 32(2) deals with part of it, but having sat on the regulations committee ever since I've been elected in this House, I just want to point out, how often does the public get to review regulations? Regulations can be changed without the public ever having any knowledge of it. Therefore, if things are embarrassing for the government at the time, it can change things just to sweep embarrassments under the rug, so to speak. This sort of quasi-sunset clause on the whole bill will give the Legislature a much better chance to bring it up and review it, if necessary. If not, who wants to bring it up? But if things occur, at that time it may be and probably will be a different government that will be trying to sweep things under the rug.

I may live to regret having proposed this, if I'm still here at that time, but I think, because there is the chance that this can prove to be detrimental to the public at large, we should have a chance to review the whole bill. I would hope that Richard Johnston is correct and that Gordon Cressy is correct and that most of the islanders are correct that this will prove to be a just bill and that we will be able to get a headache out of the way. But just in case the headache increases, I would like to be able to have a better stab at correcting mistakes in the future.

The Chair: Further questions or comments on Mr Sola's amendment, 32(3)? Shall Mr Sola's amendment to 32(3) carry?

Mr Mills: Carried.

The Chair: Carried?

Mr Mills: Wait a minute. What did I say?

The Chair: "Carried."

Mr Mammoliti: Is this a proposed motion?

Mr Mills: I was talking.

The Chair: You were. Shall Mr Sola's amendment, subsection 32(3), carry?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, are we reopening this now?

Mr Marchese: We're waiting for the vote.

Mr Stockwell: It was carried. What are you talking about? Everybody said --

The Chair: Order.

Interjection: I heard Gord did.

Mr Stockwell: Nobody said no.

Mr Mammoliti: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Order. Recorded vote.

All in favour of Mr Sola's amendment, 32(3)?


Eddy, Sola, Stockwell.

The Chair: Opposed?


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

Mr Sola: I'd just like to thank Ms Mifsud of legislative counsel for formulating this on such short notice from me.

The Chair: Thank you. Section 33, we have an amendment.

Mr Mills: I'd like to move that section 33 of the bill be amended by striking out "the Land Transfer Act" in the third line. This motion removes from the list, which we explained before.

The Chair: I think you meant to say "Land Transfer Tax Act."

Mr Mills: Didn't I say that?

The Chair: You were close, but --

Mr Stockwell: We're not doing it as the land transfer act?

Mr Mills: Land Transfer Tax Act.

The Chair: Questions or comments on Mr Mills's amendment to section 33? All in favour? Carried.

Section 34, questions, comments, amendments? Shall section 34 carry? Carried.

Section 35, questions, comments, amendments? Carried.

Section 36? Carried.

Shall the schedule carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Mr Stockwell: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Recorded vote. All in favour?


Harrington, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mills, Morrow, Swarbrick.

The Chair: Opposed?


Eddy, Sola, Stockwell.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall the Chair report Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Before I adjourn the committee, I would like to thank the members for their cooperation.

Mr Stockwell: Don't mention it.

The Chair: I'd like to thank all the staff involved and particularly again the clerk. I think this is her first experience at this particular process. With that, we shall adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 1655.