ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES ACT, 1997

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1997

MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) INC. ACT, 1997

CHINESE CULTURAL CENTRE OF GREATER TORONTO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997

CONTENTS

Wednesday 18 June 1997

Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services Act, 1997 Bill Pr82, Mr Crozier

Mr Bruce Crozier

Mr John Curran

Mr Gregory Stewart

City of Hamilton Act, 1997 Bill Pr51, Mr Christopherson

Mr David Christopherson

Mr Lorne Farr

Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc Act, 1997, Bill Pr83, Mr Tascona

Mrs Helen Johns

Mr George Cameron

Ms Brenda Russell

Mr Steve Kinsella

Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation Act, 1997, Bill Pr81, Mr Curling

Mr Alvin Curling

Mr Ming Tat Cheung

Mr David Tang

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)

Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr BillGrimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Ms LindaGray, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Mr PaulMurray, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, all. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. You have your two-page agenda; we have four items of business today.

Our first order of business is Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services. The sponsor is MPP Bruce Crozier. Mr Crozier, do you wish to say a few words by way of introduction? Then perhaps the applicants would wish to introduce themselves.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me to be here this morning with some friends and acquaintances to sponsor this bill. In studying the bill, I did notice, though, that the title has a misspelling in it. I assume someone else has also noticed that the word "Conselling" should be corrected to "Counselling." With those few words, I will introduce you to John Curran, the president.

Mr John Curran: The role I will play is merely to introduce those who are here to make presentation and some people in the gallery who are here to support the application.

On my immediate left is our legal counsel, Gregory Stewart, and to his left is the executive director of our association, Patricia White. In the gallery this morning we have some of the members of our board of directors: vice-president-at-large Ed Helder; board member Ruth Hall -- she was trying to find a parking spot, which is not an easy thing around here, and she may not be in the room yet, but she will be joining us; and Ann Rowan, who was a former staff member of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for 19 years. She was just elected to our board of directors. She's back here beside Ed. Also on our board just recently, but not with us today, is Chris Ferguson, the registrar for the Collection Agencies Act under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. His duties dictated that he not be with us this morning.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I would ask our solicitor, Mr Stewart, to make the presentation from this point.

Mr Gregory Stewart: By way of background and a bit of information concerning the legislation, the area of credit counselling is something that is of concern and is a growingly critical service across the province.

The history of this particular association goes back to the early 1960s when it developed in Toronto to assist former air force personnel who were experiencing financial problems, to help them to review their problems and find some organized way to deal with those issues.

The service itself grew over a period of years, eventually involving the support of provincial and federal funds in the 1970s. As the financial support for the associations grew, the number of agencies grew, reaching 25 at one point, and up to this point now 27 individual agencies.

The need for this particular legislation began to show itself in the early 1990s when, you will recall, at that point the government of the day withdrew funding for not-for-profit credit counselling services. At that time, to assist in the continuation of the operation, however, the government amended the Collection Agencies Act by adding the credit counselling association and its members as a list of accepted entities under that particular legislation, the legislation indicating that it applied to certain agencies and entities with the exception of a specific list, one of which is this organization.

This allowed the organization to continue to manage and to set up trust funds, giving that power to the Ontario Association of Credit Counselling Services, which was a chartered non-profit corporation.

The concern that arose over time, however, is that from that point, the existence of the association arose more from being an exception to a piece of legislation rather than being positively reflected in a particular piece of legislation. As a result, there's been a desire on the part of the association to formalize themselves in statute, and this led to the development of this particular legislation. They would not want to, in the future, exist on the basis of an exception, or I guess a negative existence, as the result of the fact that the legislation indicates that you have your authority because you don't come under this piece of legislation.

They are concerned, in developing this legislation, that they be able to entrench and to distinguish the not-for-profit element, having it become visibly mandatory, in that this particular association has as its prime characteristic, differentiating it from other credit counselling entities, the fact that it is a not-for-profit entity. They wish to make sure that is maintained and protected.

They wanted to enhance their legitimacy as an association. They're growing constantly, and they have been, through their bylaws, going through processes of accreditation in order to have membership. They wanted to enhance their legitimacy for that purpose. They are also concerned that they clearly be distinguished from other credit counselling entities which might develop from bankruptcy trustee operations or others who are not not-for-profit elements.

They have introduced this legislation to ask you to set into statute their operations, their existence and their objectives. The legislation itself sets out a number of their objects, and these are noteworthy. They are concerned about being able to continue to offer not-for-profit credit counselling throughout the province to residents. They're concerned about being able to establish and to continue to implement province-wide standards for those who are given accreditation and allowed to use the designation not-for-profit credit counselling agency.

They want to be able to carry out their work with a unified voice and to provide the appropriate training and education and body of knowledge in an organized fashion so that it's available and so that all those holding themselves out as not-for-profit credit counselling entities have a basic standard, not only of accreditation, which is spelled out in their bylaws and requirements, but also an assurance that there's a basic body of knowledge and information and practice available to them, so when citizens in the province approach a not-for-profit credit counselling agency they are approaching a standard form of entity and can be assured of a minimum standard of practice throughout the province.

We are approaching you today with this legislation asking that you give some consideration to it and asking that the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services be granted statute authority so they can continue their work and have the assurances I've just addressed.

I believe that's about all I need to say on it. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Before we go to questions, are there any other comments from the applicants? Are there any interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? Seeing none, I would now ask MPP Ernie Hardeman, parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, for any comments on the part of the government.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): In reviewing the bill, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs circulated it to other ministries, and the replies we got back were that no one had any concerns or objections to the bill. That would suggest that the committee give favourable consideration to the bill.

I think one of the points one wants to remember is that the bill does not restrict or impose anything on anyone; it would just work for the betterment of the organization or organizations that will be represented. It's a worthy goal, and I think we should support the bill.

The Chair: At this point, I call for questions from committee members to either the applicants or to our parliamentary assistant.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Are you aware of any not-for-profit counselling agencies in the province that are not members of your association? Are there any?

Mr Curran: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr Gerretsen: The other question is more to the parliamentary assistant and more to satisfy my own curiosity. Why does this kind of matter have to go through this kind of routine? Why does there have to be a hearing on this kind of application?

The Chair: I think Mr Ruprecht had a similar question a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure whom I would direct that question to.

Mr Gerretsen: Maybe Mr Hardeman has the answer.

Mr Hardeman: I don't profess to be a lawyer, so I won't give you the --

Mr Gerretsen: That's good for you.

Mr Hardeman: Hear, hear. I'm proud of that.

I would suggest that since it is a bill that has to go through the Legislature, it requires an airing, so to speak. It goes through two readings and comes to this committee for discussion, and then it will go to the House for third reading. If you want to create a statutory body by legislation, you do that through private bills. That's the only way you can create a legislative authority to monitor all organizations.

Mr Gerretsen: I'll follow this up. Thank you.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, I just want to go a little further on the question Mr Gerretsen first posed. The question was whether there were any non-profit counselling agencies not members of the association. I wanted to make sure it's clear that even though there presently are not, this would not obligate all non-profit counselling agencies to be members of the organization.

Mr Curran: Just so we're absolutely clear, our response to that was that we are not aware of any who are not members. You're right, there will be no indiscrete restriction of application for membership, but there are requirements that must be met to fall under the membership criteria.

1020

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Back on this horse again. I know Mr Hardeman and especially Mr Shea have previously mentioned to the committee that there would be a possibility of streamlining the process. While we are speaking about cutting and mitigating the red tape in government, it seems that every time new people arrive at our committee -- in this case, of course Mr Gerretsen is not new, but nevertheless the sentiments are being raised at most of these meetings. Consequently, if possible, I'd like to ask Mr Hardeman, who has been here for at least at three meetings, two questions.

First, would he take it upon himself to look at the structure of the committee and the kinds of the bills we have to deal with? When I look at the appearances today -- I'm also looking at the Chinese community centre, which is going to be here as well. Many of the applicants or deputants would not necessarily be required to appear here had we instituted some framework whereby some of the applicants would not necessarily "waste their time." I put that in quotation marks, and by that I mean that many of them come from outside Toronto and spend hours of travelling time and that time of course is less productive, simply because we're not following up on our own recommendations of this committee. I just wonder whether Mr Hardeman could address that fairly briefly so that I and my colleagues would be somewhat satisfied that necessary steps are being taken to cut down on government red tape and the process of streamlining could go ahead full speed.

Mr Hardeman: I won't take a long time. Although I have been here for a few meetings, a very few, I was not aware there was an ongoing process to try and streamline the system, but I assure you we will follow that up and try to find ways of doing that. But in so saying, I would caution -- I have here a report that was done on a similar application for a different type of organization in the past, and though everyone around this committee may have agreed and the applicant agreed that this was a good thing and it seemed like a natural thing to do, when the time came for the meeting, two other organizations in a similar situation came in to object to that. That one did not proceed.

By short-circuiting the process, we may very well eliminate the ability of others on whom this bill may have an impact to be involved in the process. When the applicant finished their presentation, the Chair asked whether there was anyone else present wishing to speak to the bill. I think it's important that we don't streamline the process to the extent that those who did come in to speak, who may be on the opposite of the bill, are not deprived of that opportunity.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm not saying we get ourselves out of our jobs or that we discontinue this committee. It's simply to say let's review this, let's have a look at what is essential and what is not, so at least if some of them do not have to appear here, let's not have them come.

The Chair: Is it the wish of committee members that we review this? Is it appropriate to put this on the agenda of a subcommittee meeting? Are members interested in submitting suggestions or recommendations to either streamline or eliminate, whatever options are appropriate for this work?

Mr Hardeman: I can make a motion to that effect. I would think we would have no opposition from the members.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Linda, would you advise what stage we're at in terms of legislative recommendations for some of the streamlining changes?

Ms Linda Gray: As far as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is concerned, the initiative the ministry has undertaken in municipal reform, which the minister has spoken about a number of times, will go a long way, our ministry feels, to eliminating the need for private legislation as it affects municipalities. Our ministry has done a number of things recently to streamline the municipal private bill process, and I think you will find this will improve more in the future.

As far as some of the other bills that don't concern municipal affairs and housing directly, a subcommittee might be useful to look at those issues as well.

Mr Ruprecht: I could make a motion.

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure a motion would be required, but I would suggest that the subcommittee look at streamlining the process. As Ms Gray pointed out, the streamlining we're doing in the Municipal Act will not deal with the individual applications coming before us. There will be far fewer, but there still may be a need to look at how we streamline the ones that still come to this committee.

Mr Ruprecht: So let's do it?

Mr Hardeman: Yes.

Mr Ruprecht: Okay, when are we going to do it?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just wondered when we're going to pass this particular private bill.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Bisson, are you making the assumption that it's going to pass?

Mr Bisson: I'm assuming we're going to be giving support to this bill and I would like to get to that business. I'm actually thinking of invoking closure here.

Mr Ruprecht: I think you'll be in a minority.

The Chair: Mr Ruprecht, do you want to quickly summarize what you would perhaps like to direct the subcommittee to do?

Mr Ruprecht: Simply if the subcommittee would have a look at how to streamline the process so that some of the applicants on some of the private bills consequently do not have to appear before this committee.

Mr Shea: Just a question, Mr Ruprecht. What applications in particular do you want to see streamlined?

Mr Ruprecht: As you know, when the next deputant appears before us, you will find that there have been about eight or 10 of them appearing before this committee. That certainly could be either eliminated or it could be handled in a different way so that our time would not be wasted and people would not have to come here from other parts of Ontario to make deputations. At least that's one that sticks you in the eye. There are a number of other ones. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but certainly with your experience you would know what they could be. There is a potential for it and it would be in all of our interests that that be done.

Mr Shea: For the record, it doesn't show the next one. I presume Mr Ruprecht was referring to Pr83. Does he believe that Pr83 is a reasonably pro forma application and not deserving of a public hearing?

Mr Ruprecht: Yes, I think that could be done in a different way.

Mr Shea: That answers my question.

The Chair: Does this close discussion on this recommendation? Thank you.

Going back to Pr82, we've completed questions on this private bill. Are the members ready to vote?

We are voting on Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services, sponsored by MPP Bruce Crozier. In keeping with tradition, we collapse sections.

Shall sections 1 through 14 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

I declare this first order of business closed. I wish to thank the applicants and the sponsor.

1030

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

The Chair: The next order of business for this committee is Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton. The sponsor is David Christopherson, MPP. We have the sponsor and the applicant now at the witness table. Mr Christopherson, a few opening remarks, and then we will have introduction of the applicant.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to present Bill Pr51. In a nutshell, the Planning Act currently restricts the ability of municipalities to provide loans and grants for community improvement areas to only the owners of the buildings. We've run into a situation in our community where we have commercial long-term leaseholders who are not able to access these funds because the property owner doesn't want to take on the liability of such a loan, yet that tenant is prepared to. The municipality of Hamilton is requesting an amendment to the Planning Act that would give them the jurisdiction to provide similar loans and grants for community improvement areas to tenants as well as to the property owners.

To give you a more detailed and legal presentation, I'll turn it over to Mr Lorne Farr, who is a solicitor with the city of Hamilton.

Mr Lorne Farr: Mr Christopherson has summed up the bill quite well. The current Planning Act, in subsection 28(7), allows a municipality to give loans or grants to the owners of lands registered within a community improvement area for the purposes of meeting the community improvement plan and rehabilitating their buildings. We've run into many situations through our building department where tenants within the community improvement areas have inquired about loans and would like to enter into loans or grants with the city to fix up their leasehold tenancies, but under the act we're restricted from giving them the loans or grants under section 28. The purpose of the bill is that it would allow us to make amendments to our community improvement plans to allow loans to the tenants.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Farr. Are there any interested parties in the room? Seeing none, we will now turn to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for comments.

Mr Hardeman: I think the applicant has said it all. We have circulated it to the ministries within the government and all the replies we received back were that they could see no problem with doing that. So the government will register no objection to the bill.

The Chair: A question from Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a general question to the parliamentary assistant. Has there been any thought given in the ministry to extending this to the Planning Act itself; in other words, change the Planning Act to allow these kinds of loans to take place to tenants rather than owners?

Mr Hardeman: I can't say that the ministry has concluded that that would be an appropriate approach, but it is looking at it. We see that the need to fund community improvements is there, and to charge it to the appropriate people -- we see this as a good pilot project that could very well be a template for future use throughout the province under the community improvement process.

Mr Bisson: Just a quick question. This would be the first time that the committee grants this power to municipalities that I can remember. Has any other municipality ever been granted similar powers up to now?

Mr Hardeman: I would be unaware of that. I couldn't say that it has never happened. I think we see it as a next-step approach to doing the community improvement and then assessing the cost back to the people in the community. This will allow the community to come up with the money.

Mr Bisson: It just shows that Hamilton is once again leading the way.

Mr Shea: A question to the parliamentary assistant, and then I may ask Mr Farr the same question. I want to focus on section 28. I have some questions about that in terms of this proposal.

I can understand when the municipality wants to lend money to the owner of property, because you then have something against which you can levy the charges to ensure the taxpayers of that municipality get their money back. If it is proposed that the money is loaned to tenants, Mr Hardeman, I'd like your answer in terms of how one secures that loan. Is that loan granted with the consent of the owner or not, and if not, is it left entirely in the hands of the municipality to determine that it will make that loan in the interest of the municipality? And where does that leave the security of the loan, particularly if tenants are moving? We've heard Mr Christopherson tell us on a number of occasions of a great turnover of tenants all the time in this province. What happens in that regard in terms of securing the loan of the municipality?

Mr Hardeman: My understanding is that the municipality that would put out the loan would have to make a decision on the type of security they required to secure the loan. That would not be a security on the premises that the tenant does not own; it would have to be a security on assets of that tenant within that structure or it could be on assets of the tenant elsewhere. As a private loan, you would go to the municipality, as opposed to the bank, and the manager would say, "What assets do you have that we could put a lien on for this loan to make sure we recoup the money?"

Mr Shea: So the loan must be secured. In your mind and in terms of your ministry, the loan is secured in so far as the taxpayers and the municipality are concerned?

Mr Hardeman: Yes. I think from our ministry's point of view, we see the municipalities having the responsibility to retain security from the owners. We see that they would be quite capable also of securing that security from tenants as they loan money. If they are going to put out a loan, it would be as any other financial institution putting out that loan. They would have some security before they would agree to the loan.

Mr Shea: Are you persuaded the legislation before us does that? Are you persuaded the legislation before us requires the municipality to ensure that before loans are made, those who are receiving them are able to provide the security necessary?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that I could say this bill does it. I'm saying that the judgement will be made by municipalities with their taxpayers' money. I'm convinced that municipalities would secure the assets before they put the money out.

The Chair: Mr Christopherson.

Mr Shea: I'm not finished with the parliamentary assistant, just for a second, and then I want to go to Mr Farr. Let me just finish that for a second, because I know Mr Christopherson may well be able to yield.

The last part of your question left it open. You're saying the municipality may make grants to improve property over which it has no ownership, it may make grants to tenants who live in that property, and that grant may not necessarily be secured and the money may not be returned to the taxpayers. I just want to make sure I'm very clear that's the case.

Mr Hardeman: I think maybe you misunderstood my answer. There is a vast difference between a municipality giving grants and a municipality putting money out on a loan. I think the municipalities already have the ability to grant wherever they see fit with no return on their money. This is so they can lend money out and have the authority to secure assets to balance that loan.

Mr Shea: I understand that. My point is that at this point you have -- let me go to Mr Christopherson, if you don't mind; let me return there. You understand the question I'm getting at?

Mr Christopherson: I understand fully.

Mr Shea: If I'm the owner of a building and I have some tenants who for whatever purpose say, "Look, I want to repair this," and they go to you and you're a fine mayor of your city, and you say, "Let's help you out here and do the repairs. We're going to give you money to go ahead and do it," with or without my permission, what's the security? What does the ratepayer in that municipality have to ensure that they're being well treated?

1040

Mr Christopherson: First of all, I appreciate your strength of memory in terms of my comments vis-à-vis tenants. I would respond by reminding you that one of the things your government purports to believe in strongly is confidence in local government to make decisions. I can't imagine my local council approving any kind of taxpayer money that isn't properly secured.

The whole purpose of this is merely to ensure that tenants, and in this case we're dealing with commercial tenants, have the same access to assistance for community improvement areas that are now granted to the owners. If you give Mr Farr a chance, he may talk to you about some of the specific securities they may seek, but the fact is that a corporation like the city of Hamilton is going to want, for its own fiscal purposes as well as political purposes, to make sure it's properly secured so it can answer to the taxpayers where this money is going to come from if there's a default. I think it's very consistent with what the needs of my community are and I also think it's consistent with the philosophy of your government in terms of how you look at local governments and their role in society.

Mr Shea: We both agree on what may be a high tenant rotation. We may agree on the significance of what that means if they happen to be parties to a loan. We both agree that this government does have consummate respect for local authority, and indeed Bill 26 reflects that. I was heartened when you gave from the background of your municipal experience a strong feeling that it would be hard to believe that any municipality would operate without having some security -- best practices, if nothing else -- on behalf of its taxpayers.

What I'm asking you is, are you persuaded that in the legislation before us there is in fact a requirement that municipalities indeed do that? We're dealing with the very first example that we've ever had of making loans without any kinds of guarantees of any substance. Should that be in fact addressed?

Mr Christopherson: Where I think we differ is that your argument is premised on the fact that the only security that can properly be provided is the actual physical property that's in question.

Mr Shea: No, no.

Mr Christopherson: I think you heard earlier from Mr Hardeman, and you can hear from Mr Farr, that there would have to be other securities. If they aren't there, if this person is a bad risk, they're not going to get the loan, they're not going to get the grant. The fact of the matter is that in many cases we're dealing with long-term leaseholders who are prepared probably to add their own money to the money they're getting to improve the facility but right now they're restricted because the owner doesn't want to take on the obligation. So I'm satisfied that there is enough provision certainly within the city of Hamilton bylaws and policies that not one dime of taxpayer money is going to go out the door unless there's proper security for it.

Mr Shea: Are you persuaded the legislation at least ensures that?

Mr Christopherson: Mr Farr, maybe you can help with that.

Mr Farr: Similar to what other members have said, on other loans programs that the city of Hamilton now operates with the owners of lands, we take back promissory notes, security in other lands. The building department administers these loans programs and, as members have mentioned, they want to fully secure the loan to prevent any loss to the taxpayer.

It's my understanding and belief that the building department would come up with similar criteria for this type of loan to the tenants. We would require promissory notes, security in other lands that the tenant might own and, as I think Mr Christopherson said, that the tenant will be able to pay the money back to the city. We certainly don't want to be lending money and losing that money, because the city of Hamilton tends to have programs where the money, when it comes back, goes back out to the community again to be redone. So as the money is repaid, other loans are granted to keep the program going.

Mr Christopherson: And further, as I understand how this will apply -- I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand the wording of the bill as it is now, all it changes is the fact that it's not just the owners that are eligible. So all of the other restrictions and requirements within the Planning Act, I would assume, still apply.

Mr Shea: Mr Farr now having responded, we have been wrestling with the issue of security and how that's interpreted, and both Mr Christopherson and Mr Farr have responded to that.

Let me go to the next step and ask the final question. If the landlord -- and God knows I've had enough experiences of this in my own municipal experience, where landlords will not agree to do certain things -- does not agree, what is the process by which you will simply grant the loans and make sure that work is engaged?

Mr Farr: I presume the program will be run similar to the other programs we have right now. The tenant would make an application to the building department. The premises would be evaluated for what work it requires, again through the building department. The need and the ability to pay would be looked into from the tenant, and then if the loan was granted, documents would be drawn up to secure the loan, as we've been discussing, and then progress would be looked at through the building department inspections, through the building --

Mr Shea: So the understanding that you're giving now is that probably the kinds of things that you're talking about in terms of loans would be for purposes of outstanding work orders and so forth. It would not be to go beyond that.

Mr Farr: Some of the programs look at property standards issues and other building code issues. One of the programs is to restore certain streetscapes of the city of Hamilton, and that might be a little bit different. It would be to make the improvements to the store, the façades and that.

Mr Shea: I understand work orders. I understand all of those, and I understand the needs in terms of the official plan and certain requirements there. There's no difficulty with those kinds of issues.

When you get into the issues of streetscape and/or urban design, you give me the image of a potential where a municipality may develop a new idea, a new concept; the owner is not agreeable to it but they find some tenants who are, and that may be one way for the municipality to give effect to its plan over the objection of the owner. Is that possible?

Mr Farr: What you're getting to of course is that if there are major changes to the building, the tenant has to have the owner's consent to do that generally, under most leases. Of course, you wouldn't be able to change a building under a short-term lease or a regular lease unless you had the owner's consent.

I think in many cases the owner doesn't mind the improvements going in, it's just that he or she or it doesn't want to be responsible for the cost of those things over time. Usually they're quite happy that the tenant's doing the work; they just don't want to be paying for it over time.

Mr Shea: So the city will pay for it, in the first instance.

Mr Farr: You're given a loan or a grant.

Mr Shea: And it is repaid in what fashion?

Mr Farr: Generally through the other programs. As the member has said, it's amortized over some number of years, over a certain percentage. Monthly payments are made to the city.

Mr Shea: Out of rents?

Mr Farr: Not necessarily out of rent.

Mr Shea: Exclusive of rents?

Mr Farr: It would be payment back to the city of a certain amount per month.

Mr Shea: The tenants would pay back the city so much per month, exclusive of rents.

Mr Farr: Again, the city is not a party to the lease agreement so the rent is not an issue per se. It's not an issue for us. We're just dealing with the loan.

The Chair: Mr Hardeman has a response to Mr Shea.

Mr Hardeman: I think from my perspective of the bill, it's simpler than what we're discussing now. This bill gives the municipality the ability to collect money and security from a tenant that they loaned money to. They presently have the ability to give a grant to that tenant if they see fit, and they would not be able to collect it back. This gives them the ability to collect it from a tenant. It does not give them the ability to take as security property that belongs to someone else, which is the landlord. So the landlord would not become responsible for that loan; the tenant would remain responsible for it.

Mr Shea: That's very clear.

Mr Hardeman: Last but not least, they do not have the power in this bill to attach any liability to the building on a loan that a tenant signed. So there's no connection between the two. If they want to spend all the money on the building on behalf of the landlord, and then leave, the city would not be able to go to that landlord and say, "Would you pay that bill, because the asset is in the building." They would be out the money unless they hold other security.

Mr Shea: I think the issue is just a little bit more than that in terms of improvements. If it goes beyond outstanding work orders and so forth, then I think it becomes more than problematic. I think it has some other potentials for concern, at least on my part, but I understand your answer.

I have exhausted my questions.

Mr Christopherson: I think we need to focus on the response of Mr Farr. Under the current lease, the tenant can make whatever changes that lease allows and can't go beyond that. Where the money comes from to do that, quite frankly, is of no concern to the property owner. What matters is how much you can do under the lease, and in this case, if the only way to access some money for community improvement from the city is through security of the property, it's stopped if that property owner, for whatever reason, says no. However, this will allow access to those funds to the tenant, but again within the confines of the lease. So if the owner is about to face changes to their building they didn't want, they've got a lease problem, not a financial mechanism problem with the city.

1050

Mr Shea: Mr Farr mentioned streetscape, urban design and so forth. It's that scenario that was problematic.

Mr Christopherson: I don't think so. I don't think it's problematic.

Mr Bisson: Mr Christopherson made one of the points I was going to make, and I think that's important to be able to clarify. The other is that I don't want to put words in the mouth of Mr Shea, but I wouldn't want us as a committee to try to put on tenants who rent buildings any kind of -- let me take it the other way. What you're almost suggesting we do here is that if we treat tenants and landlords differently when it come to how they access loan money from a municipality, if you look at the private sector, when it comes to a tenant going to a bank or a trust company to borrow money to expand his or her business in whatever way he or she sees fit, the loan requirements for a tenant are no different from the loan requirements for the person who owns the building. They want security on the loan, and that's basically what the municipality here would do. They're not able to take the building, because the building doesn't belong to them, but they are certainly not going to lend the money out without taking some security, on stock they may have, on personal property they may have or whatever other assets they have at their disposition as a business in the event that the business was to go under and the municipality was to try to get the money back.

In the community of the city of Timmins, where we undertook in Schumacher a similar approach to what you're doing in Hamilton, what we tried to do in Schumacher was to get all the people who owned the buildings within a particular street in the downtown core to redecorate their buildings to a certain theme in order to attract tourism to our community.

One of the problems that we had was that most of the people there were tenants, and if you went to the landlord, the landlord had absolutely no interest to participate in the project that the downtown business association wanted to happen, and the municipal council and, I would add, the citizens. It was a big problem. What we ended up with is only certain buildings, a certain part of the community taking part in the program on the basis that landlords had no interest in beautifying that part of the downtown core. What we're asking here is that where you do have tenants who are responsible business owners in a community, who see themselves as a part of the community, give them the same rights as a landlord has when it comes to accessing dollars to be able to do the kinds of stuff that you do in those kinds of projects.

So I would ask that members of the committee support this, because I believe it's not just Hamilton that can benefit by this but many other communities across Ontario, and I'd ask that we support this legislation.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'd like to congratulate the city of Hamilton for its leadership in this. I think that for cities which have community improvement areas, this is an inimical problem, of landlords who cannot be made part of the consensus to improve. This, I think, is a creative means and a responsible means by which the true stakeholders, the long-term leaseholders, can be engaged. I know it would have applicability in my own riding, and I would encourage municipal affairs to look at this as a broader provision available to municipalities across the province.

In terms of the extent to which we need to be satisfied, I would just quote the inestimable Mr Joseph Spina from last week saying that the government's intention is to devolve responsibility from the province, give the municipalities more responsibility to better serve and meet the needs and services. I believe the equally inestimable Tony Clement made a similar comment.

I'm satisfied that this is the kind of provision that is well within the ambit of the municipalities. I see the city of Hamilton has a community loans program. I'm sure the requirements of that program will be modified to ensure that this is done properly, so I'd like to express my support for this initiative.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Just a quick question for Mr Farr: I don't see the word "commercial" in the act anywhere and I just wonder, does subsection 28(7) of the Planning Act specifically restrict these kinds of loans to commercial? We've heard "long-term lease." Does it specifically restrict these kinds of loans to commercial operators who are in a long-term lease?

Mr Farr: Under another section of the Municipal Act, section 112 prohibits municipalities from making loans or grants to commercial enterprises if it's in the nature of a bonus. You may have heard that before about municipalities.

Section 28 has a part of it that's an exception to that. If your community improvement plan would be otherwise a bonus, if you get the minister's consent, then it's deemed not to be a bonus under section 112. So to go back to your question, generally we wouldn't be allowed to make a grant to a commercial industry because that would be a bonus. However, if our community improvement plan includes terms which have been approved by the minister to allow such a program, then we can make those grants or loans.

To answer your question, if it's just an individual who's not a business, a non-profit organization, then there is no limit. A municipality can make loans or grants to,a non-profit organization. It's only when you come into a commercial organization that we have this bonusing issue.

Mr Grimmett: So they already have the right to lend to residential --

Mr Farr: In the city, yes, we have a number of residential loan programs of various types to help out.

Mr Ruprecht: My question was actually answered in Mr Shea's exchange with Mr Christopherson, but I'd just add that in our area we have many absentee landlords and that's why I'm very sympathetic to this move. We know of the carelessness in which some of the landlords hold their properties, and consequently I would like to support this move as well.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd first like to say that I have found this discussion we're having in this committee important and I would hate to think that this bill had just whipped through some process and we hadn't been able to have this discussion, because in my mind Mr Shea has brought up some interesting questions that I would have never thought of myself, not being as strong in the Municipal Act, section 28, as maybe I should be.

I want to agree with what everybody is saying here. I don't think anybody here has a problem that the city of Hamilton is going to go out and just off the cuff spend money and throw taxpayers' dollars around. I think we all agree that they will in some way get the best protection they can for the taxpayers' money.

What's of concern to me and makes me still uneasy and at this point unable to vote on this bill is the issue of us changing the property of a person who has purchased it without their consent. For example, in my main street -- and maybe I'm misunderstanding this, so I want to explore this process a little more. What I believe is happening here is, on the main street in Exeter, for example, we would like to have the façades of the streets changed to be rural early 20th century or 1900s. What we would like to do is have a distinct character which will attract businesses, some of us believe, to the community.

Some business owners, some people who have actually purchased that building, don't want to have their façade changed to that era. They believe their building has a better marketability, it has a better saleability, maybe even a better aesthetic -- I don't know what they believe -- and they don't want to change the façade to that.

Mr Bisson: You couldn't do that with this legislation.

Mrs Johns: I just want to check and see. It's okay for me to ask, isn't it?

What I want to know is, at this particular point you say that you can advance this loan to the tenants and that the owner in effect doesn't have to have any say over that. I'm concerned about that because I think that in some cases it could be a dramatic enough change that the owner could lose value, it could change the character of their building. Could you comment on that for me, try and soothe me?

Mr Farr: I think your soothing part would be that again it's a matter of the lease agreement between the owner and the tenant. Most leases would specify what changes the tenant can make to the building without the owner's consent. If it's a major change generally that's not allowed without the owner's consent. If the tenant wanted to make this major change under this program, then he, she or it would have to have the owner's consent.

I may have led the member astray. Many of them probably won't be a major change; they will be more in the line of what we were talking about, property standards orders and somewhat sprucing up the store.

Mr Christopherson: If I can, Helen, if there's a problem, and I think it's reasonable to assume that in some cases there may be a difference of opinion between a tenant and a property owner, for whatever reason, that's fair. But as I mentioned earlier, it's the lease that will dictate what can or can't happen. If the property owner ends up unhappy, it's not necessarily because of municipal money, because the tenant could very well have made the same changes within that lease through private funding. So my point earlier was that the property owner has a lease problem in terms of the words they have agreed to versus the issue of whether the city became a party to providing finances for the changes.

Mrs Johns: Which I agree with.

The Chair: Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Mr Christopherson and the lawyer responded to the point I wanted to make.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: The same thing. It's always provided for in a lease, to the best of my knowledge, and there may very well be a clause in a lease that would allow a tenant to do this, or they usually have to get consent of the landlord, in any event.

The Chair: Are the members ready to vote? We will vote on Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton, sponsored by David Christopherson, MPP.

Collapsing sections 1 through 4, shall these sections carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

I wish to thank the applicants and appreciate the questions. I declare this order of business closed.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

1100

MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) INC. ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc.

Mrs Johns: Committee, I'd like to thank you for your time on this issue. I'm representing Mr Tascona today, who is unable to be here. He sends his regrets as he has another engagement that he has to be at.

The people beside me today have come because they have a private bill, Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc. I think it's important for us to consider this bill because it will enable the association to grant a certain class or designation to a specific group of people. They're calling this "Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (Certified)." I think it provides a burden of proof and promotes some professional standards within the organization.

I would like to introduce George Cameron, who is the applicant's solicitor with Graham, Wilson and Green, a barristers and solicitors firm in Barrie, Ontario.

Mr George Cameron: The purpose of this bill, as Ms Johns said, is to continue the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association as a company incorporated under private statute in order to allow that company to issue certification of those of its members who become properly qualified.

I'd like to introduce the two folks from that organization who are going to speak to the bill. On my left is Steve Kinsella, the vice-president and vice-chair of the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association -- he's from the town of Innisfil -- and on my right, Ms Brenda Russell, the president and chair of the association, from the city of Barrie. Brenda is going to speak to the bill now.

Ms Brenda Russell: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today to the matter of Bill Pr83. The Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) currently represents over 700 municipal law enforcement officers throughout the province. Our association operates independent of any financial assistance from government or private agencies.

Since our inception in 1979, our association has strived to recognize the educational and training needs of our members in their respective municipalities. We have developed and delivered quality training and educational programs, and continue to, in response to those needs.

Bill Pr83 is the next step in our association's goal to bring professionalism to the field of municipal law enforcement within Ontario. The provisions of this bill will permit us to recognize through the certification process the training and educational accomplishments of our members, education and training which establishes and serves to maintain a high standard of enforcement practices throughout the province. The Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association is committed to developing and delivering educational and training programs which will establish and ensure professionalism and continuity in the field of municipal law enforcement within this province.

Certification will ensure that our members have achieved these educational and training goals. It will also be an assurance to municipalities and other government agencies, as well as to the public, that municipal law enforcement officers are duly qualified to carry out their enforcement responsibilities and that their performance at all times reflects the highest professional standards, which is what the public demands and most definitely what the public deserves. We propose to do this by the most cost-effective means possible.

I wish to thank the committee and Mr Chair for your consideration in this bill. We look forward to your favourable recommendation.

The Chair: Are there any interested parties who wish to address this bill? Seeing none, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Ernie Hardeman, for any comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Hardeman: I just want to point out that since 1985 the government has received and gone through about 20 bills of a similar nature. Obviously, since they were approved and deemed appropriate, the government will not be registering any objection to this one. In fact, we would encourage passage of the bill as it relates to helping self-regulate or self-monitor the association.

I think the one point we would want to make is that the association in no way restricts people from doing the position because they are not a member or not designated by the association to do that function. Beyond that, we would strongly support and encourage you to proceed with the function of passing the bill.

The Chair: We now turn to questions from the committee to either the applicants or to our parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gerretsen: I have a number of questions. I take it that all your members are either bylaw enforcement officers, parking control officers -- are they all employed by municipalities or other organizations as well?

Ms Russell: There are some ministry agencies that will also employ municipal law enforcement officers, but the majority of our members are employed by municipalities.

Mr Gerretsen: How many members do you have?

Ms Russell: We have approximately 700 members throughout the province at the present time.

Mr Gerretsen: How many municipal enforcement officers do you feel there are in Ontario?

Ms Russell: I think it would be unfair for me to estimate at this time. I really don't know.

Mr Gerretsen: What I'm getting at is, what percentage of the people in the province are actually represented as being members of your association? Would it be half, a quarter? You must have some idea of roughly how many people who have got these kinds of qualifications and are working in the field you represent.

Mr Steve Kinsella: What I can tell you is that since 1979 approximately 2,000 people have gone through our educational programs throughout Ontario.

Mr Gerretsen: Your educational programs are what? Basically community college-based?

Mr Kinsella: No, it's beyond community college. They're held right now at the Gravenhurst Fire College. Previous to that we were at the Brampton OPP college and previous to that the Aylmer Police College in Ontario.

Mr Gerretsen: I've always been highly impressed by the quality of work that's done by the vast majority of municipal law enforcement officers throughout the province. Congratulations and good luck.

The Chair: Any further questions from the committee? Oh, sorry, Mr Curling. I had you down.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to commend you for this approach, because whenever I hear that police are being trained and educated more, I am encouraged by that. Just one question: Considering the fact that we have a wide diversity of culture and race relations in our province and what have you, is a great emphasis placed on this in your education programs?

Mr Kinsella: Actually very specifically in our prosecutors' program that we have, that's the advanced program, we have a full day on multi-race relations and multiculturalism. It's given in the prosecutors' course and it's touched on in the basic class in the first week, but in the advanced class it's a full day that's set on covering exactly those types of topics.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much and good luck in your program.

The Chair: Are members ready to vote? We are voting on Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc. Ms Helen Johns is sitting in as sponsor for Mr Joe Tascona, MPP.

In keeping with tradition, shall sections 1 through 12 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed. I shall do, and I wish to thank the applicants and declare this order of business closed.

1110

CHINESE CULTURAL CENTRE OF GREATER TORONTO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation.

The Chair: We have a final order of business. I would ask the sponsor and the applicants to approach the witness table. We are distributing some additional information on this private bill. Our next item of business is Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation. The sponsor for this bill is Alvin Curling, MPP. I would ask Mr Curling for some brief remarks and then we would go to the applicants to introduce themselves and make comment.

Mr Curling: We have today with us Ming Tat Cheung, the chair of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation, and directors Brian Chu and David Tang, and Mr Greg Wong who is in the back here.

First I should make a comment about the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, an organization that has a strong historic background in doing community work, not only as it may indicate here for the Chinese culture but also for the wider culture of Scarborough and greater Toronto. Their contribution to greater Toronto has been remarkable and they are seeking today, as you can see, a waiver of the property tax with respect to the site on which they are located, at 5183 Sheppard Avenue East in Scarborough. They have strong support all over. I would leave the rest for the chair, to make his introductory comments as he so desires.

Mr Ming Tat Cheung: On behalf of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater of Toronto, the CCC, I would like to thank the committee for letting us have this opportunity to present to you our application requesting your support of the introduction of a private member's bill in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which would grant the municipality of Metro Toronto the right to waive property taxes with respect to the property at 5183 Sheppard Avenue East in the city of Scarborough, where the centre will be located.

The Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation is a non-profit, charity foundation with the goal to build the largest Chinese cultural centre in North America. The project concept started almost 10 years ago. The objective of building the centre is to promote Chinese culture to all citizens of Ontario. The project will be shared by all Ontarians.

The centre will bring regional prominence to the greater Toronto area, attracting investments from the Far East, and will promote business and trade opportunities with the Far East countries and regions. It will also have the benefit of job creation and the promotion of tourism opportunities. Ultimately an understanding of the differences between the cultures of the east and the west will bring social and racial harmony to our society.

During the past six years members of CCC have spent thousands and thousands of volunteer hours to bring this project to its fruition. The ground-breaking ceremony took place last November. The opening of the phase 1 building is planned for the spring of 1998. This project, when completed, will represent an injection of millions of dollars privately raised.

The landmark project will become the focal point for the Chinese community, but it will also become a symbol of successful cooperation from the grass-roots community and the different levels of government. We sincerely hope the members of the committee will support our application.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cheung. Do any other applicants wish to make opening remarks?

Mr Cheung: Our members are prepared to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you. Before we go to questions, are there any interested parties in the room? Seeing none, we now go to MPP Ernie Hardeman, the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for the presentation. The ministry obviously has certain criteria when a private bill is being prepared for this type of process. There is a list of criteria circulated -- the applicants received that -- of the type of things that need to be done. The two that I find rather important and would like some clarification on is the support of the school board and the support of Metro council.

I notice that in the information we received we have a list of councillors who have signed to say they agree, but it is not the support of Metro council. Having been a municipal politician for quite a number of years, I can't tell you how many times I've been told that municipal government is directed by the vote of council, not by the concurrence of individual members. This not being the case in Metro, of course, there have been some cases where I've noticed that what is supported one day in the office of the member individually is voted against at the council meeting.

I have some real concerns that we don't have the required local support for this bill. I wonder if you could clarify for me why the process prevented you from getting a council resolution and a school board resolution, as opposed to going the route of getting individual signatures; recognizing that this is not a property already on the ground or that already requires the tax exemption today to stay in business, but that we are working based on what is yet to come.

Mr Cheung: One of our directors, Mr David Tang, will answer your question.

Mr David Tang: Certainly. The difficulty we faced in getting this bill to this committee and hopefully to the Legislature is simply that at some point the Legislature is going to have to recess for the summer. Our hopes had been to get this in place prior to the 1998 taxation year, and that really requires us to have this bill in place prior to the fall of this year. As both Metro and the school board have indicated in their correspondence with you, they will be undertaking a process, after the bill has been passed, to determine whether to waive or not to waive those taxes.

The process from their point of view is that this legislation enables them to consider whether to waive those taxes. They were not wanting to go into the process of considering whether to waive that before the bill had passed. They would like to consider that after the bill has passed.

What they have done -- particularly if you look, for example, at the letter written by the school board -- is to indicate that they intend to consider it after the bill has passed, as they have with, for example, the 750 Spadina Avenue Association, which is the Jewish centre.

1120

The situation with Metro is similar. They have forwarded this matter to their financial priorities committee for consideration. The consideration will ultimately lead to a determination whether they will or will not waive those taxes after the bill has passed. It's simply a matter of timing for the 1998 taxation year and a matter of timing because the Legislature is going to have to recess for the summer.

Mr Hardeman: It bothers me a little that we're suggesting it's a matter of timing, that we need to pass the bill today to have it in place for some future date. In the past, in other applications, that doesn't seem to have been necessary, to have it done today for the future. In fact, most of them are to deal with an exemption that had lapsed, where there was an exemption and because of change of ownership it no longer applied; they propose a bill to eliminate the taxes on something that exists.

I'm a little concerned that the process here is being somewhat circumvented. It should be the local decision that decides these tax exemptions should be granted, not the provincial decision. Particularly with the Metro one, we're talking about Metro dollars, not provincial dollars. To make that type of decision I think we should have the support of Metro council by resolution to proceed with that. I have some real concerns that we don't have that.

Mr Curling: What the cultural centre is asking for and Scarborough too is the right to waive the property tax. In other words, if this legislation passes, they have the option to either waive it or not. They can make that decision. I don't really see that this legislation in any way could impede giving the municipality the right to do that waiver. Therefore, the timing of which we speak -- they would have that option to waive or not to waive.

The Chair: Is there any further response from the applicants?

Mr Tang: Simply this: As Mr Curling has indicated, the bill, when passed, will not waive the taxes, it will not exempt us from taxes; it will simply give the option to each of the local municipalities and the school board to do that if they wish to do so. They will undertake an investigation of whether they deem it advisable to do so or not to do so. That's the first thing.

All indications at this point are that Metro is supportive. The letter you have contains the signatures of two-thirds of the members of Metro council. That is more than a majority, more than enough to pass the resolution. It's enough, in fact, to reopen any motion if they wish to do so. There is appended to that letter, I believe, a report from staff to the financial priorities committee recommending that the Legislature pass the bill, specifically that Metro council supports in principle our request for special legislation. That has not yet been voted upon, but there is a staff recommendation to the committee and to council to support the bill.

Mr Hardeman: I don't disagree. I just suggest that if the intent was to have the bill in place so council can make its decision on whether it will or will not grant the exemption, I point out that council has the power to give a grant equal to the taxation even without the bill. If that's their position, we don't need any of this process. They can give a grant in lieu or give a grant back in the amount of taxes and it would accomplish the same thing.

There seems to be some discussion about the ownership of the property, whether it's a charitable organization or a not-for-profit, why we have the two and why it isn't going to be registered in the charitable organization ownership.

Mr Tang: Let me explain that. It really arises because the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto has tried very hard to partner itself with various other organizations in society. It's reflected in our very clear desire not just to be a Chinese cultural centre but to be a cultural centre that reaches out into the community. Consequently, the building, the cultural centre itself, is a joint development with the city of Scarborough. The city of Scarborough is, on the same lands, building a community centre and a library and there are plans to build a Chinese garden, and it will be one complex together with the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto.

As a result, there were some agreements entered into some years ago for the co-development of the site. That same agreement provides for a number of obligations that the Chinese Cultural Centre, the non-profit corporation, must meet in the process of the development and in the operation of the centre and the entire site, if you would. Those required us to take title to the property in the name of that organization, not the charitable organization, because it is the signatory to that agreement and it has obligations it must carry out with the city of Scarborough. There are things like sharing of costs in the running of that site, that sort of thing. That's the reason why title had to be taken and that's why it had certain obligations. The land itself will be owned beneficially by the charitable organization. The legal title will be taken in the name of the non-profit organization in trust for the charitable organization.

Mr Hardeman: The reason I bring that one up is that the first and second criteria for exemption are that the organization must be a registered charity under the Income Tax Act and that the organization own and occupy the property. So all of a sudden we have a discrepancy there as to how we deal with that, that this bill would in effect grant a tax exemption to a non-profit organization as opposed to a charitable organization. I guess I'm looking for a time frame as to when, or if ever, it was the intent that the charitable organization would own and occupy the property.

Mr Tang: The time frame for it is uncertain at this point. It would require further negotiations with the city of Scarborough to deal with those ongoing obligations that the non-profit organization has under those agreements. It may be possible at some point that title could be legally vested in the charitable organization. I can't tell you right now if and when that could be. That is something we can't tell you at this time. The difficulty with it is simply that those arrangements which were made with the city of Scarborough for the development of the site are something we cannot get out of at this time.

The only thing we can assure you is to provide you with some indication of the objects of the non-profit organization. I`d be happy to read those to you if that would be of any assistance to you at all.

The Chair: We'll have the clerk distribute those documents. Mr Hardeman, another question?

1130

Mr Hardeman: No, Mr Chair, I would yield the floor for questions. If the ones I have are not asked when we're through, I will continue on with them.

The Chair: Any further responses from the applicants? At this point, we now go to the committee for questions to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Ruprecht: First of all, let me make a statement at the beginning that I will be supporting this bill, but I too would want to find the answer to Mr Hardeman's question about the charitable status. I am just wondering whether that can be done without having to wait. The concern of why it is necessary to move quickly is also an overriding fact for me of why I would support this legislation.

Having said that the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto will supply to the ministry sufficient information that would justify that the charitable organization would be in charge of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, I would point to the fact that the city of Scarborough, at its meeting of May 27, actually passed this resolution supporting this private member's bill.

That is significant to me. You have the letter of Frank Faubert, the mayor of Scarborough, in front of you. You have, as was indicated, the written assurance of two thirds of Metro council in front of you, which is more than a majority of Metro council, and you have the support of other institutions, including a list of precedents which indicate as well that this will not be any different than other organizations which have the tax-exempt status. Consequently, I would urge that the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto be provided with the tax-exempt status as well.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I intend to support the bill as well and I do so because this group has followed a similar process as one of the groups last week in terms of providing for the right to waive by municipalities upon the enabling legislation having been passed. I believe that this group has accomplished all reasonable efforts to get the support of both the city of Scarborough and Metro council to the extent possible, given the council schedules of those particular councils.

I believe they have also today undertaken to get some charitable status information to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to clear up any lingering issues of concern with the ministry, and so are again providing reasonable efforts to clear away any residual issues that are outstanding, which to me are issues that should be resolved, but there is nothing in my mind that turns on it in terms of deciding today.

Having said all that, the question I want to ask the parliamentary assistant or others who know the answer to this is, my understanding is that all these things are going to be up for review by the new city of Toronto, as they review the status of all previously legislated or resolved issues of the previous councils that still exist today but won't exist on January 1. Is that the PA's understanding as well?

Mr Hardeman: As it relates to Bill 103 and the formation of the unified city of Toronto, one question in this application would be whether the city of Scarborough has the ability to transfer this property at the present time, because it requires the concurrence of the transition committee to dispose of property in excess of a certain value. That would be a question that would come up. I am not sure that presently there is legislation, or that it is in the legislation, that would suggest that exemptions agreed to by the present councils would not be honoured by the new council. The bill does not speak to that issue in particular.

There are many other changes presently taking place and that present some concern. One is from the Ministry of Education and Training, who have suggested that the application should not be approved, or the bill should not be approved. Based on the new way they're proposing to fund education, it would no longer be a responsibility for the local school board to decide whether taxes should or should not be exempt. It would be a provincial decision because education will be provincially funded.

One of the differences between this bill and the bills that were dealt with at previous meetings or in previous times is the fact, as I said earlier, that this is to be implemented at some time in the future as the situation presently does not yet exist. The property has not yet been transferred. It is not yet eligible to have the -- it presently is not being taxed, I presume, if it's owned by the city of Scarborough.

It would appear that this bill would be put in place to deal with an issue that may very well come to pass in the future. One of the issues this committee has dealt with many times is that the bills are passed based on the present criteria, not at the future action of the province. We dealt with the last exemption based on the rules as they apply today. If the rules change, then that bill would no longer be in effect. It would have to be overridden by the new legislation the province would come out with.

One of the concerns we have with this one is that it is trying to deal with the future, as opposed to the present. It is not an exemption for the past or an exemption on the property that exists today. The purchase and the transaction have yet to take place, and that's why all three ministries that we got response back from -- municipal affairs is recommending that we defer consideration of the bill because of the council votes that are not there. The Ministry of Education and Training has suggested we defer consideration of the bill, and similarly with the Ministry of Finance, which has some concerns.

Mr Clement: A couple of comments on that: Number one, I am not sure why the ministry says they don't exist, because I've just been handed letters patent that indicate this group does exist.

The Chair: Maybe not everybody has that information. Were you just handed that?

Mr Clement: I just got handed this information, so they do exist.

The Chair: Let's wait till this gets circulated.

Mr Clement: Can I continue my comments, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes, and then maybe come back to that.

Mr Clement: I just said what I wanted to say on that particular issue.

Mr Hardeman: Could I ask a question on that, Tony? Does the corporation exist or has the deal been made to transfer the property? I'm not suggesting the corporation doesn't exist. What I am saying is that the corporation that is asking for the exemption does not own the land they're asking the exemption on.

Mr Clement: Right.

Mr Hardeman: It's not tax they're trying to be exempt from; it's a transaction that will happen in the future.

Mr Clement: And the owner of the land, the city of Scarborough, has passed a resolution indicating they want to deal with the land in a particular way, so the current owner and the future owner are in concurrence as to how they want the land to be dealt with.

As for the Ministry of Education and Training, it's all very well for them to say that in the future they intend to deal with something in a different way, but as you said, the future is not the present and in the present circumstances, which are similar to the circumstances last week, the Ministry of Education and Training did not raise an objection to previous issues that were dealt with in the same way by this committee last week. I have great difficulty understanding why the Ministry of Education and Training is coming forward today with a different point of view, which was not evidenced last week. I have great difficulty with that.

1140

Mr Hardeman: In reply to that, I would just point out, as I said earlier, that the applications last week were in fact to give the municipalities the authority for tax exemptions back to 1995 for properties that had been used for that purpose since that time. This one is an application for authority to grant tax exemptions for property that the non-profit corporation will own in the future; they do not presently own it. As it's on the ground today, this bill is not required, the property is tax exempt, owned by the city of Scarborough.

Mr Clement: Right, but I would argue that's a distinction without a difference. The connection with last week is that we had an application for a future right to waive property that was based upon the municipalities doing an act in the future rather than an act in the past. That's why I'm drawing the distinction between this week and last week.

Mr Gerretsen: I don't know where to start. First of all, I was very surprised by Mr Hardeman's comment about half an hour or so ago, when he stated that what a local politician may sign in his office may be quite different from the position he or she takes when it comes to a vote. That's certainly not my --

Mr Hardeman: Well, it is mine.

Mr Gerretsen: That's certainly not been my experience at the local level. I've certainly seen it here where I've heard from different members, including government members, who take positions totally different from the way they vote in the Legislature. I totally disassociate myself from any comments of that nature. I've got a high regard for local politicians.

I know you've got a difficult time, Mr Hardeman, carrying the bag for the bureaucracy in this situation, but it's a typical case where the bureaucracy, and I don't care what ministry it is, basically wants to influence a decision like this, where they would be much better off just staying out of it and letting the public process take its place.

We could have a long argument and a long discussion here as to whether or not these types of applications in the long run are valid or not. I'm talking now in a generic way. We've got to remember that the more of these kinds of applications we approve, the more other taxpayers in the local municipality are going to have to shoulder whatever the total tax burden is within that municipality. You could have a long argument whether or not these kinds of applications are valid at all.

The problem is they started approving them X number of years ago. To take it out again now that certain organizations are coming along with these kinds of applications, in my opinion, would be totally discriminatory and totally unfair. If you've got one cultural organization that doesn't pay taxes, why should the next cultural organization pay taxes?

To in effect say, as Mr Hardeman says, that the building doesn't exist yet or the taxes aren't owing yet and therefore they're premature, to my way of thinking is totally irresponsible. These people ought to be congratulated for coming forward before they're actually in the ground and doing things, by making the right kinds of applications to the Legislature. Are we now going to start penalizing people for taking a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach, as we so often see? I don't agree with that at all.

It's this whole notion that somehow the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, after all is said and done, including their pompous statements about being in true partnership with municipalities etc, still knows what's best for municipalities.

The bottom line is this: There are three sections in this act in which it leaves it to the local city, to the Metro school board and to Metro council to decide in each and every case whether they feel in this particular situation, once the building is up and running and the organization is up and running, taxes ought to be cancelled. Why don't we leave it to the local decision-makers whether it's appropriate? All they're asking for here is just permissive legislation that has been given to other organizations as well; it puts them on equal footing with them. To do anything other than that, to my way of thinking, would be highly discriminatory. I fully support this application.

Mr Hardeman: I just want to clarify the issue of the signatures of the members of council and a decision of council. All members of the committee, I suppose, can think back to yesterday, the debate we had in the Legislature about rules and procedures, and the recognition that there was some significance to discussion at a council table as to the issue and how a member of council may vote when it's over.

The criteria used in all past bills requesting and requiring the support of council as a motion as opposed to polling council members to see how they would vote on it if it came to council precludes or takes out the ability of council to have the discussion and then vote to see whether this is right or wrong and have the voice of council as opposed to the voice of two thirds of the individual members, who have not yet had the opportunity to hear the pros and cons and the rights and wrongs of the issue.

All past bills have been processed through this committee based on the votes of council, the resolutions of council. Not that they're not honourable people, but there is a difference between council speaking through resolution of council and individual members speaking prior to the council meeting and not having been part of the debate.

Mr Gerretsen: But the real question surely is whether a resolution of council is even required. It is this organization's application. It would be nice, and maybe it has always been past practice, that a resolution of council or the school boards is there. But my question to you is: Is that an absolute necessity, for the Legislature of Ontario to take a position on a private bill like this? I don't think it is. That may be ministerial practice and it may be a nicety etc, but there's nothing anywhere that says you absolutely need, as a matter of law, a resolution of council for the Legislature to process this kind of bill.

Mr Hardeman: I'm not suggesting that at all, Mr Gerretsen. I'm just suggesting that the criteria all these applicants have been put through in the past or asked to adhere to in order to make a sound decision have always been there for other applications, a requirement of a resolution of the councils involved. This one does not have that. My point is only that, contrary to your position, I believe there is a difference between polling council members and having a resolution of council.

Mr Gerretsen: I think there's a difference too. I know there's a difference there.

Mr Hardeman: I think there's a difference between the press calling members of the Legislature and having a vote in the Legislature. I believe there's a difference, and I think that difference here is not --

Mr Gerretsen: But my question is: Is there an absolute need? Is it a requirement or just a nicety?

Mr Hardeman: I believe it is up to this committee to make a decision on whether it thinks this bill is appropriate. I would hope that decision was going to be made by the members of this committee upon hearing the debate that has been held here this morning, not the way they were polled last night.

Mr Shea: It would seem as though we are going down this path again. We've gone down this at least for the last year or so. I suspect that committees before us have gone down the same path. The request we have made of the ministry is that it give consideration to revisions to the Municipal Act, which may give some effect to the kind of question we've raised in terms of streamlining the process. It may be enabling legislation that allows municipalities, agencies of municipalities, to forgo taxes or give grants in lieu. If that were a generic amendment, it would resolve these kinds of hearings. But that, unfortunately, is not currently on the books. That's what the parliamentary assistant was trying, at some pains, to point out. The fact is that we're still caught in a bit of a time warp, and we have to deal with each circumstance as it comes before us.

We have an interesting case. Mr Gerretsen's unfortunate choice of words about the role of Metro council may reveal the way Kingston council runs, but the reality is, as Mr Hardeman pointed out, that no matter how many people you get to sign a document, it's meaningless until it actually becomes a resolution of a council. The fact is that you will note on the documents before us, these people and the Metropolitan council itself have referred this issue on to the chief administrative officer for a report back early in July.

1150

There's no doubt in my mind it will come back very favourably disposed and saying, "Let's do it." But Mr Hardeman makes a point of caution I think we're agreed with, and while I'm a prepared to support the bill, I understand his caution. It's not one we should pass over lightly. The concern I have is, and I want to put the question to the deputants, is that the policy of the committee has always been when you want to come forward and get your tax exemption -- recognizing we'd like to get rid of these things in a generic way, but we still have to live in the circumstances left to us during the lost decade.

How do we kind of get our hands on all of this and make some sense out of it and how do we begin to deal with it in an effective fashion? The rule is that you come forward and you have letter from the Metro council, you have a letter from your city council, a letter from the local school board and a letter from the Metropolitan school board -- another case in point of why this government is desperately trying to streamline local government.

Now let me go back and point out what's before us right now. The fact is, as I take a look at the document, the only criterion that you've met so far has been a very clear statement from the local council of the city of Scarborough. Is that correct?

Mr Tang: Yes, but my understanding --

Mr Shea: Thank you. Let's just stay with me for a minute. The only clear approval you've presented to the committee today to meet the criteria required by the process of this committee is the city of Scarborough has absolutely said, "Taxes will be forgiven."

Mr Tang: That's not my understanding of what the criteria are and, for that matter, neither is that what Scarborough has said. They have recommended or asked the Legislature to support the passage of the bill. That's the only thing any of these people have been asked to do and that's the only thing that I understand this committee requires, not that they will say --

Mr Shea: I understand your words and I understand how you're using them. I could even accept your interpretation of that word. Let me say that even if I accepted it as you interpret it, the only formal statement I have before me today is from the city of Scarborough. Is that right or wrong?

Mr Tang: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Shea: All I have as an undertaking before me is that Metro council has referred it on to the CAO for comment?

Mr Tang: Correct.

Mr Shea: A group of mayors and councillors have all said, "I think this is a great idea and when it comes forward, I want to give it my support, but it's got to go to the CAO for reports."

Mr Tang: Yes.

Mr Shea: I have nothing before me from the school board.

Mr Tang: No, that's not true.

Mr Shea: Which one do I have?

Mr Tang: You have --

Mr Shea: Except from the Metro school board.

Mr Tang: Yes.

Mr Shea: What have I got from the local school board? What date did you apply to the local school board?

Mr Tang: The bill does not call for the local school board to give it and neither, to my understanding, have any of the other previous bills that have been passed. Neither, for that matter, have there been resolutions from the Metro school board for the other -- for example, for the Jewish federation.

Mr Shea: Your understanding is that you only have to have the council to decide it will forgo its portion of the taxes.

Mr Tang: No. It's the Metro school board which must do that.

Mr Shea: I see. Is it your opinion that the Metro school board is able to forgive the Scarborough school board portion of taxes?

Mr Shea: That is my understanding, yes.

Mr Shea: Would you be surprised if I told you that you were in error?

Mr Tang: No.

Mr Shea: You would not be surprised?

Mr Tang: My understanding is that's the way all of the bills that have been drafted previously have been dealt with, that they have been asked to provide a resolution prior to coming to this committee only from the Metro school board and that's the way they've been dealt with.

Mr Shea: I am incredibly supportive of the application. I am distressed by the misunderstanding that seems to be reflected here because in fact there is a procedure that this committee has adopted for years, not just for this government, with other governments. I think that's what the parliamentary assistant was trying to get at. There is a concern in his mind to make sure you are protected but also that government rights are protected and the rights of the local municipality are protected.

We can get into another debate about the property tax erosion Mr Gerretsen raises at another point. That's a different issue and we'll get that at some other point. But I'm concerned about that on behalf of the parliamentary assistant. Mr Ruprecht has suggested, "Let's simply get it approved and get on with it." I understand the politics of love, trust and pixie dust, but there is a need to go just a little bit past that and say, "We need some kind of understanding that's very clear to make sure we're not making some mistakes," not the least of which is the issue Mr Hardeman raises about the ownership. That may or may not be troublesome; I don't know. He's the parliamentary assistant and would best know that.

First of all, I gather from your response to me you have not applied to the Scarborough school board for waiving of fees or an indication of whether it would be prepared to waive fees.

Mr Tang: We have written and advised them that we are seeking this bill.

Mr Shea: You have written to them.

Mr Tang: But they have not provided a response.

Mr Shea: Notwithstanding that it was your submission, your opinion that it was the Metro board that would forgo those taxes.

Mr Tang: We did write to them; we did tell them we were doing this. The problem is our understanding was that for the purposes of this committee hearing this bill --

Mr Shea: You only needed the two, the Metro council and the Metro school board approval.

Mr Tang: Yes, that's right. We only needed Metro council and Metro school board, although I had also understood that a number of other associations had not managed to actually obtain the Metro school board's approval in the past before they came to this committee. They're in the same position we are in.

Mr Shea: All right. I have no other questions.

Mr Kennedy: I listened with interest to the discussion. I think it's important that we look at what is the substantive public interest here. The substantive public interest has already been modelled for us a number of times by other organizations in terms of what we're enabling municipalities to make a decision over.

I certainly respect Mr Hardeman's points, but there is not in my estimation a material difference between this application and the ones before as it relates to the public interest. The public interest here is not a future consideration; it is 10 years of effort by the Chinese Cultural Centre, by the local government.

Everybody who is in the GTA knows about the process and the bona fides of this particular association. While it may be new in the sense that they're up against some of the changes in deadlines and so on that are happening, there's no question, and I'd certainly like to add my own personal knowledge to that where it may influence in some small way the balance, that there is substantial local interest and support for the municipalities to have this choice.

This is a unique project. It has a level of slightly added complexity, but that just taxes us to make sure we understand, does this meet the test of substantial public interest? The explanation we received around the land -- we're not being asked to approve anything that is substantially different in any way from what we've already granted to numerous comparable organizations. The effort, which is known certainly to Metro and I believe GTA members, to have this be a unique project is something we're supporting, not something worth frustrating either the city of Scarborough or this association.

It's very important that we look at it that way, and on balance, while I respect the points Mr Hardeman has made on behalf of some of the administration, I really believe this application fits that criteria in all material ways. We're looking at a charitable organization that will operate a charitable program in the public interest, that has worked not just incidentally but very closely with the local government, has the support of that local government, has at least a demonstrated prospect of very strong support from the Metro government. I don't think there's any doubt in the minds of Metro members that they will receive the support of Metro council and the related bodies and I think it is that kind of understanding should inform the decision we make today.

While there is reason to take this kind of time to discuss this and to understand what we're considering, I think there is still a very, very clear substantive public interest and basis for us to pass this today and enable this 10-year project to come to fruition in the way that it only can with this kind of enabling legislation.

I would emphasize that that's what's we're doing. We're enabling the municipality to make the choice. I don't see anything that we're taking away from the municipality's ability to do that, and some of the discussion points I'm sure will be resolved in that process.

1200

Mrs Johns: I'm not sure if there's any legislative counsel here from municipal affairs, but I just was wondering if I could ask a question, and it may well not be something that's worth commenting on. I just wanted to ask, since Mr Hardeman made what I thought was an interesting comment when he talked about the bill being futuristic, that in the future this will kick in because at this particular point the Chinese Cultural Centre does not own the property. Did I interpret that correctly, Mr Hardeman?

Interjection.

Mrs Johns: What I would like to know is, if we come along with some of the bills, for example, the unified city, where there could be a change in the way the Toronto area would like to do grants in lieu or that the province would like to deal with grants in lieu around education because it will no longer be a board decision but a provincial government decision, would this private member's bill take precedence over the legislation that's coming through right now with respect to the province, or would we in effect have to put through a bill to reverse this specific bill? Because it has a different flavour by a little bit than the bills of last week, because it's not dealing with issues in the past where we already know what the tax rate was; we're dealing with it in the future. Is that a problem?

Mr Paul Murray: Paul Murray with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It's not really that different in the sense that what it's saying is it sets certain conditions under which the bylaw regarding the cancellation of the taxes can be passed, and those conditions have to exist before the bylaw can be passed. The fact is we know from the information that's been provided that certain of those conditions don't exist today and won't exist probably at least until October, whereas in the other bills that we've looked at, all of those conditions existed at the time the committee was looking at the bill. In that sense, it's really the satisfaction of the conditions; it's not the way the bills have been framed that's really any different.

Mrs Johns: Okay. So, for example, if we come through later on and for example -- I have no reason to believe this would happen but I'm just interested -- the province decided it didn't want to do grants in lieu for education in the future, let's say, what would we have to do with this bill to be able to allow that to happen?

Mr Murray: I haven't looked at specifically how we would vary this range of private bills but I suspect in any kind of legislation we want to speak to it fairly directly as to how we were changing the existing state of things in terms of the legislation.

Mrs Johns: So we don't need to put a caveat into this bill but we would have to deal with it specifically about all the private bills we've passed all the way along, if the government so chose to take another vision?

Mr Murray: I think that would be the intent.

The Chair: A question from Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: It's not so much a question but a comment. We always want non-profit groups to run their affairs in a business-like fashion. I don't see what the problem is with this so-called futuristic approach. You've got an organization that wants to build a centre. Surely, before they build the centre they want to know whether or not they have to pay taxes. What is wrong with giving a non-profit, charitable organization -- these people are duly incorporated -- the right to apply to a local council or a local school board that, if and when they ever buy a piece of property and develop it for non-profit or charitable purposes in a particular municipality, the right to apply to that municipality to have those taxes that may be on that property waived?

Why do they have to be up and running? Why do they have to lay out the money first and then apply for it back? What is wrong with doing that beforehand? It may very well have been that it's never been done this way before, and it may be the ministry feels somewhat uncomfortable in dealing with it, but all we're doing here is giving the local municipality and the local school board permissive legislation if and when they develop their cultural centre, either on this site or on other sites, the right to apply. Other organizations have it. Why shouldn't they?

The Chair: Do you have another question, Mrs Johns?

Mrs Johns: I think he was going to answer and it's not answered. I think it's important for us here, when we sit in a committee, to understand all the facts before we talk about voting. In my particular case, because I didn't come through the municipal field, it takes me time to understand all of the issues associated with it, which may come very naturally to you as a result of years as the King Pooh-Bah of Kingston.

Mr Gerretsen: Don't hold that against me.

Mrs Johns: From my standpoint, I think more information to be able to make decisions is the best thing we can all do. That fulfils our duty as representatives in our community. So I think a good discussion about what's happening, a thorough understanding from everybody's perspective is the way we should go in this committee. I don't think you need to say, "Hey, you shouldn't ask questions," because I think we all have to understand the issues to be informed, to be able to have a good vote here.

Mr Gerretsen: Just on a point of order, I would never suggest that we shouldn't ask questions. Quite frankly, my comments weren't addressed at you or anybody else on the committee at all; they were addressed more at staff of the ministry. I know they like doing things in a certain way, and if it doesn't fit that mould, there's all sorts of hesitation about it. I noticed that in the body language of the parliamentary assistant and I feel sorry for him.

Mr Clement: That's on Hansard now.

Mr Gerretsen: All I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with them applying in the manner in which they've done it, because in any event the ultimate decision is going to be left up to the local board and the local council whether or not they want to cancel taxes. I always welcome your questions, Ms Johns.

Mr Hardeman: Just a couple of final comments. I think Mr Gerretsen's presentation included the words "non-profit organization" about three times. I want to start with that one.

First of all, I want to say I support the principle of what you're trying to do. I agree that these types of organizations have got the tax exemption in the past and I see no reason why yours shouldn't get it now or in the future. But I have this concern as it relates to the non-profit. This committee has not in the past granted tax exemption status for non-profit organizations, only for charitable organizations. We are talking in this case about the non-profit organization owning the property, and that's a departure from what the past has been here.

The other item I think is important, as I said when we started, is the issue of municipal support. I think it's in the procedures for Applying for Private Legislation, as printed, to deal with this committee. This is on page 6: "If the bill affects the interest or property of any municipality or local board or the tax base of any municipality, the applicant should indicate that specific notice has been given to the affected body or bodies and the date that notice was given."

I think this legislation affects Metro Toronto in a significant way. I think it's appropriate that those steps have been followed. I suppose we could suggest that we have given notice to Metro, so you've accomplished that, but then other documentation says "and Metro is considering the issue." Now we're saying, "But what you're considering becomes irrelevant because we've already made the decision."

You can deal with the other part, whether you will or will not grant the exemption, but you will not have input into whether the province passes the private legislation.

If we want to deal just with their right either to grant it or not to grant it, they can do that through a grant process now. You don't need this legislation for that. If Metro decided that this centre should not pay taxes, whatever the taxes are, they can just send the cheque back and you would not have to pay. So I think it's significant that they be involved in this process.

In this application, and I've mentioned it a couple of times before, I don't see the imminent need for this to be passed today, recognizing that the taxes are not on the property today, and until the transfer takes place, it's exempt property as it stands. I don't see the imminent need for passing it today, that another month or another two months would change your chances or change the situation as it is today, recognizing that many of the others that have gone through this process, the reason they had to be backdated or made retroactive for such a long time was because it took that long for them to be in the process that they went through to get their support, to get the comments from all the local authorities and so forth. It would appear that could be done and this could still all be in place in time for the centre to proceed.

1210

With that and for all those reasons, although I do support the need for legislation or the need to deal with your issue, I don't see the imminent need to do it today. I would make a motion that we defer the decision. That's based on the fact that I do not feel comfortable to vote against the bill, though under today's circumstances I do not feel that I could support the bill because we need more information. So I would make a motion that we defer a decision on the bill until further information is brought forward to the committee.

The Chair: We have a motion before this committee to defer the decision on Bill Pr81. Shall this motion carry?

Interjection: When you say defer --

The Chair: To defer further consideration of Bill Pr81.

Mr Shea: Are we deferring sine die or are we deferring it to a specific date?

Mr Hardeman: I would be prepared to add to the motion "to be deferred until the required information was brought forward by the applicant." That could be at the next meeting; it could be two meetings.

Mr Clement: I would request that it be deferred to the next meeting.

Mr Hardeman: I would be prepared to defer it to the next meeting, but if we're deferring it to get the information from Metro council, to get the information from the school board, if the applicant does not have it for the next meeting, to have it deferred to that meeting would be inappropriate. I would leave that with the applicant to get that information and then defer it --

Mr Clement: If they don't have it at the next meeting, we can defer it to the meeting after that.

The Chair: I might mention that there are other bills and often it's hard to determine exactly which bill comes up in the next meeting --

Mr Clement: Mr Chair, if we can send a man to the moon, we can figure out the order of precedence for the next meeting. It's not rocket science here.

Mr Gerretsen: The motion says so that the required information is here. From what the parliamentary assistant has already read, they were required to give notice to these three organizations. They've done that. It may have been a matter of practice that you don't only give notice but you also get a resolution from them. If that's what he's looking for, the ministry's own guidelines don't call for that, because you indicated yourself in what you read that they are required to have been given notice.

It clearly illustrates the point I was trying to make earlier, that what's become a requirement now as a matter of fact is much more than what the ministry guidelines originally said, whereby you give the other organizations, such as the school boards and the municipality, notice. That's been translated into resolutions of support. On that basis alone, I would urge the members of this committee to show their independence and to vote against the deferral motion.

The Chair: Further discussion on this motion?

Mr Curling: That's the point I want to make, and Mr Gerretsen made the point very well. The fact is that notice was given, of course, and those requirements were adhered to by the committee. But the fact is, if you're looking for a resolution to come back from these organizations, from Metro and all that, a time frame will be extended way beyond the time that we're talking about, depending on whether or not Metro will meet, whether the Toronto board will be there to meet, to get those resolutions back in time for them to come back with those resolutions. As I understand the reading of the procedures there, notice should be given, and that was given. But the notice did not say, "And further, to get a resolution from these organizations."

Mr Kennedy: I'd like to speak against the resolution for the simple reason that we're not going to accomplish anything. I don't think there's any doubt that there is local support for municipalities to have this choice. It's been expressed to us as strongly as it can be. Given the time frame of this committee, this committee will not be available to take care of this at the time when that support might more formally be extended. All the legal things have been observed in respect of this. So with all due respect, I think this can only be a technocratic delay on our part should we concur with it.

Secondly, on the question of ownership, we're being asked to prove beneficial ownership of a registered charity. That's what we're being asked to do. It's the occupancy in conjunction with, and we've had an explanation which I have not heard disputed by anyone. That explanation is unlikely to change. We will not have the date of sole occupancy. That's the only thing we're being asked to consider that is slightly unusual about this application. If the resolution of that issue is problematic, I have not heard a member of this committee express it. It won't change next week or the week after that.

On the substantive issues, I believe I've heard concurrence expressed by people who understand the objects of this organization. I've had no indication that there is something wrong or inconsistent with that slight alteration, and we have absolutely had the extension of local government support for the choice to happen. I think this delay can only be technocratic and can only add up to frustrating this organization unnecessarily.

The Chair: Could I ask Mr Hardeman to restate the motion and then I'll put it to the committee.

Mr Hardeman: My motion was quite simple: to defer the application in order for the committee to receive the responses to the notification that was sent out by the applicant.

In explanation to it, I think it's one thing to suggest that yes, we have met all the requirements, we have given notice. I think all would agree that giving notice also implies that you give time for response. In my opinion, that has not been done at this point in time. If I could see the imminent need for this to be in place next week, I would maybe reconsider, but I don't see that on the ground. I would be prepared to add to it "at the next meeting" or in the next two meetings if the committee would be more receptive to a time on the resolution as opposed to just deferring it.

Mr Clement: I have a point of order for the Chair: I'd like to request a five-minute recess for this side to discuss this issue internally.

The Chair: All in favour? A five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1217 to 1223.

The Chair: We have a motion before the committee. I'll restate the motion: That consideration of Bill Pr81 be deferred until the requested resolutions are provided.

Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Those opposed? I declare this motion lost.

Mr Gerretsen: I move the question.

The Chair: We are considering Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation. The sponsor is Mr Alvin Curling, MPP. In keeping with tradition of collapsing sections -- there are no amendments, are there?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Rosemarie Singh): No.

The Chair: Shall sections 1 through to 10 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the schedule carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

I shall do so, and I declare this order of business closed and the meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1225.