Wednesday 24 November 1999

Subcommittee substitution

Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd. Act, 1999, Bill Pr1, Mr Dunlop
Mr Garfield Dunlop, MPP
Mr Peter Deacon

Township of North Kawartha Act, 1999, Bill Pr8, Mr Stewart
Mr R. Gary Stewart, MPP
Ms Elizabeth Tanner
Ms Dorothy Walke

Town of Pickering Act, 1999, Bill Pr7, Mr O'Toole
Mr John O'Toole, MPP
Mr John Reble

Pembridge Insurance Company Act, 1999, Bill Pr13, Mr Wood
Mr Bob Wood, MPP
Ms Paola Turner
Mr James Harvey


Chair / Présidente
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex L)
Mr David Young (Willowdale PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1012 in room 151.

The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): I'd like to call the meeting to order. My apologies to all of you who first attended at the other room. We had a bit of a technical problem so, as you know, we've relocated and appreciate your patience with the slight delay.


The Chair: I understand that there may be a motion with respect to subcommittee membership, Mr Dunlop?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Yes, Madam Chair. I move that Mr Coburn replace Mr Young as a member of the subcommittee on committee business for the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Chair: OK, thank you. Is there any discussion on this motion? None?

All those in favour? Opposed? Abstentions? Thank you, that's carried.


Consideration of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd.

The Chair: If we can move to the business agenda of today, the first bill before us is Pr1, An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd.; the sponsor is Mr Dunlop. Mr Dunlop, would you like to introduce anyone from the applicants here today?

Mr Dunlop: I would like to introduce Mr Peter Deacon, the solicitor for Harbourfront. I'll go back and join him.

The Chair: Mr Dunlop, do you have any introductory comments you would like to make as sponsor?

Mr Dunlop: Oh, I think it's going to be straightforward, Madam Chair, and I think Mr Deacon can do a brief description of it here.

Mr Peter Deacon: For the record, my name is Peter Deacon. My law firm is Deacon Taws of Midland, Ontario. Mr Edward Ferski is the applicant requesting the legislation.

The Chair: On behalf of the applicant-please be seated; we're very informal here-would you like to make any comments about the bill?

Mr Deacon: A couple of very brief comments. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Dunlop for sponsoring the bill. Mr Ferski's business actually is in the Parry Sound riding of Mr Eves, and because of his position in cabinet it wasn't appropriate for him to sponsor the bill, so we asked Mr Dunlop to step in and he very kindly did. Also, I'd like to make a comment about how appreciative we are for the help of the staff from the committee clerk's office and legislative counsel. They've been extremely helpful in the whole application process.

The problem that arose requiring the legislation is that my client owned a corporation which had substantial assets. He wanted to change the name of the company to Harbourfront and apply for articles of amendment and file that. At the same time, he was required to file what's called a form 1 with the ministry to indicate the current information for the corporation.

In fact, nothing had changed-there was one director, one shareholder, one officer, and everything was the same-but in completing the forms he didn't do it correctly, and after back and forth with the ministry, he thought he'd had it straightened out, but in fact he'd been served with a notice to appear at a hearing to remove the charter. He didn't attend, and the end result was that the charter was revoked and the company disbanded. He's now in the position of having to apply to this committee to have the corporation reinstated as if it had not been disbanded.

It was a misunderstanding between him and the staff. It's not a question of blame. In my submission, it's simply a question of correcting a problem and allowing the business to continue on as if there had been no interruption.

I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody may have.

The Chair: Just before we ask if there are any questions, are there any interested parties to this application who are in attendance? I ask Mr Coburn, the parliamentary assistant, if the government has any comments on this bill.

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): No, Madam Chair. All things have been satisfied. As far as we're concerned, the director has been identified, the fee has been paid and it now meets all the criteria laid down.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions from committee members?

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I know the case is pretty straightforward, but I think one of the things we must address-whether we address it today or at another time separately as a committee without any witnesses or anything-is that sometimes in cases like this things fall through the cracks, miscommunications of the government. As you know, the government is very interested in reducing or cutting out red tape. It seems to me this case is classic example of red tape, if I read it correctly, in which case there is correspondence back and forth, the parties thought they were on the right track and all of a sudden the letter comes back saying, "No, this is revoked." There was no intermediary understanding that this could have been resolved outside of this committee, I think. Whether we discuss it now or in committee separately, I leave up to you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gill. What I might do is ask Mr Coburn, as the parliamentary assistant, to take that under advice. As you know, there have been a number of pieces of legislation-there are some before the House now which would have an effect on this overall piece of legislation we're dealing with; in the past, there was one that was passed which put things such as failure to pay registration fees-which have eliminated the requirement to bring a private bill before this committee. There are still some aspects within the bill that the government and the Legislature at the time felt were important. This may be an example of one that is or isn't, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant could take your concerns under advisement and, if he sees fit, I'm sure he'll advise the government. Mr Coburn?

Mr Coburn: I would be happy to do that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there other questions from committee members or any interested party? Mr Dunlop, did you want to say something?

Mr Dunlop: I just want to thank the clerk and the counsel for the help they've given on this as well. It's been a pleasure working with you.

The Chair: Are the members ready to vote? This is a straightforward bill. You'll have to bear with me. This is the first time I've chaired this committee, so I'm going to follow the script here and make sure I get it right.

We're dealing with Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd, sponsored by Mr Dunlop.

Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Thank you. I think we say thank you to Mr Deacon and we appreciate your attendance here today. The bill will be reported to the House this afternoon.

Mr Deacon: Thank you very much.



Consideration of Bill Pr8, An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha.

The Chair: The next bill on our agenda is Bill Pr8, An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha. Mr Stewart is the sponsor. Your applicants are here with you, Mr Stewart?

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Yes.

The Chair: Welcome. Have a seat. Mr Stewart, would you introduce the applicant's representatives, please.

Mr Stewart: It is my pleasure to introduce Bill Pr8. With me is the warden of Peterborough county, Ms Elizabeth Tanner, and also the CEO of the township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos.

I have just one comment on this, if I may. This has come about because of restructuring within Peterborough county a couple of years ago, and albeit that it is in Peterborough county, I'm doing this on behalf of the Honourable Chris Hodgson, because these three townships are now in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

When you see all these long names, this is why a lot of them have to be changed, because we get a little tongue-tied. I'm going to ask if either one of these folks would like to say a few words.

Ms Elizabeth Tanner: Thank you. I'm also the reeve of-

The Chair: Could you identify yourself on the record again.

Ms Tanner: I'm Elizabeth Tanner, reeve of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos and warden of Peterborough county. I want to thank you for your time this morning. Actually, the clerk is going to speak to this issue at this time.

Ms Dorothy Walke: First of all, I would like to thank Mr Stewart-

The Chair: Sorry, once again, can you identify yourself on the record.

Ms Walke: Dorothy Walke. I'm the clerk of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos. I'd like to thank Mr Stewart for presenting our bill and doing it on behalf of Mr Hodgson, and I'd also like to thank Ms Klein, from legislative counsel-I realize she's not here-and her staff for the help they gave me; and Ms Stokes, the clerk, for the assistance she gave me in the preparation of and working through this bill.

As Mr Stewart has alluded to, this bill came about because of our amalgamation of Burleigh-Anstruther with Chandos township, or Chandos township with Burleigh-Anstruther, whichever way you want to perceive it.

Back in 1998, we sent out a questionnaire to all of our ratepayers. In that questionnaire, we asked, first of all, if they would like to change the name of the municipality. If they said yes, we asked that they give us an idea of the name they would like to see it changed to. If they said no, that was fine.

We took those names that were presented to us, and there were a number of names, and an independent committee went through the names. They were assessed on the easiness of how to put them together with the township, the flow, as well as how they fit with our area geographically and so on. We narrowed it down to six names, and among those names was the original Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos, again giving the ratepayers an opportunity to vote on the name that it was originally, and the township of North Kawartha.

As a result of that vote, the township of North Kawartha received 498 votes and Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos came next, with 394. The total number of votes submitted was 1,297.

The Chair: Thank you. Is there anything else?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): What was it, 50-some-odd percent?

Ms Walke: Yes. Almost 50%; of 1,297, 498 voted for North Kawartha.

Mr Bisson: And that was the highest. Among those other names-

The Chair: Mr Bisson, if you could hold your questions, we'll be getting to questioning in a minute.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair.

The Chair: You're welcome.

Mr Bisson: You're very, very assisting.

The Chair: Any time I can be of assistance to you, I'll try.

Reeve, is there anything else you wanted to add to the presentation?

Ms Tanner: Actually, we felt the first response we received wasn't fully reflective of all the ratepayers in the municipality, and that's why we've had to come for a special bill, because the restructuring order did allow for a name change but we simply didn't have the time to petition our ratepayers to find out what their feelings were and get back before the deadline in order to do the name change through the restructuring order.

The Chair: OK, thank you. Now, I have no indication of any interested parties attending today. Are there any?

Seeing none, Parliamentary Assistant, any comment from the government?

Mr Coburn: No. This is the only process available to change the name now, and the ministry has no objection.

The Chair: Thank you. Committee members, any questions?

Mr Bisson: She answered my question.


The Chair: It won't be the first time.

Are the members ready to vote on this? This is Bill Pr8, An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha, sponsored by Mr Stewart.

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? I understood there was an amendment that was to be put forward. Let me ask again: Section 2, Mr Dunlop?

Mr Dunlop: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "Any reference in a general or special Act" at the beginning and substituting "Any reference in a general or special Act or in a regulation, bylaw, agreement or other document".

The Chair: Mr Dunlop, would you like to explain the purpose of the amendment?

Mr Dunlop: I'd like to pass that on to the legal counsel, please.

The Chair: I'll ask legal counsel, then.

Ms Laura Hopkins: The amendment is a technical legal amendment in order to make sure that references in agreements and other documents as well as in bylaws and legislation to the former names of the municipalities are read as the new name of the municipality. It's just a technical change.

The Chair: I understand, counsel, that the applicants were made aware of this and there were no objections for purposes of the goal of the act.

There is an amendment before us, moved by Mr Dunlop. Is there any debate or discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Is there any debate or concern with sections 3 or 4?

Shall sections 3 and 4 carry? That's carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

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

Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance here today with us.


Consideration of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of Pickering.

The Chair: The next bill on our agenda is Bill Pr7, An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of Pickering, sponsored by Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole, if you could take a seat and invite your applicants to join you, and perhaps you could introduce them to us.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. It's a pleasure to be on this side of the table for a change. It'll probably be a lot more harmonious.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, respectfully, I have with me John Reble, who is counsel for the town of Pickering, and Mary Howarth, who is the municipal law assistant. We have regrets from Bruce Taylor, the clerk of the town of Pickering.

The proposal is to give the town of Pickering greater authority in regulating activities on public highways under its jurisdiction. I should point out that similar legislation has already been passed in other municipalities. If passed, the town would be able to create bylaws "regulating or prohibiting the selling, offering to sell or displaying of any goods, merchandise, products, refreshments, foodstuffs or flowers on public highways" under its jurisdiction.


Importantly, Bill Pr7 would also give the town new enforcement powers. An authorization bylaw officer would now be able to remove, take and store items sold on the streets of Pickering if they are in contravention of the town's bylaw.

From my discussion with the clerk, Mr Taylor, and the town solicitor, and from my own personal experience as a councillor in the region of Durham, it is my understanding that this bylaw is in compliance with other overriding laws or bylaws. The bill would simply give the town of Pickering a greater degree of control over activities on its streets.

Committee members may be interested to know that Pickering has experienced difficulties with flower vendors who come in from other areas of the province on weekends and set up shop on busy intersections. Clearly, this has become a safety issue inasmuch as, as an activity, it draws crowds. Parking becomes a problem as well. As well, there is an important issue of the town having to deal with itinerant vendors, which makes enforcement very difficult. It hurts many other small businesses which are supporting their local communities.

In summation, I am pleased to sponsor this private member's bill on behalf of Minister Ecker as well as the town of Pickering, and I ask the committee's indulgence to help the bill proceed quickly.

If there are any questions, I am sure Mr Reble would be certain to answer any technical questions, with your indulgence. That's the end of the remarks.

The Chair: Mr Reble or Ms Howarth, did you want to add anything at this point in time?

Mr John Reble: Thank you very much for hearing us. First of all, I'd like to thank Mr O'Toole, the member for Durham, for sponsoring this bill; and also the work that legislative staff have provided to us in working this through.

I really have only one comment to make, and that is that Mr O'Toole indicated that similar acts have been approved for Mississauga, Brampton and the city of Toronto over the past 10 years. Our understanding is that it has enabled them to carry out enforcement procedures in a much more efficient manner. Those acts do allow a confiscation of motor vehicles; our act does not. We took that out. We felt that was somewhat arbitrary and unnecessary, especially in our conversations-Mrs Howarth spoke with counsel for those municipalities and felt that the confiscation of vehicles for these vendors was something that was not required. Some of these people are new Canadians. They are there representing a corporation which is really profiting from this activity, and it was deemed to be unfair, unjust and unnecessary to include it. We simply are asking for the additional ability to confiscate the goods that are being sold, issue a receipt and return them if requested.

The Chair: I have no indication on the agenda of any interested parties to this application or this bill. Are there any? No.

May I ask the parliamentary assistant if the government has any comments?

Mr Coburn: No. We have no objections to this with respect to this legislation enabling Pickering to achieve what they would like to do.

The Chair: Committee members?

Mr David Young (Willowdale): If the parliamentary assistant can assist, we've heard counsel describe one of the distinctions that exists between this proposed act and the legislation that exists in other municipalities. Are there other distinctions beyond the one that has been described here today regarding the confiscation of automobiles or vehicles generally? Are there some other distinctions between this proposed legislation and the existing legislation?

The Chair: Mr Young, your question was to legislative staff or-

Mr Young: To staff or the parliamentary assistant, if they can assist.

Mr Coburn: I don't know exactly of any other distinction-maybe staff can respond to that-but I would point out that it is being addressed in the draft of the new Municipal Act. It has been a concern raised by a number of municipalities with respect to the confiscation of goods within the-

Mr Young: What do they do in the Ottawa region?

Mr Coburn: They have a bylaw that permits it.

The Chair: Just for clarification, Mr Coburn, you're suggesting that with an amendment to the Municipal Act, the government's intent is to have a common provision that would give similar powers to all municipalities.

Mr Coburn: That's correct.

Mr Young: I'm not sure if there's additional information being brought to the table.

Mr Coburn: Excuse me, I must correct the information I gave you on the city of Ottawa. It's a permit system that they have.

Mr Young: That's fine. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Are there any further committee members?

Mr Bisson: I'm just curious; I'm wondering if legislative counsel can answer this. Is this the first municipality to ask for these powers? How have they been dealing with it?

Ms Hopkins: Not to my knowledge. I think there have been two other municipalities that have asked for these powers, but as the applicant explained, this municipality is asking for powers that are slightly less than what the other two municipalities-

Mr Bisson: What was the outcome?

Ms Hopkins: Can you help me?

Mr Reble: Yes. Brampton and Mississauga both have this legislation. Ms Howarth has communicated with counsel there. Ms Howarth, would you care to-

Ms Mary Howarth: I have spoken with the enforcement officers in the three municipalities that have asked for a similar bill and had the bill approved. Brampton's was approved in 1997. I was informed by the enforcement officer that just in the first six months did they use the confiscatory powers. They've never confiscated a vehicle. But using those powers seemed to work and after that the threat alone, the fact that they could say, "We have this power in our bill" has greatly reduced the problem of the flower sellers.

Mississauga reported the same thing. Their bill was approved in late 1994. They have not confiscated any goods since January 1995. Again, a warning is given the first time. The usual part I tickets under the Provincial Offences Act have been issued, but the warning alone has seemed to eliminate the problem.

Those municipalities are very similar to the town of Pickering in the sense of the kinds of roads we're talking about and the safety aspect of people pulling over and impeding the free flow of traffic. That alone, I was informed, has worked. Also, Mississauga told me that they once hooked up a vehicle and the person said, "OK, I'll leave." They hooked up an ice-cream vendor and that took care of that.

The Chair: Thank you. Any other questions?

Mr Gill: Despite all these bylaws, I live in Mississauga and I see all kinds of vendors there. I see the corn or husk sellers-

Mr Bisson: We call it husk because it's hardly corn.

Mr Gill: That's right. You would know, being from a rural riding. Also some of the others-flowers. Of course we need these regulations, but I don't think they're being enforced. I see all kinds of them in Mississauga itself. That's just as a comment; I wanted to address that.

The Chair: Would you like me to pass that on to Mississauga city council?

Mr Gill: They're aware of it.

Mr Reble: In some instances they may not actually be on the road allowance. They may be off the road allowance. Of course, it's enforced by complaint as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Are the members ready to vote now?

Mr Young: We are.

The Chair: Definitively said by Mr Young.

The Chair: Bill Pr7, An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of Pickering, sponsored by Mr O'Toole. There are five sections I'm going to be dealing with. Are there any concerns that anyone wants to raise with respect to any of them?

Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? OK.

Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us here today. I appreciate that.

Mr O'Toole: That was very hospitable of you.

The Chair: Just don't get used to it, John.


Consideration of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company.

The Chair: The fourth bill on our agenda today is Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company. The sponsor is Bob Wood.

Mr Wood, if you would come forward. Please have a seat and introduce representatives of the applicant you have with you today.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I would like to introduce to the committee Mr Jim Harvey, who is vice-president and the chief financial officer of Pembridge Insurance Co, and Paola Turner, who is their legal counsel.

I'd like to thank very much everyone who has been involved in this process, all of whom have been very helpful to us as this bill has been prepared and presented to the Legislature.

As members will be aware, when an insurance company wants to migrate from provincial to federal jurisdiction, as the law now stands it has to be done by a private bill, which is the reason for this bill today.

I understand that the ministry has no objection and, as far as we know, there are no other objections that we're aware of, and I'd like to recommend the bill to the committee. We would be pleased to answer any questions there may be.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Harvey or Ms Turner, do you have any comments that you would like to add?

Ms Paola Turner: I would just like to thank Mr Bob Wood for agreeing to introduce the bill and thank the committee for taking the time to hear us today.

The Chair: Thank you. I have no notice of any interested parties with respect to this bill. Are there any here today?

Seeing none, may I ask Mr Coburn, the parliamentary assistant, are there any comments from the government?

Mr Coburn: We have no objections to this, so there are no questions of this legislation.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments from committee members?

Mr Young: I don't have any grave concerns about it, and perhaps it's a reflection of how new I am to this process, but what is it that compels this particular insurance company to request a change of status from provincial to federal?

Mr James Harvey: We own two insurance companies, one of which is legislated federally, and Pembridge is a new acquisition to our group of companies. It's governed provincially, and we don't have the experience with the provincial legislation and it's much easier for us to have the two companies under one jurisdiction.

Mr Young: What sort of insurance does this company provide?

Mr Harvey: Property and casualty insurance.

Mr Young: Commercial general?

Mr Harvey: No, not general insurance. Just to private individuals, home and auto insurance.

Mr Young: I see. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments from committee members? No? Are the members ready to vote?

This is Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company, sponsored by Mr Wood. There are four sections. Are there any comments or concerns with any of these sections? No?

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Mr Wood: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for joining us today.

At this point in time, as there is no other business listed on the agenda, is there any other business coming forward from committee members?

Mr Young: I could move adjournment, if it's appropriate, Madam Chair. I want to be on the record in some fashion. May I have the privilege of moving adjournment?

The Chair: You can have that privilege. All those in favour?

Mr Bisson: I'm opposed.

The Chair: All those opposed? Mr Bisson wanted to be on record as well. Carried. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1044.