MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH ACT, 2000

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 2000

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TAX DEFERRALS), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (GRADUATED TAX RATES), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TENANT PROTECTION), 2000

CONTENTS

Wednesday 18 October 2000

Municipality of West Perth Act, 2000, Bill Pr25, MrJohnson
Mr Bert Vorstenbosch

City of Toronto Act (Traffic Calming), 2000, Bill Pr2
Ms Mary Ellen Bench
Mr Andrew McBeth

City of Toronto Act (Tax Deferrals), 2000, Bill Pr9, Mrs Mushinski;
City of Toronto Act (Graduated Tax Rates), 2000,
Bill Pr11, Mrs Mushinski;
City of Toronto Act (Tenant Protection), 2000,
Bill Pr12, Mrs Mushinski
Ms Mary Ellen Bench

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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)
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)


Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim

Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1000 in committee room 1.

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH ACT, 2000

Consideration of Bill Pr17, An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth.

The Chair (Frances Lankin): I call the meeting to order. The first item of business before us is Bill Pr17, An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth. The sponsor is MPP Bert Johnson. Mr Johnson, welcome. Would you like to introduce the applicants who are here with you and say a few words?

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I would, please. Ladies and gentlemen, as the member for Perth-Middlesex, I'm delighted to be here this morning to sponsor Bill Pr17, An Act to the change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth. I'm also pleased that municipal representatives from West Perth could be here this morning and speak to the standing committee. This morning I'm joined by deputy mayor Bert Vorstenbosch, also the chair of ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, and Mrs Patricia Taylor, clerk-treasurer. I know they will be able to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time this morning. I'd like to ask if Pat or Bert have statements. They don't think so, so if you have questions I think they would like to get on with things.

The Chair: Perhaps one of you might just quickly outline the details of the bill for committee members.

Mr Bert Vorstenbosch: The reason we asked for the change from "township" to "municipality" is because we are three rural municipalities and one urban municipality, and we felt that "municipality" would identify the three rural and urban much better than "township," which we are now. We did get one letter that wasn't too much in favour of it, but when we explained the fact that we weren't taking away the rural designation, we were just adding "municipality" rather than "township" to the whole thing, she kind of agreed that "municipality" was a better word to identify all of West Perth.

The Chair: OK, thank you. It's pretty straightforward. Are there any questions from committee members? Is there any debate between committee members? I think not. As I said, it's pretty straightforward.

Are committee members ready to vote then?

Bill Pr17, An Act to the change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth, sponsored by Mr Johnson, MPP. Are there any amendments that members want to put forward at all? No? OK.

Shall sections 1 to 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? It shall be done.

Thank you very much. Sorry that formality meant you had to come all the way down to Toronto to see this through, but we appreciate your attendance in case there had been any questions. I will be reporting this bill back to the House this afternoon.

Mr Vorstenbosch: Thank you very much. We always enjoy coming to Toronto, especially to Queen's Park.

The Chair: Just make sure Bert takes you lunch, OK?

Mr Vorstenbosch: We will. We'll eat our best.

The Chair: Committee members, I'll just indicate that we're waiting for the sponsor of the next group of bills, so at this point perhaps we'll take a five-minute recess.

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): Madam Chair?

The Chair: Just before we do that, yes, parliamentary assistant?

Mr Coburn: It's been indicated that the sponsor will be unable to attend. I would seek consent to continue without the sponsor.

The Chair: Is there consent to continue without the sponsor? OK, we can continue then.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 2000

Consideration of Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: The next item before the committee is Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of Toronto (Traffic Calming). Marilyn Mushinski, MPP, is the sponsor, and with the committee's agreement we will continue in her absence. The applicant, the city of Toronto, is represented today by Mary Ellen Bench, counsel. Ms Bench, with you today is?

Ms Mary Ellen Bench: Andrew McBeth of the city's traffic division.

The Chair: Do you have any opening remarks with respect to the bill?

Ms Bench: Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. In June 1994 the former city of Toronto obtained special legislation, Bill Pr43, that allowed the city to impose traffic calming measures, including 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits within the former city of Toronto. That legislation was considered to be on a trial basis and had a sunset clause and the legislation expired in 1996. It was renewed for a further three-year term and again expired then in 1999.

The purpose of today's application is to ask that that legislation be reinstated in the city of Toronto and extended to the new boundaries of the city of Toronto post-amalgamation. The legislation has been very effective in terms of dealing with traffic issues through neighbourhoods in the city.

Mr McBeth has a technical report establishing the benefits of that which can be distributed, and he will be prepared to answer questions with respect to the studies that have been undertaken in terms of that legislation. The traffic studies do confirm the need for the legislation, and accordingly the city is asking that the legislation apply to the entire city of Toronto as incorporated on January 1, 1998, and that the city be permitted to pass bylaws to designate streets that have traffic calming measures in effect and to designate streets as having 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limits in these areas. Because of the lapse in time, we're also asking that the legislation be grandparented. However, as drafted, we recognize that there is a concern with the grandparenting in the sense of offence provisions. An amendment has been proposed, which we've agreed to, that will eliminate that concern. We can advise you that there have been no efforts whatsoever to enforce this in terms of charging anybody, so it's not an issue at all.

We can distribute the traffic studies, if you wish.

The Chair: Yes, if you would give them to the clerk of the committee, please, they can be distributed. Mr McBeth, would you like to address at all the papers being distributed so committee members are aware?

Mr Andrew McBeth: With some discussions with Mr Terry Short from the Ministry of Transportation, who is here today, I think more than a year ago, we decided that technically it would be useful to study four streets that had 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits and traffic calming. We decided what those streets would be. They represented a variety of traffic calming measures in the city. Subsequent to that meeting, we reviewed those four streets for traffic speed and traffic volume, and we've reported on those studies in this paper. The other thing we did was to look at the collision history on those streets to see if there's been a reduction in collisions.

We found that the traffic speeds reduced significantly. Typically, 10 kilometres per hour was the average speed reduction on each of those streets with traffic calming. It depended a little bit on what kind of traffic calming as to how extensive the speed reduction was.

With the collision analysis, we found that prior to the implementation of traffic calming on these four streets there were 12 injury collisions over a two-to-three-year period. For a comparable period after the traffic calming was installed, there were seven injury collisions. So we've reduced the collisions from 12 to seven. But we recognize that it is rather a small sample-it's only four streets, it's only two or three years-and I think perhaps the jury is still out. But at least the evidence appears to be in the right direction, a reduction from 12 to seven.

1010

In addition to demonstrating that the traffic calming has been effective in reducing the speeds, it's our position that that should be reinforced by an appropriate speed limit. Rather than just having a warning sign that says 30, we're saying that a regulatory sign that says 30 kilometres is required, and most of the traffic is doing less than 30 kilometres per hour. We've actually got better compliance with the speed limit on these streets than most streets that have a 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limit.

At this point, that's probably all I need to do to capture the summary of the report. I'm very happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Ms Bench, the amendment that you're hoping will be moved essentially deals with the period after the existing bylaw expired and before this act comes into force, saying that no one would be guilty of an offence during that period of time, even though there have been no charges laid during that period of time. It's for charter purposes?

Ms Bench: For charter purposes, it clarifies that fact, yes.

The Chair: Is there a committee member prepared to move this amendment?

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Prohibition

(2.1) Despite subsection (2), no person shall be found guilty of contravening the bylaw if the contravention occurred after June 26, 1999 and before the day on which this act receives royal assent."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gill. I will have you read that into the record one more time when we come to the section for voting.

Is there any further comment from the applicants?

Ms Bench: No.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, are there comments from the ministry?

Mr Coburn: We have no objections to this bill. Mr Guilfoil is here from MTO, and they have no objections to the bill or the amendment.

The Chair: Are there any questions from committee members?

Mr Gill: I'm wondering if such a move has been undertaken before. Is there any place else in the city where this has happened or has been granted?

Ms Bench: The former city of Toronto had this legislation as far back as 1994, but it was considered to be on a trial basis, so it had a three-year limit to it. That's the only experience we've had with it, in the former city. Because it's worked well, we're hoping to reinstate it and expand it to the new city.

Mr Gill: These four streets were chosen according to what criteria?

Mr McBeth: There are a lot of streets with the 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limit, probably 30, 40 or 50 streets. Of the streets we chose, two had speed humps on them. One of them was the Balliol Street demonstration traffic calming project, which was part of the reason for the first legislation back in 1994. The traffic calming has been in place on that street for six years now. The other street had what's called a chicane, where there's a road narrowing on one side of the road immediately followed by a road narrowing on the other side of the road, so that to drive it you have to meander through there; and that's another way of calming traffic. There was a variety of techniques that we wanted to test, and as I say, we discussed this with our colleagues at the Ministry of Transportation to ensure that this would be a representative sample from a technical point of view to demonstrate the characteristics and effectiveness of traffic calming. But there were many more streets we could have looked at.

Mr Gill: Is this in agreement with the residents of the streets? Is it driven by them?

Mr McBeth: Yes, it's resident-driven, and we go through a process with residents. In fact, we have a polling requirement. To put in speed humps, for example, which is one of the treatments that's perhaps most commonly seen around the streets of Toronto, we require 60% of residents to vote in support, 60% of those who respond to the ballot. The ballots are usually very well responded to, much better than a municipal election. People take a great deal of interest in the events on their streets, particularly if there's a proposal for traffic calming, which does come from, usually, a neighbourhood street committee who work with traffic engineering staff to develop a proposal, a plan for that particular street. It's that plan that's circulated among the residents so people know what they're voting for. We require 60% support in order to go ahead with that.

Mr Gill: And you had 60% support?

Mr McBeth: Yes.

Mr Gill: And 40%, I suppose, said no?

Mr McBeth: When I say 60%, I mean 60% of valid polls cast. They get a yes or no vote. If there are spoiled ballots, we don't count those in either case, but typically there are very few spoiled ballots. It's usually yes or no, I want this or I don't want this. That's the question: do you support the proposal? Do you oppose the proposal?

Mr Gill: I'm surprised that such a high number said no. It's a good measure, I think.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments from committee members? No?

Are members ready to vote, then?

Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.

Section 6: Mr Gill, you've indicated an intention to move a motion. Would you read that into the record, please?

Mr Gill: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Prohibition

"(2.1) Despite subsection (2), no person shall be found guilty of contravening the bylaw if the contravention occurred after June 26, 1999 and before the day on which this act receives royal assent."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 7 and 8 carry? 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? It shall be done.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TAX DEFERRALS), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (GRADUATED TAX RATES), 2000
CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TENANT PROTECTION), 2000

Consideration of:

Bill Pr 9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr 11, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr 12, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Chair: The next item of business before us. We have Bill Pr9, City of Toronto Act (Tax Deferral); Bill Pr11, City of Toronto Act (Graduated Tax Rates); and Bill Pr12, City of Toronto Act (Tenant Protection). Again the sponsor is Mrs Mushinski, MPP, who is not here, but with the committee's agreement we will carry on in her absence. There is agreement? Thank you.

The applicant is the city of Toronto, again represented by Ms Mary Ellen Bench, counsel. Ms Bench, could you introduce who's with you today.

Ms Mary Ellen Bench: With me today is Ms Giuliana Carbone, who is the director of revenue services at the city of Toronto.

The Chair: It's my understanding that you would like to present these three bills together to the committee as a package?

Ms Bench: Yes. I think it's easier that way.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms Bench: The next three bills basically were passed by city council request at a special meeting held on July 21 and 23, 1998, which was when council determined how to best implement current value assessment in the city of Toronto. There was a fourth bill, Pr10, which has been withdrawn because of a timing issue, but these three bills resulted from that discussion.

The three bills are somewhat related. They are a little bit different in terms of the relief they're asking for.

Bill Pr9 is requesting authority for the city to provide for deferrals of property tax for all low-income homeowners in the city of Toronto and that that be made retroactive to January 1, 1998, when the current value assessment came in. It is also asking for the right to defer or cancel or otherwise deal with assessment-related tax increases borne by low-income seniors, as a way of addressing the needs of that group of citizens in this city, many of whom tend to be property-rich but cash-poor. That was a concern that the city recognized and wanted assistance and the ability to assist residents in.

I would also note, in respect to this matter, that this is not a new concept. In the former cities of North York, the borough of East York, and the city of York, similar legislation existed that allowed for tax relief for low-income seniors. What the city is requesting here is that the current legislation be expanded so that we're able to provide this kind of relief for low-income seniors and, in terms of deferral, for low-income persons in the city in general.

1020

With respect to the next application, Bill Pr11, this application again relates to the implementation of current value assessment. Council has requested that the city be able to establish bands of assessment for the residential-farm class of properties in the same way they're able to establish those bands of assessment now for the commercial-industrial. So instead of having one property class tax class for residential, we'd be allowed to have three property classes and set different rates for them. Council has seen a benefit, again as a result of their discussion on the current value assessment implementation, to making that request.

With respect to all three of these applications, the city has not received any objections to these applications and would hope that they would be supported.

The final application, Bill Pr12, is part of the implementation and the legislative changes introduced when current value assessment came in. There was a requirement in the Tenant Protection Act that of landlords received a decrease in their taxes as a result of current value assessment of 2.49% or greater, that was required to be passed on to tenants. Less than that was not required to be passed on. In the city of Toronto, because of the large number of tenants and the impact this has had, council again, as part of its discussion, has requested that that legislation be amended for the city of Toronto to allow any tax decrease to be passed on to tenants so that tenants receive the benefit. Council has indicated that its concern is that the tenants are such a huge group of the population in the city and they're taxed higher than single-family homeowners, so they would like them to get whatever relief is possible to be passed on to them.

Those are the three applications and council's reason for the request. If you have technical questions, Guiliana and I would certainly be happy to answer them for you the best we can.

The Chair: Has the parliamentary assistant to the ministry any comments?

Mr Coburn: The government is opposed to Bills Pr9, Pr11 and Pr12. Basically these private bills would treat residents of Toronto differently from the residents across the province of Ontario. Our view is that if this is something that should be dealt with, it should be dealt with at large right across the entire province and should be brought forward in the appropriate manner to the minister. On that particular basis, we are opposed to all three.

With respect to Bill Pr9, to provide something under an enriched tax relief program retroactive to 1998 would cause an increase in the tax burden of other taxpayers in the residential-farm property class to offset the cost of targeted relief.

In respect to Bill Pr11, the assessed value of residential property already recognized the characteristics of a home's value in the assessment methodology. The myth that it increases property taxes on higher-assessed homes because of implied increased ability to pay is not something we support.

In short, because it is site-specific, so to speak, and not taking into account the residents across the breadth of the province, we're not in a position to support it.

The Chair: Thank you. Committee members, are there any questions or comments?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): The parliamentary assistant has answered the question that I had, that this does seem to be just for one city in the province, and I can understand your concern about that. Is there any indication from the government that you would be amenable to providing these kinds of deferrals or considerations for lower-income persons across the province, so that Toronto can avail itself of this type of action, as well as other cities and towns or villages?

Mr Coburn: If it was brought forward in a proper format so the ministry could analyze it and then respond to it in the proper context, it is something that certainly the minister would take a look at.

The Chair: If I might, I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. In the current value assessment legislation, were there not provisions for municipalities, for example, to set caps on the implementation or the increase, for example, in commercial-industrial tax rates that gave a discretion to individual municipalities?

Mr Coburn: That's correct.

The Chair: How does this differ, then, in terms of giving a discretion to an individual municipality with respect to deferral or spreading the tax voted on in a different way?

Mr Coburn: It would have to be looked at in more of a global perspective across the province rather than making a decision based on the parameters around one specific geographic area, for one reason or another. If it's brought forward in the proper format, there could be some in-depth analysis applied to it so it could be debated in the proper format.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments from committee members?

Mr Hoy: I have one, at least one. In terms of Bill Pr11, a municipality would have its classes. It was my understanding that that was allowable, that municipalities could create classes for the purposes in Pr11 through previous legislation.

Mr Coburn: The mitigation tools with respect to graduated tax rates was respective only of business and industrial-commercial properties and not in the residential sector. The assessed value of a residential property already recognizes the characteristic of the home's value with respect to the marketplace. By imposing graduated tax rates on residential properties, that would penalize at a disproportionate rate the higher-assessed homes, without a supporting justification particularly, such as the size, the ability to achieve economies of scale, as in the case of business properties.

The Chair: Ms Bench, did you have any other comments you wanted to place on the record?

Ms Bench: The only additional comment I'd like to place on the record is to reiterate with respect to Bill Pr9's tax relief for low-income persons and the comments of the committee members that it should be a global rather than a local thing is just to remind the committee that it has been done locally before. It was done in North York, East York and York, for example, within the confines of the current city. It's something that maybe would be good to do in a global context, but there is precedent for doing it on a local basis as well.

The Chair: Are committee members ready to vote?

OK, we will be dealing first with Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by Mrs Mushinski, MPP.

Shall section 1 carry? Hearing no "yeas," that is defeated.

Shall section 2 carry? It is not carried.

Shall section 3 carry? It is not carried.

Shall section 4 carry? It is not carried.

Shall section 5 carry? It is not carried.

Shall section 6 carry? It is not carried.

Shall the preamble carry? It is not carried.

Shall the title carry? It is not carried.

Shall the bill carry? It is not carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill not be reported to the House.

The Chair: Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by Mrs Mushinski, MPP.

Shall section 1 carry? Not carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Not carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Not carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Not carried.

Shall the title carry? Not carried.

Shall the bill carry? Not carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill be not reported to the House.

That's very arcane language, you know.

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, sponsored by Mrs Mushinski, MPP.

Shall section 1 carry? Not carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Not carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Not carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Not carried.

Shall the title carry? Not carried.

Shall the bill carry? Not carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Ordered that the Chair report that the bill be not reported to the House.

I appreciate your attendance here with us today. These matters will be disposed of in the House this afternoon.

Are there any further items of business from committee members? No? Seeing none, I declare the meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1031.