TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 2
1Mayor's Youth Employment Summit - Status Report
2Federal-Provincial Social Union Discussions
3Dispute Between the Taoist Tai Chi Associationand the Cecil Street Community Centre
4Tenant Appointments to the Board of Directorsof the Toronto Housing Company Inc
5School Closings
6Other Items Considered by the Committee
APPENDIX "A"
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 2
OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on February 11, 1999,
submitted by Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999
1
Mayor's Youth Employment Summit - Status Report
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report
(January 27, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
This report summarizes the key findings from the Mayor's Youth Employment Summit, provides a status report on
follow-up activities, and recommends that the City explore the feasibility of developing a youth employment information
clearinghouse focused on youth employment programs and services.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City explore the feasibility of developing a Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse, and report back to the
Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee regarding this initiative;
(2)a final report on Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative from the Commissioner of Community and
Neighbourhood Services be submitted to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in August 1999, such
report to measure the Initiative's effectiveness regarding:
(a)participation of at-risk youth;
(b)job retention rate; and
(c)active commitment within the corporate sector to address youth unemployment issues and to employ at-risk youth;
(3)this report be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for information; and
(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background History:
Youth unemployment has been identified as a significant issue in the City of Toronto. In April 1998, the Mayor called for a
Youth Employment Summit to bring together over one hundred representatives of business, government, youth and youth
service agencies. The theme of the one-day summit was "Count me in!".
The Summit was organized by the City in partnership with Human Resources Development Canada, the Ontario Ministry
of Education and Training, the Learning Partnership, the Ontario Association of Youth Employment Centres, and the
Community Action for Youth Employment Partnership.
Participants at the Youth Employment Summit identified a range of factors which have contributed to persistently high
levels of youth unemployment and underemployment in Toronto in the 1990s.
Factors Contributing to Youth Unemployment:
The introduction of new technologies and greater automation has reduced the number of entry-level clerical, service and
blue-collar jobs, and placed an emphasis on computer literacy skills. Economic restructuring, de-industrialization and
downsizing have brought about hiring freezes, reduced the number of entry-level positions, increased the number of
experienced and trained adult workers currently competing with youth for jobs, and reduced opportunities for youth to
develop skills through on-the-job training.
Some employment training/retraining programs require youth to have previous employment experience, thus excluding
large numbers of youth. In order to prepare for and access training opportunities, youth may require help in the form of life
skills training, academic upgrading and other supports. Youth from immigrant communities face additional access
problems, including language barriers and unfamiliarity with Canadian norms.
Summit participants identified a range of issues that need to be addressed:
(a)greater flexibility is needed regarding the nature and length of job training programs for youth;
(b)there are youth who face extreme barriers to employment and require additional supports before being able to
participate in existing employment training programs;
(c)accessing information about youth employment programs and services has been difficult for both youth and
employers;
(d)there is a need to remove barriers in program design and delivery that inhibit access; and
(e)there is a need for programs to be more responsive to the access issues faced by youth from immigrant communities.
For more details regarding Summit proceedings, please see the Appendix A: Count Me In, Mayor's Youth Employment
Summit, Events and Summary.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Youth Employment Summit resulted in two key initiatives:
(a)Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative was launched in July 1998 to address the need for greater flexibility in job
training programs for youth; and
(b)the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, in collaboration with Human Resources Development
Canada and the Ontario Ministry Education and Training, is exploring the feasibility of a Youth Employment Information
Clearinghouse focusing specifically on youth employment programs and services.
Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative:
Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative is a training and placement program delivered in co-operation with community
agencies and the private sector. It is funded through a City allocation of $200,000.00, with Federal and Provincial
government contributions of $400,000.00 each.
Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative was launched July 27, 1998. Funds are committed to March 31, 1999, and will
maintain youth in job placements to the end of July 1999.
The Initiative has been delivered through eight existing community agencies, and includes several components:
(a)a Call Centre Training Initiative for 15 youth delivered through Goodwill Industries;
(b)a wage subsidy program which, in 1998, placed 260 youth in jobs with approximately 130 participating employers;
and
(c)a 397-JOBS hotline that serves as an access point, connecting interested youth and employers to the Initiative.
The Call Centre Initiative provided one time funding to kick start the program. It has graduated all fifteen participants
directly into jobs that pay from $8.50 to $14.00 per hour.
The wage subsidy program offers participating employers incentives, in the form of wage subsidies, to hire disadvantaged
youth into entry level positions. Employers are encouraged to retain youth beyond the subsidy period. The Department
projects that somewhere between four and five hundred youth will be placed by the end of the program and although it is
still early, the program is enjoying a 79 percent job retention rate.
In February, the Mayor will host a corporate lunch to showcase the Initiative and to solicit commitments from the private
sector to provide additional job placement opportunities for youth.
The wage subsidy component has been administered, at no cost to the City, through the Provincial Ministry of Education's
Job Connect program, thus maximizing the funds available for the training and placements.
The wage subsidy program component has had a positive impact on the provincial Job Connect program. The service
delivery model for 1999 has been enhanced to closely match the approach taken through Mayor Mel's Youth Employment
Initiative. Specifically, in 1999, the Job Connect model will allow longer training placements (up to six months) and
increased flexibility in the use of the subsidy for employers (up to $4,000.00 per participant). This will result in a more
flexible program combined with a more focused and effective use of resources without the requirement for ongoing City
funds.
The attached Progress Report (Appendix B) identifies that Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative has strengthened
partnerships among the relevant sectors, placed youth in lasting jobs, and fostered improvements in the provincial Job
Connect program service delivery model. A final report will be provided by the Commissioner of Community and
Neighbourhood Services to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in August 1999.
The report will recommend next step strategies to address youth employment issues and highlight the effectiveness of this
model regarding participation of at-risk youth, the job retention rate, and increased corporate sector commitment to address
youth unemployment and employ at-risk youth.
Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse:
One of the key recommendations stemming from the Mayor's Summit on Youth Employment was the need for accurate
and up-to-date information on available programs and services for youth. To that end, the Department has begun to explore
the potential for developing a Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse with other levels of government and
community-based agencies. This Clearinghouse would provide information to youth and parents, to agency staff wanting to
make referrals, and to potential employers looking for information on wage subsidy programs or other initiatives.
The Community Action for Youth Employment Partnership (C.A.Y.E.P.) has been facilitating discussions at the
community level to gather information and identify the required steps and resources to make the Clearinghouse a reality.
The Department has been involved in this process.
Community Information Toronto currently provides an information service, the Interactive Training Inventory, which is
supported by the City of Toronto and Human Resources Development Canada. Although this is a valuable service in
linking people to training opportunities, it does not provide detailed, complete, up-to-date information on the range of
available programs and services.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Department participates in a Planning and Service Co-ordination work
group with Human Resource Development Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Human Resource
Development Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training have retained a consultant to identify overall
information needs, as a first step towards developing a comprehensive employment program and services data base. The
development of a Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse model will be informed by the findings in this report.
City recreation centres, whose catchment areas include large numbers of immigrant youth, currently support youth in job
search processes. Access to a Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse will increase the ability of community centres
to assist youth in overcoming barriers (e.g., language) and in connecting to employment resources. It recommended that the
City consider Parks and Recreation sites and libraries as possible access points for the Clearinghouse.
Community Information Toronto and Community Action for Youth Employment Partnership have committed to working
with the City, the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, and Human Resource Development Canada to develop a
model for a comprehensive clearinghouse. The Department will report back to the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee on this initiative's progress later in the year. On the basis of this update, the City may wish to bring
together youth, the business sector, and youth-serving organizations to provide input to the development of the
Clearinghouse.
Conclusions:
The activities undertaken in 1998 have strengthened partnerships among the government, community-based and business
sectors, placed youth in lasting jobs, and fostered improvements in the provincial Job Connect program delivery model.
In order that the City continues to demonstrate its commitment to addressing youth employment issues, it is recommended
that the City continue to work in partnership with Human Resources Development Canada and the Ontario Ministry of
Education and Training to explore the potential for a Youth Employment Information Clearinghouse focusing specifically
on youth employment programs and services.
It is also recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community and
Neighbourhood Services Committee on Mayor Mel's Youth Employment Initiative in August 1999.
Contact Name:
Nancy Matthews: 392-8614
(A copy of each of Appendix A and B referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the
agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on February 11, 1999, and a copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
2
Federal-Provincial Social Union Discussions
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council
to be held on April 13, 1999.)
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:
(1)recommends that the request for a public process for the consideration of the Social Union document by both
the Canadian public and municipalities, either individually or through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
be endorsed, in order that input can be provided before the finalization of the Social Union agreement is achieved;
and that the Federal and Provincial Governments be so advised; and
(2)reports having requested the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to give consideration to the material
submitted by the Canadians for a Real Social Union, and any other material on the Social Union, at its National
Board of Directors meeting from March 3-6, 1999, in particular at its Social Infrastructure Committee; and
requests the concurrence of Council in the action taken.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the
communication (January 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, and the material received from the Canadians for a Real Social
Union to the Chief Administrative Officer, with a request that he report thereon to Council, through the appropriate
Committee, such report to include:
(I)the opportunities and/or challenges that the new Social Union document may present to the City of Toronto; and
(ii)recommendations with respect to the steps the City should be taking.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following communication (January 19, 1999)
from the City Clerk:
The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes at its meeting of January 18, 1999, had before it the attached
communication dated January 8, 1999, from Councillor Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially
Isolated Persons, forwarding the noted motion, as approved at their meeting of December 18, 1998.
The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes adopted the following recommendation and transmits the
same for your consideration:
"It is recommended that, in recognition of the fact that many of Canada's social problems, such as homelessness, are often
most visible and impact most directly at the local level, the City of Toronto seek standing at the federal/provincial social
union talks to ensure appropriate consideration of these and other related issues, and that other Cities be requested to also
seek standing at the federal/provincial social union talks in partnership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities."
(Communication dated January 8, 1998, addressed to the
Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons,
from Co-Chairs, Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper)
At its December 18, 1998, meeting, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons heard from a
representative of L.I.F.T. (Low Income Families Together) who reported on their presentation in November 1998 to the
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Concern was raised at the U.N. Committee hearings regarding the information presented by provincial and federal levels of
government as to their compliance and progress on a number of serious social problems identified in Canada's review five
years before. Homelessness and child poverty were highlighted. As such, L.I.F.T. and other NGO representatives support
and encourage the involvement of municipalities in representing the status and impact of these and other social issues.
The following motion was adopted by the Advisory Committee for referral to the Council Strategy Committee for People
Without Homes:
"In recognition of the fact that many of Canada's social problems, such as homelessness, are often most visible and impact
most directly at the local level, it is recommended that the City of Toronto seek standing at the federal/provincial social
union talks to ensure appropriate consideration of these and other related issues."
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee also submits the following communication (January 29,
1999) from Mr. John Sewell, on behalf of Canadians for a Real Social Union.
We believe the Social Union discussions between the federal and provincial governments are wrong in both process and
substance, and should be abandoned.
The Social Union discussions concern responsibilities and obligations for basic government programs that all Canadian
communities rely on, but these negotiations are carried on behind closed doors. The 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord confirms that most Canadians do not support this kind of process.
Further, the negotiations are more about shedding responsibilities than about improving the way we meet social needs. The
attempt to 'disentangle' responsibilities is a simplification - probably impossible to achieve in any useful manner - which
refuses to recognise that most situations are complex and require people at different levels of government, with different
skills, talents, responsibilities, and means, to work together. We are tired of governments squabbling with each other about
who gets credit for what. The Canadian constitution states that we are entitled to 'peace, order, and good government', but
most of the public sees little sign of good government.
The Social Union talks should be abandoned.
We believe governments should state their commitment to social responsibility and their desire to work together to
significantly improve the social health of Canadians and our communities. Governments have a responsibility to ensure the
social needs of all people living in Canada are met. This is not a call for 'big government', not a call for government to the
left or to the right, but a call for responsible and responsive government at all levels - federal, provincial, and municipal.
We want a new process with the express objectives of producing the following outcomes:
(1)An end to poverty and hunger by income support programs and job strategies which each year reduce the number of
people living in dire circumstances.
(2)Strong public health programs and the accessibility by everyone, regardless of income, to high quality health care in a
timely fashion.
(3)Good housing that all households can reasonably afford.
(4)High quality and affordable public educational opportunities for everyone.
(5)High quality child care across Canada for all children.
(6)High quality immigrant and settlement programs and services.
(7)An inclusive society which enhances equity and equality, and assures a rich cultural life.
(8)An enhanced environment, and strong environmental protections.
Governments at all levels should commit themselves to work together to achieve these goals, and to take action to improve
the social conditions year by year. The process employed should be open, transparent, inclusive, and timely. It should be
led by government, and include forums for wide-ranging public discussion of the creation of a strong society and how
governments can co-operate to achieve these objectives.
We recognize that Canada consists of several nations, and that different arrangements may be necessary for Aboriginal
communities and for Quebec. We see this as evidence of Canada's unique strength in a divided world, not as a stumbling
block to wide-spread agreement on the desired social outcomes.
We intend to take the following actions:
(1)To seek wide agreement on these criticisms of the Social Union discussions.
(2)To seek wide support for the statement of general social outcomes outlined above.
(3)To press all governments to agree they will abandon Social Union discussions, and instead commit to achieving the
social outcomes that will create strong communities and a healthy society.
(4)To intervene in Social Union discussions if governments continue to engage in them.
(5)To encourage and help develop an open, transparent, inclusive, and timely process, led by government, with
wide-ranging public discussion of the critical aspects of a strong society and how governments can co-operate to achieve
these objectives.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Mr. Ernie Lightman, Economist, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, and Ms. Liz Rykert, on behalf of
Canadians for a Real Social Union, and submitted a brief in regard thereto; and
-Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.
(A list of the members of the Canadians for a Real Social Union, attached to the foregoing communication from Mr.
Sewell, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Committee for its meeting on February 11, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
3
Dispute Between the Taoist Tai Chi Association
and the Cecil Street Community Centre
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the following motion be referred to the Board of Directors of the Cecil Street Community
Centre for consideration:
Moved by Councillor Kelly:
'It is recommended that the Cecil Street Community Centre be requested to remove the "trespassing" notice from its
door.' ")
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report
(January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:
Purpose:
To inform the Committee on the status of the dispute between the Taoist Tai Chi Association and the City's Cecil Street
Community Centre.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City support the Board of the Cecil Street Community Centre in the action brought against it and the City by the
Taoist Tai Chi Association; and
(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Prior to 1998, the Taoist Tai Chi Association rented the Cecil Street Community Centre auditorium for Tai Chi classes for
seven and a half hours weekly. Participants in these classes were required to pay membership fees to the Association.
According to the Centre, average weekly attendance at these classes was 114 students.
Rent charged to the Association prior to 1997 was based on membership revenue collected at each class. The Centre
revised its complete fee structure effective January 1, 1997. It set the rental rate at $12.50/hour for non-profit organizations
which charged program participants. The Association and one other body fell into this category.
The Centre advised the Association of this change by letter dated December 17, 1996. The Association objected
strenuously, claiming the change resulted in a rental increase of over 100 percent and refused to pay the new rental rates.
Throughout 1997, attempts were made to resolve the situation, primarily through a mediation process initiated by the
Mayor of the former City of Toronto. The Centre agreed to a reduction in the rental rate to $9.00 per hour until September
1997, while the process was underway. But mediation proved unsuccessful and the dispute escalated to the point that the
Association refused to pay rental directly to the Centre. Following an abortive attempt to set up a Centre trust fund into
which rents would be paid, the Association started paying rent directly to the City at the 1996 rate.
In late 1997, the Centre made a final offer to the Association which essentially reflected their original position. The
Association refused this offer and the Centre terminated their tenancy in January of 1998.
Members of the Association then held a demonstration outside the Centre, reportedly entering the Centre auditorium in
spite of being asked to leave by staff. Police were called by Centre staff and subsequently charged the Public Relations
Director of the Association with trespassing. In early December of 1998, he was convicted of this offence.
The Executive Director of the Centre claimed that after the demonstration she received threatening phone calls at her
home. The Centre Board, in response to concerns over staff safety, as well as the security of the Centre, issued and posted a
trespass notice to the Association, barring its officers, employees and representatives from access to the Centre.
With amalgamation, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services inherited the issue. Despite the best
efforts of Departmental staff to start from a clean slate the issue remained intractable. In June 1998, the Department
retained the services of the former Metropolitan Auditor "to review both sides of the dispute, to attempt to negotiate a
mutually satisfactory agreement and, failing that, to recommend a course of action which the City can take." Despite
substantial effort by the mediator and considerable staff time, the attempt to resolve the issue amicably failed and
negotiations broke down.
Throughout the dispute both sides issued a number of press release or other statements in respect to the matter, principally
reported in the Chinese press. The Association's lawyers issued a letter to the Centre threatening possible libel action in
respect to certain unspecified statements allegedly made by the Centre.
Although the Association stopped any further dialogue with the Centre in 1998 it has continued to press for a resolution of
the matter and approached a number of City Councillors on the matter. In addition, a significant number of applications for
membership in the Centre were received from Association members.
On November 23, 1998, the Solicitors for the Taoist Tai Chi Association wrote to the Cecil Street Community Centre to
demand that the Annual General Meeting of the Cecil Street Centre, scheduled for November 26, 1998, be adjourned so as
to permit "all members of the Taoist Tai Chi Society who are members of the Cecil Community Centre to submit
nominations to the Board and to attend and participate in the Annual General Meeting." The Solicitors' letter then gave
until 4:00 p.m. that day (the letter was received just before noon) to comply or the Association would "commence legal
proceedings to compel the Cecil Street Community Centre to meet these requirements." On November 25, 1998, the
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) adjourned the matter till December 16, 1998, enjoining the Centre from
holding its Annual General Meeting till subsequent to that date and on December 16, 1998, the issue was further held over
till February 2, 1999.
On December 14, 1998, the Taoist Tai Chi Association issued an ultimatum outlining terms of settlement that the Centre
and the City rejected as inappropriate and unacceptable in that they would essentially turn the Centre over to the
Association by structuring the membership, board, fee structure, organization and management according to the terms set
by the Taoist Tai Chi Association.
Conclusions:
To put the issue in perspective, the increase in rent requested by the Centre in 1997 amounted to about $48.00 a week. This
amount is insignificant when compared with the time and effort, to say nothing of actual costs, which must have been
incurred on this matter by both the Centre and the Association. Based on average weekly attendance the Association could
have generated as much as $4,000.00 in revenue every month from classes held at the Centre at full adult rates. If some
attendees attended more than one class and/or paid discounted fees, this figure would have been somewhat smaller. But it
is clear that the increase did not impose a financial hardship on the Association.
These facts, as well as many other aspects of the dispute, are indications that the root problems underlying this dispute go
far beyond the issue of rent. The Centre has articulated a number of these issues from their perspective. They include the
size and wealth of the Association and the question of its consequent eligibility for taxpayer subsidized space. But more
particularly they feel that the Association did not accept the mandate of the Board to operate the Centre. Under previous
formulae the Centre had been unable to verify the accuracy of actual rent paid by the Association. The Board considers the
change in the basis of the rent payable by the Association in 1997 as an attempt to resolve many of these issues once and
for all. The Association considers it unfair treatment.
The Association feels that their long involvement with Cecil Street should be taken into account. In this respect they are
partially correct. Regardless of the merit of their position, the Centre has not handled the actual implementation of the rent
increase very well. It gave little notice to the Association of the increase. The Centre has also been completely unwilling to
recognize that continuation of the long standing relationship might have justified some significant effort to seek a
compromise on the rent increase.
The situation was further aggravated by the length of time that the Centre took to deal with what is considered deficiencies
in the rental formula and its continued acceptance of the rental calculations made by the Association over the years prior to
1997. However, the Association should also have understood that the long term relationship was probably the only
justification for an unduly low rent or minimal increase in the existing rent. The classes it held at Cecil Street provided a
service to the community, but the bulk of the participants in their classes were not residents in the community. According
to a letter from the financial administrator of the Association, residents of the Cecil Street neighbourhood accounted for
only 13 percent of the regular adult fees collected over the first six months of 1994. Classes held at the Centre generated
revenue for the Association at least a portion of which was directed by the Association to its interests beyond the
community served by Cecil Street. In fact, in its offer for settlement referred to earlier, the Association is requesting that
residence or work addresses in the Cecil Street catchment area no longer be a requirement for membership in the Centre.
All of these factors beg the question as to whether in fact the services rendered by the Association should be considered to
be wholly services to the Cecil Street community.
Given the level of revenue it generated from classes at the Centre, the increase cannot have been overly onerous for the
Association. It was also the first change in rental in three years. The change resulted in a large percentage increase based on
what the Association had been paying. But if the Association had been paying rent based on a more accurate interpretation
of the previous rental formula the percentage increase would have been less. The rent is also well below commercial rates
and well within the range of rates changed by other community centres for equivalent space.
Had a negotiated solution between the Centre and the Association proved possible, a reduction in the rental figure may
have been warranted purely in the interest of resolving a dispute which has been going on for far too long. It is clear,
however, that both parties are increasingly unable to deal with each other. Actions by each both prior to and during 1997
set the foundation for this situation although the potential for a settlement was still evident during the mediator's review.
The stated positions of the parties were in reality very close prior to the recent court action by the Association. The
difference in rental rate of $12.50/hour requested by the Centre and the $10.50 tentatively agreed to by the Association
amounts to $15.00/week. The length of time that it took before the Centre agreed to even consider a possible resolution
seriously impacted the chance of an agreement. But the action of the Association in seeking an injunction against the
Centre has made a negotiated settlement virtually impossible to obtain.
Options:
The City now has three options. The first is to accept the position as it is. This would effectively mean that the Association
would not regain access to the Centre. Endorsement of this result, although not necessarily of the manner in which the
Centre has handled the affair, would have the additional benefit of invoking closure to the matter.
The second option is for the City to impose a solution by Council direction to the Board. There are a number of problems
with this approach; such direction has only been given before on issues of public policy and this issue can hardly be
considered to fall into that category. Even with an imposed settlement, the present Board and the present Association
members are unlikely to be able to work together. Given that underlying issues, rather than just rent, seem to have fuelled
the existing dispute, it would be only a matter of time before problems reoccur.
However, the most significant problem with this option is deciding what to impose; it is difficult to see how a rent of less
than that requested by the Centre could be considered. A lesser amount might have been justifiable in a negotiated
settlement, but there is no real basis in which to recommend a reduction in the rental as part of a Council imposed solution.
In addition, there are a number of corollary issues such as the time periods to be made available to the Association and the
related impact on time allotted to other users of the Centre.
The third option is for Council to change the makeup of the Board and to request or even direct the new Board to
reconsider the issue. This option might also deal with at least some of the issues addressed in the injunction sought by the
Association. It also maintains the issue at the Centre level but, to be effective, it would also have to be clear that the Centre
Board's decision on the matter would be supported by Council.
Changes in the Board could be effected immediately by replacing the existing Board, but this may not be acceptable to the
Cecil Street community at large. Another approach would be to wait for an appropriate time such as the Centre annual
meeting, the completion of the Council review on Boards and Agencies, (the O'Brien Committee) or the expiration of the
term of the present City Council. Were this option to be implemented, Council should ensure that there was no undue
representation on the Board by any one interest group, and that conflict of interest guidelines were both in place and
enforced.
The only option, therefore, which can be seriously recommended is to support the Centre's Board and defend the City's
position in Court.
Contact Name:
Eric Gam; Tel: 392-8238
--------
Ms. Cynthia Sherwood, Chairperson, Cecil Street Community Centre, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(March 2, 1999) from Mr. Christopher J. Farano for the Board of Directors, Toronto Tai Chi Association regarding legal
action taken by the Toronto Tai Chi Association against the Cecil Community Centre and the City of Toronto.)
4
Tenant Appointments to the Board of Directors
of the Toronto Housing Company Inc.
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report
(January 28, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the
Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc., to ascertain from the three tenant nominees that they have no
financial conflict of interest if appointed to the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company, and to report thereon
directly to Council for its meeting on March 2, 1999.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (January 28, 1999) from the
Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc.:
Purpose:
To appoint three tenants to the Toronto Housing Company Board of Directors.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the following tenants of the Toronto Housing Company be appointed to the Board of Directors for a
term of ten months, expiring after the December 1999 meeting of the Board:
Mary Crowe
Elaric Kissoon
Vic Waring
Background:
At the City of Toronto Council meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, approval was given to the articles of amalgamation
and by-laws of the Toronto Housing Company (THC). In adopting the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Committee recommendations, Council directed that:
"The Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Housing Company Inc. and the tenant organizations within the Housing
Company, be requested to develop and implement a plan that would provide for the democratic selection of the tenant
representatives to sit on the Board of Directors from amongst the tenants of the Company."
The tenants proposed to the Committee for appointment to the Board of the THC have been selected through a process
agreed to by the tenant organizations of the THC, and with the support and co-operation of the Chief Executive Officer. As
noted below, this process is an interim one, pending the development of a resident involvement plan for the new company.
Comments:
The Toronto Housing Company is working with tenants on the development of a resident involvement plan for the new
company. This plan will identify opportunities and processes for tenant participation in the decision-making of the
company, at the building, community and corporate level. The plan, to be completed by the end of the summer, will also
identify how tenants are to be selected for appointment to the Board of Directors. As the resident involvement plan is not
yet finalized, tenants to be appointed to the Board of Directors were selected through an interim process.
The Board of Directors of the THC has recognized the Housing Company Tenant Council (MTHCL) and the Tenant
Association Council of Toronto (TACT) as representatives of the tenants of the two former companies which were
amalgamated to form the THC. It was agreed that these organizations would nominate tenants for appointment to the Board
of Directors, pending the development of a resident involvement plan for the THC. The HCTC has named two tenants to
be appointed to the Board and TACT has named a single tenant. The number of tenants to be appointed by each
organization was agreed to by the two groups, and reflects the proportion of tenants in the new company who were
formerly housed by MTHCL and Cityhome.
The three tenants appointed at this time will sit on the Board until the end of 1999. At that time tenants appointed will be
named to the Board for a period of three years. This is consistent with the by-laws of the THC approved by Council at the
December 1998 meeting. The Board is composed of 11 Directors: 3 tenants (nominated by tenants through a democratic
process), 3 Councillors nominated by the Striking Committee, and 5 citizens selected by the Nominating Committee.
Contact:
Derek Ballantyne
Chief Executive Officer
Toronto Housing Company
Tel: 392-0051
--------
Mr. Harold Snow, tenant, Toronto Housing Company, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report
(March 1, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc.:
Purpose:
To respond to a request for information regarding financial conflicts of interest on the part of any of the tenant nominees
for directorships of the Toronto Housing Company Inc.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of February 11, 1999, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee had before it a report
(January 28, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc., recommending the appointment of
three tenant nominees that the Housing Company's Board of Directors.
The Committee recommended to Council the adoption of that report, but directed the Chief Executive Officer to ascertain
from the nominees that they have no financial conflict of interest if so appointed and to report thereon directly to Council
for its meeting on March 2, 1999.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The following is the text of the communication from City Legal Services made in response to the Chief Executive Officer's
request for commentary on the issue:
"The types of conflict of interest covered by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) and the Business Corporations
Act (BCA) are dealt with on a case-by-case basis; i.e., a person is not disqualified from eligibility to be appointed to serve
on a Council or a local board such as the Housing Company because of any financial relationship, but rather such an
appointee must make disclosure and refrain from the decision-making process when having a 'pecuniary interest' in any
matter which is the subject of consideration by the body (MCIA) or when being a party to or having a material interest in a
'material contract or transaction with the corporation' (BCA).
The MCIA specifically includes the following among a list of matters, in section 4, as to which members are deemed not to
have a pecuniary interest:
(b)by reason of the member being entitled to receive on terms common to other persons any service or commodity or any
subsidy, loan or other such benefit offered by the municipality or local board;
(k)by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably
be regarded as likely to influence the member.
Just as a tenant is not deemed to have a pecuniary interest in all matters generally merely because of a subsidized or low
rent, a tenant similarly will not have a pecuniary interest in a matter merely by having or having had some sort of
(unrelated) business dealings with the Housing Company. On the other hand, if the very matter in which the tenant
Director is or is likely to have a pecuniary interest comes before the Board of Directors (such as, for instance,
remuneration for providing apartment-viewing services where the Director is a regular provider of such services; or the
matter of rental rates affecting the rent paid by the Director), a conflict would exist and the Director would have to take
the steps prescribed by the legislation with respect to the consideration of the matter by the Board. The BCA requires
disclosure of any material contract or transaction by a director or officer even if in the ordinary course of the
corporation's business Board approval would be unnecessary, but it is doubtful that apartment-viewing services would
qualify as 'material' in this sense.
There would seem to be no existing principle under which a nominee can be rejected on the grounds of having a 'financial
conflict of interest'."
Conclusion:
No conflict-of-interest issues currently exist with respect to the tenant nominees.
Contact Name:
Derek Ballantyne, 392-6612)
5
School Closings
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services, Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism, Urban Planning and Development Services, and Works and Emergency Services be requested to
submit a joint report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the involvement of City of Toronto staff
with the school closings, particularly in areas in which the City may be involved in sharing space in schools, for purposes
such as day care or recreation programs, having regard that the Province of Ontario is considering the closure of 30
schools.")
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the
Children and Youth Action Committee embodied in the following communication (January 8, 1999) from the City
Clerk; and further that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to forward
the appropriate letter to the Minister of Education and Training:
Recommendation:
The Children and Youth Action Committee recommended to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that
a letter be sent to the Minister of Education and Training, copied to the Minister of Community and Social Services,
Provincial Child Advocate, the Premier, Chairs of the Boards of Education, requesting clear answers to the following
questions regarding all "non-classroom" or "non-curricular" uses of schools both during and outside school hours:
(1)What is the approved use of a school facility?
(2)Should public education funds pay for:
-community use;
-accommodation for child care, parent-child centres etc., school lunch programs, recreation programs, before and after
school care, and continuing education?
(3)What responsibility does the Province have and what role should provincial funding play in keeping school doors
open for after hours community use?
(4)Does the Provincial Government consider the fair wages paid to unionized school custodian staff an impediment to
keeping school doors open for after hour community use?
Background:
The Children and Youth Action Committee on December 15, 1998, gave consideration to verbal reports by Trustee Judi
Codd, Toronto District School Board and Trustee Elizabeth Boyd, Toronto Catholic School Board on School Closings.
The Committee's recommendation is noted above.
6
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)A Plan to Reinvest National Child Benefit Supplement Savings.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:
(1)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report; and
(2)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Medical Officer of Health
be requested to report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on school nutrition programs:
(January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to City Council's
direction to develop a reinvestment plan for municipal social assistance savings resulting from the implementation of the
National Child Benefit Supplement (N.C.B.S.) in Toronto; and recommending that:
(1)the objectives and implementation plan for the reinvestment of N.C.B.S. municipal savings as described in this report
be approved by City Council;
(2)in 1999, cumulative N.C.B.S. municipal savings estimated at $8.8 million be allocated as recommended in this
report;
(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee;
(4)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services proceed to take the necessary steps to implement the
proposed plan; and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
--------
Mr. Colin Hughes, Metro Campaign 2000, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in
connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.
(b)Municipal Plan for Continued Provision of Benefits to Non-Social Assistant Recipients.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee
the adoption of the following report:
(January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to recommendations
made by City Council regarding the continuation of benefits to non-social assistance recipients; and recommending that:
(1)pursuant to Council direction, a fund be established for 1999 with an amount up to $400,000.00 gross and net, with
the source for this funding to be determined through the 1999 budget process;
(2)the Municipality provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients on a limited basis as outlined in this report;
(3)this report be referred to Budget Committee; and
(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto."
(c)"Taking Responsibility for Homelessness" - Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to
the Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for consideration
with their report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:
(January 18, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on
January 18, 1999, received a verbal presentation from Dr. Anne Golden, Chair, Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force,
regarding the report "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness", and recommended that:
(1)Council be advised that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes endorses the noted report of the
Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force and the recommendations contained therein;
(2)the Budget Committee be requested to secure sufficient funds to implement the recommendations contained in the
noted report from the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, which may be modified by Council;
(3)Council be urged, through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, to appoint a Facilitator for Action
on Homelessness as quickly as possible; and that Recommendations Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as contained in the noted report from
the Mayor's Homelessness Task Force, be approved as urgent priorities;
(4)the other recommendations contained in the noted report from the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force be
referred to the appropriate City officials for report back to Council, through the appropriate Standing Committee and/or the
Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes;
(5)the requested report from the appropriate City officials shall include the following:
(I)general time lines advising when the said recommendations from the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force could
be implemented and target those recommendations which can be implemented in a short period of time;
(ii)an audit mechanism be included which can measure the effectiveness of the recommendations as they are
implemented; and
(iii)the requested report also include multi-year funding implications for each recommendation or item brought forward;
and
(6)Council be advised that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes endorses the proposal for a
Mayor's Summit on Homelessness to be held on March 25, 1999, and co-sponsored by the City, the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(d)Update on Hostel Occupancy.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having
(1)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report (ii) dated February 11, 1999, from
the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by
deleting the word "only", so that such recommendation reads as follows:
"(2)the commitment by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to expand hostel services by
adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and";
(2)supported the following Recommendation No. (3) of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated
Persons, contained in the following communication (iv) from Councillor Jack Layton:
"The Advisory Committee send a letter to the Medical Officer of Health to work with hostels to deal with the health
and safety issues associated with the current overcrowded conditions in the hostel system (such as TB, scabies,
lice).";
(3)referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with Mayor Mel
Lastman, communications (I) dated January 8, 1999, from the City Clerk and (iv) dated February 11, 1999, from
Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, with a request that she report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee for its meeting on March 24, 1999;
(4)referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation
with the Medical Officer of Health, with a request that she report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood
Services Committee for its meeting on March 24, 1999:
"That the expansion of hostel services should include the expansion of public health initiatives to reduce the spread
of communicable diseases, in particular TB."; and
(5)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to develop the
concept of "full-standard facility" guidelines and the implications of this definition for the program, and report
thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:
(i)(January 18, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on
January 18, 1999, had before it a communication (January 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory
Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, recommending that:
(1)the City of Toronto adopt a no "No Room at the Inn" policy with respect to the provision of emergency shelter thereby
ensuring that no one will be turned away from a hostel in Toronto due to lack of space;
(2)the City of Toronto make a commitment to replace all emergency shelter beds expected to be lost in the Spring of
1999 due to the closure of temporary winter hostels and renovations scheduled for Seaton House resulting in a loss of 150
beds; and
(3)the Shelter, Housing and Support Division report on the development of standardized rules for hostels;
and that the Council Strategy Committee recommended that:
(1)the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be requested to adopt Recommendation No. (1), as adopted
by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, at its meeting of December 18, 1998, regarding a
no "No Room at the Inn" policy; and
(2)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to review Recommendations Nos. (2) and
(3), as adopted by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, and address these
recommendations in her report on spring hostel capacity and standard rules as requested by the Community and
Neighbourhood Services Committee, with a copy of this report to be sent to the Council Strategy Committee for People
Without Homes for information;
(ii)(February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing a current update
on the occupancy levels in the hostel system; and recommending that:
(1)the existing contract with the Salvation Army, for the Lighthouse shelter at 37 Dundas Street, East, be increased by 30
beds on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights effective February 15, 1999 to April 15, 1999;
(2)the commitment by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to expand hostel services only by
adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;
(iii)graphs outlining Shelter Services for Single Adults and Youth from January 1-31, 1999, and from February 1-9,
1999, submitted by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division; and
(iv)(February 11, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, advising that the Advisory Committee on Homeless
and Socially Isolated Persons on January 22, 1999, passed the following motions:
"(2)That the Mayor be asked to:
(a)convene the Emergency Planning Committee to develop a plan to establish permanent emergency shelters in both the
east and west end of the City;
(b)declare a state of emergency in the City of Toronto in response to the homeless crisis; and
(c)open the armouries immediately as a short-term response to the current capacity shortage in the hostel system until
such time as the new east and west sites are opened.
(3)The Advisory Committee send a letter to the Medical Officer of Health to work with hostels to deal with the health
and safety issues associated with the current overcrowded conditions in the hostel system (such as TB, scabies, lice).
(4)That City officials meet with representatives of Oxfam, the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders and the Toronto
Disaster Relief Committee to consult on emergency relief strategies."
--------
The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Ms. Kira Heineck, Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, and submitted a petition, headed "House the Homeless! Open up
the Armouries!", with approximately 500 signatures;
-Ms. Cathy Crowe, Queen West Community Health Centre, and submitted a brief from the Toronto Disaster Relief
Committee, headed "Why Open The Armouries?";
-Ms. Denise Toulouse, Anishnawbe Health Toronto;
-Mr. Gaetan Heroux;
-Mr. Michael Skidd; and
-Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons.
(e)Children's Summit.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following communication:
(January 8, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Children and Youth Action Committee on December 15, 1998,
received a verbal report on the Children's Summit by Ms. Julie Mathien of the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Department; and reports having approved funds in the amount of $18,000.00 for the Children's Summit to be held in
February 1999; noting that funds are available in the Children and Youth Action Committee Budget, Account
No. CD200-G39951.
(f)Ontario Works Program - Cost of Administering Informal Child Care.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following communication:
(January 8, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Children and Youth Action Committee on December 15, 1998, had
before it a report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to
a request for a report on the cost of administering the informal child care component of the Ontario Works program; and
that the Children and Youth Action Committee received such report, and directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the
Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for information.
(g)City of Toronto Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund Allocations.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following
report until its next meeting to be held on March 24, 1999, in order to discuss the implications for the year 1999;
and further having directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to
submit to that meeting an explanation of the evaluation approach:
(February 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an update on the
selection of projects and funding allocations from the City's Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund; advising that of the
$1.02 million allocated by the Province, 25 projects have been selected for $805,279.00 in funding, as outlined in the
report; noting that the balance of the fund will be used for the "Youth Helping Youth" project at 11 Ordnance Street, and to
fund emerging priorities identified later in the year; and recommending that the report be received for information.
(h)Establishment of Budget Sub-Committee.
The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having established a Budget Sub-Committee,
comprised of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Councillor Olivia Chow and Councillor Gordon Chong, to
consider the 1999 Operating Budget of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRIS KORWIN-CUCZYNSKI
Chair
Toronto, February 11, 1999
(Report No. 2 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as
amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)
