City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
   

 

Recommendations to Divide the 22 Provincial

Ridings into 44 City

The Administration Committee:

1. recommends the adoption of the report (January 10, 2000) from Councillors Lorenzo Berardinetti, Doug Holyday and David Miller, subject to the attached revised Map 20-B being adopted as the preferred option respecting Provincial Riding Scarborough-Agincourt; and subject also to the following Map Options being submitted to Council without recommendation:

(i) Provincial Riding Eglinton-Lawrence

(Map Option 8-1 and 8-B);

(ii) Provincial Riding St. Paul's

(Map Option 11-2 and 11-3); and

(iii) Provincial Riding Scarborough Centre

(Map Option 19-1 and 19-2); and

(2) reports having conveyed its appreciation to Councillors Lorenzo Berardinetti, Doug Holyday and David Miller and City Clerk's staff for their hard work, thoroughness and diligence in the review of the ward boundaries.

The Administration Committee submits the following joint report (January 10, 2000) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Chair, Administration Committee, Councillor Doug Holyday and Councillor David Miller, entitled "Recommendations to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 City Wards":

Purpose:

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, in response to the Province's request for the City's advice on preferred ward boundaries, that:

(1)City Council adopt the recommended ward boundaries, as set out in the table attached to this report and shown on the attached maps, as City Council's preferred set of 44 single member wards based on dividing the 22 provincial ridings;

(2)City Council's decision on ward boundaries be communicated to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing immediately, and that the Minister be requested to implement City Council's decision through regulation as soon as possible; and,

(3)City Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to amend the provincial legislation to reinstate the City's authority to determine its own ward boundaries beginning with the 2003 election;

Background:

In early December 1999, the Provincial Government announced that the next municipal election in the City of Toronto would be contested based on the Federal/Provincial riding boundaries. Bill 25, introduced on December 6, 1999, stated that there shall be 44 or such other number of wards in the City of Toronto and one or more Councillors per ward, the exact boundaries and numbers of both wards and Councillors to be determined by regulation. Although the legislation does not explicitly say so, the provincial Government has indicated that the intent of the legislation is that city ward boundaries adhere to those of the Federal/Provincial ridings. The legislation also removed the City of Toronto's historic right to set its own ward boundaries and the right of residents to appeal boundary decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Province requested that the City of Toronto provide its advice as to its preferred set of ward boundaries consistent with the legislation. As a result, on December 15, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 9 of The Administration Committee, therein requesting the Chair of the Administration Committee and two of its members to convene meetings and invite any Member of Council who has an interest in a particular riding to attend and provide input. The Committee included Councillors' Berardinetti, Holyday and Miller.

City Council also adopted the recommendations contained in a report from the City Clerk (December 14, 1999) which set out a process to facilitate a Council decision on its preferred set of ward boundaries. The Clerk's staff released a series of preliminary draft ward options on December 17, 1999 to divide the 22 provincial ridings.

The City Clerk also has prepared a report for the Administration Committee to present a summary and findings of the public consultation process and all comments received from the public in regard to this matter.

Comments:

Our committee scheduled specific time periods over the four days of January 4, 5, 6, and 10, 2000, to discuss with interested Councillors the 22 provincial ridings and consider options for dividing each riding into 2 City wards. For each riding, Clerk's staff provided a brief overview of the draft ward options compiled by staff. Interested Members of Council or their designated representatives were invited to ask questions about the draft ward options and share their opinions. Our committee asked questions of some Members of Council to better understand their positions.

Any formal communication provided to our committee from a Member of Council was considered and is available for review as part of the Clerk's report also before the Administration Committee. Also, any additional ward proposals or amendments suggested by Members of Council, and which meet the Council-adopted ward boundary principles, are included in the City Clerk's staff report.

After hearing from all interested Members of Council or their offices during the scheduled consultations, our committee considered the following information to arrive at our recommendations for dividing each ward:

(a)the Council-adopted ward boundary principles, including:

(i)representation by population;

(ii)representation of communities;

(iii)recognition of distinct geographic and infrastructure elements; and,

(iv)future population growth;

(b)the draft preliminary ward options released by the City Clerk's Office in December 1999;

(c)the comments and communications from Members of Council and their offices regarding the ward boundaries; and

(d)a Clerk's staff briefing on the results from the various public open houses held on January 4 and 5, 2000, all formal communications submitted to the City Clerk's Office as of January 7, 2000; and any additional ward boundary options prepared by staff, based on the Council-adopted principles, which resulted from the public's comments.

In summary, our committee has reviewed all the correspondence received on this matter as of January 7, 2000, along with all 58 draft preliminary ward boundary options compiled by Clerk's staff in December 1999, and 41 additional ward boundary options, meeting the Council-adopted principles, which resulted from the public and Member consultation exercises. Options were not considered which either changed the existing 22 provincial riding boundaries (i.e., the outside ward boundaries) or did not meet the population principle (within +/- 25 percent variance from the average ward population of 54,200).

It should be acknowledged that during this consultation exercise, it became clear that a level of support exists among some Members of Council and members of the public to request the Province to establish 22 City wards based on the 22 provincial ridings with two Members of Council elected per ward. Council's consideration of this matter at its last meeting on December 14, 15, and 16, 1999, was based on the assumption that the 22 provincial ridings were to be divided into two City wards, each as Council was advised in the reports before it. The City Clerk has advised that, in her opinion, if the matter is to be considered at City Council on January 19, 2000, a Notice of Motion would be necessary and require a two-thirds majority vote in the affirmative of the Members present to re-open this matter. City Council may wish to indicate its preference that the ward boundaries for the year 2000 municipal election be the Federal/Provincial ridings with two Councillors elected per ward (which may require a re-opening).

Riding Division Recommendations:

In order to focus the debate on ward boundaries at the Administration Committee, our committee is proposing one recommendation for dividing each of the 22 provincial ridings. The entire Administration Committee will have before it for its full consideration the following information:

(a)this report with a package of recommendations on ward boundaries;

(b)the draft preliminary ward options, as compiled by the City Clerk's Office in December 1999;

(c)a City Clerk's staff report which provides a review of input received from the public and any additional ward boundary options which resulted from the consultations and which satisfied the Council-adopted principles; and

(d)all communications received by the City Clerk in connection with this matter.

In addition, on January 11, 2000, the Administration Committee will have the benefit of hearing from the public at the meeting through deputations, and from interested Members of Council.

In developing our recommendations for dividing the 22 ridings into 44 wards from the various options and comments received, we relied on the Council-adopted ward boundary principles. Our weighing of the four principles against the options was a difficult and complex balancing act, and necessitated some prioritisation of the principles.

As directed by City Council, the pre-eminent principle considered was representation by population. 1996 Statistics Canada census data was used as the measuring stick for population. Specifically, we sought to find ward boundaries within a riding which: (i) varied from the average ward population for the City as little as possible, and (ii) achieved relative population parity between the two wards within each riding.

In addition to the population principle, we looked to the two principles of "representation of communities" and "recognition of distinct geographic and infrastructure elements". Weighing these principles pointed us to options which seemed to make logical sense (i.e., the boundary can be easily understood).

Finally, the principle of future growth was considered. This was the last principle considered qualitatively since definitive small area projection data is not yet available across the entire City.

The table attached to this report lists the recommended ward boundary maps. For each of the 22 ridings, the table identifies:

(a)the recommended map option for dividing the riding;

(b)the source of the map option (i.e., either the City Clerk's Preliminary Draft Options (December 1999) or from consultation sessions);

(c)the 1996 population estimate for the two wards within the riding;

(d)the variance (percent) of each recommended ward from the average ward population for the City (i.e., 54,200);

(e)the ward parity differential, which shows the relative difference (percent) between the populations of both wards within the riding; and,

(f)justification statements for the recommended ward option map.

In 10 of the 22 ridings, our recommended ward division option is the option with the least variance from the average ward population across the City and has the best population parity between the two resulting wards.

Most (13 of 22) of the ward dividing lines generally follow community boundaries. However, in some cases, dividing communities was unavoidable given the existing configuration of the riding and the need to satisfy the other principle tests. Defined communities referenced in the City official plans and mapped by the City Planning Division were used in considering ward division options.

All the recommended options generally follow recognisable infrastructure and/or geographic features (i.e., highways, arterial roads, railways, and watercourses) so that the boundaries are easily understood. Some suggestions were made by the public and Members of Council to follow property lines and/or local streets. However, our committee did not feel it was appropriate to do so since boundary lines should be easily understood and definable.

The public input into this process proved to be very valuable. In three (3) cases, the ward boundary option recommended by our committee was the result of an additional ward boundary option submitted during the consultations. The ward boundary recommendations for the ridings of York South Weston, Toronto Centre Rosedale, and Scarborough Rouge River were different from the draft preliminary options compiled by the Clerk's staff and, in our opinion, better satisfied the Council-adopted principles.

The public was asked at the open house sessions to select their preferred options from the draft preliminary ward boundary options released by the Clerk's Office (December 1999). Although, far from being a scientific survey, the public feedback correlated well with our recommendations. For the 19 ridings in which we recommended a ward boundary option from the Clerk's preliminary set of options (December 1999), 17 of our recommended options were also the preferred option by the public, as ascertained through the feedback forms and comments.

List of Attachments:

Attachment No. 1 - Table of Recommended Ward Boundary Maps for the 22 Provincial Ridings

Attachment No. 2 - Maps Showing the Recommended Ward Boundaries

_________

The Administration Committee also submits the following report (January 10, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "Review of Comments received on the Draft Preliminary Options to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 Single Member Wards":

Purpose:

This report provides a summary of the comments received on the draft ward options, dividing the 22 ridings and on Bill 25 - The Fewer Municipal Politicians Act.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

In December 1998, City Council adopted a new ward structure based on 57 single member wards for the 2000 election. Council subsequently enacted By-laws Nos. 228-1999 and 275-1999 to create the new wards. These by-laws were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), and were upheld by the Board, with some amendments, in an order released on November 29, 1999. The Board ruled that the ward boundary review principles used by the City were sound and that the allowable population variance factor of plus or minus 25 percent from the average ward size was appropriate.

On December 6, 1999, the Provincial Government introduced Bill 25, the "Fewer Municipal Politicians Act, 1999". The Bill amends the City of Toronto Act, 1997 by reducing the size of Toronto Council to 44 plus the Mayor. The exact number of Members and their area of representation are to be defined through provincial regulation. In a news release dated December 6, 1999, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicated that the City Council would have 44 wards based on the provincial electoral boundaries and the Minister would seek the City's advice to determine exactly how the 22 and provincial ridings would be divided through regulation.

On December 8, 1999, the Administration Committee requested the City Clerk to:

(a)provide directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 14, 1999, the various scenarios being contemplated as to the break-up of the individual wards; and any other criteria that she feels would be relevant to the discussion in this regard; and

(b)to provide all Members of Council with a copy of the legislation respecting the Fewer Municipal Politicians Act, 1999, as soon as it is available.

As a result, on December 15, 1999, Toronto City Council adopted Clause No.3, Report No.9 of The Administration Committee, as amended, which include the following recommendations:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council endorse the process outlined in this report as the basis for determining a preferred set of 44 single-member ward boundaries for the municipal election to be held in 2000;

(2)City Council endorse the following principles, previously used by City Council in developing the 57 wards, in order to guide the development and consideration of options for dividing the 22 Federal/Provincial ridings into 44 single member wards:

(a)representation by population;

(b)representation of communities;

(c)recognition of distinct geographic and infrastructure elements (e.g., watercourses, railways, highways, arterial roads); and

(d)future population growth;

and that principle (a) be used as the overriding principle for determining ward options to achieve equitable population distribution between wards in a riding and that variances from the average ward population of up to plus or minus 25 percent be permitted where desirable only to accommodate the other principles;

(3)City Council make a decision on its preferred set of 44 single member wards at a Special City Council meeting to be scheduled for January 19 and 21, 2000, to enable Clerk's staff the time to undertake the necessary work to translate the ward boundaries into voting subdivisions to meet statutory deadlines for developing the voters' list;

(4)City Council authorize the City Clerk to hold public open houses on January 4 and 5, 2000, as outlined in this report, to receive public input on the options to divide the 22 ridings and their opinions on Bill 25;

(5)the City Clerk be authorized to prepare draft preliminary ward options based on the principles outlined in this report for release by December 17, 1999, and that these draft options be used as the basis for consultation and for seeking public input;

(6)the Members of Council be requested to submit directly to the City Clerk any specific comments on the ward boundary options by January 6, 2000, for consideration by staff in conjunction with the Council-adopted principles;

(7)if City Council approves the Administration Committee recommendation that all matters pertaining to the issue of ward boundaries be considered by the Administration Committee, as embodied in Clause No. 3 of Report No. 9 of The Administration Committee, then the City Clerk be requested to report to the Administration Committee, at its January 11, 2000 meeting, on the ward options based on comments received from the public and the Members of Council and any other matters deemed necessary, and that the Administration Committee hear public deputations at that meeting and make overall recommendations for consideration by City Council;

(8)all Members of Council be invited to attend the January 11, 2000 Administration Committee meeting and to hear deputations on this matter;

(9)the following two overriding decision-making principles, based on the notion of representative population, be used to assist Council in resolving any disagreement between ward boundary options:

(a)the two ward populations (1996 Census estimate) within each riding should be as close to the 1996 Census ward average population (54,200 based on 44 wards) as possible; and

(b)the 1996 Census population estimates for the ward divisions within each riding should be as close to parity as possible;

(10)City Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to prescribe the necessary regulation defining the 44 single ward members as recommended by City Council as soon as possible and, in any event, no later than February 15, 2000;

(11)City Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide the City with the necessary authority to name the 44 wards once established in regulation;

(12)subject to City Council adopting the process outlined in this report, additional funding, in the amount of $50,000.00, be considered with the Clerk's 2000 Operating Budget; and

(13)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.' "

This report focuses on the public consultations undertaken by the City Clerk to receive feed back on options for dividing the 22 federal/provincial ridings and summarizes the public input on the draft ward options, on Bill 25, and other additional options.

Comments:

A notice advertising the information sessions was placed in one major daily newspaper and in various community newspapers, consistent with the notification procedure used in the previous ward boundary exercise. Notice was also sent to all resident and ratepayer groups on file with the Clerk's office, all BIAs and other interested parties involved or notified through the previous ward boundary review process. In addition, copies of all draft preliminary options, the notices of public meetings and the staff report were posted to the City's internet site.

Six public open houses were held at City Hall and each Civic Centre on January 4 and 5, 1999 to receive input on draft options developed by City Clerk's, Bill 25, and other options proposed by the public. Each session was held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. A brief staff presentation was made at each session, along with an informal review and discussion of the options and possible alternatives.

These information sessions made available the staff options for dividing the 22 ridings and staff were in attendance to discuss the options and receive public input. Public comments have been formalized through comment sheets that were collected at each session.

The Open houses were designed for public input in an informal environment. Attendance at the public open houses was as follows:

January 4Etobicoke Civic Centre - 45 people attended;

York Civic Centre - 23 people attended; and

North York Civic Centre - 66 people attended.

January 5East York Civic Centre - 51 people attended;

Scarborough Civic Centre - 40 people attended; and

Toronto City Hall - 78 people attended.

This report incorporates all comments received (on or before 12:01 p.m. on Sunday, January 9, 2000). In total 155 Preferred Option Forms, 142 Public Comment forms and 51 written communications (letter, fax and e-mail) have been received. All of the communications, including the 17 communications which have been received after the deadline for inclusion into this report have been included in Attachment No. 3. Over 100 new ward proposals were submitted during the public open house consultations. Staff reviewed these proposals and determined 41 of these additional options met the adopted principles. These 41 additional options are included as an attachment to this report (Attachment No. 2).

The summary below provides by ward the public's draft preliminary preferences and additional suggested options made by members of the public, community groups, or Councillors. These additional options have been reviewed by staff, and have met the Council approved criteria as outlined in Clause No. 3, Report No. 9 of The Administration Committee, adopted by Council on December 14, 15, and 16 1999. Options received by staff which changed the existing 22 provincial riding boundaries (i.e., the outside ward boundaries) or did not meet the population parity test (+/- 25 percent variance from average ward population of 54,200) were not considered.

Summary of Public Input by Provincial Riding:

1 - Etobicoke North:

Eight people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 1-1, one person responded for option 1-2, and six people responded preferring option 1-3.

Four additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These include options 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D.

2- Etobicoke Centre:

Five people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 2-1, eight people responded preferring 2-2, and three responded preferring option 2-3.

There were no additional options presented through consultations that met the Council adopted principles for ward division.

3 - Etobicoke-Lakeshore:

Twenty three people responded preferring draft preliminary option 3-1, and ten people responded preferring option 3-2.

Two additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 3-A, and 3-B.

4 - York West:

Eleven people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 4-1, fifteen people responded preferring option 4-2, and no one responded preferring option 4-3.

One additional option that was suggested through the consultation process was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 4-A.

5 - York Centre:

Five people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 5-1, no one responded for either option 5-2, or option 5-3.

One additional option that was suggested through the consultation process was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 5-A.

6 - York South-Weston:

Three people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 6-1, two people responded preferring option 6-2, and three people responded preferring option 6-3.

Five additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-D, and 6-E.

7 - Parkdale-High Park:

Sixteen people responded preferred the draft preliminary option 7-1, three people responded preferring option 7-2, and no one responded preferring option 7-3.

Five additional options that were suggested through the consultation process, were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These include options 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, 7-D, and 7-E

8 - Eglinton-Lawrence:

Six people responded preferred the draft preliminary option 8-1, three people responded preferred option 8-2, and one person responded preferring option 8-3.

Two additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 8-A and 8-B.

9 - Davenport:

Six people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 9-1, one person responded preferring option 9-2, and no one responded preferring option 9-3.

There were no additional options presented through consultations that met the Council adopted principles for ward division.

10 - Trinity-Spadina:

Two people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 10-1, eight people responded preferring option 10-2, and eleven people responded preferring option 10-3.

There were no additional options presented through consultations that met the Council adopted principles for ward division.

11 - St. Paul's:

Two people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 11-1, two people responded preferring option 11-2, and twelve people responded preferring option 11-3.

One additional option that was suggested through the consultation process was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 11-A.

12 - Willowdale:

Seventeen people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 12-1, twenty-five people responded preferring option 12-2, and no one responded preferring option 12-3.

Four additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, and 12-D.

13 - Don Valley West:

Twenty-two people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 13-1, seven people responded preferring option 13-2, and three people responded preferring option 13-3.

One additional option that was suggested through the consultation process, was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 13-A.

14 - Toronto Centre-Rosedale:

Twenty people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 14-1, eight people responded preferring option 14-2 and six people responded preferring option 14-3.

Six additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D, 14-E, and 14-F.

15 - Broadview-Greenwood:

Seven people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 15-1, fifteen people responded preferring option 15-2, and three people responded preferring option 15-3.

Two additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 15-A and 15-B.

16 - Beaches-East York:

Twenty-seven people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 16-1, one person responded preferring option 16-2, and no one preferred option 16-3.

One additional option was suggested through the consultation process was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 16-A.

17 - Don Valley East:

Eight people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 17-1, no one responded preferring option 17-2 or option 17-3.

There were no additional options presented through consultations that met the Council adopted principles for ward division.

18 - Scarborough South West:

Three people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 18-1, five people responded preferring option 18-2, and no one responded preferring option 18-3.

There were no additional options presented through consultations that met the Council adopted principles for ward division.

19 - Scarborough-Centre:

Two people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 19-1, six people responded preferring option 19-2, and no one responded preferring option 19-2.

One additional option was suggested through the consultation process was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 19-A.

20 - Scarborough-Agincourt:

Six people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 20-1, one person preferred option 20-2, and two people preferred option 20-3.

Two additional options that were suggested through the consultation process were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 20-A and 20-B.

21 - Scarborough-Rouge River:

Three people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 21-1, one person responded preferring option 20-2, and three people responded preferring option 21-3.

Two additional options that were suggested through the consultation process, were reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. These are presented as options 21-A, and 21-B.

22 - Scarborough-East:

Three people responded preferring the draft preliminary option 22-1, three people preferred option 22-2, option 22-3.

One additional option that was suggested through the consultation process, was reviewed by staff, and met the Council approved criteria. This is presented as option 22-A.

Public Open House Responses to Bill 25 - The Fewer Municipal Politicians Act:

Public comments to "Bill 25 - The Fewer Municipal Politicians Act" focused on two areas: the process for implementing change and the impact that the changes will have on local governance. Many respondents suggested the process was too fast with too little time for effective public input, and that changes were being rushed into place for the 2000 election. Many commented that Bill 25 will result in reduced access to municipal councillors, will undermine Community Councils, and will result in more decisions being made by staff. Many commented that Bill 25 was an example of continued provincial interference in local decision making.

Conclusions:

This report summarizes public comment on the draft ward options, on Bill 25 and on additional options dividing the 22 ridings that have been submitted through the consultation process. The open houses provided an opportunity for staff to work with the public on an individual basis to clarify, provide information and to develop additional options to divide the 22 Ridings into 44 single member wards. This elicited a high level of participation by those who attended, as most attendees submitted response forms.

Contact:

Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division

tel. 392-8668; e-mail: pfay@toronto.ca

John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division

tel. 392-8019; e-mail: jhollins@toronto.ca

List of Attachments:

Attachment No.1 - Summary Table of Consultation by Provincial Riding

Attachment No.2 - Additional Options to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 Single Member Wards

Attachment No.3 - Communications Received - Draft Preliminary Options to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 Single Member Wards

_________

Attachment No. 1

Summary Table of Consultation by Provincial Riding
Preferences in Response to "Draft Preliminary Options"

(City Clerks - December 1999

Additional Options

Proposed During Consultation Process

Number Provincial Riding Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1

Etobicoke North 8 1 6 1-A, 1-B, 1-C and 1-D
2 Etobicoke Centre 5 8 3 None
3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore 23 10 - 3-A, 3-B
4 York West 11 15 0 4-A
5 York Centre 5 0 - 5-A
6 York South-Weston 3 2 3 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-D and 6-E
7 Parkdale-High Park 16 3 - 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, 7-D and 7-E
8 Eglinton-Lawrence 6 3 1 8-A, 8-B
9 Davenport 6 1 - None
10 Trinity-Spadina 2 8 11 None
11 St. Paul's 2 2 12 11-A
12 Willowdale 17 25 - 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D
13 Don Valley West 22 7 3 13-A
14 Toronto Centre-Rosedale 20 8 6 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D, 14-E and 14-F
15 Broadview-Greenwood 7 15 3 15-A, 15-B
16 Beaches-East York 27 1 - 16-A
17 Don Valley East 8 0 - None
18 Scarborough-South West 3 5 - None
19 Scarborough-Centre 2 6 0 19-A
20 Scarborough-Agincourt 6 1 2 20-A, 20-B
21 Scarborough-Rouge River 3 1 3 21-A, 21-B
22 Scarborough-East 3 3 0 22-A

The Administration Committee also submits the following report (January 10, 2000) from the City Solicitor, entitled "Fewer Municipal Politicians Act, 1999:

Purpose:

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of December 14, 15 and 16, 1999, in considering the issue of a process to establish 44 (forty-four) single-member wards for the municipal election to be held in 2000 requested that the City Solicitor submit reports to the Administration Committee on:

(i)the role and rights of the City of Toronto in any federal riding redistribution process that will occur in 2001 or 2002;

(ii)the legality of certain elements of Bill 25, i.e., that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, through a Cabinet Decision, can overrule the provision(s) of provincial legislation, such report to be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City staff; and

(iii)the implications of Section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, as amended by Bill 25.

The Fewer Municipal Politicians Act, 1999 (the "Act") received Royal Assent on December 22, 1999 and most of the Act, including the provisions of the Act affecting the City of Toronto came into force that day. The Act provides that the City of Toronto will be divided into 44 wards, or such other number as may be prescribed by regulation, having the boundaries of the wards as prescribed by regulation. The Act consequently does not tie the ward boundaries for the City of Toronto to those established under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada).

Comments:

(1)Federal Electoral Legislation:

The establishment of electoral boundaries and readjustments to these boundaries at the federal level is governed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (the "Federal Act"). This legislation requires an electoral boundaries commission to be established for each province and for the territories of Canada within 60 days of the receipt of each decennial census. Each commission is required to complete a report for presentation to the House of Commons by the end of the following year, setting out its recommendations concerning the descriptions, boundaries, population and names of electoral districts in the province. This report is then referred to the appropriate committee as established by the House of Commons for consideration.

Section 22 of the Federal Act provides that where an objection in writing is filed with the clerk of the committee, within a period of 30 days following the referral of the report to the committee, and where the objection specifies the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, the committee shall, within the next 30 days consider the matter of the objection and refer the report and the objection back to the Chief Electoral Officer. The appropriate electoral boundaries commission will then consider and dispose of the objection and return its report, with or without amendment.

In the Province of Ontario, the Representation Act, 1996 provides for the Province of Ontario to be divided into electoral districts whose number, names and boundaries are identical to the federal electoral districts established under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada). The legislation provides that when there is a federal readjustment, new provincial electoral districts are deemed to be established in accordance with the federal readjustment.

There is no provision in federal or provincial legislation that would give the City of Toronto any role or rights in any federal riding redistribution process that will incur in 2001 or 2002. The Federal Act would allow the City to submit a written objection with reasons, which objection would be processed in the manner previously set out.

(2)Bill 25 - Regulatory Powers of the Minister:

Council has requested the City Solicitor to report on the legality of certain elements of Bill 25, primarily the use of regulatory power to overrule provincial legislation. In respect of the legality of the Act, Mr. Justice Borins, in his decision respecting the challenge to Bill 103, The City of Toronto Act, 1997, clearly set out certain principles of municipal law that have been upheld by the Courts over the years:

"(i)Municipal institutions lack constitutional status;

(ii)Municipal institutions are creatures of the Legislature and exist only if provincial legislation so provides;

(iii)Municipal institutions have no independent autonomy and their powers are subject to abolition or repeal by provincial legislation; and

(iv)Municipal institutions may exercise only those powers which are conferred upon them by statute."

Based on these principles and case law including the Bill 103 challenge, it is clear that the province is acting within its legal jurisdiction to pass legislation reducing the number of wards in the City of Toronto and conferring on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and authority to determine municipal election boundaries in the City of Toronto.

In respect of regulatory powers specifically, the Act gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority to prescribe the number and boundaries of wards, for municipal election purposes, in the City of Toronto by regulation. The legislation also provides a general regulatory power for the Minister in respect of matters that the Act permits or requires to be done and in respect of transitional matters that affect an election under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. In respect of the other municipalities reorganized by this Act, the legislation provides extensive regulatory power to the Minister as well. In so doing, authority may have been conferred on the Minister to pass regulations which could fetter authority conferred on municipalities under other legislation.

Courts have occasionally had to examine the use of what have been known as "Henry VIII clauses". This title applies to regulatory authority that essentially allows the delegate possessing the regulatory authority to amend legislation. The Courts have generally recognized the power of the legislature to delegate authority by means of subordinate legislation provided the legislature clearly expresses its intention to do so. Although Courts have questioned whether it is appropriate for the legislature to delegate such authority, none have contested its ability to do so.

In respect of ward boundaries, the Act repeals the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 that established the original wards and provided authority to change or dissolve wards in accordance with the Municipal Act. The Act replaces these legislative provisions with specific language providing that wards, in the City of Toronto, cannot be changed or dissolved by a by-law or an order made under sections 13, 13.1 or 13.2 of the Municipal Act and that any such by-law or order is void, as the legislation itself repeals any other legislative process for establishing wards. Consequently, while the Minister is given the authority to divide the City into wards and to set ward boundaries by regulation, this regulatory power would not be considered by the Courts as amending general municipal powers to establish ward boundaries under the Municipal Act, because the Municipal Act provisions in this regard no longer apply to the City of Toronto as a result of the Act.

(3)Questions on the Ballot:

The City Solicitor was requested to report on the implications of section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, as amended by Bill 25. Section 8 of the Municipal Act authorizes City Council to pass a by-law submitting a question to its electors on a matter within Council's jurisdiction. Section 8 also authorizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make an Order requiring the Clerk of a local municipality to submit a question to the electors of the municipality, and deals with procedures for giving notice and other procedures respecting such questions. Section 6 of Schedule "F" of the Act (Bill 25) amends Section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 by adding a new subsection 2.1 requiring a by-law passed under subsection 8(1) (b) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 to comply with such rules as may be prescribed by the Minister. Subsection 8(1)(b) relates to questions placed on the ballot by City Council respecting matters within Council's jurisdiction and otherwise not authorized by law.

In the past, the province has passed regulations respecting the form of such questions. For example, the form of ballot prescribed for use in the 1997 municipal elections, as set out in Ontario Regulation 101/1997 provides that questions must be phrased "ARE YOU IN FAVOUR OF (state the issue to be resolved)?" and provide options for voter response. If the assent of the electors was being sought on a by-law, the possible answers could only be "yes" or "no". If the opinion of the electors was being sought on a question, there could be any number of possible answers. It is within the jurisdiction of the Minister to prescribe rules respecting the form of questions to be placed on a by-law, as has been done in the past. I would have some concerns if the Minister prescribed rules that affected a municipality's ability to place a question on the ballot respecting a matter within its jurisdiction as such rules could improperly limit freedom of expression. However, in the absence of any regulations prescribing such rules, it is impossible to determine what, if any, implications can arise.

Conclusions:

There is no role prescribed for the City in the federal riding redistribution process that will occur in 2001 or 2002. The Fewer Municipal Politicians Act, 1999 does not address what impact that process will have on the ward boundaries to be established by the Minister under it. The Province is acting within its legislative jurisdiction in enacting this legislation and in delegating the regulatory powers given to the Minister to prescribe wards and set ward boundaries in the City of Toronto. Regarding questions on the ballot and the authority given the Minister to prescribe rules, rules respecting the form of such questions are proper and have been prescribed by regulation in the past. However, in the absence of regulations, it is impossible to determine what the implications of such rules will be.

Contact:

Mary Ellen Bench

Director, Municipal Law

Phone:392-7245

Fax:392-1017

________

The Administration Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications respecting the Ward Boundary Divisions, copies of which were forwarded to all Members of Council, and copies of which are also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(1)(December 22, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action taken by City Council on December 14, 15 and 16, 1999, respecting Clause No. 3 contained in Report No. 9 of The Administration Committee, headed "Ward Boundaries", which was adopted, as amended.

(2)(January 4, 2000) from Ms. Mary Campbell, President, Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc.;

(3)(December 30, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth E. Betowski;

(4)(December 27, 1999) from Ms. Louise Dimma;

(5)(January 3, 1999) from Mr. Peter Ramos, Lakeshore Village BIA;

(6)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. David Haslam, President, Humber Bay Shores Condominium Association;

(7) (January 5, 2000) from Mr. Lee White, Past President, Bayview Village Association;

(8)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Elizabeth Hill;

(9)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Ishwar Bisram York Condominium Corporation No. 206;

(10)(January 6, 2000) from Mr. Lorenzo Zeppieri;

(11)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Barbara Caplan, Board of Directors,McGill-Granby Village Residents' Association;

(12)(January 7, 2000) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Ward 23 - Midtown;

(13)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Helen Jensen;

(14)(January 5, 2000) from Justin J. Van Dette, Chair, Parkview Hills Community Association, Municipal Affairs Committee, East York;

(15)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Armand G. R. Conant;

(16)(January 7, 2000) from Ms. Wendy Gamble, President, New Toronto Historical Society;

(17)(January 4, 2000) from Mrs. Alice McLennan;

(18)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Banigan;

(19)(January 6, 2000) from Mr. Robert Bingham;

(20)(January 2, 2000) from Ms. Tanya Wacyk, Mr. Greg Spencer;

(21)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Cliff Jenkins, President, York Mills Ratepayers Association Inc.;

(22)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

(23)(December 30, 1999) from Mr. Bruno Pisani;

(24)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Domenic Platsis;

(25)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Elio Ventura;

(26)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Walter Celej;

(27)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Fatin Pristine;

(28)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Norma Wilson;

(29)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. Jerry Buchowsky;

(30)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Jonathan Wilson;

(31)(January 9, 2000) from Ms. Margaret Campbell and Mr. Lawrence Campbell;

(32)(January 9, 2000) from Mr. Robert Gullins, President Lakeshore Ratepayers' and Residents' Association;

(33)(January 7, 2000) from Ms. Karen Ridley; Ms. Anne Doherty; Ms. Sarah Vaughan; Ms. Jenifer Walker; Ms. Ann Grant;

(34)(January 7, 2000) from Ms. Christine Wilson;

(35)(December 8, 1999) from Mr. Rob Summers;

(36)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Margaret Simpson;

(37)(December 26, 1999) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr.;

(38)(December 23, 1999) from Mr. A. Ian Heisey Sr.;

(39)(January 5, 2000) from Councillor Douglas C. Holyday, Ward 4 -Markland-Centennial;

(40)(January 4, 2000) from Ms. Mary L. Campbell, President, The Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc.;

(41)(January 6, 2000) from Councillor Irene Jones, Ward 2, Lakeshore - Queensway;

(42)(January 7, 2000) from Ms. Susan Willsher;

(43)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. Bryan Hamberg;

(44)(January 4, 2000) from Gary and Erika Duke;

(45)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Michael Harrison;

(46)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. David Haslam, President, Humber Bay Shores Condominium Association;

(47)(January 3, 2000) from Mr. Peter Ramos, Lakeshore Village B.I.A.;

(48)(December 30, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth E. Betowski;

(49)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Franca Guadagnolo, President, Hullmar North Homeowners Association;

(50)(January 5, 2000) from Mrs. Patricia Shaw, President, Hullmar South Homeowners' Association;

(51)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Attilio Didiano, President, Finch South Homeowners' Association;

(52)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. John Fuscaldo, President, Firgrove Homeowners Association;

(53)(January 5, 2000) from Mrs. Rosanne Vidale, President, Finch North Homeowners' Association;

(54)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Diana Fancher, Corresponding Secretary, West Toronto Junction Historical Society;

(55)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Karen Goldenthal;

(56)(January 6, 2000) from Mr. Robert G. Brown;

(57)(December 21, 1999) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Ward 20, Trinity-Niagara and Councillor Olivia Chow, Ward 24, Downtown;

(58)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Pauline Hutchings;

(59)(January 5, 2000) from Councillor John Filion, Ward 10, North York Centre;

(60)(December 21, 1999) from Councillor Joan King, Ward 12, Seneca Heights;

(61)(December 16, 1999) from Carol Burtin Fripp, Past President, Leaside Property Owners' Association and Co-Chair of our Municipal Committee;

(62)(January 6, 2000) from Councillor Jane Pitfield, Ward 1, East York;

(63)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. K. Dunsmore, President, Don Mills Residents Inc.;

(64)(January 6, 2000) from Mr. Brian D. Barron;

(65)(January 4, 2000) from Councillor Joanne Flint, Ward 9, North York Centre South;

(66)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Dimitri Koutsothanassis East York Collegiate Student;

(67)(January 4, 2000) from Ms. Mary Pratt Harlan, Resident Property Owners;

(68)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. Rodger W. McLennan;

(69)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. Paul Dineen, Chair, Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Association;

(70)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Victoria Fraser, Chair, Riverdale Farm Advisory Committee;

(71)(January 6, 2000) from Ms. Amber Lee McGuire;

(72)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Susan Weiss;

(73)(January 6, 2000) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, Ward 26, East Toronto;

(74)(January 5, 2000) from Councillor Gerry Altobello, Ward 13, Scarborough Bluffs;

(75)(January 10, 2000) from Ms. Vanessa Magness;

(76)(January 5, 2000) from Ms. Joan Spencely;

(77)(January 5, 2000) from Mr. George Spencely;

(78)(January ;4, 2000) from Mrs. Joan Pimento;

(79)(January 9, 2000) from Ms. H. Altman;

(80)(January 10, 2000) from Mr. C. Dennis Flynn;

(81)(January 11, 2000) from Mr. John G. Bowes;

(82)(January 9, 2000) from Ms. Mary Ellen Belfiore and Mr. Ken Kolonsky;

(83)(January 10, 2000) from Mr. Roni Chaleff;

(84)(January 9, 2000) from Mr. Ron McKerracher;

(85)(January 11, 2000) from Ms. Sharee Ryan;

(86)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. and Mrs. David A. Bridge;

(87)(January 4, 2000) from Mr. Mark Urbaniak;

(88)(January 7, 2000) from Mr. Byron Grant;

(89)(undated) from Ms. Sheree Tams;

(90)(undated) from Ms. Vivian McGuckin;

(91)(undated) from Ms. Gwen Egan;

(92)(January 11, 2000) from Mr. Paul Dineen, Chair, Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area;

(93)(January 11, 2000) from Ms. Diane Lea Coutts, President, ABC Residents' Association;

(94)(January 11, 2000) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr.;

(95)(January 8, 2000) from Mr. Brian Fenoulhet, P. Eng., Chairman, The Thompson Orchard Community Association;

(96)(January 7, 2000) from Ms. Grace Finlay;

(97)(January 6, 2000) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown;

(98)(January 10, 2000) from Mr. Rudy Mumm;

(99)(undated) from Elio Ventura;

(100)(undated) from Mr. Cameron Atkison;

(101)(January 18, 2000) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr.; and

(102)(January 11, 2000) from Mr. Arthur F. Sellers.

________

The following persons appeared before the Administration Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

(1)Mr. Gord Martineau, Governors Bridge Ratepayers, and filed a copy of Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order No. 2161, with specific reference to Page 39 embodied therein; (Submission 1);

(2)Ms. Kim Hector, Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association Inc., and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 2);

(3)Ms. Diana Fancher, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 3);

(4)Ms.Hilary Bell, Dundas West Residents' Association, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 4);

(5)Mr. David Vallance, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 5);

(6)Mr. John Anga, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 6);

(7)Mr. Brian Maguire, North Hill District Homeowners Association;

(8)Ms. Margaret Simpson, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 7);

(9)Mr. Jorma Palomaki;

(10)Mr. Stig Harvor, and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 31);

(11)Ms. Lynn Clay, The Black Creek Business Area Association, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 8);

(12)Mr. George Milbrandt, Bedford Park Residents' Association (Don Valley West Riding) and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 9);

(13)Mr. Michael Opara, Bedford Park Residents' Association (Eglinton-Lawrence Riding);

(14)Mr. Zak Khan;

(15)Ms. Valerie Schatzker, President, South Rosedale Ratepayers Association; Ms. Diane Coutts, ABC Residents' Association; Mr. David Malesworth, Asquith/Collier Residents' Association; Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents' Association; Mr. David Thornton, Moore Park Residents' Association; and Mr. Terence Coates, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association; (Submission 10);

(16)Ms. Susan Weiss, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 11);

(17)Mr. Justin J. Van Dette, Chair, Parkview Hills Community Association; and filed a written submission and a petition in regard thereto; (Submission 13);

(18)Mr. Robert Brown, The Bloor Street Revitalization Working Group;

(19)Ms. Sherry Ryan;

(20)Mr. Ben Loughlin;

(21)Mr. David Fogarty;

(22)Mr. John Papadakis;

(23)Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 14);

(24)Mr. Mark Stefanini;

(25)Mr. Ewen McCuaig, Winchester Park Community Association, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 27);

(26)Ms. Nora Currie;

(27)Mr. Stefan Gutkowski;

(28)Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 28);

(29)Mr. Mario Vidella, York Community Alliance;

(30)Mr. Michael Kachala, Vice President, The Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc.;

(31)Mr. Peter Milczyn, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 29);

(32)Mr. Rob Summers;

(33)Ms. Peggy Kurtin on behalf of Mr. Paul Dineen, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 30);

(34)Mr. Peter Bochove;

(35) Ms. Audrey Burton;

(36)Mr. Charles Roy, on behalf of Mr. Trevor Gray;

(37)Ms. Olga Kremko; (Submission No. 34);

(38)Mr. Alan Seymour, and filed an information package in regard thereto (Submission 33);

(39)Ms. Barbara Caplan;

(40)Ms. Renee Auer;

(41)Mr. Allen Gaw, Topham Park Homeowners Association;

(42)Mr. Bob Bingham, and filed a written submission in regard thereto, (Submission 35);

(43)Ms. Agnes Vermes, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; (Submission 36);

(44)Mr. Curt Oliver, Chair, Sussex Ulster Residents' Association;

(44)Ms. Cynthia Wilkey, Corktown Residents' and Business Association, and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 37);

(45)Mr. Jim Hanna, and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 38);

(46)Mr. Scott Harrison;

(47)Mr. Cliff Martin on behalf of Ms. Siva Sivahurunathan and Mr. Murphy Browne;

(48)Father Francis Xavier, Federation of Association of Canadian Tamils;

(49)Mr. Charles Braive;

(50)Ms. Phyllis Creighton, and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 39);

(51)Mr. Barry McMonagle, Bayview , Willowdale Homeowners Association and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 40);

(52)Mr. Bob Gallant and also appeared on behalf of Mr. Lee White, and filed a written submission on behalf of himself and Mr. Lee White in regard thereto; (Submission 42 and 43);

(53)Mrs. Harriet Altman. Bayview Village Ratepayers' Association;

(54)Mr. William Howe;

(55)Mr. Chai Kalevar;

(56)Ms. Ambaro Guled, and filed a written submission in regard thereto (Submission 46);

(57)Ms. Mary Taylor;

(58)Mr. Cameron Atkison;

(59)Mrs. Francis Dolan;

(60)Mr. Linda Dixon;

(61)Mr. Frank Touby;

(62)Ms. Fanny Patterson; and

(63) Ms. Wendy Arnette, Beautify the Danforth.

_________

Submissions and comments were received from the following and forwarded to all Members of Council, copies of which are also on file in the office of the City Clerk:(1)Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Ratepayers Association, submitted by Ms. Lynn Clay; (Submission 12);

(2)Mr. Harold B. Desmarais, Chairperson, Tenants of 650 Parliament Street Association; (Submission 15);

(3)Mr. Charles Rosenberg; (Submission 16);

(4)Ms. Marilyn Tate; (Submission 17);

(5)Ms. Cecelia Lee, Acting Chair, Humewood Neighbourhood Ratepayers' Association; (Submission 18);

(6)Ms. Teresa To, Member, Homewood Neighbourhood Association; (Submission 19);

(7)Ms. Renee Auer; (Submission 20);

(8)Mr. John Sescheneau; (Submission 21);

(9)Ms. Brenda Siddall; (Submission 22);

(10)Mr. J. Scott Irvine; (Submission 23);

(11)Ms. Peggy Purdy; (Submission 24);

(12)Khanna Kaushal; (Submission 24);

(13)Elide Pestrin; (Submission 24);

(14)Ms. Marg Bukta; (Submission 24);

(15)Mr. Paul Felix; (Submission 24);

(16)Mr. Jim Wiswell; (Submission 25);

(17)Mr. John McGinnis, President, Deer Park Ratepayers' Group Inc.; (Submission 26);

(18)Mr. Terry McAuliffe; (Submission 32);

(19)Mr. Mary Latour Campbell, The Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. (Submission 41);

(20)Mr. Edmund P. Fowler (Submission 44);

(21)Mr. Jason Wu (Submission 45); and

(22)Ms. Lynda Wheeler, President, Terraview-Willowfield Residents' Association.

________

The following Members of Council appeared before the Administration Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre South;

-Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown;

-Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton;

-Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre;

-Councillor John Filion, North York Centre, and submitted a lost motion considered by Council on December 14, 15 and 16, 1999, and maps in regard thereto;

-Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, and filed a map in regard thereto and submissions from the following:

(i) President, St. Andrew's Ratepayers Association;

(ii) President, Yonge Ridge Homeowners' Association;

(iii) President, Yorkmills Valley Association;

(iv) President, Lawrence Park-Bayview Property Owners Association;

(v) President, Mildenhall Area Ratepayers Association;

(vi) President, Lower Banbury RA; and

(vii) Mr. Art Smoke.

-Councillor Norman Gardner, North York Centre;

-Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough Wexford;

-Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights;

-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park;

-Councillor Pam McConnell,Don River;

-Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina;

-Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber;

-Councillor Jane Pitfield, East York;

-Councillor Michael Prue, East York;

-Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown;

-Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough Agincourt;

-Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights, and filed maps in regard thereto; and

-Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough Wexford.

________

The following Members of Council were also present:

-Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs;

-Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek;

-Councillor Raymond Cho, Scarborough Malvern;

-Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport;

-Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway;

-Councillor George Mammolliti, North York Humber;

-Councillor Dick O'Brien, Markland-Centennial; and

-Councillor Case Ootes, East York.

(Copies of the Draft Preliminary Options to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 Single Member Wards, dated December, 1999; and the Additional Options to Divide the 22 Provincial Ridings into 44 Single Wards, dated Januarty, 2000, were forwarded to all Members of Council, and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Respectfully submitted,

COUNCILLOR LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair

Toronto, January 11, 2000

Patsy Morris

Tel. (416) 392-9151

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005