CONTENTS
Tuesday 1 November 1994
Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 163, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l'aménagement du territoire et les municipalités,
projet de loi 163, M. Philip
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND)
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Curling
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Ms Harrington
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Winninger
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Bisson
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Harnick
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Malkowski
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister
McKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal planning policy branch
Ross, Elaine, legal counsel
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1553 in room 228.
PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DES MUNICIPALITÉS
Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Chair, I have a point of order I'd like to raise. I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant to confirm that as of 5 o'clock today there's going to be a closure motion brought in on Bill 163. Is that your understanding?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): That's what I hear, Mr McLean. I don't know about the 5 o'clock, but I understand the House leaders were --
Mr McLean: Mr Chair, we've got a piece of legislation here before us that we've been dealing with. We've had public hearings on it and it's had many changes since. This piece of legislation has had some 225 amendments put forward to deal with, more than 200 of them by the government side. I'm wondering about the need to continue sitting here dealing with Bill 163 when tomorrow we will be debating a closure motion on this. You will, at the end of the time allotted, deem that all amendments not made be made, and therefore the bill will be ordered for third reading. I would think that would be the process.
I'm wondering if there's any point. There has not been an opposition or third party amendment accepted yet in all the deliberations we have had, and I don't anticipate that there will be one accepted. There could maybe be one, but if there was one, it would be minimal. I'm asking you, Mr Chair, what is the point in our proceeding in committee today if we're going to have closure brought in?
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): We have no knowledge of what you're raising. Until that is presented in the assembly, we continue working at it clause by clause. Rather than debating what you're suggesting, I suggest we simply move through clause by clause as we have done. We have nothing before us to deal with that.
Mr McLean: The parliamentary assistant has confirmed that at 5 o'clock it will be happening.
Mr Hayes: I have just been informed that that is not confirmed.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Ha!
Mr Hayes: Well, I'm telling you. Do you want to know or not? I'm telling you that the discussions were going on and it's not confirmed. We have nothing in writing that says that is definitely done.
Mr McLean: But you said it was confirmed -- by whom? -- and now you're saying it's not confirmed -- by whom?
Mr Hayes: I just told you that I was just informed that it's not confirmed.
Mr Stockwell: Who informed you?
Mr Hayes: One of the staff informed me.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for forewarning us about that, indeed confirming, from your point of view, that indeed this is the case.
I think the important thing we should remember here is that this bill contains more than just the new Planning Act for the province of Ontario. It contains some other very important issues, such as the disclosure and that sort of thing. I just want to note that I really think we need the time. I don't understand why we're being faced with this when the House is sitting and we do have time, I would think, to proceed to do the amendments.
The Chair: Exactly; that's my point. I'm not going to entertain a discussion on this matter because we have nothing before us to deal with that. If there were a motion with notice providing for a time allocation to talk about, that would be a different mater. What I want us to do is to move on to clause-by-clause, okay?
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): But, Mr Chair, I have just been advised by my House leader that there has been an agreement that at 5 o'clock --
The Chair: But if there's an agreement on that, presumably that will be debated at some other point. I don't want to take the time of this committee to debate something that may or may not be coming. I'd rather deal with the clause-by-clause.
Mr Stockwell: That's fine, but do you see the package of clause-by-clause we still have to go through?
The Chair: I understand.
Mr Stockwell: Then let's all work forward in good faith. In good faith, I'll work through this clause-by-clause now. I take you at your word and I take the parliamentary assistant at his word. That's fine, let's move on. But if we get a time allocation at 5 o'clock, I'm going to be very angry. I'm taking you people at your word. I know that's dangerous, but I will.
The Chair: No. All I'm saying as the Chair is that I have nothing before me, I have no understanding of any understanding that's been reached, or not, by House leaders. Given that, I want us to proceed. Mr Hayes, page 106, for the government motion.
Mr Grandmaître: Can we take a 20-minute recess to find out?
The Chair: I'd rather we not do that. I'd rather we move on. Mr Hayes, please proceed.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(8) of the Planning Act as set out in section 28 of the bill be amended by striking out "or (7)" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "(7) or (7.1)."
This amendment adds a cross-reference to the new subsection 51(7.1) noted in the previous section.
Mr Grandmaître: What's the number of that?
Mr Hayes: It's page 37 in the bill. This is a consequential amendment as a result of the addition of the new subsection 51(7.1).
Mr McLean: It says "the power given under subsection (5), (6) or (7) and the order may be in respect of the applications specified in the order or in respect of any or all applications made after the order is made." Why are you changing this?
Ms Elaine Ross: In the previous government motion we added a new subsection 51(7.1), so it's merely a cross-reference that needs to be then added to 51(8).
Mr McLean: Which previous motion was that?
Ms Ross: Page 107, the one relating to counties.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? All in favour of the motion by Mr Hayes? Opposed? That carries.
We have a government motion again.
1600
Mr Hayes: I move that section 51 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Delegation
"(10.1) If an order is made under subsection (8) in respect of land that is located in a municipal planning area, the minister may by order delegate to the municipal planning authority the power to approve proposed plans of subdivision which was removed from the council and the municipal planning authority becomes the approval authority in respect of the applications to which the order made under this subsection relates and the delegation may be subject to such conditions as the order provides.
"Effect of revocation
"(10.2) If the minister revokes the order or part of the order made under subsection (10.1), the minister reverts back to being the approval authority in respect of all applications to which the revoked order or revoked part of the order applies and the municipal planning authority shall forward to the minister all papers, plans, documents and other material that relate to any matter to which the revoked order or part of the order applies and of which a final disposition was not made by the municipal planning authority before the order or part of the order was revoked."
This motion would give the minister the power to delegate subdivision approval power to a municipal planning authority where he or she has removed the assigned subdivision approval power from a council. This amendment is similar to the amendment proposed to be made to section 50 regarding consents.
Mr Stockwell: Can you go into a little more depth with respect to the subdivision powers and what he or she is revoking and why they're revoking and so on?
Mr Philip McKinstry: You may recall that yesterday we had a section which would allow the minister to remove the consent granting authority from the county and give it to a municipal planning authority. Now, one of the motions we introduced was a motion that would require the minister to give counties the power to approve subdivisions if they have a new official plan. Therefore, in order for the minister to be able to give the subdivision authority to the municipal planning authority, there needed to be a way of taking it from the county and giving it to the planning authority. It's simply a legal mechanism of allowing the minister to give the subdivision approval authority to the municipal planning authority, which didn't exist in the act because municipal planning authorities are a new planning tool.
Mr McLean: Could you make that a little clearer? I was watching you, but I couldn't quite follow you.
The Chair: Mr McKinstry, Mr McLean is asking for further clarity on the matter.
Mr Stockwell: What's the new tool?
Mr McKinstry: Municipal planning authorities are a tool in the Planning Act whereby a group of municipalities in one county or in different counties, municipalities that are adjoining and separated cities, may join together to plan as a unit together. If they do that, it may be wise to give them also the power to approve subdivisions and consents.
Mr Stockwell: Like regional governments.
Mr McKinstry: Not like regional governments, no. They would only do planning.
Mr Stockwell: But similar to regional governments.
Mr McLean: For planning purposes.
Mr McKinstry: Only for planning purposes, yes.
Mr Stockwell: Right. And regional governments have planning authority.
Interjection.
The Chair: All right, Mr Stockwell, go ahead. Further questions?
Mr Stockwell: I was trying to get clarification, but the MPP for St Catharines-Brock --
The Chair: Mr McKinstry was answering the question. Do you have further questions?
Mr Stockwell: No, I don't think so.
Mr McLean: For clarification, if you have a city and you have a county surrounding a city and you have some unorganized territory on the outside of that, you would form that as one planning area and that could be classified as a form of regional government.
Mr McKinstry: This does not apply in areas with unorganized territory. This is only in counties and it's specific to planning.
Mr McLean: I think we're getting confused now because I don't think the Chairman understands what we're doing.
The Chair: No, that was a different expression, Mr McLean. I beg your pardon.
The Chair: Any further questions? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
A PC motion.
Mr McLean: I move that subsection 51(12) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(m) a description of the use and density or unit count of land designated as development blocks."
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Do you understand that, Al?
Mr McLean: Yes, I do, and I want to find out why, if they will not accept this amendment. It would kind of designate with regard to minor variances and be able to clarify the density of the units.
Mr Hayes: Can you clarify that a bit for us, Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: I just did.
Mr Hayes: I was seeing you but I wasn't really understanding it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayes. Any further questions or discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? It's defeated.
Government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(13) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding after "refuse to" in the first line "accept or."
The bill allows the approval authority to refuse further consideration of a subdivision application if it is incomplete, and it should be clarified that the approval authority also has the authority to refuse to accept an incomplete application. The refusal to consider is contingent on the prescribed information, not additional information which the approval authority may ask for.
Mr Stockwell: How could you forget this in the original drafting of the legislation?
Mr McKinstry: This is a clarification. When we drafted the legislation this was what was intended, but some people, commenting on the bill, suggested it wasn't absolutely clear that they could refuse to accept and not just refuse to consider. It was just a clarification.
Mr Stockwell: Fine.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(14) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by striking out "30" in the first line and substituting "14."
The bill currently requires a 30-day separation between the notice of the application and/or a public meeting and the making of a decision by the approval authority on a draft plan of subdivision. We've heard several submissions on Bill 163 that the 30-day separation is too long and does not contribute to streamlining.
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
A PC motion.
Mr McLean: I move that subsection 51(14) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out.
I guess we just voted to amend it, so I'm not too sure I would get an agreement to vote for it. However, I think it's worth a shot: I would like to see the whole (14) struck out.
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That is defeated.
Mr Stockwell: What are you talking about? That was five to three, as far as I counted.
The Chair: A Liberal motion next.
Mr Eddy: I move that clause 51(14)(b) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
A PC motion next.
Mr McLean: I move that clause 51(14)(b) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out.
The Chair: It's identical, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Yes, and I'm not too positive that you would oblige me with the opportunity to say we had one carried, so we will just let you take over and probably call the vote.
The Chair: It's out of order, Mr McLean. Is that what you want me to say? This is out of order.
A government motion next.
1610
Mr Hayes: I move that section 51 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Request
"(14.1) An approval authority may request that a local municipality or a planning board having jurisdiction over the land that is proposed to be subdivided hold the public meeting referred to in clause (14)(b).
"Meeting
"(14.2) A local municipality or planning board that receives a request under subsection (14.1) shall ensure that,
"(a) notice of a public meeting is given in accordance with the regulation made under clause (14)(b);
"(b) a public meeting is held; and
"(c) within 15 days of the meeting, the prescribed information and material are submitted to the approval authority."
Mr Hayes: The bill currently states that the approval authority shall ensure that a public meeting is held if required by regulation on a draft plan of subdivision. The approval authority may request that the affected municipality or the planning board hold the public meeting but the municipality or planning board is not obligated to do so. This is really in keeping with the thrust for more municipal involvement at the subdivision stage.
Mr Stockwell: This authority, is this the group that you've put together that you pass the powers to?
Mr McKinstry: What this is saying is that where --
Mr Stockwell: I know what it's saying. I'm saying the authority part, "An approval authority may request" -- is that approval authority the group that gets put together that will be vested powers?
Mr McKinstry: Oh, sorry, no, an approval authority could be the region, could be a separated city, could be a planning board, could be a municipal planning authority. It could be that or it could be the minister.
Mr Stockwell: It could be the minister.
Mr McKinstry: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: My question, then, is if it is this kind of tacit loose-knit group of people who have come together, why would they not hold the public meeting if they're going to make the decision?
Mr McKinstry: One of the things we've heard a lot was that in fact local municipalities are most in touch with their citizens in terms of local development issues.
Mr Stockwell: You're absolutely right.
Mr McKinstry: So be it a region, be it a municipal planning authority, the opinion seemed to be that it would be helpful if the local municipality held the public meeting, because it was the one that would have to answer to the local ratepayers.
Mr Stockwell: But the question maybe is more political than technical, Mr Chair, through you to the parliamentary assistant. It seems rather silly that you form these kind of quasi-political jurisdictions to make planning decisions, then you have this quasi-political jurisdiction direct local counties, councils, any local towns etc to hold public hearings at the subdivision stage and they're to report their findings, vote, whatever it is they have, to this group. It seems an absolutely insane process to go through. If you're going to insist on public hearings at that stage, why would you not simply tell the group that you've organized as a quasi-political jurisdiction to hold the public hearings and get the information straight from the horse's mouth?
Mr Hayes: One thing is that the municipal planning authority can hold meetings if it chooses to do so without having to be told from the upper tier or whatever.
Mr Stockwell: But you're telling them they don't have a choice.
Mr Hayes: But the people who have the approval authority would -- it actually is permissive, am I correct on that? It's not required, it's permissive, telling them that if they want to they may do it.
Mr Stockwell: Let me follow up then. It doesn't read permissive to me. It says, "An approval authority may request that a local municipality." That means to me that the local authority then tells the municipality to hold the public hearing. In my country that's not permissive, that's directive. "You hold a public hearing at the subdivision stage on this." How do you find that permissive?
Mr Hayes: They can hold the public meeting themselves, first of all -- and I think I've already said that -- if they want.
Mr Stockwell: Anybody can hold a public meeting on anything, if you're elected.
Mr Hayes: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Stockwell: That's given.
Mr Hayes: But what it's actually saying here is they "may request," and if they choose to do so, that's the way it will be.
Mr Stockwell: But you're missing the point here. The point is this: You're saying that this quasi-political jurisdictional group you've set up to oversee the planning of an area then directs a local council, municipality, to hold a public hearing. That local council has no choice. They have to hold the public hearing, even if they chose not to do so. Then you're telling me this allows people in the communities to have input into a group of people who make no decision on whether or not the thing's approved.
For instance, let's talk about Metro and Etobicoke. Metro says to Etobicoke: "You've got a plan for subdivision here. You hold a public hearing and hear from the community." The Etobicoke politicians go out and hear from the community, report back, vote on it and send it to Metro, which then makes a decision on whether it goes ahead, and it has heard from nobody. What sense does that make?
Mr Hayes: I think it does make sense, because you're talking about the local people having the meeting and having their input for the local people to put together proposals for the upper tier.
Mr Stockwell: But the question stands. They're having input. They're having a public hearing, but they're not talking to the people who are making the decisions. They're talking to people who are their local councils but have no jurisdiction.
Mr McLean: A rubber stamp. That's all they are.
Mr Stockwell: It doesn't make any sense. It's like us holding a public hearing and sending all the staff and saying, "Okay, go hear from the people." My constituents don't want to talk to staff. They want to talk to the politicians, those who make the decision.
Mr McLean: It's the same as these hearings.
Mr Hayes: They'll be talking to the local politician. My understanding is that the way we're putting it in here now is that that is being done in several areas right now, and that's what the local municipalities are asking for.
Mr Stockwell: Of course it's being done now. I don't dispute that, but right now they make the decision. The local people make the decision. With this quasi-political jurisdictional group you're putting together, then there's a regional government that makes a decision. But ultimately they get an opportunity to speak to those people, elected officials who end up making a decision on, say, plans of subdivision. Don't shake your head no. It happens. There are public hearings that that happens at.
Mr Hayes: No.
Mr McKinstry: In most cases where municipal planning authorities could be set up, the minister is still the approval authority for subdivisions.
Mr Stockwell: Ultimately, but he hears recommendations from this planning authority. Correct?
Mr McKinstry: No, there are no planning authorities now. It's a new --
Mr Stockwell: No, but in this scheme, this Sewell scheme, these planning authorities will then have decision-making powers. Correct?
Mr McKinstry: That's right, as the minister does now.
Mr Stockwell: Right. But those planning authorities don't hold public meetings. What's democratic about that?
Mr McKinstry: If you want, I could use an example of the regions, for example, where the regions now, most of them, I think all of them in fact, have subdivision approval authority. In most cases they have an arrangement with the local municipalities where the local municipalities will hold the public meeting, and then they will report to the region, which makes a decision.
Mr Grandmaître: And they rubber-stamp the decision.
Mr Stockwell: And they rubber-stamp the decision by local councils.
Mr McKinstry: I couldn't speak to that.
Mr Stockwell: Well, I can, because I was at both ends of the spectrum. We had the public hearing at the council. We recommended to Metro. Metro rubber-stamped it. It got sent on. You're telling me you've got a planning authority now that's going to be able to plan differently, that's going to offer a different format. So are you saying they're just going to be a rubber stamp for these things?
Mr McKinstry: The intention is that they do planning, that they prepare plans and that --
Mr Stockwell: Then why are they doing planning if they don't have public hearings?
Mr McKinstry: The local municipalities would have the public hearings.
Mr Stockwell: But they don't have the final decision.
Mr McKinstry: This is something the local municipalities have largely agreed to.
Mr Stockwell: Well, maybe they agreed to it, but this is something cooked up in John Sewell's head that he thinks will work but wouldn't work in a million years. It's another one of those Sewell things that people outside of this little bit of core of downtown Toronto, nobody buys into it.
The fact is, folks -- and I'll speak now, Mr Chair --
The Chair: What have you been doing so far?
Mr Stockwell: Asking some very pertinent questions.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Oh.
Mr Stockwell: Well, I think they were. I mean, I'm fairly confident the members opposite didn't understand.
Mr Gary Wilson: Let's vote on it then.
Mr Stockwell: I'm also fairly confident I know how they're going to vote. I'm also fairly confident that I know they're going to vote for the closure motion at 5 o'clock as well, and that shows how committed they are to the public hearing process that we're involved in.
But the fact is this, Mr Chair, through you to the members of the committee: What we have in this instance is a regional government that rubber-stamps approval processes by the local municipality. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. It happens every day of the week, because the local councils go to public hearings, they hear from their constituents, their constituents tell them whether it's good, bad or indifferent and then the regional government says, "Fine, we'll approve this."
The only thing they're going to go ahead and question could be regional planning issues. But if they're going to question regional planning issues, if Metro's going to say, "We don't have enough space in the road allowance to accept this subdivision," then Metro will have its own public hearing. That's what happens.
1620
This process says -- and it's not permissive; it's very directive -- the authority tells the local municipality, "Hold a public hearing on this subdivision," the local municipality holds the public hearing, people come out and speak to a group, they tell them their concerns and problems and this council then passes this and sends it to the authority. All the authority then becomes is either a rubber stamp or a big pain in the arm because they're changing recommendations that were held at the public hearing stage.
I say to you that if you're going to have the authority making decisions and not being a rubber stamp, then these people had better hold the public hearings and had better hear from the constituents who have concerns about subdivision plans at certain levels, because if they don't, they're nothing more than another level of government that's out of touch with constituents, which is what John Sewell was trying to stop. This will not stop it. This will exacerbate the problem.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to hear the parliamentary assistant respond to that, because it's a very real and a very serious problem. I think we well remember, those who attended the hearings, when the mayor of the city of Scarborough came before the committee with a presentation to discuss that matter at length. The municipality had the public hearing and the regional planning representation was at the meeting and made notes. It was approved, and then at the last step the regional planning commissioner said he wanted it changed -- "I want that changed." He wasn't at the meeting, but his representative did report to him, and it was approved by that person in the planning department.
The Metro planning commissioner said, "I want something changed." I've forgotten what the item was, serious from the point of view of the local municipality, and the mayor said they had to make representation to the regional council to get it to finally overrule the Metro planning commissioner, and perhaps the term "rubber stamp" is what then applied. It's a very serious problem.
Of course, I'm a person who's absolutely opposed to two-tier planning to start with, because I think it's too confrontational; it's too expensive. I would far rather see the upper tiers in all cases have a policy plan, the requirements of which are incorporated into the local official plan. Once it's approved and in the public hearings that are held by the local municipality, all of the regional concerns and requirements are there to be dealt with at that time.
It's far simpler and I think we will go that route some day in Ontario, so I'm just wondering if there is any kind of a response. I don't really think you can assure us that this won't happen, that it will be rubber-stamped, so to speak.
Mr Hayes: I can't assure you of that. I think it would be foolish of me to say what kind of decision another level of government is going to make. But I think this whole thing is to try to ensure that the public has input, period. We're hearing people talking about rubber-stamping. Well, let's put it this way. This amendment is not going to worsen what is already there. There's been talk about rubber-stamping and it's something that's going on now.
But we're saying that if they have the public input, and these are people, and then you have your municipal council or your local planning boards listening to the input, they really should be putting all the comments of what the people are saying in that local municipality for the upper tier to make a decision.
Mr Eddy: I would go even further and say that when you have additional hearings regarding a piece of property by the conservation authority, and now we have the Niagara Escarpment Commission and I don't know what else there is out there, it's very difficult for people to proceed with anything in view of the various bodies concerned. I think it should be dealt with, I was going to say not at one public meeting, because maybe there is more than one required, but I don't believe people should have to have hearings at the local level, the upper level -- you're not advocating that they have it at the upper tier -- then the conservation authority and then in some cases the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
To really make it much more efficient, I think it should be done at the one time, where the local official plan contains in it the requirements of the upper tier, of the conservation authority, and do it all at once. Those bodies can have representatives there, and should of course, who can speak to their issues. I know that's going beyond. We're really talking about the two-tier planning system. I don't like using the term "rubber stamp," but some people would term it that. Is that what it is? I'm not sure.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with the parliamentary assistant that we need local input, but once it leaves this local council and the approval authority for instance turns it down, what is the process then?
Mr Hayes: Does somebody want to answer that?
Mr Stockwell: You go to the OMB.
Mr Hayes: The OMB, yes.
Ms Ross: Once it leaves the --
Mr Hayes: Once the upper tier turns it down.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. Once it's approved locally and it goes to the approval authority, let's say a regional government, and it's turned down, what happens then? It goes back to the local municipality?
Ms Ross: If they make a decision, then there's an appeal period and there'd be 30 days to appeal the decision that the regional government made.
Mr Grandmaître: They can go back and forth for a year or two or three?
Ms Ross: If they've actually made a decision, you don't go back and forth for a year. It's 30 days to appeal and it goes to the OMB.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Mr Eddy: I guess we're back to the point then where we say a public hearing is held by the local municipality -- of course that can be by the council or by a committee thereof or by an official of the local municipality -- a decision is made and then it goes to the upper tier. That decision then can be made, depending on what action the upper tier of council has taken, by the council, by a committee or by an official, depending on who's been delegated. The problem is of course that's where the term "rubber stamp" comes in.
Do you feel then that the local official plans will incorporate in all cases the requirements of the upper-tier official plan?
Mr Stockwell: Yes. They have to conform.
Mr Eddy: They're required to conform, but unfortunately they don't, unless the local municipality revises its official plan whenever the upper tier revises its official plan, if it affects the local council.
The Chair: Response, if any?
Mr Eddy: Do you see it working?
Mr McKinstry: Any decision would have to conform to both the lower-tier plan and the upper-tier official plan. The Planning Act also requires that the lower-tier official plan conform to the upper tier and provides a mechanism by which the upper tier can amend the lower-tier plan if it doesn't conform.
Mr Eddy: But of course decisions are made many times in direct conflict with the provisions of an official plan at either level. That can happen.
Mr McKinstry: Yes.
Mr Eddy: It may or may not be appealed of course.
Mr McKinstry: That's right, and that's where the appeal can be a useful tool. It can go to the OMB and then the OMB gets a chance to adjudicate.
Mr Eddy: You're aware of course that the OMB does not necessarily follow the requirements of an official plan of municipalities. In fact, they have made many decisions in direct conflict with official plans. Yes, I assure you it's happened. I can give you a list of cases if you want. It does happen, but I guess we're not really discussing that. We're not at that point. But that does happen, unless the OMB has perhaps now decided that official plans that have been passed by an elected council and approved by the approving authority really are valid and important to follow.
1630
Mr Stockwell: The absolute folly of this amendment and this advice that you're giving to this committee speaks volumes as to what's wrong in Metro Toronto when it comes to planning, absolutely volumes. What you end up with in Metropolitan Toronto is -- and this is what I don't understand through the Sewell report, and it hasn't stuck, in my view, to what I believe John Sewell believed in. John Sewell believed in the local neighbourhood planning process, and by local neighbourhood planning process he meant the community had major input into the development of its neighbourhoods. You sought community input to protect neighbourhoods.
Now with this kind of planning process, very similar to Metro's, at Metropolitan Toronto council you have people from Etobicoke and people from York and the west end of the city of Toronto planning Scarborough, and you also have people in Scarborough planning Etobicoke. It takes away from what we were supposed to be developing, which was neighbourhood planning. This goes the same way. It says a local authority, mashed together, can make decisions that affect towns and communities which may not like them.
I guess what I'm saying to you, Mr Chair, through you to your parliamentary assistant and the committee, is that this process will stink. They won't like it. The local communities, when a decision is rendered by a group of people who don't live in their towns, don't live in their neighbourhoods and don't live in their communities, will cry foul when development approvals are given against their wishes. They can always say at the OMB that it's quasi-judicial and those are decisions that are made by a quasi-judicial board. This authority is not that, as Metro council is not, and I don't think anyone would argue Metro council and local council haven't been working together for the past six years.
I'm going to be opposed to this. I'm opposed because it's ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and it runs completely counter to what you as NDPs and Mr John Sewell as a socialist himself, I would be safe to say, used to believe in, and that was local autonomy, local neighbourhood development.
On a final note, Mr Chair in Fort York I know your communities have a very important input into what develops in your neighbourhoods. I think it's wrong for members from North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough to start dictating development applications, development proposals in your neighbourhoods, just as I don't want you telling my constituents what they should be approving, because what you think is good my constituents don't necessarily agree with. I will say finally, what Mr Sewell thinks is good a lot of people in this province don't agree with.
The Chair: Thank you. Any response from staff?
Mr Stockwell: No, that's not a staff comment. That was a political comment.
Mr Hayes: I don't really entirely agree with Mr Stockwell. What this is doing is ensuring that there is a public meeting.
Mr Grandmaître: No, it's not.
Mr Hayes: Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is doing, and the fact of the matter is that if the approval authority, for example, just rubber-stamps, which is being indicated here, and I'm not arguing that, and if that's the case, those people, the public, the local people, would still have the right to go to the OMB to make sure that their comments that they made at the public hearing are also brought forward at the OMB hearing. They still have that process to go through.
Mr Stockwell: Then there are two questions for you, Mr Hayes, two very important questions. If it's a rubber stamp, what the hell are you doing it for, and (b) --
Mr Hayes: You're suggesting the rubber-stamping.
Mr Stockwell: You said you agreed.
Mr Hayes: I said I'm not arguing with you on that point.
Mr Stockwell: Oh well, excuse me. But if it is a rubber stamp, then what are you doing it for, and (b) if they go to the OMB, who's paying for them to go to the OMB? Who funds the neighbourhood to go to the OMB? They've got to dig money out of their pockets personally to fight a regional government they don't even elect.
Mr McLean: Is there any chance of withdrawing this motion?
Mr Stockwell: You're going to spend six figures to fight them at the OMB. That's absurd. Don't give them intervenor funding; it'll cost us more and take more time.
Mr Hayes: Are you suggesting you want intervenor funding? Is that what you're saying?
Mr Stockwell: It slows the process down and costs tons of money.
The Chair: All right. I think we're ready for the vote. All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? Opposed? That carries.
Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 51(16) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(16) Subsections 17(20) to (20.5) apply in respect of the decision of the approval authority."
This is for clarification purposes, and I think it's important to put in. I'm sure you'll agree with this one. It's a technical amendment, really, I feel.
Mr Hayes: If I may ask Mr Eddy where this would actually fit in the bill.
Mr Eddy: I had it here. Just a minute. Subsection 17(20), yes.
Mr Hayes: Do you have it?
Mr Eddy: It's 51(16). It's at the bottom of page 39.
Mr Hayes: But there is no subsection (20.5). It's not in here.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, that's referring, I think, to the authority and its decisions under subsection (20).
Mr Eddy: Yes, it goes to (20.2), it goes to (20.3), it goes on to page -- I think I'm right. So (16) on the bottom of 39 says, "The approval authority may confer with the persons or public bodies that the approval authority considers may have an interest in the approval of the proposed subdivision." Subsection (17) is what we're talking about, the last subsection on that page, and what we feel should be added. Subsection 17(20) --
The Chair: Mr Eddy, I'm going to ask legal counsel for an opinion. Ms Mifsud?
Mr Eddy: Yes, we can go on and leave it with them for now.
Ms Lucinda Mifsud: It was a companion to one of your other motions earlier on.
Mr Eddy: Yes, I know, and I thought I had that before.
Ms Mifsud: It's on page 45 of the motion book.
Mr Eddy: But I had it here a few minutes ago and it seems to have disappeared.
Ms Mifsud: Unfortunately, it was voted down. That was a cross-reference. It was a companion to this other motion that you moved earlier and it appears to have been defeated.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for the clarification.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, are you withdrawing?
Mr Eddy: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: A PC motion. It's identical, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: I have a motion. I move that subsection 51(16) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(16) Subsections 17(20) to (20.5) apply, with necessary modifications, to the approval authority in respect of a decision under this section."
Apparently, this has been dealt with on a previous motion, so we will not bother proceeding unless the Chair would like to pass it.
Mr Stockwell: We'll withdraw.
The Chair: Yes, you're withdrawing that.
Mr McLean: With graciousness.
The Chair: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Next? A Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 51(17) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(m) the affordability of any residential units proposed."
The purpose of that is that it's in the list as an item to be considered when an approval authority is considering a draft plan of subdivision. It will have regard to, among other matters, "the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to" the following list, (a) to (l), and this would add an (m), the affordability. There is concern about this matter in many areas of many municipalities.
1640
Mr Hayes: The policy statement actually addresses the affordable housing issues, and decisions on subdivision applications must be consistent with the policy statement. So it's actually dealt with there. We should be looking at the whole municipality, not each individual subdivision.
Mr Stockwell: It's called intensification: Build apartments above beer stores.
Mr Hayes: Has he got the floor?
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? It's a tied vote. The Chair will vote against this motion in order to maintain the status quo of the bill. So that motion is defeated.
Mr McLean: I move that subsection 51(17) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(m) the affordability of any residential units proposed."
I think we'll withdraw that at this time.
The Chair: A Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: I move that clause 51(18)(d) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and the provision of affordable housing."
It's a very important matter to be considered. We think this is a good place to add it.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of this motion? Opposed? It's a tied motion. The Chair votes for the status quo. That's defeated.
Mr McLean: I move that clause 51(18)(d) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and the provision of affordable housing."
AMO has requested some of these amendments that we're putting through. Obviously you don't agree with AMO. So if you don't, then I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, a government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that clause 51(18)(d) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) that the owner of the land proposed to be subdivided enter into one or more agreements with a municipality, or where the land is in territory without municipal organization, with any minister of the crown in right of Ontario or planning board dealing with such matters as the approval authority may consider necessary, including the provision of municipal or other services."
This is a technical amendment to substitute wording used elsewhere in the act.
Mr McLean: What page of the bill is that on?
The Chair: Page 40, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: I thought it was page 41. Is it 40 or 41? Do you not know what you're doing up there?
The Chair: Page 117a, Mr McLean, section 28 of the bill, clause 51(18)(d), okay?
Mr Stockwell: What page is it on?
The Chair: Somebody has already said that. Page 41 of the bill.
Mr McLean: Why would you amend it by striking out "or approval authority"? Why would you do that?
Ms Ross: What we did was we changed "not in a municipality" to "in territory without municipal organization," and we changed "any minister" to "any minister of the crown in right of Ontario." Those were the two technical amendments that were made, and they're for clarification only.
Mr McLean: If you're dealing with unorganized territory, is there going to be a planning committee set up to deal with that? I thought what we were going to try to do in the unorganized territories was to have them amalgamated with a district that would be under some municipal jurisdiction. Are you not looking at that issue?
Ms Ross: There is provision for planning boards in territory without municipal organization now, and that will continue in the future. That's right. This is talking about subdivision agreements and the ability of ministers of the crown to enter into subdivision agreements with the owner.
The Chair: Please raise your hands, all in favour of the motion. Opposed? That carries.
Mr Stockwell: I ask you not to say that any more. Can you just call for the vote?
The Chair: There's a government motion. Mr Hayes, are you moving it? We're on page 118. Are you moving that or not?
Mr Stockwell: Or is this an amendment to the amendment?
The Chair: If you're not moving this, we move on to the next.
Mr Hayes: Right.
The Chair: Page 119, then.
Mr Stockwell: What's going on, Mr Chair?
The Chair: We're on page 119.
Mr Stockwell: I've got 118, the replacement of the government motion.
The Chair: Mr Hayes is not moving that.
Mr Stockwell: He's what?
Mr Hayes: I'm not moving it.
The Chair: He's not moving it; therefore it's not before us. He's moving on to --
Mr Stockwell: Hold on. You know, I dealt with this; I was looking at it today. You proposed an original amendment. Then I guess you messed that up so badly you brought in a replacement to the original amendment, and now you must have messed that up so badly you've withdrawn it all and you're not going to move anything. What's going on?
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want to comment?
Mr Hayes: It's very simple what's going on. It's being dealt with in the next section.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, moving on to the next amendment.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 51 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Land outside municipalities
"(19.1) If the land proposed to be subdivided is located in territory without municipal organization, any minister of the crown in right of Ontario or planning board may enter into agreements imposed as a condition to the approval of a plan of subdivision and the agreement may be registered against the land to which it applies and the minister or the planning board is entitled to enforce the provisions of it against the owner and, subject to the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of land.
"Restrictions
"(19.2) The authority to approve a plan of subdivision, impose a condition or enter into an agreement under this section does not include the authority to prohibit the erecting, locating or use of two residential units in a detached house, semidetached house or row house situated in an area where residential use is permitted by bylaw and is not ancillary to other uses permitted by bylaw.
"No effect
"(19.3) A condition or provision made under this section is of no effect to the extent that it contravenes the restriction described in subsection (19.2).
"Exception
"(19.4) Subsections (19.2) and (19.3) do not apply to a condition or provision made or to the exercise of the powers under section 50 of the Condominium Act."
Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, excuse me. We should have a recess until the quorum call is over. I ask for a recess.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I just asked you that earlier in the meeting and you said no. Now hold it. Hold the phone here.
The Chair: Let me see if there's agreement on this.
Mr Stockwell: Hold the phone. I asked the exact same thing at the start of this and you said no.
Interjections.
Mr Hansen: Next time can you rule on it, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I was about to do that.
Mr Stockwell: You better check with the clerk next time.
1650
Mr Hayes: Currently the bill permits any planning board or ministry to enter into a subdivision agreement with the owner of the land but does not allow such agreements to be registered against the title. A municipality or approval authority has the ability to require subdivision agreements to be registered against title. The amendment would allow any planning board or ministry to require the registration against the title of any subdivision agreements that they have entered into with the owner.
The changes in subsections 51(19.2) and (19.4) are technical amendments to incorporate the apartments-in-houses provisions from Bill 120.
Mr Grandmaître: Subsection (19.1), is this to accommodate the provision of Bill 120?
Mr Hayes: No, (19.2) and (19.4) do that.
Mr McLean: These are all new subsections, (19.1), (19.2), (19.3) and (19.4)?
Mr Stockwell: I have a question too.
Mr Grandmaître: It doesn't? Is this the answer?
Mr Hayes: From (19.2) to (19.4), it does there.
Mr Grandmaître: That's to accommodate Bill 120?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: Can you tell me what part of this amendment replaces motion 118?
Ms Ross: Originally, we had added in any minister of the crown and the planning board to subsection (19), and then for drafting reasons, we took it out of (19) and created a new (19.1) because it made for better drafting. So all we've done is, we rolled 118 and 119 into one motion and called it 119.
Mr Stockwell: Now, the next question is on (19.1). We never got an explanation from the parliamentary assistant. Maybe he would like to just give us a quick explanation of (19.1). I believe the rest of them deal with Bill 120; (19.1) is exclusive. Can you tell me what the explanation on (19.1) is?
Mr Hayes: As I said before, currently the bill permits any planning board or ministry to enter into subdivision agreements with the owner of the land but does not allow such agreements to be registered against the title. In fact, now this will be done. It will be able to be registered against the title.
Mr Stockwell: What? I don't understand. Sorry.
Mr Hayes: We'll give you a legal opinion.
Ms Ross: Right now, when you enter into plans of subdivision with a municipality or with the minister, they can be registered against title. But in the amendment that we just made to (18)(d), that was providing for any minister of the crown or a planning board to enter into subdivision agreements relating to the unorganized. What this amendment will do is permit those subdivision agreements to be registered against title.
Mr Stockwell: What do you mean any --
Ms Ross: Any minister of the crown, so that would mean perhaps Ministry of Environment and Energy or the appropriate minister.
Mr Stockwell: So you're saying now, on subdivision in unorganized territories, ministries will take up separate negotiations with the people?
Ms Ross: No.
Mr Stockwell: Then why would you want to register separate titles against the land?
Ms Ross: It may be that the appropriate ministry to enter -- it depends on what the condition of approval is, but depending on the condition, it may be something that another minister is responsible for and therefore it makes more sense for them to enter into the subdivision agreement than the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's all. The approval authority would stay the same.
Mr Stockwell: Let me just see if I can get this clear. You could have actually the Minister of Environment and Energy or Natural Resources or native affairs entering into a subdivision agreement.
Mr McLean: And registered against title.
Mr Stockwell: And registered against title.
Ms Ross: Yes, in the unorganized.
Mr Stockwell: Don't you think that's a little bizarre? You're going to have all this legal staff in all ministries now that are capable of negotiating subdivision agreements? It's certainly a skill that's not widely held with your typical barrister or solicitor you run into.
Mr McKinstry: As Ms Ross said, there are some circumstances where the only major issue in a subdivision might be a particular kind of servicing in the unorganized, remembering there is no municipality.
Mr Stockwell: I understand that.
Mr McKinstry: Therefore, it might be more appropriate for MOEE to enter into an agreement with the subdivider on the delivery of those services because they might be responsible for the actual service.
Mr Stockwell: No. I understand what you said. I understand your words; the words are very understandable. I'm just asking you, would that then mean that Municipal Affairs, environment, resources, native affairs, who knows what else, maybe the disabled, maybe all these ministries that are going to enter into subdivision agreements with the developer could in fact have a raft of lawyers on staff who are going to then negotiate these things and, let's be very clear, negotiate the withdrawal of the land title, negotiate to certain requirements? Once they meet the requirements, I guess they withdraw the restriction.
So you're telling me that all these ministries may in fact have legal staff who are responsible to do that? As of now, we just have Municipal Affairs that can do that.
Mr McKinstry: First of all, the approval authority remains the same, so the approval authority in many cases -- here, for example -- would be the planning board. We would assume that most of the conditions, most of the agreement would be the planning board. It would be in exceptional circumstances, I think, that another ministry would enter into an agreement.
Mr Stockwell: I can hardly hear you.
Mr McKinstry: Municipal Affairs has very rarely entered into subdivision agreements in the unorganized. That's been a rarity. In fact, in the one instance I can think of, it would have been more appropriate for the Ministry of the Environment. This is not designed to be something that would be used often; it's something that we wanted in the Planning Act for the unusual circumstance.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, I know, but every time a ministry official or a government official or a bureaucrat tells me, "We're not going to use this very often; it's not something we're going to use a lot," I regret those words all the time I hear them. It's like, "I'm from the government; I'm here to help."
Mr McLean: I wanted to get a clarification with regard to the great planning board in an unorganized territory. I didn't think there were, as of now, planning boards in unorganized territories. I thought there was an individual who was appointed by the minister to look after the unorganized territory as a planning consultant. Are you telling me that there are planning boards in unorganized territories? If there are, who appoints them?
Mr McKinstry: The minister establishes the planning board. Where they are composed of municipalities and unorganized territory, the municipality appoints the reps from the municipality and the minister appoints reps from the unorganized. They exist now; there are many of them in northern Ontario.
Mr McLean: How many are there on that planning board?
Mr McKinstry: It depends on the individual planning board. It depends on the size, the number of municipalities, the number of unorganized townships.
Mr McLean: What's the normal number?
Mr McKinstry: I don't think there is a normal number. Sault north, for example --
Mr McLean: Well, are there two or 10?
Mr McKinstry: Oh no. It would probably be at least one from each municipality.
Mr McLean: If it's unorganized territory, how would you classify it from each municipality? They're not classified as municipalities.
Mr McKinstry: That's right, so in the unorganized areas it could be one from each unorganized township or it could be two or three from the territory as a whole. It depends on the size. As I said, Sault north is a huge area. It goes from Sault Ste Marie almost up to Wawa and it's all unorganized.
Mr McLean: That's right. I was there about two months ago and that was the very issue that they wanted to relate to me, that they weren't happy with the way the planning was done in northern Ontario. There was one man who was dictating what happened. They couldn't get any input from the Ministry of Natural Resources because it didn't want to talk to them. So you're telling me now that there could be two people on the planning board for unorganized territory?
Mr McKinstry: No, there are more than two people on the Sault north planning board. I'm quite certain of that. I don't have the exact figure, but there are certainly more than two.
Mr McLean: But there are some unorganized territories that do have two or less, one or two.
Mr McKinstry: I beg your pardon?
Mr McLean: There are some territories that do have one or two.
Mr McKinstry: Not as far as I know. I don't think any are small enough to only have one or two.
Mr McLean: How many are there in the Sault?
Mr McKinstry: I don't know the exact figure.
Mr McLean: We're not getting any answers here, Mr Chair. You might as well proceed.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(21) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by striking out "two" in the fifth line and substituting "three."
This amendment proposes the change to the minimum period for lapsing of a draft approval plan of subdivision from the proposed two years to three years. This was actually requested by the Urban Development Institute because it felt that two years was not sufficient to complete final approval of a plan of subdivision.
1700
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 51(21) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding after "approval" in the third line and in the sixth line "for a water and sewer allocation" in each case.
That is parallel to a previous amendment that was passed to some other section at some other time during the review of this, I think. I can't remember what number it is, but we did debate that and I believe it was an amendment that was passed just a few weeks ago.
The Chair: Is there a comment on this? Does staff have a comment in relation to that?
Mr McKinstry: Yes. The government has a motion on that whereby municipalities will be able to allocate or withdraw allocation of water and sewer. So the government does have a motion that will deal with that issue.
Mr Eddy: In connection with this subsection, do you mean? It's another section, is it?
Ms Ross: It will be in 70.3 of the act and it's on page 169 of your motion book, so we're not there yet.
Mr Eddy: Then we'll have the same effect.
Ms Ross: Yes. It will relate to section 51.
Mr Eddy: Thank you. Withdrawn.
The Chair: Mr McLean, same thing.
Mr McLean: My motion is the same, Mr Chair, so we'll put it over with the other one.
The Chair: Government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(22) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding before "extend" in the third line "further."
This is a technical and housekeeping amendment.
The Chair: Discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that clause 51(26)(c) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding before "comments" in the third line "written."
This is another technical, housekeeping amendment to the bill.
The Chair: Questions? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 51(28) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(28) Any person or public body may, not later than 30 days after the giving of written notice under subsection (26) is completed, request in writing that the approval authority refer the decision, the lapsing provision or any of the conditions to the municipal board by filing with the approval authority a notice of referral that must set out the reasons for the referral.
"(28.1) The approval authority may refuse to refer all or part of the proposed decision to the municipal board if any of the conditions described in subsection 17(29) are met."
Section 28 of course is at the bottom of page 42. This is a request of AMO to amend that section.
Mr Hayes: On the development applications, the government believes that it is more efficient that the public have the right to go directly to the Ontario Municipal Board and that the board is also given its right of dismissal without a hearing. So we feel that we couldn't support this motion.
Mr McLean: There's very little change in this section of the act, and I think what they're saying is, "request in writing that the approval authority refer the decision." Really, is there anything wrong with adding that one line to this amendment?
Mr Hayes: Do you want to address that?
Ms Ross: What you'd have to do is, you'd have to rewrite the entire section to make it fit in, because the whole section is written as if you have an appeal. If you continue on reading, everything talks about what happens when you've got a notice of appeal and an appeal to the board, so you'd have to amend subsections (21), (26), (27), (30), (31), (32), (35), (36), (37), (38) -- well, it keeps on going to the end because we mention appeal in every section.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none. All in favour? Opposed? That is defeated.
PC motion. Same thing, Mr McLean. Thank you for withdrawing that.
Mr McLean: I want to move this motion, Mr Chair.
I move that section 51(28) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(28) Any person or public body may, not later than 30 days after the giving of written notice under subsection (26) is completed, request in writing that the approval authority refer the decision, the lapsing provision or any of the conditions to the municipal board by filing with the approval authority a notice of referral that must set out the reasons for the referral.
"(28.1) The approval authority may refuse to refer all or part of the proposed decision to the municipal board if any of the conditions described in subsection 17(29) are met."
Being that the other one didn't carry, I would like to propose that this amendment carry.
The Chair: Mr McLean, that's out of order.
Mr Stockwell: Why?
The Chair: We've already dealt with this matter.
PC motion.
Mr McLean: I move that section 51 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"(28.1) The municipal board is not required to consider an appeal under subsection (28) or subsection 53(11) if the person or public body refused to participate in good faith in alternative dispute resolution techniques under section 65."
Mr Stockwell: Could I speak to that? As I understand, the municipal board process that's been instituted by one Dale Martin, ex-Metro councillor, ex-city of Toronto councillor, known NDPer -- he was the facilitator for the OMB with respect to speeding up the process, and you guys have gone to great lengths to applaud his work. In some instances, I might add, I've not had too many problems in past dealings with Mr Martin. I think he's a fairminded, straightforward individual. Although he tries, and you do too, to take credit for speeding up the OMB, I think the recession had a lot more to do with it than Mr Martin, with the fact that they are hearing far fewer applications.
Having said that, one of the key instruments Mr Martin brought forward -- I'm certain Mr Hansen would know this, being a deep thinker when it comes to the municipal board and the appeals and so forth that go on there -- one of those particular recommendations he brought forward was a recommendation dealing with alternative dispute mechanism settlements. What this thing did, which I think makes sense, was offer interested parties opportunities to enter into negotiations with a different mediator to see if they could resolve their differences at the dispute mechanism stage rather than getting to a full-blown, costly Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Mr Hansen, Mr Drummond White and Mr Wilson, all being very close followers of the Ontario Municipal Board and always looking for dispute mechanism settlements, and being deep thinkers in their own right, would all agree that if you're going to do anything with respect to changing the process municipalities go through, you must deal directly with the time-consuming, costly, confrontational process they end up with at the Ontario Municipal Board.
1710
I had a conversation, luckily enough, with Mr Wilson and Mr White the other day, and both of them unanimously endorsed those kinds of recommendations. I can see -- this has just been handed to me -- that both those two will again be rather disappointed. We just received from Mr Charlton "pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 163," and it appears to me they're moving closure on this piece of legislation.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: And again Mr White, right on top of things, proving that he's obviously got the pulse of this government at his fingertips, knows first hand that the OMB process would be assisted with this kind of legislation.
I'm deeply disappointed to be handed this. I think we're going to have to take some time in the next 45 minutes to discuss it.
But on the point with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board, as it's probably my last opportunity to speak to important amendments that come before this committee on timely issues like this, even Mr White, Mr Wilson, Mr Hansen and others will agree with this kind of amendment because this amendment is doing what you said was needed at the Ontario Municipal Board, and that is to create a process to facilitate agreement among interested parties before they get to a full-blown Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Our caucus has thought long about this, we've thought long about Dale Martin's participation in the OMB, we've thought long about this facilitation process, and we think the time has come to expand it. If there's any credit I can give your government -- it's not very much, but if there's any -- it's the opportune action you took to try and stop the number of vexatious and frivolous applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. I for one am proud to support this amendment and I'd be very shocked if you government members didn't search your souls to support this as well, because this is really something you should be able to buy into, considering your track record and the intelligence that I know members opposite have.
Mr McLean: This is one of the important amendments that AMO wanted passed. There's been a very clear explanation; I don't know how it could be any clearer, given by anyone other than Mr Stockwell. I would urge the government committee members to approve this amendment because it probably will be the last one we'll get to look at.
Mr Hayes: The alternative dispute resolution is working, it's working very well, and we're very pleased we have a person like Dale Martin working there. The members make some good points, but the fact is that we have this mechanism in place and it's a voluntary system, and we don't feel we should legislate or force people to have to go through that type of mechanism. It's there and we will certainly encourage it to be used and we think it will continue to be successful. But we don't feel we can actually legislate to force people to go through the alternative dispute resolution.
Mr Stockwell: A question, then: As I understand it, Mr Martin was suggesting to the parliamentary assistant that in fact it should be legislated, that there should be an alternative dispute mechanism system set up. Is that not true?
Mr Hayes: I can't answer that.
The Chair: Can staff help?
Mr McKinstry: As far as I know, Mr Martin hasn't recommended that it be legislated that people should be dismissed if they did not participate in it. The bill contains a reference to alternative dispute resolution which encourages alternative dispute resolution, but as far as I know, Mr Martin has never said it should be a way that people can be dismissed, because it is participatory and its nature is that you have to come to the table willingly.
Mr Stockwell: All right.
Mr Eddy: That's fine. I well remember the day Mr Martin was appointed, but unfortunately he was appointed to be active in five upper-tier municipalities, I believe it was. Though part of my riding in a certain upper tier had the advantages of his service and I think it did speed it up, unfortunately it had the effect of slowing the process down in many other municipalities. It was like a pilot project and indeed worked, but when it slows it down in other parts of the province, that is totally unacceptable. A case in point is in the very municipality in which I live where there was a certain application, and I think it was delayed considerably because of that.
The other thing is that if you really are in favour of it, I think we should do something about it and I think we should support it now, because it's very, very important. I don't think it's up to Mr Martin, and I wouldn't look to him for a recommendation such as you have before us.
I'd like to point out that many municipalities did practise and put into effect a type of alternative dispute resolution technique; they worked at it very hard and it did work. Unfortunately, on occasion you get either an applicant of an application or objectors to that application who for some reason get their backs up and say, "No, we want to go the legal route." Unless there's some way of edging them into it -- and this would. There are many cases where it should be used, could be used successfully, but unfortunately they wouldn't go into it.
I think an amendment like this would give that extra support or nudge so that more would use it. It is a system that could be used far more, should be used far more, and I think the people who do use it would find it a great advantage. But it seems to me to need the support that's set out in this amendment, and I really strongly support it.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote. All in favour of Mr McLean's motion? Opposed? That's defeated.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I was lucky enough to get my hands on Mr Charlton's closure motion. I think it would be only opportune at this time that I fill in the members opposite, who obviously don't have it or don't know anything about it, and maybe yourself and the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): We're dealing with clause-by-clause.
Mr Stockwell: I know, but this is a point of order.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, I'm not sure it is, but we might as well hear you. Please go ahead.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Chair. We have been moved closure by Mr Charlton. The difficulty I'm faced with by this closure motion is that there's a lot of ambiguous statements in here, and I wonder when it is we're going to get an opportunity to determine exactly how we are going to deal with this closure motion. When do you see us being able to debate this, as I see that we should?
The Chair: The problem, Mr Stockwell, is that committee doesn't deal with that.
Mr Stockwell: We have to deal with the ramifications of a closure motion.
The Chair: Not us. This motion is not before this committee to deal with. What is before us is clause-by-clause. If there are repercussions to this, obviously that will be debated in the House at the appropriate time, not here.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I know this is an unfair debate because I have a copy of the closure motion and you don't. Or do you? I don't know.
The Chair: No, I don't. All I'm saying is that whether it's before you or before me makes no difference in terms of the kind of comment I'm making about this.
Mr Stockwell: Then let me just make this comment and you may change your mind. Mr Charlton has given us some options in his closure motion, and those options are available to us. What I'm saying to you, Mr Chair, is that because of the options he's giving us, he's telling us as a committee to make a decision.
The Chair: I understand what you're saying, but he's not saying this to the committee. This is a matter of debate that goes before the House. It isn't something they're asking committees to discuss. That debate will take place in the House, but not here.
Mr Stockwell: Then maybe you can give me a clarification, Mr Chair. This debate is directing us to do something today.
The Chair: It's not directing us.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, it is.
The Chair: No, it isn't.
Mr Stockwell: There are components within this that direct the committee to make decisions today.
Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, if we get rid of all the amendments, if we get done by 6 o'clock, then we won't need closure, right?
The Chair: True.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, we won't need closure. And you know what? You could save time if you fly home.
1720
Mr McLean: On the point of order, Mr Chair --
The Chair: Hold on, Mr McLean. I just want to read out what it says with respect to notice of motions.
"All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day. Government notices of motion shall be distributed by the Clerk to the House leaders of recognized parties in the Legislature at the time of tabling."
Mr Stockwell: Then when is the next day for clause-by-clause of this committee?
The Chair: We would be resuming next Monday.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): After constituency week.
Mr McLean: For clarification, our next sitting day is going to be next Monday.
The Chair: No. Next week we're not sitting, so it's the following Monday.
Mr McLean: The following Monday will be our next sitting day, and this says that all amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on that day, and at 4 pm on that same day the amendments shall all be put. So we're going to sit for half an hour on the 14th to deal with what amendments there are. Really, what it's going to be about is that the government's just going to bring in a motion and we'll debate it for half an hour until they get it passed, saying that on all the outstanding amendments there will be no further debate and they will be passed. In essence, today is the last day, really, that we're going to debate these amendments.
The Chair: That may be. I'm not entirely sure when that motion will be called.
Mr McLean: Tomorrow.
The Chair: I understand. But what I'm saying as the Chair is that that motion is not for us to debate here in this committee. What's before us is clause-by-clause.
Mr Stockwell: But, Mr Chair, with all due respect, Mr Charlton is saying "that the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed." If on our next meeting day, which is two weeks from yesterday, he tells us we start at 3:30 and we're done at 4, when is it we have the opportunity to meet beyond our normal adjournment times except today?
The Chair: All I'm saying is that that's something that would be debated in the House by you and others with respect to the questions you're raising.
Mr Stockwell: I submit, Mr Chair, that what he's saying is that today we can meet beyond the normal adjournment times.
The Chair: That motion has not gone through the House for that kind of debate, so for us to anticipate what it might be saying or what will likely result from it is a problem. You're repeating the questions in a way that I get to repeat the same answers, Mr Stockwell. What I'd like to do is move on with this clause-by-clause and deal with the questions that raises when we get into the House.
Mr Stockwell: This is a bizarre motion.
The Chair: That may be, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: It says we can meet beyond the committee regular adjournment hours, but the first time we get to meet, he's saying we have to deal with it all by 4. What kind of bogus motion is that?
The Chair: You'll be able to debate that in the House, as I've said, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: I think you should be embarrassed, as a member of the government, that he brings this thing forward.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, I thank you for those opinions. We're going to move on, all right? Government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill,
(a) be amended by adding after "changes" in the sixth line "containing the information prescribed"; and
(b) by striking out clause (d).
This amendment would provide that written notice of changed conditions relating to a draft approved plan of subdivision be prescribed. It also deletes clause (d) so that notice of changed conditions would not be given to all that have made written submissions. The bill proposes to give notice of changed conditions to all, but since the principle of the development is already established through draft approval, the giving of notice of the changed conditions should be limited to the applicant, the affected municipalities, the person, the public body requesting the change, and those persons who asked to receive notice of any changes.
Mr Stockwell: How is this different from what was proposed?
Mr McKinstry: The proposal in Bill 163 was that everybody who had been involved would have to receive notice. What we heard from AMO, among others, and many of the municipalities was that the list of people could be so extensive that it would be very difficult to give the notice. We're proposing to limit the notice to those who have requested further notice, so only those people who really want to get it will get it.
Mr Stockwell: Then let me ask you this: According to this, if you had a public hearing and 600 people showed up to the public hearing, now you're going to give notice -- you're amending by adding "the information prescribed" and striking out (d), so you would then determine who would get notification, correct, with this change?
Mr McKinstry: Right.
Mr Stockwell: Of those 600 people who came to the public hearing, how many of them would get notification?
Mr McKinstry: It would be the folks who had asked for notification specifically.
Mr Stockwell: So if you're wise enough to know to ask, you'll get notification. At a public hearing of 600 people, probably 550 wouldn't be smart enough to know that you've got to ask to get notification of change. You're saying you're just going to leave them out in the cold, make changes and not tell anybody who attended a public hearing. That doesn't seem very NDPish to me. It's usually printed in about eight languages.
Mr McKinstry: Everybody would get notice of the original decision. This is notice of changes. In the original decision it would advise people that they would have to specifically request notice of changes.
Mr Stockwell: Changes of the original decision? Well, what if those changes are what you would consider fairly large? What if the changes are very significant? You still wouldn't notify most of the people, would you? I don't think I like that. What if there are significant changes?
Mr McKinstry: Right now there would be no notice of changes. In a subdivision approval right now, if there's a change to the draft approval, there is no notice at all. We're proposing to add some notice, and all we're saying is that the notice should be limited to the people who ask for the notice specifically.
Mr Stockwell: So what you're saying is this: A subdivision approval process goes through now. The decision is rendered and agreed to. There are then -- what do you talk about? -- minor variances or changes to the original approval.
Mr McKinstry: There are often changes to approvals. For example, when the actual survey gets done there have to be some of what are known as red-line changes.
Mr Stockwell: But what is the definition of a change? Where does a change become a small, minor change and where does it become a fairly major change?
Mr McKinstry: That is exactly why this issue's being addressed. It could be a major change, so we wanted to make sure that people who were interested would get notice of that change.
Mr Stockwell: You're saying that as of today, if there's a major change in a subdivision approval, nobody gets notified, it just gets approved?
Mr McKinstry: That's correct.
Mr Stockwell: What is the governing body that approves that change?
Mr McKinstry: Whatever the approval authority is. It could be the minister, it could be a region, it could be a city.
Mr Stockwell: If it's a city, you can almost bet people will be notified of the change, because they've got a local councillor who's looking out for their interests. If it's a region, you can almost bet people will be notified of the change, because they have a regional councillor looking out for their interests. If it's the minister, you can almost bet they won't be notified of the change because nobody's looking out for their interests. I'm asking you, under your format, who makes this change and who's looking out for the people's interests as to whether or not it's significant?
Mr McKinstry: What I'd said before was that we're changing the scheme because we felt there could be major changes without notice, although obviously there could be notice. However, in the future under the new Planning Act, Bill 163, everybody who wants notice gets it and they get to make their own decisions on whether that change is significant or not.
Mr Stockwell: I guess I'm asking you, who's making the decision on the change? Right now, if the minister makes a decision and they make a change, the minister then makes the change, period, case closed, and no one gets notified.
Mr McKinstry: It's possible that if it was a very, very major change there could be notification, but currently there's no requirement in the act for notification.
Mr Stockwell: If a council makes a change, they're not required to notify?
Mr McKinstry: That's right, not currently.
Mr Stockwell: And if the local council makes a change, they're not required to notify?
Mr McKinstry: No.
Mr Stockwell: In the future, if any of these bodies make a change, they're required to notify under these particular --
Mr McKinstry: Yes, for subdivisions.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. I'm satisfied.
Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, in the essence of time and what's gone on here -- we have 128 amendments yet -- I'd make a motion that all the amendments in this package be carried.
The Chair: Mr McLean, we have a motion before us that we need to deal with, so your motion is out of order.
Mr Stockwell: A motion for a vote is always in order, Mr Chair.
1730
The Chair: We have a motion before us to deal with. We can never deal with another motion like that as we have a motion that we haven't dealt with yet.
Mr Stockwell: We'll move to defer then.
The Chair: You might want to do that afterwards. Are we ready for the vote on this?
Mr Stockwell: Okay, that's fine. Move it right after ours.
Mr Hayes: Mr Stockwell said he was satisfied with this. That's good.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Mr Hansen: Read the motion.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? That carries.
Mr Stockwell: Pardon me, Mr Chair, Mr Hansen had a request to read the motion again, I think.
The Chair: Once I said, "All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion," I didn't hear any opposition to that.
Mr Hayes: He can take it with him and read it in his spare time if you like.
Mr Stockwell: He said before that actually, "Read the motion over."
Mr Hansen: That was talking out loud.
The Chair: Were you requesting --
Mr Hansen: No, no. I was talking out loud.
The Chair: Very well. Thank you very much.
Mr Hayes: He can read it in his spare time.
Mr Stockwell: When someone talks like that, I think that's a request.
Mr McLean: I'd like to make a motion that all the remaining motions we have filed with us be carried.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Mr Stockwell: Hold it. I think there's some debate there.
Mr Hayes: Could I amend?
Mr McLean: No, there's no debate. Just pass them all.
Mr Stockwell: It seems to me that we are now under the guillotine of the closure motion, and Mr McLean is offering up what I consider to be a fairminded compromise to the situation. Mr McLean is suggesting that all the motions and amendments that have been put forward by all three parties be brought forward to the Legislature for full and frank debate. That means if we adopt them all, we can then have a fairly comprehensive discussion in the Legislature about the merits of the amendments that we didn't get an opportunity to debate here today and, since we have a closure motion, will not get the opportunity to debate.
I think any fairminded, reasoned individual, particularly one who is elected by the people of this good province, would want every MPP to have the opportunity to speak to the hard work and amendments they've put into this.
I could only think that it will carry, because I know the goodwill of the government and I know the goodwill of you, Mr Chair, and the parliamentary assistant. I know you would think it would be undemocratic and fundamentally unfair not to have the minority, such as us, given the opportunity to speak to their amendments and offer alternatives to a government bill that most in this province would consider to be somewhat flawed.
I'll support Mr McLean. I think it's a prudent, fairminded, reasoned approach to a rather difficult, sticky situation the government House leader has put us in with his rather draconian, unreasonable rationale for bringing in closure.
I might add, it seems to me that if you people had come back to work when you were supposed to come back to work, we could have gotten through this. But seeing as how you dilly-daddled around all summer, you floated here and there, you chose not to come back to work and you abdicated your responsibilities, we are now forced into the very unenviable task of having to cram in a whole bunch of work on this committee and other committees into a very compressed four-week period.
No one's responsible for that except you the government. It wasn't us who didn't want to come back to work; it was you people who didn't want to come back to work. Because you didn't want to go to work, you didn't want to get out of bed and go to work every day, because you didn't want to do that, we're faced with the unenviable task of dealing with hundreds and hundreds of amendments in a compressed period of time.
I will say, considering the fact that you people chose not to come back to work, it would seem fairminded of you to give us the opportunity to deal with these amendments that we put forward so thoughtfully and in good spirit. As Mr Rae would say, we've been kneecapped here in not being allowed to have heard what I think are germane, reasoned responses.
The Chair: Seeing no further discussion --
Mr Stockwell: I think that'll inspire something.
Mr Hansen: I just have a few suggestions. This is talking out loud again, but possibly, Mr Stockwell, you could wind up coming next week. The committee could sit next week. What we could do is pass all the government motions today, move them, and then we can discuss the opposition, the Liberal and Conservative, amendments next week. How does that sound?
Mr Stockwell: This member opposite is saying we should move all the government amendments while we sit under a closure motion by your House leader. Further, we move all the government amendments and then you give us an opportunity to discuss ours. What kind of compromise package is that? Do everything I ask you to do and then we'll think about talking about your ideas? Get a grip.
As far as I'm concerned, it's your House leader who's telling us to shut this committee down, shut the democratic process down, because you people won't get out of bed and go to work for four weeks when you should have been. That's a frivolous offer. Why would we pass all the amendments by the government and then hope against hope that you'll have concern for our position, even give us consideration, when you haven't voted for one single amendment and some of them have been reasonable, very reasonable.
I'm distressed that the member opposite would make such a cavalier suggestion and treat it in such a mocking fashion when democracy is being usurped because you've got a House leader moving closure and we've got a government that won't come to work when it's supposed to. My God, I thought these people were hardworking people. If this is the way you treated your jobs in the private sector, you wouldn't have any. Four or five weeks you don't go to work, for heaven's sake, you wouldn't have a job when you finally did.
Mr Eddy: I just say that Mr Stockwell makes some good points. I don't know that I can really support all of his views. I would like to say that part of the floating around was holding hearings by the committee and hearing many, many delegations and citizens and, of course, caucus representatives took part. That was very good because many of the amendments -- I know some of the government amendments are technical amendments, but many of them are in response, as you have stated, to the hearings, so we have some information.
We do know that the government amendments can and shall be carried one way or another. We know that you're prepared. It leaves a great concern about the amendments proposed by the opposition parties and I think they should be considered and hopefully passed, at least some of them.
Quite a bit of our time has gone to dealing with considering and approving government motions, some of which were technical in nature of course, which happens with any bill, but the government does have an awful lot of amendments to this bill. I appreciate some of them, that they're here in fact, especially if they are in response to the views of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, individual municipalities, citizens of the province and others. But it has taken a lot of time, and I have to also state that the bill deals with much more than the Planning Act itself, the disclosure, and we need to discuss that so that we're all clear when it comes to third reading debate in the House.
I really feel the need of the time required to go through the additional amendments and hope that we can have the time for the committee to discuss all of them in order as we go along, because it is a learning experience and considerable time is spent in getting explanations from staff through the parliamentary assistant, which is of great advantage, I think, to all of us. Whether we agree or not, it's still very helpful to understand the bill. We really do think we should be dealing with all of the amendments being proposed by all three of the parties.
The Chair: Seeing no other speakers, all in favour of Mr McLean's motion? Opposed? Mr McLean's motion is defeated.
We have a Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, could we move some amendments out of order now just so we could get some important amendments that we want to make on the record?
The Chair: What do you want to do again, Mr Stockwell?
Mr Stockwell: Well, we have some important amendments that we would like to get on the record.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to do that?
Interjection: Why don't we just keep going?
Interjection: We passed all the government motions.
Mr Stockwell: The government motions are going to pass.
1740
The Chair: Mr Stockwell is suggesting that we move on to some other amendments that some of you may want to deal with and for that we need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Mr McLean: I have a major amendment.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. I accept that. Liberal amendments too. We'll take turns.
Mr McLean: I have a major amendment.
Mr Stockwell: All the government motions are going to pass.
The Chair: All I need to do is to hear whether there's unanimous consent or not.
Mr Hayes: No.
The Chair: Okay. I didn't hear that very clear. Moving on.
Mr Stockwell: Why? Your motions get passed anyway at 4 o'clock next Monday.
The Chair: Chris, please. PC motion.
Mr McLean: I move that section 2 of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Non-application
"(2.1) This act does not apply to councils or boards of municipalities that have a population of 30,000 or less."
That motion is schedule B to the bill, subsection 2(2.1) of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994.
The Chair: Mr McLean, that's out of order. I'll bring you back to page 130. Could you read that motion.
Mr Stockwell: Why is that out of order?
The Chair: We are on motion page 130.
Mr Stockwell: Do you think we're going to cooperate with you?
The Chair: PC motion, section 28 of the bill, subsection 51(34). That's where we're at.
Mr Stockwell: This is ridiculous. All we asked is to move our motions. Yours are going to carry anyways.
The Chair: But Mr Stockwell, we've had a vote. Once we've done that, we move on.
Mr Stockwell: No, you asked for unanimous consent and those small-minded sorts across the table won't agree to that.
The Chair: We've dealt with that. Mr McLean with your motion.
Mr McLean: I move that subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by striking out clauses (b) to (f) and substituting the following:
"(b) the public body which has changed the condition to the approval; and
"(c) the municipality in which the land to be subdivided is situate."
I think there's not a lot of debate on that, so we'll just pass it.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion? Opposed? It's defeated. PC motion.
Mr McLean: I move that subsections 51(34) and (35) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out.
Mr Stockwell: Can we have some comment from the legal staff with respect to that amendment?
The Chair: Ms Ross? He was asking for a legal opinion on that.
Ms Ross: What did you want to know?
Mr Stockwell: I want to know whether you think it's a good idea or not.
Ms Ross: What it would do is it would say you don't have to give any notice of change to anybody.
Mr Stockwell: Excuse me, I didn't hear you.
Ms Ross: If you struck out subsection 51(34), then you wouldn't be required to give any notice of change, which is what we just previously discussed.
Mr McLean: That's "If the approval authority changes the conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision under subsection (33) after notice has been given under subsection (26), the approval authority shall, within 15 days of the decision, give written notice of the changes." Is that the one that's in there now? That's the one we want to amend.
Ms Ross: You're striking it out. Your new motion is striking out. It's 51(34).
Mr McLean: That's right. I agree with that.
The Chair: That's what he wants to do. All in favour of this motion? Opposed? That's defeated.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 51 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"No notice
"(35.1) An approval authority is not required to give written notice under subsection (34) if, in the opinion of the approval authority, the change to conditions is minor."
This amendment is requested by the Urban Development Institute, the regional planning commissioners and the Ontario Home Builders' Association. The amendment would give the approval authority some flexibility to allow minor technical changes such as a lot line realignment to be approved without going through the extensive notice requirement, thereby streamlining the process.
Mr McLean: I think that's the best motion I've heard today.
The Chair: All in favour of this motion? It's unanimous. Government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that subclause 51(41)(a)(iv) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(iv) the proposed subdivision is premature because the necessary public water, sewage or road services are not available to service the land covered by the proposed subdivision and the services will not be available within a reasonable time."
This is also supported by the Canadian Bar Association and many others.
Mr McLean: What's the definition of "reasonable time"? I've asked that before.
Mr Hayes: Well, it's the opposite to some of the things that are going on here today.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Mr Stockwell: Hold on. He asked a question: reasonable time. He wants an answer to that.
Mr Hayes: I just gave it to him.
The Chair: Mr McLean laughed, and I thought that was --
Mr Stockwell: Well, he was funny.
Mr Hayes: Say, for example, you had a municipality and its sewage system was filled to capacity and someone said, "We want to get this development through," yet it had no plans to expand or add capacity to that sewage treatment plant, it wouldn't be able to do it in a reasonable length of time. But I do feel it is something -- those decisions would be made, actually, locally.
Mr Stockwell: Can I just make this point? This situation is exactly the case that's happened in Metropolitan Toronto for a considerable number of years. There's a portion of North York -- I don't think there are any members here from North York -- that has been frozen, from a development point of view, because it doesn't have the trunk sewer lines for development. Maybe Mr Marchese would know about it. It hasn't happened in a goodly number of years, at least 10 years. As I understand it, they're under the same framework, are they not, with reasonable time?
The difficulty I'm faced with is that "reasonable time" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. When you talk to a developer, "reasonable time" means one set of time, and when you talk to a socialist who's opposed to development of anything --
Mr Hayes: That's not true, first of all. Go ahead.
Mr Stockwell: I'm saying a socialist who's opposed to development in Toronto of anything -- "reasonable time" means never. I'd like a definition. Since "reasonable time" hasn't seemed to work very well in the development sites I've seen, I think we need to quantify this. What is a reasonable length of time a municipality has to facilitate a development with respect to sewage setup and so on and so forth? Is it five years, is it two years, is it three years, is it 25 years?
The Chair: Response, if any?
Mr McKinstry: This is specifically a power for the municipal board, so it's when an application comes to the municipal board. It's also a power they may or may not use. In other words, the bill had in it the word "premature," so the board could dismiss it if in its view it was premature.
We were told by a number of parties, particularly the law association, that that was too wide and discretionary a power. That's why we narrowed the power to talk about services.
Mr Stockwell: But the question stands. I don't believe this to be the case. I don't think the Ontario Municipal Board has the power to direct a municipality to put in trunk sewer lines and it doesn't have the power to direct a municipality to develop a parcel of land, so what the hell good is it?
Mr McKinstry: You're quite right: The board does not have that power. All this power is, is to say that if an applicant brings a subdivision forward to a municipality and it ends up getting appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, the board can say: "You have no chance of getting services in any reasonable period of time. It's therefore a waste of our time to consider this and you're dismissed." That's all this says.
Mr Stockwell: So development can be frozen completely by local municipalities because of their unwillingness to develop the proper sewers and so on to meet the requirements set down by the Ministry of Environment. Is that what you're saying?
Mr McKinstry: I guess there are a couple of points there. First of all, you can't develop a subdivision in an urban context, where one would expect to have services, without services. But also, the municipality has the power to decide where its services go. This is a separate power to the board: If the board has seen that the municipality has no services, it will be impractical to have a subdivision go ahead.
Mr Stockwell: I know that. I guess the question I'm asking is that municipalities therefore can freeze huge parcels of land, although they're zoned, owned and properly developable, by simply not bringing out the trunk sewer lines. Is that true? And you're not dealing with that.
1750
Mr Hayes: Mr Stockwell brings up a valid question. At the same time, I don't know how we can say to that local municipality, "You shouldn't be playing politics with this developer" or "development in the area." I don't know you can actually stop that.
Mr Stockwell: I know how.
Mr Hayes: As I think has been mentioned, the OMB can't, for example, go to a municipality and say, "You've got to put in a sewage treatment plant to accommodate somebody's proposed development."
Mr Stockwell: I think I know how, and maybe this'll help you out a little bit.
Mr Hayes: We're open to that.
Mr Stockwell: All the official plans need to be approved by the government or the OMB or whatever process is used. If the official plan designates a site as a commercial, industrial, residential, multi-use site, it would seem to me that the OMB would then say, "If you're going to zone this property like that, you'd better have plans to be able to develop this site," rather than simply putting a stamp of a zoning on it -- but with no real hope of rezoning -- therefore getting developers or people interested in property. Maybe that's how this process should work, maybe this is the amendment that should be included to expand that.
Outside the GTA, outside of Metro, there are all kinds of parcels of land that are developable except that the municipality won't bring out the darned sewer lines. It's freezing whole tracts of land for no other reason than that a few local yokels are opposed to development.
Maybe that's food for thought for the parliamentary assistant. I think if you're going to go forward with this, you could deal with this through the official plan process, which has to be approved at the OMB and the government level.
Mr McKinstry: I only want to make one small clarification: If the land is zoned, the owner of that land can go to court and get a mandamus for a building permit.
Mr Stockwell: Sure he can get a building permit, but what's he going to connect the sewer to?
Mr McKinstry: But it seems unlikely that the zoning would be in place if there were no sewers. I mean, there's a designation of the zoning. I just wanted to clarify the zoning.
Mr Stockwell: Maybe I'm saying they're freezing huge tracts of land, and the reason they're freezing is because they aren't going to rezone it when it should practically be rezoned. I'm sure Sewell wouldn't agree to that. He wants intensification, which means apartments above beer stores.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote on this. All in favour of this motion? Opposed? It carries.
A government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that clause 51(41)(b) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) the appellant did not make oral submissions at a public meeting or did not make written submissions to the approval authority before it gave or refused to give approval to the plan of subdivision and, in the opinion of the board, the appellant does not provide a reasonable explanation for having failed to make a submission;"
In other words, the amendment provides the person or public body the opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation for having failed to make a submission to council before adoption.
The bill specifies that an appeal can be dismissed by the Ontario Municipal Board if the appellant did not bring his or her concerns to the attention of the approval authority early in the process. The amendment provides the opportunity for the appellant to provide an explanation as to why he or she was not able to participate earlier. It actually responds to concerns by community and environmental groups that there could be legitimate reasons why people did not participate early in the process.
Mr Stockwell: That's the question I have. For instance, say you don't find out land is contaminated until very far into the process and now you find out you've got contaminated land. Would they be heard, or could they be dismissed because they weren't there early?
Mr Hayes: That would be a reasonable reason for not participating in the first place, and they would be heard.
Mr Stockwell: Who would make the decision on whether it's reasonable or not?
Mr Hayes: The OMB would make that decision.
Mr Stockwell: So the OMB gets to make the decision about whether the reason you weren't there early enough is a good reason or a bad reason. My history with the OMB is that the OMB is going to hear these things and everybody's reason is going to be reasonable, just like it doesn't dismiss things that are frivolous and vexatious. This isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of Mr Hayes' motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 51(42) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out.
The rationale is that a public body should be subject to the same rule as a person. If there are concerns about a subdivision application, they should bring their concerns to the approval authority before a decision is made.
Mr Stockwell: This subsection is suggesting they have to bring their concerns before a decision is made. Is that what you said?
Mr Hayes: Mr McKinstry will answer.
Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Hayes just said it. Is that what you said, that they have to bring their concerns before a decision is made?
Mr Hayes: They should bring their concerns to the approval authority before a decision is made, yes.
Mr Stockwell: So if they don't bring their concerns to the approval body before the decision is made, then what happens?
Mr Hayes: Now Mr McKinstry will take over.
Mr McKinstry: They could be dismissed.
Mr Stockwell: By?
Mr McKinstry: By the OMB.
Mr Stockwell: So here we are again. The OMB gets to make a determination on whether these people should have brought their concerns before the authority before a decision was made, and if it feels they have reasonable cause for not bringing those concerns forward, it can in fact hear them at the Ontario Municipal Board?
Mr McKinstry: This is a slightly different clause. The bill read initially that if people did not bring their concerns forward they could be dismissed, but that did not apply to public bodies. If a ministry of the crown, for example, did not participate early, it could object later and it couldn't be dismissed. What we heard at the hearings was that public bodies should be subject to the same rules, so we're simply saying they are subject to the same rules.
Mr Stockwell: Really what it comes down to -- it seems like a ministry motion. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who appoints the members to the OMB, somehow finds something that slips through the cracks and wants to appeal to the OMB, those people he's appealing to, whom he also happens to appoint, could in fact tell him to get lost because he's too late. Yeah, right.
Mr Hansen: I support this one. I see it's a PC motion also.
Mr Stockwell: I'm not arguing. I just asked about the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the ministry. What are the chances they're going to dismiss the ministry? I don't think it's very good.
Mr Hansen: I'm going to support this one.
Mr Stockwell: What I'm saying, Mr Hansen, is that maybe the minister shouldn't be appointing the people to the body to which he's appealing. That's rather in-depth.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, you're on the list.
Mr Eddy: Oh, thank you very much. I speak so rarely that it's nice to have the opportunity on the important matters, and certainly this is one.
We heard this on many, many occasions, and I really do agree with it. I guess the classic case was Scarborough versus the Metro planning commissioner, if I can term it that way, that brought it to my mind. Of course, I don't know all the particulars about it, but it's very important that everyone who has an interest or a concern be at the meeting and be heard if they wish to be, so that all the viewpoints and suggestions can be considered at the one time. It's so very important. This is an important amendment that I support.
The Chair: All in favour of this motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Eddy, you're withdrawing the next two, I presume.
Mr Stockwell: Hold on, Mr Chair. I think it's 6 o'clock.
The Chair: As soon as the House adjourns, we'll know. Mr Hayes, do you have something?
Mr Hayes: I'd just like to comment that it shows the government is listening: We have similar motions to the Liberals and the Conservatives, and we've done this on a regular basis.
Mr Eddy: I agree with the Chair's decision on this amendment to withdraw.
The Chair: All right. I think we're ready to call the vote on section 28, as amended. All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
I don't think we'll have time to get into section 29, so what I'd like to do is adjourn at this point.
The committee adjourned at 1758.