CONTENTS
Monday 31 October 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:
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli
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
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Ms Harrington
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Malkowski
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Winninger
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
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1603 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.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Mr Hayes had moved a motion and we're into the debate on that particular motion. That motion is page 87, for those who have those pages in front of them. Mr Hayes, do you want to speak to that motion?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Yes. This amendment proposes to change the period for council to consider an application to remove the holding symbol from a zoning bylaw from 30 days to 90 days.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Are you on page 87?
Mr Hayes: Yes, page 87 of the motions.
The Chair: The motion is section 20.1.
Please continue, Mr Hayes, or start from the beginning, in order for the others to follow.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Just a minute. I'd like to find where we're at first, Mr Chair. We're not in that big a rush, are we?
The Chair: No, not at all.
Mr Hayes: You're on page 87, a government motion, section 20.1 of the bill, subsections 36(3) and (4) of the Planning Act.
Mr Stockwell: What page is it in here?
Mr Hayes: It's 25 in the book, in here.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. We're on the same page. We're in sync.
Mr Hayes: It would fit in page 25. This is an addition to the bill.
This change is actually necessary to bring the holding bylaw section in line with the new provision that council has 90 days to consider a rezoning application in section 34 of the act. Then also the amendment replaces the word "agencies" with "public bodies." This is a technical housekeeping amendment and "public bodies" would now be defined in the bill.
Mr McLean: How many days was it before this change?
Mr Hayes: It was 30 before, and if you recall, during the hearings there were people saying that council would need more time. The 30 days wasn't enough time for them to deal with the zoning bylaws.
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr McLean: We have some amendments here that were given to us today dealing with section 17. How come we're not going back to section 17? Why are we continuing with section 20 when we've got amendments here for section 17?
The Chair: The clerk obviously has a better memory of this than the Chair does.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Those are new amendments to section 10. Section 10 had a number of amendments which were stood down. Therefore, section 10 on the whole has been stood down. Once we complete all the other sections in the bill, we'll go back to those which have been stood down, which will include those two new ones to section 10, with the new two amendments.
The Chair: Discussion on that?
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): We're simply continuing --
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr Grandmaître: Okay.
Mr Stockwell: Was this applicable at all before? What was the length of time for a holding bylaw?
Mr Hayes: It was 30.
Mr Stockwell: Yes. As I remember, it used to be 30 days too.
Mr Hayes: It was 30 days.
Mr Stockwell: Is that considered not enough time any more?
Mr Hayes: That's what we're getting from municipal people and planners and that in municipalities. That's what they presented to us during the hearings.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. I'll speak to it then, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You go right ahead, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, that's quick.
The difficulty I have with that amendment is, a holding bylaw is put on for the planning staff in municipalities to kind of get together and get their ducks in a row because they're not prepared at the time to deal with the bylaw. The developer's ready to go, the participants are in fact ready, but the planning department, as I understand it, is not ready. Now you're going to go from a 30-day holding period to a 90-day holding period where the developer then has to wait an additional two months while the planning staff gets their act in gear.
I really don't understand why a municipality that has written the official plan, a municipality that has in fact written the bylaws and has in fact studied the bylaws, needs any more than 30 days to deal with an application.
You see, as this works, as I understand it, and in fact as I think it's worked in the past in the councils I sat on, the holding, or the H, is put on because they're not ready to go and they're only given 30 days, but that's only because it seems to me they are not prepared, and they should be prepared, in my mind, within 30 days, because it's their bylaws, they're their official plans, they're their zonings.
They should have a pretty good understanding of what they're doing. Why do they need three months to determine what their bylaws and what their planning staff mean when they wrote the official plan and the zoning bylaws were put in place in the first place? I don't understand that.
Mr Philip McKinstry: We were doing several things. One of the things we were doing, for example, was changing the notice, the ability of the municipality to pass a zoning bylaw and have it go to the board if they refused to consider it within 30. We were changing that to 90 because municipalities were telling us some municipalities don't have meetings in time, for example. We also thought in this case, in order to give the municipality time to check out why the holding symbols had been removed, to make sure services are available, we thought that they should have in fact 90 days as well, that it should be consistent through the act.
1610
Mr Stockwell: You're giving the municipality time, you're saying, to meet and withdraw or do whatever they're going to do. Is that what you're saying?
Mr McKinstry: That's right.
Mr Stockwell: And 30 days isn't enough time to meet on a holding bylaw? The council is telling you it doesn't meet within the 30-day period?
Mr McKinstry: The staff needs to do analysis. They have to find out if all the conditions have been met, and then council has to have made that determination.
Mr Stockwell: What was happening in the past?
Mr McKinstry: It was hard for them to meet it in the past.
Mr Stockwell: But they were meeting it. So you're going to slow the process down by an additional 60 days. That's what it comes down to. A process that is painfully slow already is now going to have a built-in 60-day, two-month, waiting period. In my recollection they seemed to meet them all. Sure, it was work, but they always got there on time. Maybe the parliamentary assistant would like to comment on that.
Mr Hayes: No. Mr McKinstry will respond.
Mr McKinstry: I guess in terms of the zoning bylaws and the other changes we made, municipalities were telling us that they could not meet them, in fact 30 days was not enough, and that if developers wished to take them to the board in that 30 days, they could; in fact, they might not have. So in this case as well we were being told that it was not enough time to meet that 30 days. We have put in a number of other time frames to make sure that the planning system is faster.
Mr Stockwell: Okay, I'll leave my comments on the record, and my comment on the record is that if you believe this is going to speed up the planning process, there are a lot of things that you believe in that I don't. Secondly, if you believe speeding up the planning process means extending periods from one month to three months, then you're wrong. Furthermore, if municipalities put their minds to it and do what they're supposed to do, which is get responses and take action, they should have this done in 30 days.
I don't see any problem with a municipality doing as it is supposed to do, and that's dealing with a holding bylaw within 30 days. You know something? They always tell you they can't do it, but in the past history, they've done it. If they weren't going to be able to make it, they'd have to ask the developer not to take them to the OMB, and any reasonable developer would not take them to the OMB because they didn't deal with a holding bylaw within 30 days. This is just another process that's going to slow down the whole system.
The Chair: Are there other speakers?
Mr McLean: I agree with Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: Right on.
Mr Grandmaître: This request to increase it to 90 days, is this an AMO recommendation?
Mr McKinstry: AMO supports this, yes.
Mr McLean: Whose recommendation is it?
Mr McKinstry: I'd have to go back and check exactly. Sorry. I don't have it off the top of my head.
Mr Grandmaître: But it's not an AMO recommendation? They might support it --
Mr McKinstry: It might be. I'd have to go through their --
Mr Grandmaître: -- if AMO likes it.
Mr McKinstry: Certainly they have requested in a number of instances, for example the zoning bylaw one, that we extend the period because they couldn't meet the 30 days.
The Chair: Okay? Thank you. Any other questions? I think we're ready for the question. All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? All opposed? This motion carries.
Section 21, a government motion. Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 21 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"(2) Subsection 38(3) of the act is amended by striking out `agencies' in the fifth line and substituting `public bodies.'
"(3) Subsection 38(4) of the act is amended by striking out `agency' in the first line and substituting `public body.'"
These two amendments replace the word "agency" or "agencies" with "public body" or "public bodies" in section 38 of the act. It's actually a technical or a housekeeping amendment. Public bodies are now defined in the bill.
Mr McLean: What page is that section on, amendment 88? Section 21, what page is it on?
Mr Hayes: It's not on any page. It's a new part of the bill.
Mr Stockwell: Where would it slide in?
Mr Hayes: Section 38 of the act would be on page 25, I guess.
The Chair: Page 25, yes.
Mr Hayes: It would fit in on page 25 of the bill.
The Chair: Any discussion on that? All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? Opposed? That carries.
Shall section 21 carry, as amended? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Any questions on section 22?
Mr Stockwell: It's as is, right?
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr Grandmaître: No amendments?
The Chair: Correct, no amendments. Any questions? Have you had enough time to look at that?
Mr Stockwell: On 22?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: Call the vote.
The Chair: All in favour of section 22? Opposed? That carries.
Section 23.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 42 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Non-application
"(7.1) Despite clauses 74.1(2)(h) and (i), subsection (7) does not apply to land proposed for development or redevelopment if, before this subsection comes into force, the land was subject to a condition that land be conveyed to a municipality for park or other public purposes or that a payment of money in lieu of such conveyance be made under this section or under section 51 or 53."
Mr Stockwell: Where's he reading from?
Mr Hayes: From our amendment; 88a is the amendment.
Mr Stockwell: Eighty-eight what?
Mr Hayes: Government motion 88a.
Mr Stockwell: I've got 88a. That's not what he read.
Mr Hayes: This actually replaces that and clarifies it better.
The Chair: Yes, exactly. If you look in the pile that you have there --
Mr Hayes: It's in this package.
Mr Stockwell: So this new amendment replaces the old amendment.
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: Tough to keep your amendments straight. Okay, can you start again?
The Chair: Okay, Mr Hayes. They're ready now.
Mr Hayes: This amendment actually clarifies the new parkland provisions that do not apply to developments where conditions were imposed requiring conveyance of lands for parkland purposes or a payment in lieu of parkland. They had some concerns in Mississauga and this was to address that particular concern where -- how did that go?
Mr Stockwell: Could you be a little more vague?
Mr Hayes: Yes, I'll try to be. We feel that this will --
Mr Stockwell: Will fix it.
Mr Hayes: -- help Hazel's concern. There was some concern there was the possibility for municipalities double-dipping; in other words, charging a developer at the beginning and then charging him again after the development. What this actually says is that agreements that were made prior to this wouldn't be affected, because they were concerned about losing a considerable amount of money in Mississauga. This would allow them to stay with the arrangements they made before.
Mr Stockwell: Right. This is to stop municipalities from making an agreement at application and then coming back at site plan and changing the terms and conditions. Is that what they're saying?
Mr Hayes: Dollarwise.
Mr McKinstry: In fact, what this is doing is saying the municipality has the legitimacy to say, "We required a parkland dedication before these new rules came in, either at the subdivision stage or the redevelopment stage, and now we can still collect it, even though a new Planning Act has come into force." So the rules will not change for agreements made prior to legislation coming in.
Mr Stockwell: Got it. Thanks.
1620
Mr McLean: Could I have a clarification on that? At what stage is the agreement at when this will be effective? On a subdivision agreement -- they have a subdivision agreement, they have an agreement drawn up -- at what stage in that agreement would this stay be effective?
Mr McKinstry: I'm not sure the subdivision agreement would be applicable. I think it's when the municipality makes the agreement at either the subdivision or the redevelopment. It's when those two actions happen, when the approval of the subdivision or the approval of the redevelopment happens. Those would be the two key dates. If those have taken place prior to this legislation coming into force, then the old rules apply.
Mr Stockwell: I see.
Mr McLean: So if a municipality had a tentative agreement, an agreement in principle, there was so much for parkland or so much money in lieu of, and it was $10,000 a lot or whatever, in principle, and yet there was nothing paid or it was only there as being in principle, would that then be affected by a subdivision now and have these agreements tentatively approved in principle? Would that stay or would it not?
Mr McKinstry: I guess if the municipality could demonstrate that there was some agreement made -- for example, a condition in the plan of subdivision -- then in fact they would have the evidence to say, "We have made an arrangement here."
The Chair: Other questions? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries. Next, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 42(11) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be amended by striking out "fee" in the last line and substituting "amount."
This amendment substitutes the word "amount" for "fee." This is a technical, housekeeping amendment to the bill.
Mr Stockwell: Why is it a technical, housekeeping amendment to the bill?
Ms Elaine Ross: This was simply a drafting error, because if you'll notice earlier on in the subsection, it refers to "amount," and to be consistent we should have continued calling it an amount, but we called it a fee.
The Chair: Further questions? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
All in favour of section 23, as amended? Opposed? That carries.
Section 24: Government motion, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 24 of the bill be struck out.
This amendment proposes to delete subsection 44(12) of the Planning Act relating to the minor variance system proposed by the bill. This is a consequential amendment as a result of the proposed amendment to restore the current minor variance system whereby appeals are heard by the Ontario Municipal Board. The amendment to this subsection is no longer needed. This is where we were actually eliminating people on minor variances going to the OMB, and we have put that back in because of the concerns we had at the hearings.
Mr Stockwell: Just a quick question: Can you tell me where in the bill itself you'd find that?
Mr Hayes: I don't blame you.
Mr Stockwell: Because I read section 24 as --
Mr Hayes: Page 28.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, I've got section 24 as "Written decisions."
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Subsection (12), right.
The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr Stockwell?
Mr McLean: Why are you taking it out?
Mr Stockwell: No, I guess the question I have, because the Chair wasn't listening, is --
The Chair: The Chair was busy, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: You're always busy. You've got a pager; you must be a busy guy. Page 28, section 24.
The Chair: Thank God for the revolution. That's really helping me out a lot. Go ahead.
Mr Stockwell: "Written decisions" I've got as section 24, Mr Chair. If you read his motion, he's striking out section 24 of the bill.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: I go to page 28, section 24, and it has to do with "Written decisions."
The Chair: That's correct, yes.
Mr Stockwell: But that's not what he's talking about.
The Chair: Mr McKinstry, do you want to comment? Ms Ross?
Ms Ross: Section 24 of the bill was a technical amendment that was necessary because, originally, section 45 of the Planning Act had been changed so that council would be the decision-making body for minor variances. The government is now proposing to delete that change to the Planning Act, so we'll go back to the old way, which is that committees of adjustment will be making the decisions once again, which means this section is no longer necessary. It was a complementary amendment we don't need any more.
Mr Stockwell: Right. Clear as mud.
The Chair: While Mr Stockwell was speaking, I was checking with the clerk with respect to a way to deal with this procedurally, and Ms Bryce was suggesting the way to deal with this is to rule this out of order and people can, when dealing with the section, either support it or not. So what I would ask the members, if you are ready for the vote, is, "Shall section 24 carry?" and you will either support it based on what Mr Hayes has said, or not. Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: I'd like a clarification from the lady who said that section 24 has been deleted and we don't need it any more. What section is taking its place?
Ms Ross: There isn't a section that will be taking its place, but when we get there, it's in section 45. There's a proposed government motion which will change Bill 163 so that the committee of adjustment is once again making the decisions. So the next motion, on page 91, is going to make that change.
Mr McLean: So you went back to the old method where every municipality will now have a committee of adjustment again? I thought that the council could be the one who would make that decision.
The Chair: Ms Ross, you're confirming his question in the affirmative?
Ms Ross: What the government is proposing to do is to delete the new section 45, which was the section that gave decision-making to council. What will happen is the old section 45 of the Planning Act will return, and that means committees of adjustment will once again be the decision-making body for minor variances.
Mr McLean: So the question I had was, will every municipality now have a committee of adjustment?
Ms Ross: It'll be the same as the status quo. You have to have a committee of adjustment before you have the minor variance power and you appoint your committee of adjustment.
Mr McLean: But I understood there was somewhere in here where councils were going to be able to do that.
Ms Ross: That was in the original Bill 163, and the government will be proposing a motion to amend that on page 91.
Mr Stockwell: But the question is, councils always had the right to be their own committee of adjustment, did they not? They could hear minor variances.
Ms Ross: Yes, they could be the same. They could be one and the same. That's right.
Mr Stockwell: Thanks.
Mr McLean: So you're going back to the old way.
Mr Hayes: Actually, it's not changing.
Mr Stockwell: Right. So you're moving an amendment to wipe out the motion.
The Chair: I was ruling that procedurally that's out of order in terms of how it's worded. What I would ask you now, in terms of how to vote on this, is I will ask you, "Shall section 24 carry?" and Mr Hayes will obviously vote against that section.
Mr Stockwell: You're brilliant.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, I appreciate your support. Thank you for being here. Shall section 24 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Okay. That is defeated.
Section 25, Mr Hayes.
1630
Mr Hayes: "I move that section 25 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"25(1) Subsection 45(5) of the act is amended by striking out `agencies' in the third line and substituting `public bodies.'
"(2) Subsection 45(12) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Appeal to OMB
"(12) The applicant, the minister or any other person or public body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the municipal board against the decision of the committee by filing with the secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection accompanied by payment to the secretary-treasurer of the fee prescribed by the municipal board under the Ontario Municipal Board Act as payable on an appeal from a committee of adjustment to the board."
(3) Subsection 45(14) of the act is amended by striking out "thirty" in the first line and substituting "20."
(4) Subsection 45(15) of the act is amended by striking out "by the persons who gave notice of appeal" in the second and third lines.
(5) Subsection 45(16) of the act is amended by adding after "persons" in the sixth line "or public bodies."
(6) Subsection 45(17) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Dismissal without hearing
"(17) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (16), the municipal board may dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing, on its own motion or on the motion of any party if,
"(a) it is of the opinion that,
"(i) the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the board could allow all or part of the appeal,
"(ii) the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious, or
"(iii) the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay,
"(b) the appellant has not provided written reasons for the appeal;
"(c) the appellant has not paid the fee prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act; or
"(d) the appellant has not responded to a request by the municipal board for further information within the time specified by the board.
"Representation
"(17.1) Before dismissing an appeal, the municipal board shall notify the appellant and give the appellant an opportunity to make representation in respect of the appeal and the board may dismiss an appeal after holding a hearing or without holding a hearing on the motion, as it considers appropriate."
(7) Subsection 45(18.1) of the act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 26, section 56, is amended by striking out "agencies" in the fifth line and substituting "public bodies."
(8) Subsection 45(18.2) of the act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 26, section 56, is amended by striking out "agency" in the first line and substituting "public body."
This amendment deletes sections 45 and 45.1, the minor variance sections of the bill. Concerns were expressed at the hearings that not permitting an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board would be a denial of natural justice and would not reduce the board's workload significantly, and the deletion of the two sections from the bill would restore an appeal system to the board on minor variances.
Mr Stockwell: One of the points that disturb us about this piece of legislation, as I recollect, by the minister, Mr Ed Philip, and of course Mr Sewell himself, was that you insisted on trying to delete the workload of the Ontario Municipal Board, to the parliamentary assistant.
Some of the things that you said would reduce it were to get rid of the minor variances. You said they used up a lot of time of the OMB. You said it was time-consuming, many were frivolous and vexatious and they weren't being dealt with as frivolous and vexatious.
It seems to me that you're trying to cut down the time it takes to get to the OMB. One of the big deals was you were going to cut it down by getting rid of the minor variance portion of it, and now it's back in.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): We've already dealt with this in committee, you know.
Mr Stockwell: And now it's back in, I say through you, from the member for St Catharines, through you the Chair, through you to the parliamentary assistant.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: I hear her cackling again. I'm certain it's her. I recognize the pecking.
The Chair: Mr Hayes is about to answer.
Ms Haeck: Too bad you weren't here. It was really exciting.
Mr Stockwell: I can imagine if you were here, it was exciting.
The Chair: And we're ready to answer your question through Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I think the member raises a good point. The fact of the matter is that yes, indeed, we felt that by doing this it would help to streamline the process, but in a large majority of the presentations that were made, people were very much concerned about this. Some of the municipalities, for example, did not want to make that final decision and then on the other hand you had other people saying that their basic rights were being taken away from them.
There was a lot of discussion in committee and from presentations and we felt that there were a lot of presentations that felt that the work of Dale Martin, for example, has really cut through a lot of the red tape and helped with some of the planning decisions in municipalities and that is cut back considerably, and we felt that it really wasn't worth doing that by taking people's rights away. So that's really where we're at on this today.
Mr Stockwell: One of the few things I was applauding about this bill was this portion of it. I think it's absolutely insane that the Ontario Municipal Board hears things like the air-conditioning unit is six inches over the line, and that the driveway is four inches over the side yard setback.
One of the few things I think Sewell was right about and maybe Mr Philip, and I say that carefully, was this portion. I think it's absolutely insane to have the OMB, a costly process, hearing arguments and hearing cases just like two I've described.
I'm going to go on the record, and I'm certain that others may agree on this side of the table, I'm not sure, but it seems that if there was any place to cut down the backlog at the OMB, it's these kinds of frivolous, vexatious neighbour fights that end up at the minor variance stage and can easily be decided there and through to council.
So I'm greatly disappointed, because the costs are excessive and I don't believe people's rights are being usurped, simply because I think committees of adjustment and councils can deal with these kinds of things. To take these to levels of provincial stature, in my opinion, is costly, excessive, and I'm really disappointed that the Sewell sorts and the NDP couldn't see their way clear to making this kind of decision.
Mr Hayes: What we're doing here, Mr Stockwell, is in fact what you are asking us to do. I can tell you right now: Right at the beginning of this thing, when we talked about not allowing minor variances to go to the OMB, I thought it was the greatest thing and I felt the same way that you do today on that, but at the same time what we're doing in this bill now is that we are allowing the Ontario Municipal Board, which they don't have that power now, to any of these vexatious or frivolous --
Mr Stockwell: That's wrong.
Mr Hayes: -- or just for the purpose of delay, they can just automatically dismiss.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The Ontario Municipal Board can dismiss any hearing as frivolous and vexatious. Ask Dale Martin, because he was dismissed once by the board on the railway lands. They can dismiss anything as frivolous and vexatious.
The Chair: It's a point.
Mr Stockwell: It's an actually correct point.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): That's correct, what Mr Stockwell is stating. The problem --
The Chair: I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm sorry.
Mr Eddy: Hold on? I haven't let go.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want Ms Ross to continue answering that question?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
The Chair: Go ahead, please. Mr Eddy, we'll come back to you, okay?
Ms Ross: Right now, for minor variances, the board has the legal ability to dismiss where they feel they're insufficient. The way that's been interpreted is rather procedural so they're looking for a procedural insufficiency rather than a substantive insufficiency, so that this gives them additional powers.
Mr Stockwell: Just quickly, and I don't want to interrupt Mr Eddy too much, but briefly to finish the point. The bottom line is the OMB has had the right to dismiss for frivolous and vexatious -- they've never exercised that right. Now, you can tell me you can put those rights in again; they don't use them. I'll tell you they have certain fears about dismissing things as frivolous and vexatious because they're concerned about personal and property rights.
You people have to tell them to dismiss them or not hear them; otherwise they won't dismiss them because they have very real concerns of personal and property rights that they're supposed to be hearing as the court of last resort.
Mr Grandmaître: Can I make a --
The Chair: Hold on, Mr Grandmaître. I'm not sure whether there's a response; if not, we'll move on. No? Okay, Mr Eddy and then Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Eddy: I'm sure that Mr Grandmaître will want to speak first too like everybody else --
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître then.
1640
Mr Grandmaître: One question: Didn't the minister have this power and not the OMB? Am I correct in saying this, that the minister had this power and not the OMB?
Ms Ross: With minor variances, nobody has the power. The OMB has the power to find it insufficient. The minister has the power, with respect to official plans, to find it frivolous and vexatious and not refer it for that purpose.
Mr Grandmaître: Official plans but not minor variances.
Ms Ross: No. The minister isn't involved in minor variances.
Mr Stockwell: You're wrong.
The Chair: Hold on, Mr Stockwell. We'll come back to you in a moment.
Mr Eddy: I'm certain that the OMB has had and does have the power to declare an appeal "frivolous." Certainly that word has been around for quite some considerable time. I think the point is, as Mr Stockwell states, that the OMB has not exercised that. In fact, when inquiries were made to the OMB about why it didn't -- I guess we have all seen very frivolous appeals to the OMB, especially on minor variances, absolutely frivolous, to the extent of saying: "I don't want to look out my kitchen window and see anything on that land. It's open and that's the way I want to leave it." But the OMB wouldn't do that. What they would reply is, "It's up to the council to do that and then we will consider the council's decision." So it just hasn't worked.
The next amendment that will be presented is a Liberal amendment to indeed allow that. We think it's necessary simply because there's been no definition of a minor variance. Indeed that's why we're returning to the OMB to deal with appeals. What many applications term "minor" variances aren't minor variances, but it's unfortunate that true minor variances have to go to the OMB. Certainly the citizens and various groups from across the province who appeared before the committee were really concerned about the fact that minor variance decisions could no longer be appealed to the OMB and therefore there would be some major decisions made.
The Chair: Is there any response to the comment?
Mr Hayes: No.
Mr Grandmaître: Will we have a definition of what a minor variance is?
Mr Eddy: It should be subject.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, you wanted to comment earlier. Do you have anything?
Mr Stockwell: No. I've completely talked myself out on this one.
The Chair: We're ready for the motion. All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? If I don't see hands, I'm assuming they're up. Is that it? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Stockwell: You only did one thing right in the whole bill, and then you screw this one up.
The Chair: The next one is a Liberal motion, which may or may not conflict with what has been passed just a moment ago.
Mr McLean: I have one before that, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I'm not sure we have that.
Mr McLean: Section 25. Do you have a copy of this?
The Chair: Is that page 92, Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: There's no number on it.
The Chair: Mr McLean, if you have a motion, I'm not sure --
Mr McLean: I have one here that's typed out. I don't know whether it's been passed around or whether anybody has it. It's that "section 45 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection." I haven't seen it in any other bill.
The Chair: Would you read that very carefully, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: I move that section 45 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(14) In respect of a municipality in northern Ontario, as defined in section 1 of the Development Corporations Act, the applicant, minister or any other person who has an interest in the matter may appeal a decision under subsection (10) or subsection 45.1(15) to the Ontario Municipal Board."
The Chair: Mr McLean, I think the best thing to do is to photocopy that immediately and circulate it so that everybody has the benefit of the wording.
Mr Stockwell: It's housekeeping, really.
The Chair: We will just pause for a moment.
Mr Grandmaître: A pause?
The Chair: Rather than recessing.
Mr McLean: With regard to this amendment to section 45 of the bill, everybody's got a copy. I understand it's probably redundant, but I wanted to put it forward anyway and have some debate. What I wanted to do, with respect to the municipalities in northern Ontario, was not have them come under this section; I thought they should be exempt. We were in the north, and people up there feel there's a difference and that they can run their affairs a lot better than having them run out of Toronto. They want to make the decisions up there. I felt they should have the right to do it, and that's why I brought in this amendment.
Mr Stockwell: I support the PC motion with respect to northern Ontario feeling they can run their affairs better than the people in Toronto, particularly at Queen's Park. I think there are people in Toronto who feel the north can run their own affairs better than the people in Toronto, so I will support on the same basis.
The Chair: Let's get an opinion from Ms Mifsud.
Ms Lucinda Mifsud: By talking with the municipal lawyer, I gather what they were going to change was going to take away an appeal. But they've cancelled that by the previous motion, so now everybody has an appeal, including northern Ontario. It is redundant, and I think your purpose has been achieved.
Mr Stockwell: Good work, Al.
Mr Hayes: Put that out in your householder.
The Chair: Mr McLean, based on what you heard, it would be proper for you to withdraw that motion, I suppose.
Mr McLean: I would think that should have been voted on to make sure northern Ontario --
The Chair: But if you've achieved what you wanted, it's already there. You don't need a motion to do what's already there.
Mr Stockwell: I think we should vote on it. It's properly before the committee.
The Chair: Mr McLean, either you withdraw it or I'll rule it out of order.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, heavy-handed. Go ahead and rule it out of order.
Mr McLean: I guess we'll have to make that decision.
The Chair: It's a tough one, Mr McLean, but we can deal with it. What you're asking for is already there, Mr McLean, so it's easier to withdraw it.
Mr McLean: I'd sooner have a vote on it.
The Chair: Mr McLean, I think that motion is out of order.
Moving on --
Mr Stockwell: You're ruling it out of order then?
The Chair: Yes, I have done so.
Mr Grandmaître, it applies equally to your motion. Either you withdraw it or I will rule it out of order.
Interjections.
The Chair: You want to move it and then you withdraw it?
Mr Eddy: No. Mr Chair, I think you're superseding me.
The Chair: I wouldn't want to do that. Go ahead, Mr Eddy.
Mr Grandmaître: Ours is different, Mr Chair.
Mr Eddy: I move that section 45 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(14) The minister may, by regulation, prescribe types or classes of minor variances for which appeal may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board and may prescribe notice and other requirements in respect of the appeal."
The last part of that is probably redundant. But the reason we've submitted this is that we heard from many groups and individuals during the hearings to the effect that we must have appeals of minor variances go to the OMB. Why were they all asking that? They were asking it simply because many people could give instances of "minor" variances that were not minor in any way. They said that actually major changes get through under the guise of being minor variances. That's because there's no definition of a minor variance.
I think we do need to face this matter. If we face this matter at this time and let types or classes of minor variances be prescribed by the minister, over a period of time perhaps we may get to the place -- will get to the place, I would hope -- sometime in the future where minor variances don't need to go on and people would not be able to say, "We have to have in place appeals of minor variances to the OMB simply because many of them are not minor."
It's been pointed out to us that there are various types of minor variances. One is, of course, the matter of distances, but there are many others. It's a complex matter, and I would hope we could approve of this amendment to be placed in the appropriate section of the new act so that indeed at some time this matter could be faced and minor variances would indeed become, in all cases, in the future, minor variances -- with emphasis on the "minor," because that really is a problem.
It is a different matter from Mr McLean's motion, and it's not dealt with; his is dealt with in another matter. In order to give the staff and the ministry time to consider this, I would stand it down at this time.
Mr Stockwell: I'd just like to speak to it very briefly.
The Chair: You do that, because by the time you speak to it, we'll have an opinion. We're well able to deal with it in the time.
Mr Stockwell: Let me just say, Mr Chair, through you to the legal staff as well, that I don't think this is out of order, and let me tell you why it's not out of order.
What you have gone to, in my opinion, is the old rules and regulations with respect to minor variances, which means that what you've adopted -- and bear with me on this -- is that any minor variance may be appealed. What this does is offer a guideline to the old rules. Now any minor variance may be appealed, but what this says is that not any minor variance may be appealed; it can only be appealed once the minister has set out types or classes of minor variance that may be appealed.
So in essence this is not out of order. What the member is suggesting is that the minister set down types and classes of appeals that may go forward, that they're defined as classes; therefore he is changing the legislation as it is today because of the motion of withdrawal that you and your party just moved, which took us back to the old days when anything could be appealed. So this is in fact properly before us.
Further, I would add that I will support this, because any limitation on the number of minor variances that may be appealed to the OMB I think is healthy and cost-efficient for the taxpayers in this province. It does what I wanted to do in the first place: It gets rid of these vexatious and frivolous applications and only allows minor variances that meet the guidelines to go forward to the OMB.
1700
Mr McLean: Now can we have the ministry's opinion?
Ms Mifsud: I'm just looking at it from a numerical point of view. Having reverted now back to the Planning Act and not changed anything, this doesn't quite fit into how that section worked. I think the counsel for Municipal Affairs might be able to tell you the substantive point of view, because I'm not as familiar. I've been looking at, like you, the amendments rather than how it originally read. Certainly, it was meant to fit into the bill and not the original, and I just don't feel certain at this point that it works numerically or even logically. Perhaps the municipal solicitor, Ms Ross, who's more familiar with the substance, can elaborate on that.
Ms Ross: If you were going to fit it into 45(14), you'd be replacing the section that says if no one appeals it's final and binding, so you'd need to put it somewhere else. But even if you did that, section 45 already says everyone can appeal, so it wouldn't really work. You'd have to rewrite the section to say no one can appeal unless they're prescribed by regulation and then set out a process for those other people who couldn't appeal, like we have done in section 45 and 45.1.
Mr Stockwell: You're arguing the technical merits of it. Really, to rule it out of order, you have to say it's out of order because it's not properly before us. And I say to you, Mr Chair, this is properly before us. Technically it may be somewhat flawed, but it is properly before us.
The Chair: Part of the legal advice is to help us with motions, to make it clear whether they are in or out of order. If we don't have that opinion, we'll deal with it as a motion.
Mr Eddy: I think it could be worded and inserted in the proper place in the bill. As legal counsel has said, because of the change we've made back to the present situation, anyone may appeal a minor variance. What we need to look at is an additional feature in the bill, for instance, "except where the minister has prescribed" etc.
Because of the technical problem, I'd be prepared to stand it down at this time and give it further thought so that with the correct wording it could still be inserted, so that the minister may at sometime in the future proceed. I think if we don't do it now, we will be faced with it sometime in the future. But I agree, we're in no position to pass it now. Let's make sure it's the correct wording and in the correct place.
The Chair: Can we stand that down, Mr Eddy, so it will give us an opportunity to look at that?
Mr Eddy: I would ask that, yes, please.
The Chair: All in favour of standing that down? Okay.
Moving on to section 26.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 26(2) of the bill be struck out, subsection 47(2) of the Planning Act.
This amendment deletes subsection 47(2) of the act from the bill as the proposed minor variance system is to be removed and the current appeal system restored. This is a consequential amendment as a result of the proposed amendment to restore the current minor variance system whereby appeals are heard by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr McLean: What we're doing then is going back so that minor variances will all be heard by the OMB if they're appealed to the OMB. There's nothing that's going to be dealt with now by a committee of a council or an appointee of council. What's going to happen with regard to a regional council where they wanted to be able to appoint somebody to look after their minor variances? Will that be redundant now?
Mr McKinstry: Regional councils do not now have the power to enact zoning bylaws or to grant minor variances and we haven't changed that. It's a local council's responsibility to enact zoning bylaws.
Mr McLean: What about the power that was to be given to the region with regard to official plans, with regard to the minor variances? I thought they were going to have the power to appoint somebody on staff who would deal with minor variances.
Mr McKinstry: What we did in some of our other motions was allow the regions that will be assigned certain powers, for example subdivision approval, to subdelegate that to an officer or a committee of council or a staff member. So that's for subdivisions or official plan approvals.
Mr McLean: But nothing for minor variances now?
Mr McKinstry: No, because a regional council does not have that power to enact zoning bylaws.
Mr McLean: So every regional municipality now will have to have what they call a committee of adjustment?
Mr McKinstry: No. Every local municipality will need one if they want to grant minor variances but, as was mentioned earlier, it could be council itself. They could constitute themselves as a committee of adjustment. So it has always been a local power, a local decision.
Mr McLean: Well, what would happen in the region of York, for instance?
Mr McKinstry: Zoning would be the purview of the different local municipalities, so it wouldn't be the region. The region would have a planning --
Mr Hayes: This does not change it.
Mr McKinstry: No.
Mr McLean: So it's the same as it is now.
Mr Hayes: Yes. Nothing has changed.
Mr McLean: But the original bill was changing it. The original amendments were changing it. They were taking the minor variances power out.
Mr Hayes: That's right.
Mr McLean: You've put it all back in now.
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: But that same bylaw from the local municipality would have to be accepted by a regional government, to be part of the official plan, for instance. Right?
Mr McKinstry: Not quite. Zoning bylaws implement official plans.
Mr Grandmaître: Local official plans.
Mr McKinstry: So the region would have an official plan, the local municipality would have an official plan and the local municipality would have a zoning bylaw.
Mr Grandmaître: But the local zoning bylaw would certainly complement the official plan. Right?
Mr McKinstry: It would have to conform to both the local and the regional official plans.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right. So what I'm saying is, the regional municipality will have to take a vote on that local zoning plan. Right?
Mr McKinstry: The region does not get to approve it.
Mr Grandmaître: No, no, not approve it, but vote on it.
Mr McKinstry: They can appeal it.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, they can appeal it.
Mr McKinstry: They can appeal it if they want, but there would be no mechanism by which they actually took a vote or approved it. It's not their bylaw. They might decide to appeal a part of it.
Mr Grandmaître: At what stage, though, can the regional municipality appeal?
Mr Hayes: Twenty days.
Mr McKinstry: Yes. It's 20 days after the local municipality has adopted it before it comes into force.
Mr McLean: You're really confusing the bill now. All these people that we have had before us, all these delegations, are mixed up worse than what this committee is.
The Chair: Any comment on that? As he's making a comment, I'm wondering whether there's another comment.
Mr McLean: Is my comment right or wrong?
Mr Hayes: A real quick answer to that: Yes, you're wrong. The thing is, if we were not going to allow minor variances to go to the OMB -- because of the public hearings and because of the number of people who've come forward, organizations and individuals, who said that should not be done because you're taking people's rights away from them, we have listened to the public and we have decided that we will not do that, even though it looked good initially.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Great. Check off one for you guys. The first time you've listened.
Mr Hayes: No. We've listened a lot and we have acted.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote. All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
1710
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 47(8.2) of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 26(4) of the bill, be amended by adding after "refuse to" in the first line "accept or".
This amendment provides that the minister may also refuse to accept an application to amend a zoning order if the prescribed information is not submitted. The bill allows the minister to refuse further consideration and it should be clarified that the minister also has the authority to refuse to accept an incomplete zoning order application. The refusal to consider is contingent on the prescribed information, not additional information which the minister may ask for.
The Chair: Questions or comments?
Mr Hayes: Very straightforward.
Mr McLean: What do you mean by "accept or"? Where is that going in? Is that going in "Refusal to consider," (8.2)? Is that where that amendment is going in, or are you amending (8.2) by adding after "refuse to" in the first line "accept or"? I don't see "accept or" in here at all now.
Ms Ross: What we're doing is amending (8.2) so that it would read, "The minister may refuse to accept or further consider a request" etc.
Mr McLean: He may refuse to accept or consider?
Ms Ross: "To accept or further consider." This is similar to some amendments that we did already in the official plan section.
Mr McLean: They weren't very clear either.
The Chair: Mr McLean, are you on page 33?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: We only have one here.
The Chair: Mr McLean, further?
Mr Murdoch: He's still confused.
The Chair: Anything further?
Mr McLean: No.
The Chair: Okay. All in favour of the amendment?
Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, are those words inserted in the right place? Would you read what the amendment is?
Ms Ross: Okay, I'll read it through again.
Mr Eddy: Sorry, if you wouldn't mind.
Ms Ross: So (8.2) reads, "The minister may refuse to accept or further consider a request under subsection (8) until" --
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Ross. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
We now have a Liberal motion in front of us.
Mr Eddy: This is re section 26 of the bill. I move that subsection 47(11) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 26 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(c) the person or public body refused to participate in good faith in alternative dispute resolution techniques under section 65."
I don't think that needs much explanation. We've discussed the importance of alternative dispute resolution techniques many times during the committee. It seems that we're all strongly in favour of them and that they should be used and applicants should be required to use them, so we're proposing the change.
Mr McLean: Could I have some clarification from the ministry? What is the difference between the one that we just passed, "The minister may refuse to accept or further consider a request" -- it says "The minister may refuse to refer a request under subsection (10) to the municipal board." So what are you doing? You're adding already to what the minister may refuse to accept?
Mr Eddy: The reason, of course, is failure by someone to participate in the alternative dispute resolution process, which, I think most of us agree, would save time.
The Chair: Let me see if there's a staff comment on Mr McLean's question.
Ms Ross: The earlier section, (8.2), dealt with the requirement that the minister deal with an application before it's complete. What it's really talking about is ensuring that all of the prescribed information has been received before the application has to be dealt with, whereas I think Mr Eddy's amendment deals with the requirement to refer it. You've been processing it and then they're talking about the referring to the Ontario Municipal Board as opposed to processing by the ministry. It's as clear as mud.
The Chair: Okay? All in favour of -- Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: No comment, I just don't agree with it.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Eddy's motion? Opposed? It's defeated.
The next motion is identical to this. Mr McLean, I presume you're not moving it?
Mr McLean: Seeing that we were not successful with the previous one, I hate to have to say it, but I guess that I would have to withdraw the amendment that we have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McLean. Government motion, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that subclause 47(11)(a)(iv) of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 26(7) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(iv) the proposed amendment is premature because the necessary public water, sewage or road services are not available to service the land covered by the proposed amendment and the services will not be available within a reasonable time."
The bill allows the minister to refuse a referral request based on a number of grounds, including the prematurity of development application. The amendment to the amendment would clarify that a matter is premature if water, sewer and road services will not be available in the near future for the application which is dependent on these services.
There was a concern expressed by the development industry and the Canadian Bar Association that the power to dismiss without a hearing on the basis of prematurity could be misused if the meaning of the term was not clarified. So people were asking for clarification on prematurity and I believe we've done so here.
Mr Eddy: I'm just wondering what effect this clause will have on the OMB, because the OMB has indeed on many occasions rendered decisions ordering municipalities to rezone and include approved developments and ordered the municipality to provide for it.
Mr Hayes: I believe the answer to that will be on the next amendment, which is similar to this but deals with the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Eddy: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Other questions or comments? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subclause 47(12.1)(a)(iv) of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 26(8) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(iv) the proposed amendment is premature because the necessary public water, sewage or road services are not available to service the land covered by the proposed amendment and the services will not be available within a reasonable time."
This bill allows the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss an appeal without a hearing, based on a number of grounds, including the prematurity of development applications.
Mr Grandmaître: What's the difference between them?
Mr Hayes: One is dealing with the minister and the other one is dealing with the municipal board.
Mr McLean: Could you define "a reasonable time"?
The Chair: Mr McKinstry: "a reasonable time."
Mr McKinstry: I think it would depend on the individual facts of the case, but our view was that it would be a reasonable time for development to take place, so if services would not be available within some reasonable development kind of period. For example, if services were not in the municipality's servicing plan, were not a part of the official plan strategy, then you could say that they would not be available in a reasonable time because they would not be available in the planning period of the official plan.
Mr McLean: How would it get that far if there weren't services there in the first place to deal with a plan when the municipality knows it's going to have to have services? How would it even get temporary approval?
Mr McKinstry: What we're saying here is that there are some development applications brought forward which municipalities do not support; there are no services. But there's really no way of getting them out of the system, so they have to go all the way through the system, including the municipal board, even though everybody knows they're not going to be successful. This is a way of getting proposals dismissed which do not have any chance of success.
The Chair: Further? Okay, I think we're ready for the question. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.
1720
Mr Hayes: I move that section 26 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(8.1) Subsections 47(15) to (17) of the act are repealed."
The government has come to believe that retaining the declaration of provincial interest is inconsistent with the new planning system where municipalities make decisions and the OMB resolves disputes. It is therefore proposing to remove the right of cabinet to review and change decisions of the OMB.
Mr McLean: What number is that one?
The Chair: It's 99a, section 26 of the bill.
Mr McLean: We don't have 99a.
The Chair: I think it's part of the new additions you were given earlier on.
Mr Hayes: It's not new today, no.
Mr Grandmaître: No, it's in the old package.
The Chair: It was new in the old package. Any questions from the other members in the meantime? Mr McLean, questions or comments?
Mr McLean: No.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion by Mr Hayes? Opposed? That carries.
All in favour of section 26, as amended? Opposed? Okay, that section carries.
We're on a new section now, government motion 26.1.
Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"26.1 Section 48 of the act is amended by adding at the end `or of a bylaw passed by a planning board under section 34 or 38.'"
The bill empowers planning boards in northern Ontario to pass zoning bylaws. Currently licences or permits cannot be granted if the proposed use does not conform to the minister's zoning order. It should be extended to zoning bylaws passed by planning boards to cover unorganized territories.
Mr McLean: What number is that?
The Chair: New section 26.1.
Mr McLean: Is that what it is? "I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section: 26.1" --
The Chair: Yes.
Mr McLean: You went on and read a lot more after you did that.
Mr Hayes: I was explaining it.
The Chair: Do you want him to speak to that again, Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: Move right on.
The Chair: All right. All in favour of this motion? Opposed? This section carries.
Section 27: A government motion.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 50 of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 27(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Delegation
"(1.4) If an order is made under subsection (1.1) 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 which was removed from the council to grant consents, to give approvals under subsection (18) or to issue certificates of validation and the delegation may be subject to such conditions as the order provides.
"Effect of revocation
"(1.5) If the minister revokes the order or part of the order made under subsection (1.4), the power of the municipal planning authority to grant consents, to give approvals under subsection (18) or to issue certificates of validation reverts back to the minister 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 materials 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."
Currently, the bill provides that council assigned with the consent granting power may delegate its power to a municipal planning authority. However, where the minister has removed consent granting power for the council, there is no provision to allow the minister to delegate the consent granting power to a municipal planning authority. This motion would give the minister the power to delegate to a municipal planning authority where he or she has removed the consent granting power from the council.
Mr Murdoch: Why would he or she have removed it?
Mr Hayes: "He or she"? You're talking about the minister.
Mr Murdoch: The minister. You're saying he or she, so that's fine, I can too.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you have a comment?
Mr Hayes: I just did.
The Chair: Mr McKinstry, do you and staff --
Mr Murdoch: I'm just saying that now they're giving it back. Can you explain this?
Mr McKinstry: The bill as it's written now gives the minister the power to withdraw consents or subdivisions. There are no criteria, obviously, in the act. What we're saying here is that if there's a municipal planning authority, it may be a good idea to give the consent granting authority to the municipal planning authority, because it's doing the planning for a few municipalities and it may be better there than at the county. It's simply a way of getting there, if everybody agrees.
Mr Murdoch: So if a municipality would like to do its own, it has to approach the minister and the minister can give it that power. That's what I'm saying.
Mr McKinstry: The county can also delegate directly to a municipal planning authority.
Mr Murdoch: There don't seem to be any criteria. This is sort of pulled out of the blue here. I'm just trying to understand. I'm a municipality: Now I want to do my own subdivisions, and you're saying approach the minister and the minister can do it, that this subsection will allow them to do that. But are there not criteria here?
Mr McKinstry: This is just consents, right? Right now in the existing Planning Act a county council can delegate to a lower-tier municipality. There are no criteria in the act. It's a power, if they want to do that.
Mr Murdoch: Well, they must have an official plan within the county in order first to have the power to give consents.
Mr McKinstry: No. The act gives consent granting authority to counties.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. I'm sorry. This looked liked it was just pulled out of the air, and I'm trying to understand it. As I see it now -- let's look at the county of Grey. They have consent authority because they have an official plan.
Mr McKinstry: No, they have it because the act gives it to them, assigns it directly to them.
Mr Murdoch: I didn't think they got that unless they had the official plan. Then the minister would give it to them.
Mr McKinstry: Not consents. Consents they get as of right.
Mr Murdoch: Why were they given the consents? Just because the minister at some point decided they should do that? Is that what you're saying?
Mr McKinstry: The act gave it to them in 1983. It was a decision then to give consents to all upper-tier municipalities.
Mr Murdoch: But then, for them to give it to townships, they had to have official plans. Am I right on that?
Mr McKinstry: They had to have the minister's approval, and the minister may have said before giving approval -- I don't know this, but the minister could have said, "There should be an official plan before you do that."
Mr Murdoch: He didn't have to say that, though. If the county had decided to give it to a lower-tier, if the minister had agreed, they could have done that?
Mr McKinstry: That's right.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. Now at this point you're just saying you still do that.
Mr McKinstry: They can still do that, but then they could give it to the municipal planning authority or the minister could withdraw it from the county and give it to the municipal planning authority.
Mr Murdoch: Can the minister not now withdraw it from the county?
Mr McKinstry: No.
Mr Murdoch: He can't. So now we're giving the minister some more power here, right?
Mr McKinstry: That was in the bill, and this motion simply says, if the minister withdraws it, according to the bill, the minister can give it to the municipal planning authority.
Mr Murdoch: And he couldn't before, unless we had changed this.
Mr McKinstry: That's right.
Mr Murdoch: So the way the bill was before, if the minister had decided a county shouldn't get consent power, withdrew it, which the bill had given him permission to do, there was no way of giving it back?
Mr McKinstry: The minister could have given it back to the county, but couldn't have given it anywhere else.
Mr Murdoch: Jeez, how did we get so screwed up here? I can't believe it.
Mr Hayes: It took many years.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, do you --
Mr Murdoch: No, I'm just figuring out loud. There's something wrong. This is stupid.
1730
The Chair: Other questions? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 27 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(7) Subsection 50(18) of the Planning Act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 26, section 58, is amended by striking out `or' after clause (a) and by adding the following clauses:
"(c) the identical parcel of land that has been the subject of a consent to convey given under section 53 and the consent did not stipulate that subsection 50(3) or (5) applies to any subsequent conveyance or transaction; or
"(d) the whole of the remaining part of a parcel of land, the other part or parts of which parcel have been the subject of a consent to convey given under section 53 and the consent did not stipulate that subsection 50(3) or (5) applies to any subsequent conveyance or transaction."
I think it's quite self-explanatory. Currently, lots in registered plans of subdivision that are subject to foreclosure or power of sale do not require council's or the minister's approval. Lots created by consent which are subject to foreclosure should also be exempt from approval requirements. That's clearer yet.
The Chair: Questions or comments? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? It carries.
All in favour of this section, as amended? Opposed? That carries.
Section 28: a Liberal motion.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 51(1) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"51(1) If land is in a local municipality that is in a county, other than a city, and that forms part of a county for municipal purposes,
"(a) the council of the county is the approval authority for the counties of Bruce, Grey, Hastings, Huron, Lambton, Oxford, Prince Edward, Victoria and the county of Wellington;
"(b) the council of the county is the approval authority on the day the minister approves all or part of an official plan for the county of Peterborough or any other county;
"(c) the council of the county is the approval authority on the day the minister prescribes the county under subsection 17(7);
"(d) the minister is the approval authority in all counties without approved official plans or which have not been prescribed under subsection 17(7)."
This matter was discussed, as members of the committee who were on the hearings will recall, by county after county after county delegation, who came before us pointing out that counties should be considered somewhat equitably with the regions, especially those counties that have planning departments, official plans and have decided that they will have an upper-tier planning authority.
I think it's proper and indeed necessary to recognize them, because there is a strong feeling in the county governments across this province that when it comes to legislation, the counties unfortunately are treated differently from the regions; indeed, they have the feeling in many cases that they're treated as second-class citizens. That's a matter of opinion, of course, but they can give you instances.
I'm very much in favour of it, and I think we should face up to it and name those counties. As I said, they came before us one after another pointing out that very strong feeling about being included and having a sense of equality with other upper-tier municipalities.
Mr Grandmaître: They could all be prescribed. In other words, they could be prescribed by the ministry or the minister to have the approval power. This is really what the amendment is saying.
Mr Murdoch: They already have it.
Mr Grandmaître: No, counties don't.
Mr Eddy: Only by prescription.
Mr Hayes: I think we've said several times that the government does intend to assign counties the authority to approve plans of subdivision when they have up-to-date official plans and the appropriate staff resources. The individual needs of counties would be recognized, allowing assignment to take place when they do have their new official plans. We are going to be dealing with that issue.
Mr Grandmaître: What this amendment is doing, in clause (a), is recognizing the approval authority for the counties of Bruce -- and we go on to name them, because all these counties do have official plans.
Mr Murdoch: So you agree with it then, Parliamentary Assistant. Is that right?
Mr Hayes: We feel they should be new official plans. Their official plans should be updated, and when they're updated, then we will prescribe them.
Mr Eddy: I think we have to recognize the point that we have two regional governments in this province that don't have approved official plans and yet we have several counties which do have approved land use official plans. We're giving the two upper tiers, namely, the regions of Peel and York, that authority, even though they don't have the plans yet. I know it will click in when they do, but we're not recognizing the requests of the counties to be recognized somewhat equally if they indeed have proper, approved official plans.
The fact that they have just been updated or need to be updated or will be updated in the future I don't think really should enter into it at this time. I feel it's the height of stupidity -- maybe that's an unparliamentary term.
In the past, the counties weren't given many of the powers the regions had, because I think they would have excepted them. I well remember as administrator of the county of Middlesex that we did an official plan and we had to wait almost two years for the Legislature to change the act to allow counties to be designated municipalities under the Planning Act and therefore have an official plan. Just ridiculous, but that's the past and I shouldn't dwell back there, should I? But I think we should face up to it and name the counties, because they've asked for that, one after another.
Mr McLean: Our amendment is the same as the official opposition's. The parliamentary assistant has said they will be given the power once they have their official plan put on. That's exactly what this is doing, putting it in the legislation that they will have the approval once they've met the minister's approval.
Why are you so against putting something in to indicate the way it should be rather than leaving it to say once they've got the planning committee in place and once they've got the administrative staff in the county to do it? Why do you need that in there? Once they've got the official plan approved, I'm sure they would have the staff to run a county planning department. I fail to see why you won't accept these amendments.
Mr Murdoch: As Al said, we have the very same amendment and would like to see this passed. If the parliamentary assistant cannot answer it, maybe he could ask one of his two sidekicks beside him. Maybe they could give us a reason. If you can't accept this --
Mr Eddy: I wonder if they'd approve if we took Grey out?
Mr Murdoch: Maybe they would. Maybe that's the problem, Ron; I don't know.
1740
I understand what you're saying there, Parliamentary Assistant, but you're not answering the question. Why can't you accept this with the names in there? If there is a specific reason and if you can't answer that, as I said, you have those two very capable people beside you. Maybe one of them could answer it, unless it's a political reason. If that's the case, then you say so.
Mr Hayes: No, it's not a political reason and I think I have explained it, that when they bring their official plans up to date then they'll be prescribed. As a matter of fact, we have an amendment that will give you a specific answer when we get to the government amendment, exactly what we are doing to have them designated. It will be on page 104, but I don't want to jump ahead.
Mr Murdoch: But you're not recognizing these counties' official plans now. You're saying they're not good official plans, obviously.
Mr Hayes: What we're saying here, and I will repeat it, is that when the plans are brought up to date and approved they will have these powers.
Mr Murdoch: So you're saying now that their plans aren't any good. That's what you're saying.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I haven't seen any plans yet that satisfy all this.
Mr Murdoch: Well, that's a good statement. One of your members just said he hadn't seen a plan that was. Are you going to tell me then that when these counties get their new plans they will be?
The Chair: Mr Hayes again.
Mr Hayes: Yes, Mr Chair, if I may. There are some official plans in some counties that do not even conform to or are not consistent with some of the old policies, their ministry policies.
Mr Murdoch: They're approved.
Mr Hayes: They're approved, and we're saying they have to be updated.
Mr Murdoch: That's prejudice.
Mr Hayes: No, no, I don't think so at all.
Mr Murdoch: It is. Sure it is.
Mr Hayes: I don't think we want to have planning in this province here regardless of what kind of an official plan municipalities have.
Mr Murdoch: Are all the regions handled --
Mr Hayes: No, there is one; not two, one.
Mr Murdoch: Are the regions' plans okay?
Mr Hayes: I think they agree.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the --
Mr Murdoch: I don't think we are. I think you're being very prejudiced here; I really do. I want that on record.
Mr Hayes: It's not discriminatory.
Mr Murdoch: It is. Yes, it's being really discriminatory or whatever you want to say; it is. Are the regions' plans all up to date then? Are you going to tell me they're all okay? Can you answer me that?
Mr Hayes: Let me tell you, if you want to start using words like "discriminatory," counties have been discriminated against for years and years by both the previous governments way too much.
Mr Murdoch: Why don't you rectify things?
Mr Hayes: So don't come and say this government is discriminating against them.
Mr Murdoch: You have a chance to rectify it. Why don't you rectify it?
Mr Hayes: We want to make sure that we have good, sound planning in our official plans and then they will have that authority.
Mr Murdoch: You made a statement and then you've got the chance to rectify it. Why don't you rectify it?
The Chair: All right. Mr Hayes, Mr Murdoch, I think both of you made the points for the record. We're ready to move on.
It's a Liberal motion that we have in front of us. All in favour? Opposed? That is defeated.
PC motion, a very similar one.
Mr McLean: I move that subsection 51(1) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"51(1) If land is in a local municipality that is in a county, other than a city, and that forms part of a county for municipal purposes,
"(a) the council of the county is the approval authority for the counties of Bruce, Grey, Hastings, Huron, Lambton, Oxford, Prince Edward, Victoria and the county of Wellington;
"(b) the council of the county is the approval authority on the day the minister approves all or part of an official plan for the county of Peterborough or any other county;
"(c) the council of the county is the approval authority of the day the minister prescribes the county under subsection 17(7);
"(d) the minister is the approval authority in all counties without approved official plans or which have not been prescribed under subsection 17(7)."
The Chair: Mr McLean, I move that motion is out of order -- similar to the previous one.
Mr Eddy: The previous motion was not out of order. It was defeated.
Mr Murdoch: No, we lost it.
The Chair: We dealt with it.
Mr Eddy: It was defeated.
The Chair: We have dealt with it.
Mr Eddy: Yes.
The Chair: Therefore, this one is out of order.
Mr Hayes with your next motion.
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:
"Designation of county
"(7.1) Despite subsection (1), if land is in a local municipality that is in a county, other than a city, and that forms part of the county for municipal purposes, the county is the approval authority for the purposes of this section and section 51.1 on the day that the minister, by order, designates the county as the approval authority.
"Minister to make order
"(7.2) If a county is not covered by an official plan on the day this subsection comes into force, the minister shall make an order designating a county as the approval authority within 60 days after the day,
"(a) the minister or the municipal board approves all or part of an official plan that covers all of the county; and
"(b) the county by resolution requests the designation.
"Same
"(7.3) If a county is covered by an official plan on the day this subsection comes into force, the minister shall make an order designating a county as the approval authority within 60 days after the day,
"(a) the minister or the municipal board approves all or part of an official plan that replaces all of the plan that existed on the day this subsection comes into force; and
"(b) the county by resolution requests the designation."
I shall be very brief. This amendment allows the minister to designate counties as the approval authority for plans of subdivision under specific circumstances, and a county must have an official plan approved after proclamation and must request the designation, and counties that have new, approved official plans should be given the power to approve plans of subdivision if council requests it.
Mr Eddy: It's an interesting amendment. I notice in (7.3) the minister "shall" make an order designating the county as the approval authority. Having presented over a period amendments like that, directing the minister -- it's usually considered that you can't force the minister. You can't give directives to the minister, but mandatory legislation is in place many times. Would legal counsel like to comment on that? I appreciate the change in the wording and see what you're doing, that once it's in order it "shall" happen. But you're directing a minister. Is it in order to do that?
Ms Ross: I'm not aware of there being a problem with that. The idea is to oblige the minister to delegate the authority upon certain things happening.
Mr Eddy: Could I ask, then, a further question: in (7.1) the situation with the city of Sarnia, which has been delegated subdivision approval authority and what else? The new city of Sarnia, of course, is now an integral part of the county of Lambton. The city has been given it, the county has not, but the city is part of the county now, so I don't know whether that's all right, or is that not affected by this wording?
What I'm asking is, does this wording "designation of county" cover that situation or does it mean that if, sometime in the future, the county of Lambton is designated, then the city would lose that designation?
Mr McKinstry: No. In fact, Sarnia would keep it. So if Lambton had a new official plan, Lambton, outside of Sarnia, would get subdivision approval.
Mr Eddy: At no time in the future would they get it for the city, with the new official plan? And if not, why not, when they're a constituent municipality of the county of Lambton?
Mr McKinstry: The decision here was to give the subdivision approval to the city of Sarnia.
Mr Eddy: Yes, and I know the reasons for that. You explained that to us clearly.
Mr McKinstry: It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take it away from them in the future if in fact they were already operating it.
1750
Mr Eddy: It would make more sense to take it away and give it to the county if the county is going to have an approved official plan and thereby qualify for approval authority, because the city is a constituent municipality of the county.
The only way I can see why you would not give it is if you established Sarnia as a planning authority, and I don't know that you would do that. I guess that's a technical way of doing it. Is there another place like that? Let's see, what's another city that's come into the county system recently?
Mr Murdoch: Just Sarnia.
Mr Eddy: I guess Sarnia is the only one. What you're saying is, you'd leave the status quo and this doesn't change that.
Mr McKinstry: This provision would not change that, no.
Mr Eddy: Okay.
Mr Murdoch: Does this not do the same that we just argued about, the two motions that were just put in by the Liberals and by ourselves? It doesn't say anything about a new official plan in here.
It says: "If a county is covered by an official plan" -- the counties we just listed on the previous motion have official plans -- "on the day this subsection comes into force, the minister shall make an order designating a county as the approval authority within 60 days after the day."
It doesn't say anything about new official plans. You just argued that before, that they had to have a new one. I don't see anywhere where it says any new approved plans here. Is it not doing what we essentially want to do other than naming the counties?
That's the only thing I see it doesn't do -- before we named the counties that should have the authority. This one doesn't name them; it just says any county that has an official plan.
Mr Hayes: It says, if you go on further to (a) and (b), "(a) the minister or the municipal board approves all or part of an official plan that covers all of the county," and "(b) the county by resolution requests the designation." That is exactly what we're doing.
Mr Murdoch: They don't mean new approved official plans, because those plans they have now --
Mr Hayes: Yes, they do.
Mr Murdoch: -- have been approved by the OMB and they were named. We just picked out the ones that had approved plans. This thing is doing what we just argued and fought about and you guys didn't want to listen to us. Am I not right?
Mr Hayes: No, you're not right.
Mr Murdoch: Explain to me why I'm not right then, Pat.
Mr McLean: Where does it say in there that it's got to be a new official plan?
Mr Murdoch: Yes. Show me that.
The Chair: Where does it say it has got to be a new official plan, that's the question. Ms Ross?
Ms Ross: In clause 7.3(a), it says that on the day the minister "approves all or part of an official plan that replaces all of the plan that existed on the day this subsection comes into force," so there has to be a replacement plan. That's in situations where the county already has an official plan.
Mr Murdoch: That's right. That what we're talking about.
Ms Ross: Right. Yes.
Mr Murdoch: You're saying the ones that have them now have to be reapproved --
Mr McLean: Redone.
Mr Murdoch: Redone. Is that what you're saying?
Ms Ross: A new official plan.
Mr Murdoch: So after this comes, nobody will have the status to be able to approve subdivisions?
Interjection: No.
Mr Murdoch: That's what you're saying, they all have to be brought up.
Ms Ross: They'll have to be replaced.
Mr Murdoch: So the minister could just -- okay.
Ms Ross: The minister always has the ability to delegate subdivision approval, but he only has the obligation to delegate in this situation where a plan had been approved that replaced the old official plan and the county had asked for it.
Mr McLean: A clarification then, Mr Chair: If we had a county that has done an official plan, such as Victoria, within the last year, approved by the county, after this year is done, completed with third reading, are you saying that county would have to go back and redo its official plan?
Why couldn't the minister say that it is done? Why would they have to go back and redo it?
Mr McKinstry: If it was approved after the date of proclamation then he wouldn't have.
Mr McLean: No, no, it was approved last year, 1993.
Mr McKinstry: The minister can still delegate. The minister can delegate at any time.
Mr McLean: But what this amendment is saying, and you just said, is that it would have to have a new --
Mr McKinstry: A new official plan.
Mr McLean: -- official plan. That doesn't make sense to me. It's putting the county to a lot of expense if you've got one approved and then a year or less later say, "Well, you've got to have another new one." Why?
Mr McKinstry: As I said, the minister would still have the ability to delegate the approval authority for subdivisions. The minister always has that power.
Mr McLean: That's not the question. We're not talking about delegation; we're talking about a new official plan to coincide with this bill in order to get it passed. You're saying here with this amendment that if, as I said, Victoria county had a new plan in 1993, and this bill gets passed, then they're going to have to come up with another new plan.
Mr Murdoch: It's going to have to be reapproved. That's what it says right here.
Mr McLean: That doesn't make much sense to me.
The Chair: Sorry. Anything further to add?
Mr Murdoch: Is that not right? It says down here in clause (a), you just proved it, that the minister will have to reapprove that plan for Victoria.
Mr McKinstry: Victoria county already has the power to approve subdivisions.
Mr McLean: No. No, it doesn't.
Mr McKinstry: Yes, it does. It's been delegated the approval authority for subdivisions.
Mr McLean: But what's that got to do with the official plan?
Mr McKinstry: All we're saying is that there are several ways of getting this approval authority. One of the ways is delegation, and Victoria has done that already. Another way is getting a new official plan and then they get it that way as well. It's the same power.
Mr Murdoch: So it's not much different to what's there right now?
Mr McKinstry: No. For Victoria, they already have the approval authority because the minister deemed their official plan to be a good plan and they should have it.
Mr Murdoch: Today, without any of this, if the minister decides -- a county with an official plan might be updated, but the minister right now, today, could give them approval.
Mr McKinstry: That's right.
Mr Murdoch: So really we're just fooling around with a lot of paper.
The Chair: Okay. I think we're ready for the question. All in favour of Mr Hayes's motion? Opposed? That carries.
Given the time of the clock, we will adjourn until tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1756.