EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998
CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998
MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998
CONTENTS
Wednesday 24 June 1998
Eastern Pentecostal Bible College Act, 1998, Bill Pr18, Mr Stewart
Mr R. Gary Stewart
Rev David Boyd
Ms Mary Ruth O'Brien
Mr Jay Fleischer
Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario Act, 1998,
Bill Pr21, Mr Saunderson
Mr Jack Carroll
Mr William Ross
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Act, 1998, Bill Pr19, Mr Carroll
Mr Jack Carroll
Mr Ian Lord
Mrs Greta Thompson
Mr Hugh Thomas
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff / Personnel
Ms Lisa Freedman, Clerk of Committees
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for Wednesday, June 24, 1998. You have an agenda and a number of attachments before you. We are considering three private bills today: Pr18, Pr19 and Pr21. We have them in order on the agenda. It has been suggested that the third item on our agenda, Bill Pr21, be moved up to the second item on the agenda. We would reverse agenda item 2 and agenda item 3 if everyone is amenable to that suggestion.
EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998
Consideration of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.
The Chair: At this point we deal with the first item on the agenda, Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College, sponsored by Gary Stewart, MPP for Peterborough. The applicants are at the table and I would ask Mr Stewart for a brief word of introduction.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good morning, committee members. It is and was my privilege to present, on behalf of the Eastern Pentecostal Bible College, Bill Pr18. With me this morning is Rev David Boyd. Rev Boyd is the academic dean of the bible college. Also with me is Mary Ruth O'Brien, solicitor for the college. I will turn it over to Rev Boyd to discuss and make his presentation on the bill.
Rev David Boyd: First of all I'd like to thank the committee, Mr Chairman, for hearing us before your summer recess.
Eastern Pentecostal Bible College is 59 years old. It is the oldest post-secondary institution in the city of Peterborough. We are privately funded with a full-time enrolment equivalent of about 500 students, with over 1,300 students by correspondence. We are the largest theological institution offering courses on the Internet and by distance education at this time, that we know of, anywhere in North America. Our school is fully accredited by an international accrediting agency and we are the second-largest undergraduate theological school in the country.
I just wanted to thank you for considering some of the changes to our board of governors and the administrative structures as well as the opportunity for adding some other degrees to our list of offerings. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Any comments at this time?
Ms Mary Ruth O'Brien: I thought I could just briefly outline the kinds of changes this amending bill is proposing. First of all, a slight change not actually in the membership of the board of governors of the college, but really a clarification of the ex officio officers and how the board can fill the vacant position. There is also a clarification of the term of non-ex officio governors. There's a slight change in the administrative structure in that the former administrative board will now be the executive committee and the members of the executive committee are further clarified. Those are really more or less housekeeping items.
The substantial change that is proposed is the addition of some degree-granting powers. With the exception of one item, which I'm going to refer to in just a second, all additional degrees have been submitted to the Ministry of Education offices and have been approved. They are all of a religious nature. Through inadvertence, one degree was omitted. I just learned of that this morning. I will be requesting, if someone can make an amendment on our behalf with respect to the bill, to add a master's degree in cross-cultural studies in ministry. Ministry of Education officials have approved a bachelor's in that same field as well as a doctoral in that same field. The master's just got left out in the typing process.
Mr Fleischer from the ministry office I believe was expected to attend. I haven't had a chance to check that out with him, but that is the kind of amendment we're looking for.
The Chair: I would ask, are there any interested parties that wish to speak to this bill? Seeing none, we now go to the parliamentary assistant of municipal affairs, MPP Ernie Hardeman, for comments from the government.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for the presentation. As the presenters made note, the main issue in the bill is the degree-granting authorities, and the Ministry of Education has been involved and has agreed that those that are listed in here are appropriate. As was mentioned, we are waiting for a representative from the ministry to be here to look at and make sure the committee is aware of the situation with the amendment that is coming forward. It would appear to be, and as was mentioned, just an oversight in printing. The ministry will be over to confirm that as we speak. The government has absolutely no concerns beyond that with the bill.
The Chair: I now call for questions from the committee to either the applicants or our parliamentary assistant, beginning with Mr Shea.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My understanding is that the Ministry of Education and Training is present in the room. Chairman, would you confirm that?
The Chair: Is the ministry here?
Interjection: Just looking over the amendment.
Mr Shea: I would think it astonishing that we would approve a bachelor's and a doctor's level but not the master's. The solicitor's point is well taken. It's just been an oversight. Can I have confirmation of that?
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, sir, I'll ask you to approach the microphone and we can record this for Hansard.
Mr Jay Fleischer: My name is Jay Fleischer. I'm with the universities branch of the Ministry of Education and Training. In discussions with the solicitor for the college, the three levels of cross-cultural studies in ministry were approved -- ie, the bachelor, master's and doctorate levels. Therefore, a change does not appear to be problematic.
Mr Shea: Okay. A further question while you're still at the microphone: The ministry gave consideration of the granting of degrees not only with in-class studies but also through distance programs?
Mr Fleischer: The ministry considered specific degree designations rather than the mode in which they are going to be delivered.
Mr Shea: Thank you. I understand the answer. No other questions, but I want to continue first of all to assist the applicant and to thank Mr Stewart for his presentation before the committee. I will move the amendment that the master's degree be included in the listing.
A question if I can, please, to the deputant. I'm interested in the doctoral level for a moment. I'd like you to focus upon the -- you're doing the DMin, the DTh and the DD. That's what you're suggesting you're going to offer. Am I correct in that? The DD increasingly seem to be offered more for honoris causa. I wonder, do I assume that you will be granting degrees in honoris causa or will they all be earned?
Rev Boyd: At the present time, the academic council of our institution has refused to offer any degrees honoris causa. The degree is there in case that should change. If we were to do that, there are regulations that the accrediting agencies use to follow for that type of thing.
Mr Shea: Who is your accrediting agency?
Rev Boyd: The Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges for Canada and the US. It is a group that is itself accredited by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which is recognized by the US Department of Education.
Mr Shea: Your DMin would still be seen as the more practicum degree?
Rev Boyd: That's correct.
Mr Shea: The DTh is somewhere between that and the DD? Or is it seen as more credible?
Rev Boyd: No. The DTh is the theological equivalent of a PhD.
Mr Shea: I know; I understand --
Rev Boyd: It's much more theoretical.
Mr Shea: It's much more thesis oriented. Is there a thesis required with a DMin?
Rev Boyd: There would be a project.
Mr Shea: What about the DD?
Rev Boyd: The DD is not going to be offered in the foreseeable future.
Mr Shea: Is there some reason why you're asking for it? What's your anticipation of that?
Rev Boyd: The reason it was put there was that if we decided to offer any degrees for honoris causa, it would be there for us to do so without having to come back to the Legislature.
Mr Shea: I have no further questions except to say that I certainly appreciate the presentation, understand the nature of the request and I have, obviously by moving the amendment, no difficulty supporting the application.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Shea. If you wish to make a motion, we will wait until clause-by-clause.
Mr Shea: If you would be good enough just to consider that having been tabled for the information of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further questions to the applicants?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm more interested in the question with respect to the membership on the board and how you want to deviate or give it a broader status from a citizen's viewpoint. Could you give us a little bit of background on that?
Rev Boyd: There would be a number of reasons for that. One is that our college covers a constituency of churches from Thunder Bay to St John's, Newfoundland. Within our denominational structure, that also includes Bermuda. We have churches, students and representation from Bermuda. One of the reasons would be to allow Bermuda in, so we're not Canadian citizens. The other is that as we are trying to maintain openness to the various cultural realities in our own country, there may be people who have landed-immigrant status who wouldn't have qualified before, not being citizens of Canada. It opens it up for them.
Mr Gerretsen: What do you propose, then? I understand your board of directors will be composed of no more than 24 people. Would there be no more than X number who would not be citizens of Ontario? Are you proposing anything along that line?
Rev Boyd: As far as citizens of Ontario, we have the majority just by the structure of our denomination. Citizenship of Canada or permanent residency must be at least 50% of the board of governors. About one quarter to one third of the governors are from outside the province of Ontario, meaning Newfoundland, the other maritime provinces and the province of Quebec.
Mr Gerretsen: And you expect that ratio to be the same in the foreseeable future?
Rev Boyd: Yes. According to the structure that's put here, it has to stay pretty well that.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): You might just lay out for me what degrees you're able to grant now and which ones are the new ones.
1020
Rev Boyd: At the present time, we are only granting first-level degrees, bachelor's degrees. The additions, especially the cross-cultural studies in ministry, are new designations that we felt were important, considering the fact that a number of our graduates are going into closed-access countries and something that says "theology" in big letters is not necessarily appreciated.
We are looking at expanding to the master's and doctorate level over a period of time. We're not going to jump to that at once, but our long-term planning is looking to add those degrees.
Mr Martin: The bachelor's degrees that you offer are the ones listed here?
Rev Boyd: Yes. In fact, the bachelor of ministry degree is little used, but the bachelor of theology is our primary degree. I'd say about 80% to 90% of all bachelor's degrees would be the bachelor of theology, followed by the bachelor of religious education.
Mr Shea: I gather that your master's and doctoral levels will also be offered at distance?
Rev Boyd: At the present time, we wouldn't start there. We would start with on-campus and follow a fairly normal format. However, with the demands on education, I could see the master's degree moving to that within five years.
Mr Shea: Is your bachelor's degree currently offered totally at distance?
Rev Boyd: It is in the third year of offering at distance, so we have no one who has graduated from that yet. Our distance education is offered in two forms. One is through setting up regional centres. In Ontario we have them in Mississauga, Waterloo, London; Chatham is opening in September, and Agincourt is also opening. In those particular contexts, 25% of the teaching is done by locally appointed, part-time faculty, who meet the normal criteria. Another 25% is offered through our own faculty, who either travel to the location or offer a course through video-conferencing. The other 50% is offered through courses on the Internet.
Mr Shea: Do you expect that same ratio to continue for a master's degree?
Rev Boyd: I believe so. One of the challenges we face is that the accrediting associations are running to catch up with the new technology. Some of the rules have not been firmly established yet, but we will be abiding by whatever those regulations will be.
The Chair: Are there any further questions? Are the members ready to vote? We're voting on Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College, sponsored by MPP Stewart. I'll go through this section by section. I understand there is a motion concerning section 2.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
With respect to section 2, are there any amendments?
Mr Shea: If I can read the writing here, I move that clause 7(j) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting "master of cross-cultural studies in ministry" after "bachelor of cross-cultural studies in ministry" in the fifth and sixth lines.
The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? I declare this amendment carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.
I wish to thank the parties. I declare the first order of business closed.
CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998
Consideration of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.
The Chair: We'll continue with our next order of business. As I have indicated, I understand that both parties are amenable to reverse the order of items 2 and 3 on our agenda. This means that at this time we will be dealing with the third item on our agenda, Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario. The sponsor for this bill, filling in for Bill Saunderson, is MPP Jack Carroll, Chatham-Kent. I would ask Mr Carroll for some introductory remarks and then we would ask the applicants to introduce themselves.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'm happy to be here this morning on behalf of Bill Saunderson to introduce the representatives of the Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario and Bill Pr21. We have three representatives from the society, plus two of their counsel members sitting in the audience. We have the president, Bill Ross, the vice-president, George Hammond, and a member of the board of directors, Rick Penton, sitting with me at the table. David McFadden, a partner in Smith Lyons, and Neil Guthrie, an associate at Smith Lyons, who are counsel to the Canadian Information Processing Society, are in the audience, should they be required.
At this point in time, I'd like to turn the microphone over to Mr Ross, the president, for opening comments.
Mr William Ross: Mr Chairman, honourable members of the committee, we're here today to ask your support in the passage of An Act respecting the Canadian Information Processing Society, CIPS for short. I'd like to tell you a little bit about who we are, why we're here and why we feel this act is significant.
During the Second World War a great deal of highly secret research was taking place into the development of computing machines that could be used to crack enemy codes. Although Britain, the US and Canada funded the research as part of the war effort, most of it took place in universities because computing was the domain of mathematicians. These computing devices, with names like ENIAC, were the machines that in a few short decades evolved into the electronic computers that now play such a central role in all our lives.
At the University of Toronto, just out the window here, a young professor of mathematics by the name of Calvin C. Gotlieb, Kelly to his family and friends, was part of this research. In the years following the war, computing technology advanced rapidly from gears to electromechanical relays to vacuum tubes, and Kelly Gotlieb decided that Canada needed an association where people who were part of this computer revolution could meet and exchange ideas. So in 1958, with the support of colleagues at other universities, he founded the organization that is now called the Canadian Information Processing Society. CIPS' national office is here in Toronto and this year marks our 40th anniversary. Although Kelly Gotlieb has long since retired, he remains a highly respected source from whom we still seek advice and support.
CIPS has always been in the forefront of information technology in Canada. In 1970, we established the accreditation council to accredit university information technology programs and to provide guidance to university faculties regarding their curricula. Today, CIPS-accredited programs are offered at universities across Canada, including such Ontario institutions as Waterloo, Western, McMaster, Carleton, York and the University of Ottawa.
1030
Over the years, CIPS has grown from a small dedicated band of academics to more than 7,500 members from coast to coast, about 2,000 of whom live in Ontario. As the society grew, we recognized the need to distinguish a special group of people in the information technology field, people who are committed to reaching and maintaining a high level of education, experience and professionalism. In 1989, after two years of planning and preparation, CIPS granted the first information systems professional of Canada designation, the ISP. Today Ontario has 435 certified information technology practitioners, who make up a significant portion of the 2,000 ISPs across the country.
What kind of people have made the commitment to this sort of professionalism? All kinds, but especially people who bear a lot of responsibility for keeping information technology working and who take that responsibility very seriously. They're small business owners like Rick Penton; university registrars like George Hammond; senior managers like Hugh Kelly, ISP, vice-president of information technology at the LCBO; public servants like John Baker, ISP, director of information systems at Kingston General Hospital; health care systems providers like Peter Bailey, ISP, of Medex systems development group.
They work for organizations with names like Bell, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, Client Server Management, the Law Society of Upper Canada, Metropolitan Life, Deloitte and Touche, Previse Inc, Ontario Hydro, Revenue Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the RCMP.
They live in small towns and big cities all over the province: Arthur, Windsor, Toronto, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Ottawa, Georgetown. They all share a common commitment to success, professionalism, ethics and the public good, and they do so voluntarily. This bill does not confer any exclusivity of practice.
The ISP designation they all hold is now recognized around the world. CIPS has agreements with the British, Australian and New Zealand computer societies, which provide for the mutual recognition of our respective professionals. CIPS was a founding member of IFIP, the International Federation of Information Processing Society. We're a member of SEARCC, the Southeast Asia Regional Computer Conference.
Besides sending a positive message to Ontario, Canada and the world about the quality of Ontario's information technology professionals and their products and services, passage of this bill will make another important difference. For the first time, it will give the citizens of Ontario a degree of protection that they have not heretofore had with regard to information technology. They will have a clear means of seeking redress if they feel they have been ill served by an information technology professional.
Mr Saunderson, the honourable member for Eglinton and sponsor of this bill, hit the nail on the head when he said: "This is about quality. It's like an ISO-9000 registration on an individual." He's right. It's about individual quality, quality of a workforce and quality of life for every citizen who's affected by information technology.
We thank you for your attention to this important matter. We would be happy now to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ross. Before we go to questions, are there any interested parties? Seeing none, we now go to MPP Ernie Hardeman, parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, for comments on the part of the government.
Mr Hardeman: We thank you for the presentation. For the committee's information, the bill was circulated to the government ministries and no negative comments or comments of any other kind were received to suggest that there was anything inappropriate that was in the bill that shouldn't be there or that it was not a good venture to be embarked upon. I personally will be supporting the bill, and I leave the rest to the committee for their decision.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments to Mr Hardeman or to the applicants?
Mr Shea: I'm just delighted to see in our presence the distinguished former member of this Parliament, David McFadden, who has given a statutory declaration as well to the application. We've had a number of similar applications before this committee. This has been well presented and I am very pleased to support it, based upon the strong testimony also given to it by our member from Chatham, Mr Carroll.
Mr Hardeman: This is a personal question, I suppose. I was just wondering, as this is, as Mr Saunderson said, like an ISO-9000 for individuals, what is in place to define what that standard would be? If this bill is approved and an individual has that designation, how can I be assured that the calibre of expertise coming forward is the calibre I can expect as opposed to a calibre that you as an organization have set so you can get everyone who has ever turned a computer on as part of your association?
Mr Ross: There are two answers to the question. The first has to do with the designation being granted in the first place, and the second is what's required to maintain the designation once you've got it. We have a certification council which grants the designation. We have a set of criteria that are available to the public to review. They range from a requirement for somebody to complete an accredited four-year university program and then to have two years of work experience, at which point they can then apply for the designation -- it varies. Non-accredited university or college programs require more work experience. As an example, getting to the far end of the spectrum, a two-year technology program from a community college would require up to seven years' work experience before a designation would be granted. People with the designation then are required to get 100 hours per year of continuing education or study related to their professional designation.
The Chair: Do committee members have any further questions? Are the members ready to vote?
We're voting on Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario. MPP Carroll is filling in for the sponsor, MPP Saunderson. In keeping with tradition and with your permission, I wish to collapse several sections for the vote.
Shall section 1 right through to section 13 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.
I declare the bill passed.
I thank the applicants and declare this order of business closed.
MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998
Consideration of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. I see that the applicants have approached the witness table. This bill is sponsored by MPP Jack Carroll, member for Chatham-Kent. I would ask Mr Carroll for some opening remarks and subsequently we would ask the applicants to introduce themselves.
Mr Carroll: It's probably unusual that one member would get to do this twice in a row, but I have a touch more interest in this particular issue.
Mr Hardeman: You do it so well.
Mr Carroll: I'll stay here until I get it right. I trust everybody will be as easy on my friends from Chatham-Kent as they were on the last group.
The bill we're dealing with, of course, is a bill that our community of Chatham-Kent needs to finish off the significant restructuring process that has been going on that puts the wonderful community of Chatham-Kent at the forefront of municipal restructuring. There are a few little issues that need to be tidied up and they're represented in this particular bill.
With me this morning on behalf of the community is Hugh Thomas, who is the chief operating officer of the community -- I probably don't even have his title right, but he was the boss on this; Brian Knott, who's the director of legal services; and Tim Dick, who's the manager of drainage services. Their counsel is Ian Lord from the firm of Weir and Foulds.
At this point, Mr Chairman, with your permission, I'll turn the microphone over to Mr Ian Lord.
Mr Ian Lord: I'll be very brief, members. Chatham-Kent does appreciate the opportunity of bringing forward private legislation to deal with certain matters that were not included in the restructuring order. Chatham-Kent was restructured effective January 1 of this year under an order of the late Dr Peter Meyboom. As you may know, it collapsed some 23 separate municipalities into one single-tier area municipality.
1040
Just briefly in terms of geography, the area of that municipality is something in the order of 2,500 square kilometres, approximately the size of Prince Edward Island, measuring, to go to the other system, 65 miles in length by 45 miles in width. It has some 4,000 kilometres of municipal drains, and that's the principal ingredient in the bill. It is an agricultural community in its makeup, but it's urban in the sense that 70% of the population of 110,000 is urban. But the majority of the geographic area is flat, with reliance upon municipal drain systems.
The municipality expects to administer itself through a series of service centres and has brought forward a bill that provides certain powers that had not been addressed in the Meyboom order. It has undergone an intensive evolution in the last several weeks. We've had excellent cooperation from the ministries of agriculture and food, consumer and commercial relations and municipal affairs.
The three principal areas the bill addresses include the area rating of a listed set of specified services that were not included in the order. These will provide for the municipality to continue tax equity of the municipal rural areas and further a philosophy of user-pay for services: urban users pay for urban services and rural users pay for the rural.
It also addresses a number of drainage area matters and constitutes a drainage tribunal, which will effectively take the hearing time away from council and allow that to be dealt with by an appointed committee of local people close to the municipal drains, while reserving to council the legislative function of actually implementing the recommendations of the drainage tribunal. It's a very important time-saving and administrative device.
Finally, there are an additional number of miscellaneous matters that are being dealt with: setting the term on the public utilities commission and matters dealing with some road closings. They're quite modest and incidental matters.
In conclusion, the bill is needed for the issuance of tax notices for this year. The premise of the bulk of the bill is to permit the continuity of the user-pay tax equity approach to the specified listed area rating services.
If I can be of assistance, we do have a set of amendments that we support. They are more detailed than that overview.
The Chair: We can come to that in due time. Any other comments from the applicants before we continue?
On the agenda there are a number of interested parties listed. Are there any interested parties present that wish to make comment? Could you approach the microphone, please. I'll ask you to identify yourself.
Mrs Greta Thompson: My name is Greta Thompson. I'm a resident of Chatham-Kent. I have been involved in the restructuring from the very beginning, including public and private presentations and letters to Dr Meyboom. I have been involved in one of the areas the bill addresses, environmental protection, for over 30 years and have spoken to other standing committees. I have concerns about this bill and I have asked for the opportunity to present them.
First, I'd like to talk briefly about the process. The official notice in our newspaper includes exemption from the requirements of section 7 of Ontario regulation 104/94, which requires the establishment of a blue box waste management system. The six pages faxed to me at 15:02 on Friday night don't seem to have that set out clearly. I have just received a whole bunch of amendments today. Two working days' notice to prepare arguments to the bill, without even the opportunity to clarify points of reference, as requested in my letter of May 27, 1998, isn't enough notice for me to address this properly.
The legality is another concern. The provisions in the bill conflict and interfere with other acts and legal arguments, legal processes in process. They especially interfere with the EA in progress, the EPA and the EAA. In a letter directly from Al Leach to me, the concern of the interference has been repeatedly expressed. I quote Mr Leach from his letter of September 11, 1997: "The terms of reference given to the commission allowed for a comprehensive review of local government in Chatham-Kent. This authority did not allow the commission to intervene in the environmental assessment process."
I participated fully in the restructuring. The legal issues include conflicts between the Assessment Act and the Drainage Act that we have identified; process for relocating drains -- and again, I would refer you to my letter of October 8 to Al Leach; and recycling -- I refer you to my letter to Dr Meyboom of April 5, 1997, reference number 3. I'll just repeat that briefly:
"Dr Meyboom:
"The separation of responsibility for garbage collection from the upper-tier authority for waste management, including disposal, places the upper tier at a serious disadvantage when it comes to waste diversion strategies. Attached to a mandate to provide for waste disposal is a responsibility for waste diversion. The most effective municipal waste diversion strategies involve at-source separated recyclables and compostables, and for those strategies to work separated curbside collection streams are essential."
That was prepared with input from a trusted friend.
I also refer you to a letter to Norm Sterling on this issue, dated July 23, another letter from Andrew Wright. He was the former counsel of Kent county. It's included in the submissions. He deals at length with the recycling issue in Chatham-Kent: "The use of funds, administrative powers, conflict of interest re: the use of funds and authority for the use of funds, tax assessments of waste sites and property buffers and conditional discretionary powers are all related to legal arguments already presented but not addressed nor resolved, and are included in the EA in process."
Again, my lawyer's submission on this, dated December 16, 1997 -- an at-length report typed with the help of ministry staff, May 14, 1997.
Bylaws and transfers of same remain outstanding. As late as last night, we had another letter on the issue of bylaws, a legal issue that went to the Ministry of the Environment and is part of the EA.
The letter from Mr Ng, dated December 18 -- again, a legal issue.
My concerns over the conflict implications of restructuring on the EA process were submitted many times. I have not been approached by Chatham-Kent at all to address any of those issues or have input into them.
Again, there is a letter of follow-up from Andy Wright, and I've attached that as reference number 11.
The conflict of interest is set out in the host community fees -- I've brought it with some of my concerns -- between BFI and Chatham-Kent. I believe this agreement creates a conflict when you apply many of the provisions they're asking for in the bill. It denies Ontario equal opportunity under our laws in the area of environmental protection. Many years ago, my government tried to form a partnership with the operator for a hazardous waste disposal site in Chatham-Kent. Didn't we already win that legally in the courts? In this case it's even worse, because some clauses commit Chatham-Kent to support and not oppose BFI's operation. I assure you I'm not here today to lay blame. I have some serious concerns over how we enter the new age and how we do a better job protecting our environment.
1050
The use of BFI payments to my municipality and legalities of same are not just a problem for me. My council rep from south Kent told me that they are seeking a legal opinion on this and they do not have it yet. They have no idea when they will get the legal opinion from council on the use of funds. News articles and letters in the paper express further concerns over the funds and relationship and accountability of environmental protection. As a matter of fact, I believe if you check you'll find one of these editorials was nominated for an award. Since there are legal claims coming down the pike, use of funds may predetermine the legal outcome if you apply these provisions. Again, reference my letter of August 5, 1997.
This bill will damage the environment unnecessarily and may deny most affected residents protection from the adverse impacts of landfills in Chatham-Kent, and we have more than one. As a resident, I believe administrative staff have too much power already. They do not need additional powers.
An example is the host agreement. It was drawn up behind closed doors with no opportunity for input for this most affected resident. Some residents were represented at some of these decisions and discussions. They were the residents who support the operation, the expansion and the expanded service area and who get paid by the volumes transported to Chatham-Kent. Those who opposed and received no payments, and are the most affected, were not included.
Some council members were not fully aware of the implications of the clauses in the contract. Discretionary powers of directors and decisions by municipal boards are also of great concern and again are being argued at this very time as part of the EA process.
This bill places this community at financial risks if Ridge or Gore's closes. Again, I refer you to Mr Wright's submission on the EA on how recycling could allow Chatham-Kent to use only one site if the other site closes.
Chatham-Kent only has 22,000 tonnes of garbage projected for disposal this year. Although there is great financial incentive to bring close to a million tonnes per year from long distance, including Toronto, that's not good for the environment. Why not reduce and recycle Chatham-Kent's waste by 50% and shift the only remaining 11,000 tonnes, the lesser amount, the further distance?
It's time the landfill business shared the pain of restructuring and environmental protection. There should be no incentive to make landfill a growth industry. The broad exceptions of recyclables limits opportunities to reach a satisfactory compromise. There are part compromises. Dropoff boxes might be added to the front gates of the landfill. That's only one example.
Some provisions are not needed. The municipality has the financial resources to meet some of the requirements without an exemption from waste reduction. If it's not going to address impacts in the immediate impact area or waste reduction, what's all the money being paid to the municipality for? Are those funds to buy cooperation, to buy our environment needlessly with Toronto's waste?
They're in the black ink. They have a reserve in the municipal host fees. It may set a precedent for other restructuring efforts. If Chatham-Kent is exempted, then what about St Thomas-Elgin, London-Middlesex, Sarnia-Lambton, mega-Toronto? Will exemptions or special conditions for recyclables set a precedent? We've set it many times before in waste disposal in Chatham-Kent.
If you grant it to a rich municipality, can you deny it to a poor one? Can we have a successful waste reduction program without a blue box? What are the impacts on the other reduction operations?
Do the exemption of special provisions hide the real cost of restructuring? The budget this year may be in the black, but what's the real cost? No doubt, restructuring in Chatham-Kent has been done directly on the back of environmental protection and most affected residents around landfills.
I have a list of some of the losses -- I won't take your time today to read them, but they are here -- that environmental protection has suffered as a result of restructuring that don't show up on the restructuring costs.
Gentlemen, along with downloading and responsibility for waste disposal comes the obligation to protect Ontario's environment and people, now and in the future. We have failed to do that in Chatham-Kent before and especially after restructuring. Waste reduction targets are not being met. Our environment and people are not being protected from landfills.
Lucrative waste, skimmed off the top and transported long distance, with payments to encourage same: These payments are not put to waste reduction nor do they address impacts in the impact area and are used for other things. This also has and will increase the cost of waste disposal for other municipalities and the viability of waste reduction efforts in other municipalities across Ontario.
When we granted an all-Ontario licence behind closed doors and broke a condition on a limited service area, we made this an all-Ontario restructuring of waste disposal issues. I am concerned some of these provisions are fast-tracked for BFI's bid for mega-Toronto's business. I have letters also supporting those concerns. One of them is from our solicitor to the minister, and the response is here.
I've heard municipalities in the past argue the need for payments for volumes and landfill because of the expense of administering a landfill and the impacts of same. But the money isn't spent on that. The legal bills and bills for administration and other benefits are usually paid on top of the per-dollar, per-tonne. These payments are used for other purposes.
When you look at these provisions and you look at the advertising for business, is there anything to prevent or protect me from the host fees being used to promote and advertise Chatham-Kent as all Ontario's dump for Toronto's and all Ontario's garbage? Is that possible with this provision?
I know my words are strong. They represent only a few of my concerns over this bill. I haven't had enough time to go into it at length. Only a few of my documents are referenced; we have boxes of them. But I assure you I am not here to lay blame. I am here as a victim of restructuring. It's nice to see the dollars and the black ink, but remember the victims. Some of them are not here today to let you know about the victims, especially the silent one: environmental protection.
There are some things you can only learn from the day-to-day reality of life in a dump. I realize that our administrative staff in Chatham-Kent have met impossible expectations on their time. I've seen the fatigue in their eyes when they are at meetings. That's why I am here.
The things I've learned over 30 years of addressing and being involved in environmental issues -- I am here to help my municipality, Ontario and you as a committee to avoid past mistakes, to take all of Ontario's environment and people safely into the new restructured age.
When the condition in our approved C of A for a limited service area was broken and an all-Ontario licence issued, it became an all-Ontario issue -- behind closed doors, over our objections, without even any hearings, without an opportunity to present or address our concerns.
We lost the value of any EA process, the C of A and conditions, environmental protection efforts. We need to protect Ontario's environment and people from the potential environmental atrocities in the restructured municipalities in Ontario now and in the future.
To do that, I would suggest the following. I don't mean to be presumptuous. I feel that along with the problems I should present some thoughts of how they may be solved. Remove any recycling exemptions or amendments or references to same from this bill and exempt all waste disposal decisions and funding, including all waste disposal reduction operations and funding, from the provisions of this bill entirely. In other words, the provisions of this bill should not apply to anything in the waste disposal and waste reduction areas.
This is something I came particularly to present. In our discussions alone with Dr Meyboom he referenced something like a commission when I was presenting my concerns. So item (b) to my suggestion would be: Establish an independent board or commission, with members to be elected and terms of reference to include authority to exercise council powers otherwise within the authority of council under the Municipal Act, EPA, EAA etc, for all waste disposal reduction services, budgets and funding.
1100
No man can serve two masters. It is unreasonable to expect our council to make needed environmental decisions when they are getting money and incentives directly and are bound to cooperate to damage the same.
That the former Kent county counsel, with his expertise and long history and experience in Chatham-Kent's waste disposal issues, be retained to serve the legal needs of the board and the commissioner.
I believe some of this could have been addressed and resolved before it came to you had he been there as our line of communication. We simply cannot lose the experience and the long-term knowledge that he has gained. We can't start over again; it's too expensive.
The other option would be to reject this bill outright. The third one could be to table this bill until the EA process, the court interventions or appeals have been decided in the areas that relate to many of the provisions in this bill. We can turn this province's worst-polluter status around or add to it by the decisions we make in our own backyard every day.
If a landfill had not moved into my backyard over my objections more than 30 years ago, and expanded to an all-Ontario mega-dump over the years, I would not be here to present this to you, to tell you all the things I've been forced to learn from it. I would not be thinking about the things I'm thinking about today if it were not for that.
I thank you for your time. I thank Mr Thomas and Chatham-Kent staff especially. I realize you're doing the best you can under the circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Thompson, for your submission. If you could return to your chair. Can you remain, if there are any questions when we come to that section of the agenda?
Are there any other interested parties that wish to approach the microphone?
Mr Carroll, could you return to the table.
At this point on the agenda I would now ask MPP Ernie Hardeman, parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, for comments from the government.
Mr Hardeman: Good morning, gentlemen and Mrs Thompson. As was mentioned in the presentation of the bill, it's a bill that comes out of the concerns that have arisen as the Chatham-Kent restructuring is being implemented. As Mr Meyboom did the restructuring order, there were some things that were left somewhat general. As the implementation people started to work they realized there were some areas that were not going to operate as effectively and efficiently as the people would like, so they've come forward with this bill to address some of those concerns.
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the presentation. As it relates to the Environmental Protection Act, I would suggest my understanding -- and maybe Mr Thomas from the city of Chatham-Kent could enlighten me -- is that it is as Mr Leach said in his letter, that the Environmental Protection Act applies to the new city of Chatham-Kent as it would have applied to the lower-tier and the upper-tier municipalities in the past. There are no exemptions being granted in the bill as it presently stands.
As we look at some of the other concerns that were put forward by Mrs Thompson, I would suggest that we will have a number of amendments to deal with some of those concerns. As the bill was reviewed in the last short period of time, with all the ministries and the city of Chatham-Kent involved, a number of those same concerns that you have addressed were pointed out in the bill. There will be a number of amendments coming forward as we deal with this bill this morning that I will be introducing, open for committee debate. Committee can make their judgement calls on whether those amendments will deal sufficiently with some of the concerns that were expressed.
With that, the government is generally supportive of the bill, provided that the committee deals with the amendments in the fashion that would look after the concerns that were raised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs as it related to the drainage part, and some of the other areas that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs had some concerns with.
For the committee's purposes, I would say that the concerns that came out of the debate arose from the fact that Chatham-Kent put forward the proposals based on how best to deal with their concerns that in some areas in fact they were going beyond what other municipalities in similar circumstances could and would be able to do. The amendments will hopefully try to address that. It deals with the needs of the new city of Chatham-Kent, but at the same time they are also still bound by and have to adhere to the same type of rules and regulations that other municipalities are guided by. That will hopefully address a lot of the concerns that were raised in the presentation previously.
With that, I'm quite prepared to answer questions as they relate to the amendments that the government will be putting forward. I would end my comments there and we'll address them. Maybe, Mr Chair, I could ask Mr Thomas from Chatham-Kent to address the environmental issues that were raised.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Hugh Thomas: Mr Hardeman, you are quite correct. The same rules that apply to Ontario apply to Chatham-Kent. As a matter of interest, there was a provision in the draft bill to exempt areas that had not received blue box from the provision of the blue box legislation. Recognizing that there are large portions of farm communities that do not have blue box, we didn't want to impose that charge. It's since been pointed out to us that there are existing provisions in existing legislation to deal with that matter and therefore it has been removed from the bill.
The Chair: We now go to questions, questions to the parliamentary assistant, to the applicants or interested parties.
Mr Gerretsen: I have a number of questions just to get it straight in my own mind. We've been given a series of amendments. Whose amendments are these? Are these the ministry's amendments? Are they the applicant's amendments? Are they in order to deal with Mrs Thompson's objections? Where did this come from, this package of about 20 amendments?
The Chair: Who is best to answer that question?
Mr Lord: Over the last several weeks, with the four ministries principally, we have been discussing an initial draft of a bill that was forwarded by Chatham-Kent to the legislative counsel. Through that period of discussion we have looked at public legislation and, in some cases, decided that the public legislation adequately addressed the issue the municipality would have sought. Several of the amendments include advice to you that the applicant is recommending voting against the original draft. It's an evolutionary process.
All of the amendments that the member speaks to are supported by the municipality as a result of a consultative process that has taken place over the past several weeks.
Mr Gerretsen: So the municipality is putting these forward?
Mr Lord: Yes, we are, and supporting them.
Mr Gerretsen: Then, if I could ask a question of Mrs Thompson at this stage.
The Chair: Mrs Thompson, would you approach the microphone again, please.
Mr Gerretsen: I understand that you went through quite a bit of history of your involvement in this. I think you should appreciate that I as a member of the committee, and I dare not speak for the other members of the committee, really don't know that much about the local situation, other than the restructuring process that went through over the last year or two.
As far as your concerns are related, do I take it that you have mainly an objection with respect to paragraph 2 of subsection 2(1) whereby in effect the council can get different rates established for refuse collection, recycling and disposal? Is that what you're --
Mrs Thompson: No, sir. There are many areas. You have to remember that the only two pieces of information I have received to date is the official notice in the paper and the bill, the six pages that were faxed to me Friday night, which conflict with the official notice in the paper.
I have not had the opportunity to investigate it or address it. I don't know how what I'm saying will be impacted by the amendments you just got. Nothing that I have said is reflected in any of the documents to date. My presentation to you is the only thing I've done.
1110
There are other provisions in the bill, legal implications, as it relates to the impact on the EA in process. We have an environmental assessment that is down the tubes. It was with the EA department. I understand it's now somewhere in the minister's office waiting for a decision. But a lot of the issues and the provisions this bill is addressing may predetermine the outcome of our concerns. I don't believe, even if it goes to a board, a board can interfere with another act. We have some legal concerns. We would like the environmental assessment process to be allowed to handle those concerns, then, through the appeals or the courts or whatever, because when it comes to many of those provisions -- use of funds, authority of administrative staff -- a lot of those things are directly related to issues that we have presented and suggestions and recommendations we've made in that regard. Am I making it clear?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, you're making it clear. I have a question, then, of Mr Hardeman. Do you agree with that, that basically this act only deals with restructuring and does not in any way, shape or form deal with any of the environmental matters?
Mr Hardeman: Our position would be that in fact the Environmental Protection Act applies to the new city of Chatham-Kent in exactly the same way it applied to the lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities jointly prior to the restructuring. The present act deals with procedural matters particularly. I think Mrs Thompson mentioned the issue of farm drainage. I can assure her that has been a major item of discussion that we've had to address in the last number of days with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, as to how that process could be implemented to make sure that the principles of the Drainage Act apply, again, in the same way in Chatham-Kent, even though it's a single-tier municipality, as they presently apply.
Mr Gerretsen: Those amendments are here. We'll be dealing with them.
Mr Hardeman: Yes, we will be dealing with those amendments. In my understanding of the bill, there are no situations where this bill would in any way override the requirements under the Environmental Protection Act or direct the environmental appeals tribunal to rule in any way because of what's in this bill. I guess the concern is that somehow what happens in this bill may predetermine an environmental assessment decision, and my understanding is that there would be nothing in this bill that would do that.
Mr Gerretsen: Could I ask for Mrs Thompson's response to that? Does she want to say something?
Mrs Thompson: There are some legal issues of concern. I'll make it simple in regard to the drainage, for example. We went through drainage around the site. The drains are the boundaries of the landfill. We've already gone through one conflict between the Drainage Act and the process and the EA, where the drain was moved and the additional agricultural land acquired by moving that drain was then used for ancillary purposes of the site. Our first level of appeal, our first approach, would be to the municipality, the council members and the council that received the funds from the expansion, a council that is committed to support and not oppose in some cases. We have already raised issues such as this before the board, legal issues between conflicts of acts.
If you approve this, what happens when the Howard drain, for instance, which is a new boundary, is proposed to be relocated before the EA decision comes in? What process do we use? It's making some very difficult legal matters for us. An issue that's already a legal matter is compounded by these special provisions.
Another one is the use of funding. Our own council is seeking legal counsel themselves on how they can use those funds. There's a real conflict and it's being hotly contested, such as use of the host fee funds for restructuring instead of environmental protection and adverse impacts. There are some legal issues. The council themselves don't have the answer yet. But this provision provides for some authority in spending funds. I understand the Environmental Protection Act applies to the new municipality; it's those legal and environmental issues that are in the pipes, in the EA process in progress.
This provision will also add to our cost of having to look back at all those provisions and see how they apply to what we've presented. The time frame for presenting those concerns has passed, the deadline is cut off. We don't have that opportunity any more. So we may be looking at a whole bunch of new concerns as far as the environmental assessment goes, but the time frame for presenting them has passed.
Mr Hardeman: Not to further the debate on the issue, I would just point out that the relationship between the concern expressed about the Drainage Act and the Environmental Protection Act as it relates to a landfill site or any other works within the municipality, the ramifications of that presently have been changed. The proponent, or the governance of the Drainage Act, is presently the city of Chatham-Kent; previously, before restructuring, of course it would have been the local municipality in that area. But the restructuring of Chatham-Kent changed the relationship. The opponent, or the people who have the concerns, are addressing it to the new city.
The proposals that are before us in this bill are strictly of how the city of Chatham-Kent wants to administer the function of drainage repairs and so forth. There will be an amendment coming forward that deals with the issue of them being allowed to give their full authority to an appointed board, that they would recognize that they will not be doing that, that in fact the board will be set up to work on behalf of council to get this information.
Regarding your concerns as they relate to the legalities of who the proponent and the opponent in a dispute around the landfill site would be, as it relates to the Drainage Act, they will not change in any way in this act.
Mrs Thompson: You have mentioned the municipality's authority to simply move them over to Chatham-Kent. I think you've missed that with the former municipality we had two levels in these legal and conflict-resolution matters. We had a local municipality that was receiving funding from the operation it was deciding on. We had the protection of the county level, which was independent, not receiving any money, to approach if there was a conflict. We've lost that whole independent level. We go directly with these provisions to the municipality that receives the funding.
Mr Hardeman: Again, not to debate the issue, I would suggest that the change of when you had two municipalities and when you now have one was done January 1 under the restructuring order. There is nothing in this bill that is before the committee today that would in any way change the relationship between the proponents in this instance as it relates to the Environmental Protection Act and the Drainage Act. How that will be ironed out will be the same before this bill as it will be after this bill if it's approved, save and except for those items you mentioned about the actual granting of authority of municipalities to the drainage board. There is an amendment coming forward to eliminate the ability to do that, to actually give someone else authority. I think in that way your concerns will be addressed in this bill.
The Chair: I had a question from Mr Boushy and then Mr Martin.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): First of all, I really believe in giving a municipality control over a lot of things. However, I was really disturbed by section 5 initially, giving complete control without any hearing or without having Ontario Municipal Board interference.
But the new section 5 of the bill still is not clear to me. There's a lot of legal arguing around that section. Does it give you the full authority without -- for example, subsection 5(1), "The approval of a full Ontario Municipal Board is not required for a bylaw." Then, "(a) The Ontario Municipal Board has a procedure in place...." It doesn't request the Ontario Municipal Board to give notice. If they do, then that's fine. But if they don't, then immediately the bylaw passed by the council takes over the next day. The council does not ask the municipal board to give any hearings. Am I right?
1120
Mr Lord: The way we had originally proposed that section would have removed the requirement of the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. But after discussions with the ministry, we have abandoned the request that the municipal board approval not be sought; rather we have left that approval requirement in place. With the amendment that is proposed, it is only in the circumstance where there is no objection to the passage of a bylaw to limit the access to a highway that the bylaw becomes effective.
So the main provision of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act that the Ontario Municipal Board approval is required will remain with this amendment. It is only in the event that no objection is taken to the application for the board's approval that the bylaw would become effective the day after the appeal period expired.
Mr Boushy: For the parliamentary assistant: Has the staff of municipal affairs, the senior staff, looked at these amendments? Are they satisfied with them?
Mr Hardeman: This was one of the concerns that the ministry had, the fact that the original bill allowed this process to happen without a reasonable appeal process for anyone who may be negatively impacted by this action. So the municipality suggested following exactly the same time lines as the Ontario Municipal Board would follow under present rules and regulations, save and except that presently the application would go to the Ontario Municipal Board and nothing would be finalized until the Ontario Municipal Board had gone through their waiting period to see if there were any objections and then waited until the municipal board made a decision and sent back the decision.
This here puts all the timelines and protections for the individuals involved in place in exactly the same way that it is everywhere else in the province, save and except that at the end of the process, if no one appeals, then the by-law comes into effect the day following the last day of appeal. They do not have to wait for the Ontario Municipal Board to make their decision. It puts all the protection in for the citizens, and it takes away some of the duplication and overlap as it relates to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Boushy: I want to go back to my original question. Did the senior staff at the municipal affairs department look at all the amendments and are they all in favour of them all?
Mr Hardeman: Yes.
Mr Boushy: They are? Okay.
The second question I have -- I have been on the St Clair Parkway Commission and I know the history of Chatham trying to suffocate or take over the property owned by the St Clair Parkway Commission within Chatham -- is there anything in this bill that gives you complete authority to take over or suffocate or interfere in the property owned by the St Clair Parkway Commission?
Mr Lord: The answer is no. There's nothing in this bill that would deal with property or authority related to the St Clair Parkway Commission.
Mr Boushy: What name does the St Clair Parkway Commission property come under within the municipality of Chatham? Is it owned by the St Clair Parkway Commission or by the government of Ontario? Who owns that property? Who has the title for it?
Mr Thomas: The St Clair Parkway Commission.
Mr Martin: I just want to go on the record as stating that this is a significant piece of work here, obviously with lots of implications and connections with various and sundry acts that are already out there. I want you to know that I didn't get it until I think it was yesterday. We went looking for this package, so we could take a look at it. We really didn't have much time to put much work into understanding the implications or the concerns that are raised in the package. Then today when we come in, we find that we have a significant package of amendments that also have, I would suggest, some serious implications and responses to some serious issues that have been raised that I would personally like some time to deal with.
There is no doubt in my mind but that this bill is driven by a very sincere interest on the part of Chatham-Kent and municipalities to come to terms with some pressures that are on them around the question of amalgamation and also the question of how they pay for the costs of delivering services that now have been downloaded because of the province's move to do that. I am wondering why this is before us and not before somebody else who could give it the attention it deserves. There are processes around here that call for more debate and study than this particular route which will see, if we pass this today, this go into the House and then be summarily scooted through third reading, probably about 11:45 tomorrow night.
When I consider the implications of all this on the people of Chatham-Kent, personally I don't feel competent at this point, because this is my first introduction to this, to be passing that kind of judgement. I take my role here at the Legislature very seriously and, whenever I make a decision on behalf of the people out there, whether it be my own jurisdiction or somebody else's, I want to feel confident that I understand the implications and that I don't do anything or be party to anything that will in the long haul be more hurtful than helpful, and I'm not convinced that this piece of legislation is going to be that.
My suggestion, Mr Chair, would be that we defer this until such time as at least I myself and my caucus and the people in my caucus who do research have a chance to go over this and find out just what the implications are and how it connects with other pieces of legislation and to consider whether there is a different route that this should be going through to make sure that we are connecting appropriately with the various pieces of legislation that are out there that will be affected and that what we do in the long run will be more helpful than hurtful.
The Chair: Thank you for that suggestion.
Mr Gerretsen: I must admit that I am starting to get many of the same concerns. We're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Here we're dealing this the day before the House recesses. I had hoped that this matter would have been raised two or three weeks ago so that if there were any major concerns that came out of the process, they could have been addressed in the meantime. You're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. I know what the spin will be. If the opposition were to vote against this bill, then we're somehow against the people in Chatham-Kent restructuring, but on the other hand, I think it's totally unfair to this committee to be given a major piece of restructuring work with some major amendments to it at the very last moment. It really hasn't given us any chance to study the entire matter.
I'm not here to delay the matter at all, but on the other hand, we have a very legitimate concern expressed by a member of the general public in Chatham-Kent who obviously has been quite heavily involved with this matter, and we're expected to deal with it immediately because of matters that were left out of the restructuring process. I don't know who is to blame here, whether the ministry is to blame, whether their restructuring order should have taken care of a lot of these issues that are raised now or whether it's the restructured municipality or Dr Meyboom's report. I have no idea where the blame lies, but I think it has put this committee in a heck of a place.
Just getting back to the section 5 issue that was raised by Mr Boushy, I want to understand this correctly. If you want the same rules and regulations to apply as far as the OMB is concerned as apply to every other municipality, why does this section even have to be in the act? I guess this is a question to Mr Hardeman. Why do we need this if there is already a procedure set out in the Ontario Municipal Board procedural guidelines?
1130
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that I can totally answer it. Obviously the original document included a process of controlling or creating controlled-access highways that, in the ministry's opinion, did not include the protection for the people who could be impacted in any way, positively or negatively, to have the legal process in place that they could have their concerns addressed. It was pointed out to the applicants, and the applicants have proceeded to put forward changes or amendments that would deal with the public's protection in the same way that all other people in the province have that protection, and that's the amendment that will be coming forward.
As to the total need of the section in the bill, I would defer to Mr Thomas from the city of Chatham-Kent. Maybe he could enlighten us on that, or Mr Lord.
Mr Lord: If I might take the liberty, there are three things. One, on the issue of section 5, Chatham-Kent has had referred to it or delivered to it, both by way of the assumption of former county roads and by way of restructuring, the privatization of the maintenance of provincial highways, a significant additional mileage of roads that otherwise weren't within the control of the municipality. We have prepared a map, and you can see the significant mileage. Controlled access of those highways has been vested in the municipality.
All this section would now do would be to ensure that if there was a controlled access bylaw passed in one of those links, if there were no objections to it, it would automatically be made effective. It wouldn't have the delay of an Ontario Municipal Board file being opened, pursued, held in abeyance and then finally a disposition made.
Mr Gerretsen: But isn't that the same thing with respect to all municipalities that have taken over provincial highways? How is your situation here different from other restructured municipalities or other municipalities in general that have taken over provincial roads? That's what I'd like to know.
Mr Lord: I think the only two other municipalities that have any comparison are your own, sir, Kingston-Frontenac and Pittsburgh township. That did a restructuring, not of the scale of Chatham-Kent, because it was left with most of the county still divided into area municipalities. The only other restructuring is Metropolitan Toronto in the city of Toronto, and it has an identical provision to this one in its bill.
Chatham-Kent is different in terms of the geographic area and the delivery of those links into the municipal system. It's true that every other municipality might benefit from having their bylaws made effective where no objections are taken. That's a matter that might be put on the docket for general enabling legislation. Chatham-Kent, in its initial approach, simply sought the removal of the approval power entirely, and rather than that being granted, assented to a collapsing of the administrative time to effect that purpose by this rather modest amendment.
Mr Gerretsen: Just so that I'm clear then, because it isn't quite what we were told before, the present process that's applicable elsewhere in the province is that all of these matters, whether there is an objection or not, have to be given OMB approval? That's correct, right?
Mr Lord: That's correct.
Mr Gerretsen: So you're trying to fast-track it here. That gets right back to the point that I was trying to make to Mr Hardeman earlier. If you're doing it here, why don't you change the Municipal Board Act and do it for all municipalities?
I totally disagree with you, Mr Lord. In the Kingston area, we went through a major restructuring of adding two rural townships to the old city of Kingston that probably add a land mass of about, I don't know, 30 times the pre-existing old city land mass. You have exactly the same situation, and what you're really trying to do is fast-track the situation here. I've got nothing against fast-tracking it, but why should you be given special powers in that regard? If it makes so much sense to the ministry that this is the way to go, it should apply to all municipalities. It gets rid of needless red tape, gentlemen. You're always so interested in that.
Why don't you give them directions to do that with respect to all other municipalities as well that are involved in similar situation? I don't think we should single out one municipality, give them that power and not give it to the rest.
The Chair: Mr Lord, and I think there's also a question from Mr Hardeman. I will mention I've got about five other questions waiting.
Mr Lord: Just very briefly sir. The two other matters were that, in terms of the presentation by Mrs Thompson, I can give you a little bit of a history, because I acted on behalf of the municipality in 1997 on the settling of a long-term waste management agreement between BFI and the city of Chatham. That's an agreement that was struck, signed and adopted by the new municipal council of Chatham-Kent. That has run in parallel to an EA application for an expansion of the Ridge landfill, and it is a matter that has been of some interest locally for many years. This bill does nothing in respect to that matter. It does not address environmental matters at all.
In terms of the creation and the link with drainage tribunals, the parliamentary assistant was absolutely correct. What this bill would do would be to simply remove some very significant air time from the Chatham-Kent council, transfer that hearing obligation to a board, leaving the council with the responsibility to deal with the legislative function. It makes no change in the relationship between waste management and the approval processes associated with the expansion of the landfill and drainage matters; in fact, it perhaps expedites it. It is essential to the council of Chatham-Kent that it not be vested with the time requirements to deal with these 4,000 kilometres of drains.
The final thing, sir, is that, in relation to the deferral, Chatham-Kent has an essential element of this bill being the special area rating issues that are necessary to have the power to issue the tax bills that have been held up so far this year. Without that power, we have no ability to treat the former area municipalities in any way commensurate with what their past practices have been. So this bill is essential to releasing the municipality to raise its revenues for the year.
The Chair: Do you wish to answer a question, Mr Hardeman? Then I go to Mr Leadston.
Mr Hardeman: I think, as it relates to the question of the OMB and the need for the OMB approval as opposed to just following the OMB time lines and considering approval if there are no objections, it relates to, as was mentioned by Mr Lord, the fact that the Metro Toronto act gave that to the Metro area for years and years and that has just been continued. The one difference was, as the applicant put this forward, in Toronto it not only does not require the OMB approval, it does not include the time lines that people could come forward and have their case heard before the decision became final.
Through the amendment we will be proposing that the protection for the public is the same in either case. It is really intended to remove that duplication and overlap, and I would sure take the members' comments forward to say that if this is good in Chatham-Kent, which in my opinion it is, it's good for a lot of other areas in the province too. Maybe the province should be looking at it rather than waiting for OMB approval to provide the situation where the public has those time line protections, but we only have the OMB process if someone requests it. The local people can make decisions on behalf of their local constituents, and if everyone agrees with that, that should be the final decision.
Mr Gerretsen: So you'll give me your undertaking that you'll bring this forward before tomorrow midnight, so that we can change it for all municipalities. Is that correct?
Mr Hardeman: No, that was not the commitment I was giving you.
Just very quickly if I could, Mr Chair, I think there was some comment about the timing of the bills coming forward and I apologize on behalf of the applicants as to how short the time frame is. But I would point out that the need for this bill has been generating over the past number of months. It wasn't evident on January 1 what changes needed to be made to make the system work effectively. If all the items in this bill had been recognized last fall, Mr Meyboom would have or could have included them all in his restructuring order, at which point none of this would have got back to this committee or any other committee. It would have become the way Chatham-Kent was governing.
It was just through the process of their amalgamation and integration of their systems that the need for some of these changes arose. As it relates to the timing of the amendments, I point out to the committee members, who I'm sure have all served on other government bills, that amendments always come forward at the conclusion of the hearings when it goes to clause-by-clause. There never are weeks of study on amendments, so I think there's not much difference here from what we would have on any government bill. I just reiterate the comments made by the applicants that the need to send out tax bills in Chatham-Kent dictates that this bill get approval or non-approval in the very near future so they can deal with the functioning of their municipality.
1140
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I agree with Mr Hardeman in the sense that on other committees, it's not unusual to have received a packet of amendments. I don't accept the argument of my learned colleague that this is irregular, the urgency and all of that. To me this has been the norm here and at other committees, to deal with that.
Mr Gerretsen: But not on a private bill.
Mr Leadston: With all due respect, I did not interrupt you when you've spoke, and I would appreciate that I have the floor. Thank you very much.
Mr Thomas and the members here presenting and the community have put a great deal of effort and time and energy, and I'm sure a great deal of expense in legal fees, to hone down and develop the act as we see it this morning with the proposed amendments. Personally, I don't see any further reason to sit here and debate some clause or interpretation of one word or one section. That's not my purpose; that's the purpose of a court. With that in mind, Mr Chair, I move that we call the vote.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr Shea: I always have a problem with closure motions at any time, although I don't mind it being done in the Parliament. That's a different matter, and I support that strongly. I want to tell you, it is in the committee where significant debates occur in terms of the substance of bills. I respect my colleague's attempt to facilitate matters and I know he'd like to do it for the deputants. I appreciate that, but I really am finding this debate of some interest and of help to me. I personally will not support the motion at this point, at least until I've had a chance to ask a couple of questions. I've been reasonably restrained to this point.
Mr Martin: Earlier, if you remember, I suggested deferring this. I didn't table that as a motion because I wanted to hear from others how they felt and some of the questions and comments they might have, because I don't want to put closure to this either. I still feel very strongly -- I'm not particularly interested in defeating it here this morning even if we had the potential to do that. I've got enough respect for the work that's been done to at least defer it so that we could study it a wee bit further and I could get the kind of background information I need to speak to it intelligently, because, as I said, I don't feel I've had the time to do that here today. I would certainly like to hear some of the comments and questions of other members before I would do that.
What I'm saying is that I was going to table a motion to defer, but I held back on that. I would hope that we wouldn't now be tabling a motion to vote before I get a chance to do that, if that's where we end up.
The Chair: Just for clarification, Mr Leadston is not moving closure.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, I can't move closure -- I've clarified that with the clerk -- until the motion is on the table to call for the vote, so I'm calling for the vote. If you would accept closure, I'll move closure.
The Chair: Mr Martin, you're still making a suggestion but not a motion.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Mr Chairman, it's not debatable, so just call the question. If he put a motion, I will vote on it.
The Chair: I understand that the motion from Mr Leadston is debatable before I call the vote.
Mr Shea: Who said that?
The Chair: I'm referring to the clerk; I can defer to the clerk on that.
Mr Shea: Could I hear the standing order reading that? My understanding is that when a member puts the question, that's non-debatable. It must be at least put to the committee immediately.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Viktor Kaczkowski): There is no question on the floor. Mr Leadston asked that we go to the vote. That's not the same thing as a closure motion. A closure motion indicates that further discussion -- and they vote on the motion on the floor. At this point in time, the only motion on the floor is Mr Leadston's motion that the committee begin voting on the bill.
Mr Shea: Okay. Not that there's much difference. That's "potato" and "potahto."
The Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Leadston's motion?
Mr Martin: If we're going to move to a vote, I was going to ask for a recess, but my colleague is back and I'm okay.
Mr Carroll: I'd just like to make a couple of comments and this is an appropriate time of day to make them, I believe. I understand where Mr Martin and Mr Gerretsen are coming from on this. This is in relation to Mr Leadston's motion. The restructuring request for our municipality came from the people in the municipality, and neither this committee nor anybody else had input into that particular restructuring order that was brought down.
That restructuring order that was brought down at the request of the citizens of Chatham-Kent has now created some issues that need to be resolved. The municipality has designed, with the help of their legal counsel, the resolution to those issues. They have brought them forward and presented them to the various ministries, and through a process of negotiation, the ministries have accepted, with modifications in some cases, the solutions by the local municipality.
We are moving to a system of more sophisticated government at the municipal level. We either allow municipalities a little bit more autonomy and the opportunity to simplify the processes, to get rid of some red tape, to do things that are appropriate for their municipality after due consideration at the municipal level, and legal consideration and ministry consideration -- while the idea is complex, I believe that the municipality understands what they're asking for, their counsel understands what they're asking for and our ministry people understand what they're asking for, and all concur. On that basis, I believe the legislation should go forward without any additional debate.
The Chair: We have a motion before us from Mr Leadston to commence voting on this bill.
Mr Shea: Chair, on a point of order: May I ask what that means? In your mind, what does that motion mean, "to commence voting"?
The Chair: That means that I would call the bill and walk through the sections and amendments --
Mr Shea: So in your mind, that will mean there will be no further discussion on the matter. You'll go directly to voting clause by clause. Is that what is in your mind?
The Chair: Well, there would be discussion on amendments, I would think. Yes, there would be opportunity for discussion on amendments.
Mr Shea: And on the bill in general before the final vote? Is that in your mind?
The Chair: Yes, it's done section by section. It's a clause-by-clause consideration of sections and amendments.
Mr Shea: Fine. I take your answer.
The Chair: Do you wish to repeat the wording of the motion? If not --
Mr Leadston: It's certainly clear in my mind and I trust it's clear in everyone's mind. What we have here is a group of individuals representing a significant municipality in our province who have brought to us something they would like to have developed in their community. I think it's our role to facilitate that, to accommodate the needs of this community and the needs of the citizens.
I'm asking that if you don't want to vote for it, then vote against it. I'm asking that we call the question to vote to approve or disapprove Bill Pr19.
1150
The Chair: Before I call the question, there are several hands up. Mr Sheehan, do you have discussion on this motion from Mr Leadston?
Mr Sheehan: I have questions I would like to ask of the deputants. I'm not opposed to this motion, but I want clarification. I'd love to support Mr Leadston's motion, but I can't because I don't think we've had enough information and I would like more information so I can make an enlightened decision. I don't think we have to refer it to a committee to be studied. I think the thing is pretty straightforward. I'm assured that the environmental concerns are taken care of by the environmental act. I am assured that we need to have local solutions for local problems. I would like to know what agriculture's concerns are and I would like these gentlemen to explain these bloody amendments. I don't think we can make any decision until we have that, so let's beat his motion down and get on with business. The clock is running.
Mr Leadston: Can I just ask a point of clarification, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Okay, and then I have further discussion on your motion.
Mr Leadston: Mr Sheehan's questions or concerns can be addressed. If he has questions with respect to the amendments, they can be addressed, as you indicated earlier, by questions to the amendment at that point in time. He can direct them to you or to the presenters. Am I correct?
The Chair: That's my understanding as explained by the clerk.
Mr Leadston: So, Frank, you can support my motion and still have your questions asked during the process dealing with each amendment.
Mr Sheehan: I don't want to have an interminable debate on each and every clause of this thing. I'd like them to answer all the questions at one time so we can make a decision. That's what I think we should have.
The Chair: Further discussion on Mr Leadston's motion? Seeing none, we have a motion before us from Mr Leadston. All in favour? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
We now continue with questions to the applicants, parliamentary assistant or interested parties --
Mr Carroll: Mr Chair, can I just ask one other procedural question? We've obviously got some questions. We don't want to go to the vote yet. It's certainly approaching the committee time here. Is there any other way we can deal with this issue? The municipality needs it. We have to get it approved. Is there some other procedure available to us other than this committee meeting this morning to deal with this issue? Can you give us that information?
The Chair: We have a suggestion to defer. I would perhaps --
Mr Shea: On a point of order, Chair: Will you ask the clerk to advise the committee, according to the standing orders, of the time this committee must stand down? Are we able to go until 1:30?
The Chair: I'm afraid we have gone past that on other committee business.
Mr Shea: We have gone past what? I didn't understand your response.
The Chair: Yes, we have. We have gone past -- I think you said 1:30.
Mr Shea: So I'm saying to you we can continue. I'm trying to respond to Mr Carroll's concern. We could in fact have this wrapped up within 20 minutes or half an hour. I want to make sure I'm not suddenly trapped by a magic finger of the clock that says, "You're done." I'd like to be assured by the Chair we can continue.
The Chair: We can continue if no one objects.
Mr Shea: Until what time? When does an objection take effect?
The Chair: When it's made.
Mr Shea: Come on. You're telling me now that if somebody made an objection at any time during a committee meeting?
The Chair: I think we were referring to this 12 o'clock.
Mr Shea: After 12 o'clock, and if they make an objection, what does that mean?
The Chair: Do you want to answer that question?
Clerk of Committees (Ms Lisa Freedman): This committee is authorized to meet in the mornings, and this committee can go until 12 o'clock. Committees have gone past 12, but if anybody objects, that's it.
Mr Shea: Then I will move that we continue this committee meeting until at least 1:30 pm.
The Chair: We have another motion. Discussion on Mr --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, I would just move unanimous consent to carry on with this discussion so we can come to a resolution to this matter.
Clerk of Committees: Unanimous consent you really can't move, or move it on a motion. You can just keep going and it's to the point where one person at any time can object after 12 o'clock.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, I will object, because I think I'm satisfied, and I trust I have partially satisfied my learned colleague to my right, in the sense that if he has concerns or any member of the committee has any concerns or questions of the staff, the ministry or the presenters, they can be adequately addressed during the process of moving the bill and the amendments. You have assured me of that, the clerk has assured me of that and in fact has assured the committee.
In a sense, the true essence is that all the questions will be dealt with and addressed as we go through the process, so then I object to the continuance beyond 12 o'clock.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Chair: What Mr Leadston is talking about: We just debated his motion to that effect. The point is, it's already been decided by this committee so let's move along.
Mr Gerretsen: I'll just give you notice right now that I have to leave at 12:30 for another meeting.
Mr Martin: I would table a motion right now to defer this piece of business until either the next time we meet or, if the applicants or the ministry determines that there's another route that we should go to deal with it, then they go ahead and do that.
Mr Shea: In that case, I'm prepared to vote right now.
The Chair: Mr Martin has tabled a motion to defer. Discussion?
Mr Hardeman: I would point out to the committee that a deferral is the same as a denial of the need for this bill for the city of Chatham-Kent because, as the committee members will be aware, in all probability the Legislature recesses tomorrow night and will not be back for summer. This would not allow the municipality of Chatham-Kent to deal with their taxation issues. I would vote against the recommendation to defer to a later date because in my opinion it is the denial of the bill and I don't think we're prepared to do that.
The Chair: Before we go on, I have further advice from the clerk.
Clerk of Committees: There's just one thing, and it's the answer to Mr Carroll's original question. There's nothing to preclude the House from allowing this committee to sit this afternoon or tomorrow or tomorrow afternoon, if that's the will of the House.
Mr Gerretsen: Just so that I'm clear, I don't believe the comment that's been made a number of times that if this bill isn't passed it prevents Chatham-Kent from sending out tax bills is correct, and I'd like some clarification on that. They may not be able to send tax bills in accordance with the provisions that they're given in this particular piece of legislation, of varying tax rates etc, but there's nothing to prevent them from sending out tax bills now that the assessment rolls are out or coming out, just like any other municipality. I don't think the impression ought to be left that somehow, if this matter isn't dealt with, the people in Chatham-Kent won't get a tax bill. They will get a tax bill, maybe not the kind of tax bill the council would like to send, depending upon the various rate structures, but tax bills can be sent out.
The Chair: Mr Shea, discussion on this? This is a motion from Mr Martin.
Mr Shea: The parliamentary assistant was absolutely correct. A motion to defer right now could be construed in some minds as mischievous. I don't believe that's what Mr Martin has in mind. I believe he genuinely would like to have more time to sort through this and to read it. I take him at his word, but I am pressed by the comments of the deputants that in fact this creates serious difficulties for them in terms of the tax notices. The parliamentary assistant has pointed that out correctly.
What puzzles and bemuses me is the earlier comment of Mr Gerretsen that he recognizes the significance and the rationale of this and would like to have this apply to all municipalities in Ontario. That's almost a direct quote. He's perhaps expressed a personal view of being offended that this municipality may have a chance to get a fast-track on other municipalities and would like to see this regularized through the Municipal Act. I understand that and I respect Mr Gerretsen's point of view, but what he has admitted is that this is good stuff for the municipality. With that in mind, Chairman, I'm quite prepared to take the vote right now, and I thank Mr Gerretsen for having clarified that matter for me.
Mr Gerretsen: I was referring to one particular section, sir, just for the record. That's section 5 of the act.
Mr Shea: That's the only section that concerns me.
The Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Martin's motion to defer?
Mr Hardeman: In order to deal with the issue at hand, I would be so bold as to make the suggestion that we deal with the bill section by section. If there are sections that Mr Martin or other members of the committee have a problem with, to not support those sections makes more sense than to not deal with the bill and defer the whole matter back to committee.
Interjection.
Mr Hardeman: No, I think the motion was to put the question. I'm not putting the question; I'm making a suggestion that that will do much more to facilitate this discussion. As we go through the sections, if you have a problem with the section, ask your questions and make your comments on that. I think we could then expedite this and deal with the matter before us.
Mr Shea: I'm moving the question be put, so you decide which one takes precedence.
The Chair: I have a motion before me from Mr Martin to defer and I'll call the vote on that motion.
Mr Shea: That takes precedence over putting the question?
The Chair: Yes. I just mentioned that I have a motion on the floor from Mr Martin to defer. All in favour of Mr Martin's motion to defer? Those opposed?
Mr Sheehan: Mr Chair, I move the adoption of this bill, if that's the proper way to put it, as amended.
Interjection: You can't do that.
Mr Sheehan: Why not? We're sitting here 20 minutes and we fiddle away talking about what day of the week it is. Let's get on with some business.
Mr Gerretsen: None of the amendments have been moved yet.
Mr Sheehan: We'll move them.
Interjections.
The Chair: Committee members, we do have a clause-by-clause process here. Further discussion?
Mr Martin: It being past 12 of the clock, I object to us going beyond that time.
Mr Hardeman: Unanimous consent to sit past the time?
The Chair: I've been informed that as Mr Martin objects to going past 12 o'clock -- and I think we understand that once we've gone past the hour of 12 o'clock, if someone objects, we call the vote on this bill.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry, we adjourn.
Mr Shea: On a point of order, Chair: I asked this earlier to ensure that we were not put under the guillotine of the clock. I'm really offended by the step we're at right now. Either you received faulty information or somehow the information flowing from the Chair to me was miscommunicated. But I have to tell you that I'm offended and I would like the Chair to at least give an undertaking that we'll find a way to bring this committee back into session later today or tomorrow, before the Parliament rises for the summer. I'd like an undertaking of that and perhaps asking unanimous consent of this committee to do so.
Mr Gerretsen: There's a House leaders' meeting at 12:30 this afternoon. Maybe that will deal with the issue.
The Chair: Mr Shea, the protocol has been explained to you. There is an objection to go past this time and I declare this meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1202.