MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998
CONTENTS
Thursday 25 June 1998
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Act, 1998, Bill Pr19, Mr Carroll
Mr Ian Lord
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 O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.
MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998
Consideration of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to what I consider an emergent meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Thursday, June 25, 1998. We are continuing to consider one bill, Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, sponsored by MPP Jack Carroll. The applicants are at the witness table.
From yesterday's meeting there has been considerable discussion. We are also aware of a number of amendments to this bill. I suggest that we continue where we left off, unless there are any suggestions from committee members.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Clause-by-clause?
The Chair: Or we could go right into clause-by-clause, which I think we all understand provides the opportunity for discussion as we go through those several steps.
Mr Shea: Does the parliamentary assistant have any advice?
The Chair: Actually, I'll go to Mr Martin first, then Mr Hardeman.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just have a couple of general questions that I would like to put to the deputants. I didn't get a chance yesterday. To be honest with you, this is a pretty major piece of work that I didn't fully understand because I hadn't had any prior presentation of it to me.
The Chair: So you're suggesting we go to further questions?
Mr Martin: If you wouldn't mind, yes.
The Chair: Sure. Do you have a suggestion as well on direction, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I personally have no problem with more general questions. I was going to suggest that all the general questions could be dealt with as we go through the sections, recognizing that this is not going to be a process where we vote on amendments or on sections without having the ability to question and debate each individual section.
The other thing that's rather important is that the amendments to be put forward change significantly some of the sections presently in the bill, so committee time may be better spent discussing the amendments rather than the bill that is before us.
Mr Martin: I have just a couple of contextual questions to ask that wouldn't be directly related to the amendments.
The Chair: And then, as Mr Hardeman suggested, we can cover the rest in clause-by-clause.
Mr Martin: There was a suggestion yesterday, given what was perceived to be the hurried nature of this -- the only concern I had was that I didn't fully understand the implications. I wanted to get somebody who works with me to do a little research so that I might carry out my duties here in a responsible and accountable fashion as we look at these things.
There was a suggestion that this was done in a bit of a hurried nature and that the people of Chatham-Kent didn't really know what was in this bill or fully understand it, that the amendments in particular were not shared with the folks back home, that they were brought here to be tabled and to be voted on when the people you're probably most concerned about and whom we here need to be most concerned about haven't had any chance to comment on those. Do you have any concern about that as you speak on their behalf and as you act on their behalf, that perhaps there are some things now that have changed, first of all the bill, and then the amendments to it?
Mr Ian Lord: There was a normal process followed in which a bill was drafted by the municipality and notice was put in the local newspapers for the requisite number of periods, which identified in explanatory note-form terms the substance of each of the elements of the bill. Since that time, there have been two evolutions. One is that the city, in conjunction with the legislative counsel's office, has deleted certain provisions of the bill, so there would be nothing adverse to the public at large which would occur as a result of that process.
Following the discussions with the legislative counsel here in Toronto, the bill, as you saw it in first reading, was drafted. That draft did not add anything new from what was notified or advertised to the public in Chatham-Kent.
Following the first draft, a succession of meetings have been held over several weeks with several ministries. No new provisions have been added, obviously because the notice had scoped the extent of the bill, but several of the provisions in the bill as seen in first reading have either been deleted or modified. The deletions, of course, should give no concern. I think there are three modifications that have any substance, and they are also narrowing or scoping the bill further. They are not enlargements of powers.
It would be my submission to the Chair and the member that the bill as is proposed here today, as has been modified, is a narrower bill or a lesser bill, in the sense of what the public has seen, than either the notice provisions or the first reading. I'm not sure whether that --
Mr Martin: Yes, that's helpful. The other more specific question is the one raised by the woman who presented to us yesterday, Mrs Thompson. That's her contention, that this gives the municipality power that they didn't have before to, for example, enter into agreements that would, on a very dramatic scale perhaps, see landfills develop that would take Toronto's garbage. She feels that would happen now more readily than it could have happened before. Is that the case?
Mr Lord: There is no provision in this bill that deals with landfills or the EA process whatsoever. The contract that I explained at the end of the day yesterday has been entered into between Chatham-Kent and BFI is a waste management contract that is under public legislation. That is a contract that was entered into by the former city of Chatham and later ratified, earlier this year, by the new municipality of Chatham-Kent under that public legislation. That agreement is in effect and is unaltered by anything in this bill.
Parallel to that process, there is an EA application under way by Browning Ferris Industries for recognition of the design and extension/expansion of that landfill. That process is, as far as I know, continuing. It's fully independent of this legislation. This legislation doesn't address that in any way. The link that was made by the deputant yesterday is that in some way the creation under this bill of a drainage board, which would relieve the hearing function from council, in some way interfaces with that EA process. Certainly by the statute it does not, and I'm not aware of any linkage at all. The deputant's concern in that field was that whereas formerly there was a two-tier municipality in place, where the township of Harwich and the county of Kent allowed that EA process to have two vehicles of input, with restructuring that was effective in January 1998, there is now a single-tier municipality and only one vehicle of input into the EA process. She drew a link that that one vehicle was one less than previously, and second, that if this new municipality creates a drainage board that is not the council, that somehow that may be -- I'm not sure how she characterized it or in her fax today how she relates the two. But somehow that was seen as a fear, a fear of the unknown as to what the implications of the creation of that drainage board hearing body might be.
What this bill does is create a drainage board to relieve from council the function of holding the hearings in respect to these 4,400 kilometres of drains, but council still makes the decision and would still be available to any member of the public for deputation.
Again I assert that there is nothing in this bill -- the creation of that drainage board to relieve council's workload -- that interfaces with the EA process or in any way prejudices that process.
Mr Martin: My research tends to support your position on that, so I have no further difficulty.
The Chair: Earlier, Mr Hardeman made a suggestion and I would wish to follow on that. I ask that we consider the amendments and the various sections if committee's agreeable to that. Are the members ready to vote on the sections?
Mr Shea: Agreed. Go through it.
The Chair: We are considering Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, sponsored by MPP Jack Carroll. There are a number of amendments.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
I understand there is an amendment to section 2.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Same
"(1.1) The council may, by bylaw, vary the tax rate to be levied on the rateable property in one or more areas of the municipality for the purpose of making adjustments in taxes relating to the administrative costs of the board established under subsection 6(1), including the salaries of the members of the board.
"Limitation
"(1.2)Administrative costs of the board that are attributable to a specific drainage work shall be levied under subsection (1.1) only against the area or areas that benefit from that drainage work."
The Chair: We have two amendments on section 2. First of all, any comments on this first amendment? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Restrictions
"(3) The tax rates for different classes of property (as established under the Assessment Act) must bear the same proportion to each other as the tax ratios established under section 363 of the Municipal Act for the property classes."
The Chair: Comments? Shall this second amendment to section 2 carry? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
I understand there's an amendment to section 3.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:
"'predecessor municipalities' has the same meaning as former municipalities in the restructuring order."
The Chair: Comments? Shall this amendment to section 3 carry? Carried.
The Chair: There is a second amendment to section 3.
Mr Hardeman: I move that the definition of "special local levy" in subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "all" in the second line.
1020
The Chair: Any comments on the second amendment? Shall this second amendment to section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Carried.
I'll just draw to the attention of members of the committee that in terms of section 4, the applicant does not have an amendment, and I think partly because of that recommends that --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, in speaking to section 4, I will be voting against it, as the applicant has informed us that they would prefer not to have section 4 approved in the bill.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): The applicant being Jack Carroll?
The Chair: Jack is the sponsor. The applicant would be --
Mr Shea: The municipality. The parliamentary assistant is recommending that --
Mr Hardeman: The parliamentary assistant will be voting against this section, yes.
The Chair: With that information, I'll pose the question.
Shall section 4 carry? Defeated.
Section 5 has at least one amendment.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Designation
"5(1) The approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is not required for a bylaw passed by the council under section 95 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act if,
"(a) the Ontario Municipal Board has a procedure in place to give public notice of the bylaw and to give persons the right to object to the bylaw; and
"(b) no objection is filed in accordance with that procedure within the time established by the Ontario Municipal Board.
"Same
"(2) If the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is not required for a bylaw pursuant to subsection (1), the bylaw shall be deemed, on the day after the time for filing an objection expires, to have come into force on the day it was passed."
The Chair: Comments? Shall this amendment to section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 6.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "this section and" in the second line.
The Chair: Any comments? Shall this amendment to section 6 carry? Carried.
Anything further?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Eligibility
"(2) Only those persons who are eligible to be elected as members of the council or who are members of the council are eligible to hold office as members of the board."
The Chair: Comments?
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Can you explain the difference between a person who is eligible to be elected and members of the council? There seemed to be some concern about unelected people sitting on this board. If I read the interpretation, you're trying to say they have to be elected, but they just have to be taxpayers, I gather?
Mr Hardeman: The definition requires that if you allow all electors in the municipality to be appointed, someone who is already elected is a member of council not eligible to be elected. The section is to preclude other than residents of the municipality or electors in the municipality. They cannot be appointed from somewhere else.
Mr Sheehan: So if I'm eligible to be a candidate, I can be appointed?
Mr Hardeman: Yes, anyone who is eligible to be a candidate or who is a member elected to council.
The Chair: Shall this amendment to section 6 carry? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
We'll go on to section 7.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Delegation by council
"7(1) The council may, by bylaw, delegate to the board established under subsection 6(1) any of its powers and duties under the Drainage Act, except for its power to make bylaws and resolutions.
"Same
"(2) The council may impose conditions with respect to the matters delegated to the board.
"Hearings by board authorized
"(3) The council may, by bylaw, provide for the board to hold hearings or to afford a party an opportunity to be heard in respect of any matter under the Drainage Act in which the council is required by law to hold hearings or afford an opportunity to be heard and section 105 of the Municipal Act applies to the council and to the board as if the board were a committee of the council."
The Chair: Any comments? Shall this amendment to section 7 carry? Carried.
Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Carried.
We go on to section 8. I understand there are two amendments.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 8(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "by bylaw" after "The council may" in the first line.
The Chair: Comments? Shall this first amendment to section 8 carry? Carried.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 8(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "area" in the third line and substituting "areas."
The Chair: Shall the second amendment to section 8 carry? Carried.
Shall section 8, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 9.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 9(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "by bylaw" after "The council may" in the first line.
The Chair: Comments? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 10 carry?
Mr Shea: No.
Mr Hardeman: No. I have an amendment.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr Hardeman: It would likely be an amendment out of order, Mr Chair. Similar to the other one --
Mr Shea: Follow my lead.
Mr Hardeman: -- I would follow the lead of the member for High Park-Swansea and not vote for this section.
The Chair: Shall section 10 carry? Defeated.
I'll put the question. Shall section 11 carry? Defeated.
Shall section 12 carry? Defeated.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Section 14 has an amendment.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 14 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Terms of office for members of public utility commission
"14(1) The council may specify the term of office of the members of the public utilities commission of the municipality and may do so in such a way that the members' terms of office are staggered.
"Same
"(2) The members of the commission shall continue to hold office until their successors are appointed."
The Chair: Comments on this amendment?
Mr Sheehan: There is still a limitation of term, is there? Eight years, is it?
Mr Hugh Thomas: The members of the board, by our order, are members of the council. Therefore they have to be elected every three years.
Mr Sheehan: But these are not elected people who are --
Mr Thomas: They are elected. Under the order, they have to be elected members of council.
Mr Hardeman: In this case, Mr Sheehan, the public utilities must be elected officials.
Mr O'Toole: And they must be members of council.
Mr Hardeman: Yes.
The Chair: Any further comments? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 14, with this amendment, carry? Carried.
We go on to section 15. Shall section 15 carry? Defeated.
We go on to section 16. There are no amendments. Shall section 16 carry? Carried.
Shall section 17 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, including the several amendments, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, with these amendments, to the House? I will so do.
I wish to thank the applicant, and I wish to thank the committee members for your inconvenience in coming back this morning. I declare this order of business closed.
The committee adjourned at 1029.