BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES
CONTENTS
Monday 9 December 1996
Better Local Government Act, 1996, Bill 86, Mr Leach / Loi de 1996 sur l'amélioration
des administrations locales, projet de loi 86, M. Leach
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
*Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
*Mr TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)
Mr DwightDuncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
*Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
*Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
*Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
*Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
*Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les îles L) for Mr Duncan
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC) for Mr Murdoch
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND) for Mr Christopherson
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr PaulJones, manager, local government policy branch, HOU
Mr TomMelville, counsel, municipal and planning law, HOU
Mr ScottGray, counsel, municipal and planning law, HOU
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Ms Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel
R-1621
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Good afternoon. The first order of business is the approval of the subcommittee report. Does somebody care to move its adoption?
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): So moved.
The Chair: Any discussion of the subcommittee report? Seeing none, all those in favour of its adoption? Contrary? The subcommittee report is adopted.
BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES
Bill 86, An Act to provide for better local government by updating and streamlining the Municipal Elections Act, the Municipal Act and related statutes / Projet de loi 86, Loi prévoyant l'amélioration des administrations locales en modernisant et simplifiant la Loi sur les élections municipales, la Loi sur les municipalités et d'autres lois connexes.
The Chair: The second order of business will be to move into clause-by-clause consideration. Are there any amendments to section 1 of the act?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) Despite clause 33(4)(a) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, in the 1997 regular election nominations may be filed only on or after March 31, 1997."
This is to deal with some of the changes that are taking place in municipal government and to prevent the nominations from being filed in the first three months of the year. We felt it appropriate that we limit it in the implementation year, to delay that until March 31.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Are there any further amendments to section 1 of the act? Any comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 1, as amended, carries? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 1, as amended, carried.
Are there any amendments to section 2 of the act? Any comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 2 of the act carries? Contrary? Section 2 is carried.
Section 3: Are there any amendments or comments?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Yes. We move an amendment that subsections 13(6) and (7) be struck out.
We don't quite understand why it would be necessary to have the ultimate appeal with respect to ward boundaries go to the OMB when the size of council is something that's totally determined by the council itself. In order to be consistent, why shouldn't councils have the right to ultimately determine the size of their own wards as well or where the ward boundaries are to be located?
Mr Hardeman: I believe the concern would be that the type of representation in a municipality is governed by whether you have a ward system or elected-at-large. To make sure that everyone is appropriately represented, it was deemed inappropriate that we would allow council to remove that type of representation from individuals in a ward system without at least having it appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. So we oppose this amendment.
Mr Gerretsen: But you're allowing councils to decide whether there should be a five, a 10 or a 15-member council. Why wouldn't you give them the same authority to determine how the wards are to be structured? Anyway.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a question of Mr Gerretsen. Subsection (7) talks about "The ministry may, by regulation, prescribe criteria for the purpose of subsection..." and so on. I thought what you were getting at is that you were very concerned about the minister having such a power to prescribe. Is that part of the argument that you're making?
Mr Gerretsen: That's right.
Mr Marchese: That's why you want (7) deleted?
Mr Gerretsen: That's right.
Mr Marchese: Because you're worried about that kind of power.
Mr Gerretsen: Subsections (6) and (7).
Mr Marchese: Right. Yes, I realize. I agree with (7).
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question? All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 3?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, we have an amendment to sections 13.1 and 13.2, which are on pages 5, 6 and 7.
The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, you certainly can speak to that, but that's not actually a motion. Please do.
Mr Gerretsen: It's exactly the same reason as I gave before. I won't restate the reasons again.
Mr Hardeman: Our comment would be the same. We believe that it is appropriate that council have the ability to assign the number of representatives that will be in an entire municipality, but if the municipality is to be divided up in certain ways -- it was there for certain reasons. If that is to be changed, I think those who would be impacted should have the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Gerretsen: I request that sections 13.1 and 13.2 be dealt with separately and be divided from the rest of the question.
The Chair: That's fine.
Mr Marchese: I have another question of Mr Gerretsen. Subsection 13.1(2) says, "Within 20 days after the clerk gives notice of the bylaw, the minister or any other person or agency may appeal to the municipal board by filing with the clerk a notice of appeal setting out any objection to the bylaw and the reasons in support of the objection."
I'm not quite sure why you're opposed to an agency -- I realize that includes the minister -- or any other person filing an appeal with the OMB. Why would we be opposed to such a --
Mr Gerretsen: We're basically saying that if you give councils the right to establish their own size, then you should be able to give them the right to determine how the boundaries of the wards are to be structured as well. The size of a council is not appealable to the OMB, so why should the delineation of the wards be?
Mr Marchese: I just think that it's always useful to have within any legislation the power to give people the right to be able to make an appeal to the OMB and give reasons as to why they might be opposed to something. If you take it out, you're taking out a process for a person and/or an agency to be able to give reasons for disagreement. I don't know why we'd want to take that power away from people.
1620
Mr Hardeman: Just a quick comment: I was surprised at the previous vote, that all three members in the opposition would vote against having the right to appeal.
Mr Marchese: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr Gerretsen has asked that I put the question first to subsections 13(1) through (13). All those in favour that subsections 13(1) through (13) carry? Opposed?
Mr Hardeman: Are you voting on the motion?
Mr Gerretsen: Call that vote again, please.
The Chair: That's not a vote. That was not a motion on the floor. Mr Gerretsen was just making comments. I will put the question again, clarify it.
We are voting on the bill, as written, subsection 13(1) through subsection 13(13). All those in favour? Contrary? Those subsections carries.
Mr Gerretsen has asked that we vote separately on section 13.1. All those in favour that section 13.1 carry? Contrary? Section 13.1 is carried.
Similarly, section 13.2: All those in favour? Contrary? Section 13.2 is carried.
The balance of section 3: All those in favour? Contrary? The balance of section 3 is carried.
Section 4 of the act: Are there are amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 26(4) and (5) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Effective date
"(4) A bylaw that is passed under subsection (1) after January 1 in the year of a regular election does not come into force until,
"(a) the conditions listed in subsection (3) are satisfied; and
"(b) the next regular election has taken place.
"Transition, 1997 regular election
"(5) Despite subsection (4), a bylaw passed under subsection (1) on or before March 31, 1997, comes into force for the 1997 regular election if the conditions listed in subsection (3) are satisfied on or before March 31, 1997."
It's to deal with the transition year as it applies for 1997, and then to go back to January 1 in other years. It's a transition movement.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Just to clarify the date, in the past there were discussions about November 30 and then it was December 31, and now it is confirmed with this motion that you just read that the deadline will be May 31 for identifying a ward system.
Mr Hardeman: No, I think the amendment deals with the fact that in all years subsequent to 1997 the deadline for making changes of council sizes will be January 1. If it's made within the election year, it would not go into effect until the following election. For the year 1997, it is proposed that there would be a three-month extension, that those changes can be made up to March 31 of the election year, which is 1997.
Mr Lalonde: Once again, just to clarify, those who haven't come up with a municipal bylaw to go on a ward system could do so until March 31 at the present time? For 1997 --
Mr Paul Jones: This amendment clarifies that the process has to be satisfied in terms of the conditions --
Mr Hardeman: This is just for the size of county council, isn't it?
Mr Jones: Yes, county council composition.
Mr Hardeman: This does not deal with ward distribution; it's strictly with the size of county council.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Hardeman, I wonder if legal counsel could introduce himself for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Jones: Paul Jones, manager of local government policy with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jones. Does that clarify your concern, Mr Lalonde?
Mr Lalonde: Yes, it does now.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question on this amendment. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 27(2) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out "whether by ward, by general vote or by a combination of the two."
Again, this is an amendment to clarify and to give county council the ability to change council size in areas where it's elections at large or where there are wards involved in the election process.
The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 27(5) and (6) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Effective date
"(5) A bylaw that is passed under subsection (2) after January 1 in the year of a regular election does not come into force until,
"(a) the conditions listed in subsection (4) are satisfied; and
"(b) the next regular election has taken place.
"Transition, 1997 regular election
"(6) Despite subsection (5), a bylaw passed under subsection (2) on or before March 31, 1997 comes into force for the 1997 regular election if the conditions listed in subsection (4) are satisfied on or before March 31, 1997."
Again, it's a clarifying motion. The deadline date will be January 1 in all years subsequent to the 1997 municipal elections, but it will allow an extra three months for the 1997 municipal elections.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further comments on section 4?
Mr Gerretsen: We recommend that the members of the committee vote against subsections 27(9) and (10). We don't understand why this shouldn't apply to upper-tier municipalities as well and they're specifically included in subsections 27(9) and (10).
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can give an explanation as to why they're included. It says, "This section does not apply to an upper-tier municipality." Why shouldn't it?
Mr Hardeman: The process, as it applies to the county governments, in a lot of cases does not suit the needs of the upper-tier municipalities because of the structure of their councils. So it's deemed appropriate that by regulation the minister could apply it or not apply the same regulations to the regions, but they do not suit all regions. As an example, I would use the region of Peel. When you look at a majority vote of the population, it is always in the hands of one municipality as opposed to a number of municipalities. The numbers do not necessarily correspond to that function working very well in regions. So it was deemed appropriate that the minister could, by regulation, move them in or out.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 4 carry as amended? Opposed? Section 4 carries as amended.
Section 5: Are there any amendments or discussion?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 29(1) and (3) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Composition and size of council
"(1) The council of a local municipality shall be composed of a head of council and at least four other elected members.
"Bylaw changing number of members
"(3) Subject to subsection (1), the council may pass a bylaw changing the number of its elected members."
This is an amendment to clarify the makeup and the process of reducing the size of council.
1630
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment carries.
Any further amendments or comments to section 5? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 5, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 5, as amended, is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments to sections 6 and 7? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that sections 6 and 7 carry? Opposed? Sections 6 and 7 are carried.
Section 8 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 37(1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in subsection 8(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "its local board," in the fourth line and substituting "a local board."
This is a clarification, again, that the prohibition on running for election applies to the local board for which you were seeking office, not any local board.
The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
All those in favour that section 8, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 8, as amended, is carried.
Any amendments or comments to sections 9 through 15 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that sections 9 through 15 of the act carry? Contrary? Sections 9 through 15 are carried.
Mr Hardeman has an amendment that would add a new section, section 15.1.
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"15.1 Subsection 112(6) of the act is repealed."
This is an amendment to take a part out of the present act that's no longer required.
Mr Marchese: Does that have the effect of removing the requirement that local boards submit an annual report to council? Is that the effect of this? Yes? No?
Mr Hardeman: If you could just hold on for a minute.
Mr Marchese: I think it would be useful for the lawyer to sit beside you, Mr Hardeman.
The Chair: If you could just introduce yourself first for Hansard, please.
Mr Tom Melville: Tom Melville, legal counsel, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This amendment has to do with municipal finance. Since the debt regulation now deals with the issue of guarantees and Ontario Municipal Board approvals, that's no longer required in this section of the act.
The Chair: Any further discussion? I'll put the question, then. All those in favour that section 15.1 carry? Opposed? Section 15.1 is carried.
Any further additions, amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"15.2 Subsection 113(3) of the act is repealed."
I believe this is another section identical to or for the same purpose as the previous amendment; it is no longer required.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? Section 15.2 is carried.
Any amendments to section 16 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 16 carry? Opposed? Section 16 is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments to sections 17 or 18 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of sections 17 and 18 carrying? Opposed? Sections 17 and 18 are carried.
Section 19 of the act: any amendments, comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 19 of the bill be renumbered as subsection 19(2) and amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1) Subsection 125(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Definition
"(1) In this section,
"`municipality' means a municipality forming part of a county for municipal purposes."
This is an amendment to include areas where restructurings have taken place where a separated city is now part of the county and requires the ability to be able to debenture through the county structure, which they were previously not able to do.
The Chair: Any further discussion? I should note for the record that the Liberals had an identical motion.
All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 19 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 19 carries as amended? Contrary? Section 19, as amended, is carried.
Any comments or amendments to sections 20 through 31 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 20 through 31 carry? Contrary? Sections 20 through 31 are carried.
Section 32 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 164(2) of the Municipal Act, as set out in subsection 32(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "(2), (2.2) and (3)" in the second and third lines and substituting "(2.2), (2.3) and (3)."
Mr Marchese: Explain that.
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, explain that.
Mr Hardeman: The current subsection 32(1) of Bill 86 deals with how contributions are paid into a reserve account and what the rules for their use are. Subsection 32(1) is amended to clarify that reference be made to subsections 163(2.2), (2.3) and (3) instead of subsections 163(2), (2.2) and (3).
Mr Gerretsen: I knew you had an answer to that.
Mr Hardeman: My opportunity to read the instructions.
Mr Marchese: That's very clear.
The Chair: Any further discussion or requests for clarification? Seeing none, we'll put the question.
All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
I'll put the question on section 32. Is it the favour of the committee that section 32, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 32, as amended, is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments to sections 33 through 35? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 33 through 35 carry? Contrary? Sections 33 through 35 are carried.
Section 36 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 36 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) Subsection 167.4(4) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Regulations
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the minister may make regulations,
"(a) prescribing additional persons or classes of them with which a municipality may enter into joint investment agreements;
"(b) prescribing conditions to be satisfied before a municipality may enter into a joint investment agreement with a person or class of persons prescribed under clause (a)."
This is, again, to clarify the ability of municipalities to invest.
Mr Marchese: Mr Lawyer, that's what it does?
Mr Melville: Just to correct the record, the purpose of the amendment is to add an additional regulatory power so that the minister can prescribe conditions applying to persons who are authorized to jointly invest with municipalities.
Mr Marchese: Why do we need that?
Mr Melville: In order that conditions could be imposed when, for example, a local board is authorized by regulation to jointly invest its funds with the funds of a municipality. The condition could be, hypothetically, to require --
Interjection: Additional authority?
Mr Melville: It's an additional authority, yes, to require, for example, the consent of, shall we say, the parent municipality before going ahead with that investment.
1640
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 36, as amended, carry? All in favour? Contrary? Section 36, as amended, is carried.
Any comments or amendments to sections 37 through 46? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 37 through 46 carry? Contrary? Sections 37 through 46 are carried.
Section 47 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 47 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"47. (1) Clause (a) of paragraph 3 of section 207 of the act is amended by striking out "subsection 163(2)" at the end and substituting "section 167."
"Transition
"(2) During the year that begins on the effective date and ends on the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) clause (a) of paragraph 3 of section 207 of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) surplus funds and the reserve fund of a municipal reciprocal exchange may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the act.
"Same
"(3) An investment referred to in clause (2)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the act.
"Effective date
"(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the effective date is the day subsection (3) comes into force.
"(5) Paragraph 25 of section 207 of the act is repealed.
"(6) Clause (a) of paragraph 51 of section 207 of the act is amended by striking out "subsection 163(2)" at the end and substituting "section 167."
"Transition
"(7) During the year that begins on the effective date and ends on the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) clause (a) of paragraph 51 of section 207 of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) surplus funds and the reserve fund of a municipal reciprocal exchange may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the act.
"Same
"(8) An investment referred to in clause (7)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the act.
"Effective Date
"(9) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8), the effective date is the day subsection (6) comes into force."
Mr Gerretsen: Don't you just love it when we listen to you, Ernie?
Mr Hardeman: It's great.
Mr Gerretsen: You've got to read two pages.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to that, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: It's just a clarification of the numbers in the act and transfers.
Mr Marchese: Could we get the lawyer just to comment briefly, but in plain vernacular English, on what the implications are of shifting from one area to the other and so on? What can municipalities do? Or -- is this a fair question -- does it give the tools to municipalities to get into debt because the province is offloading more services on to them, or no?
Mr Hardeman: No.
Mr Marchese: No? Not yet. Not here.
Mr Melville: I can't answer the question as asked, but the purpose of the amendment is to correct a cross-reference to municipal permitted investments so that all municipal permitted investments are established in one place in the Municipal Act. In this case it's talking about reserve funds for municipal insurance purposes and that they would have to be invested in the same places that all other municipal investments -- the same investments that are permitted for all other municipal investments.
Mr Marchese: So it's a clarification.
Mr Melville: Yes.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 47, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 47, as amended, is carried.
Any amendments or comments to section 48? Seeing none, I will put the question. It is the favour of the committee that section 48 carries? Contrary? Section 48 is carried.
Any additions?
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
48.1 Subsection 220(13) of the act is amended by striking out "sections 65 and 66" in the first and second lines and substituting "section 65."
Maybe we'll ask the legal branch to --
Mr Melville: It simply corrects a reference to a repealed section by removing that reference.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Hardeman: It's hard to debate, isn't it?
The Chair: Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that the amendment carry? Contrary? Section 48.1 is carried.
Section 49 of the act: Are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 49 carries? Carried.
Section 50 of the act: Are there any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 50(2)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "money in the account" and substituting "surplus funds and the reserve fund of a municipal reciprocal exchange."
This is again just a clarification of the wording in the act.
The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that the amendment carry? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 50? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 50, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 50, as amended, is carried.
Section 51 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 284(1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in subsection 51(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Maintenance of roads and bridges
"(1) The council of the corporation that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge."
Mr Gerretsen: Why are you taking the words "or upon which the duty of repairing it is imposed by this act" out? That's the effect of what you're doing to this section.
Mr Hardeman: Could you repeat that?
Mr Gerretsen: If I read 51(1) in the bill, it's exactly the same as what you've just read to us as an amendment except that it includes the words "or upon which the duty of repairing it is imposed by this act." Why are you deleting that wording? What is the reason for it?
Mr Melville: My understanding is that the change was made so that the act would not be unnecessarily restrictive. In other words, the section as revised imposed a general duty, regardless of the act from which it comes, to keep the roads in repair.
Mr Lalonde: I'd just like to have a clarification. When we say "in light of all the circumstances," I'd like to get a definition of this. If the municipality hasn't got the funds available, it could mean that we don't do the repair. Is that what you mean?
Mr Melville: No. I think, to just back up a bit, this section clarifies the common law or codifies the common law that exists now, and the court would have regard to all of the circumstances, including presumably and hypothetically the funding or lack of funding.
Mr Lalonde: That really scares me, that word. To clarify, let's say that a bridge is a real danger. It should be barricaded; it should be closed. The municipality, with the pressure of the rural residents or the local residents, could say, "Yes, we could still have access as long as we don't use 5- or 10-ton trucks to go through it," and then you would have a sign, and the people won't see the sign at night and you could go across the bridge with a truck and cave in through the bridge.
1650
Mr Hardeman: I think that situation presently exists. All municipalities have the authority, with engineering reports, to put load limits on their bridges if they don't deem it appropriate to replace those bridges to the standard. I think this codifies the standards that would be set, that certain types of roads and certain types of bridges would be kept to, and if a municipality achieves those standards, they would not be held liable for someone going through the stop sign because the stop sign was not bright enough. It's actually codified to say how long the stop sign could be up before it was considered weathered beyond its reasonable recognition.
Mr Lalonde: But it is going to be in the Hansard right now that as long as the municipality achieves the standards set out by the engineer -- you cannot go through on a bridge if it doesn't meet the standards, MTO standards. But if the municipality says, "We just can't afford doing the repair on that bridge," and it doesn't meet the standards, really the municipality would be forced to close the bridge then.
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest that under this it would be codified that if it does not meet the standards for that type of traffic, yes, they would have to close the bridge. If they neglected reasonable care and didn't tell the public that that bridge was unsafe or couldn't stand the weight of traffic that was going over it, they would still be held liable.
Mr Lalonde: With all the cuts that are occurring at the present time, I could see the municipalities are going to be forced to close some of the bridges, and some of the roads too.
Mr Marchese: I was just trying to understand what legal counsel was saying before about removing "upon which the duty of repairing it is imposed by this act," and you talked about codifying what's already in common law. What's in common law? What's there? Did someone advise you about removing this? How did we come to this clarification?
Mr Jones: One of the things we've heard from municipalities is that there was a need to codify in legislation what their duty of care and responsibility was with respect to certain things, including roads. This was an attempt to put in legislation words as to what their responsibility and duty of care is with respect to maintenance and standards with respect to roads. This does not allow them to close a road. It doesn't grant them the authority to do that.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate that. I'm just wondering what the elimination of those words does that they don't already have by way of a power.
Mr Melville: The elimination of the words as with respect to this motion?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
Mr Melville: We did answer, but to try again, the words in subsection 51(1) as written in the bill before the amendment talk about the duty imposed by this act. After the amendment, those words are removed, thereby clarifying that it's a general duty. It could be imposed by this act or any act or by the common law.
Mr Gerretsen: I guess this is sort of tied into the whole liability issue. I've got some concern, and I've been both sides of this issue, both on behalf of private clients --
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: No, at one time or another, and also on behalf of municipalities, and there seems to be this perception around that somehow the liability aspect that municipalities have in these kind of circumstances is much higher than the general public, let's say, if you're talking about a private road and a private bridge. I think that's a perception that's out there that's not necessarily true at all. If somebody should get hurt as a result, they still have a certain standard of proof to prove and to adhere to etc. By merely taking out those words, "or upon which the duty of repairing it is imposed by this act," I can well see somebody making the argument that at one time there was a higher standard when there was a duty as imposed by a particular act than there will be under the new act when that wording has been deleted from it.
I know we're here as legislators looking after, I suppose, the interests of the province and the interests of municipalities, but there is another side to this issue as well. I don't think we should forget the general public that usually puts these kinds of claims forward. The suggestion that all claims that are put forward by the general public are somehow outrageous or aren't justified I don't think is the proper approach to take. I think that municipalities ought to be kept to the same kinds of standards as anyone would be with respect to their own private property if somebody were to enter upon it as an invitee and something were to happen to them. To somehow lessen that standard on municipalities, I don't think we're doing the general public of the province any favours by doing that. How do you respond to that?
Mr Jones: What you say is the amendment that's being put to you now, because as the legislation is written at first reading, it limits the municipality's requirement to just looking at its requirement under the Municipal Act. In fact, their duty that we want to continue is broader than just the duty under the Municipal Act. It's under any other act; it's under common law. That's why we're taking those words out.
Mr Gerretsen: All right. I'll accept that.
Mr Jones: We want to be sure that we continue the mandatory requirement for municipalities to maintain roads and bridges.
Mr Gerretsen: Right. Thank you.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment carries.
Any further amendments to section 51? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall section 51, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 51, as amended, is carried.
Section 52: any amendments or comments? First up would be duplicate motions from the government and the official opposition.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I would move, since they are duplicate motions, that we ask Mr Gerretsen to read his.
Mr Gerretsen: That's very decent of you. At least you've given me a short one to read.
I move that the definition of "sewage works" in section 331.1 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 52 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`sewage works' means all or any part of facilities for the collection, storage, transmission, treatment or disposal of sewage, including a system under Part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act. (`réseau d'égouts')"
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Mr Gerretsen: No, I think it's self-evident.
Mr Baird: Can I get some clarification?
Mr Gerretsen: I think the parliamentary assistant should do the clarification; he always does it well.
Mr Marchese: It's not in your notes?
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment carries.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 331.2(1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 52 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Liability in nuisance re water and sewage
"(1) No proceeding based on nuisance, in connection with the escape of water or sewage from sewage works or water works, shall be commenced against,
"(a) a municipality or local board;
"(b) a member of a municipal council or of a local board;
"(c) an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or local board."
This is an amendment to emphasize that not only is a municipality exempt from that type of nuisance liability, but also the members of municipal councils and members of the local boards responsible for those functions.
Mr Marchese: I'm just trying to find the appropriate moments when I want to make my comments; probably at the end for a lot of this stuff so as to make the proceedings go much more smoothly here. I'm doing my best to help you out, Mr Chair. But in this particular section I made my point during the debate in the House. I have some trouble with it because it does shift the responsibility away from municipalities on to the householder, to the owner of a property, and I think that's an additional burden that person is going to have to bear. I find that a problem.
1700
I realize the government is trying to give some tools to the municipal governments to be able to deal with some financial problems they have incurred or may incur as the government offloads, downloads on to municipalities. But there will be a cost, and if it's not the municipality, it's going to be somebody else. It's going to be the ordinary person who now has some remedy to seek damages around sewer backup.
Once this comes into effect, that person will not have the protection any longer. The municipality is free of the financial burden, but somebody's picking up the tab, and it's the ordinary Joe who's going to pick up that tab. Services are getting more complicated; people are going to pay more and more for the services because of the things this government is doing. I find that objectionable. It will put a lot of burden on many, many individuals who are finding it difficult to keep up with the type of changes this government is undertaking.
So I'm opposed to this very strongly. I just wanted to put that for the record.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): A quick question: If there was an escape of water or sewage from sewage works or waterworks that an employee wilfully made occur, where would that be covered? Would that still be a chargeable offence? Where is that covered?
Mr Hardeman: Could you explain, go through that again, Mr Maves?
Mr Maves: An employee is an exempt if there's an escape of water or sewage from sewage works or waterworks. I'm wondering: If it's wilfully done by an employee, is there still liability?
Mr Hardeman: The exemption is only for nuisance liability, where it's not the fault of any individual but was an act of God or something that was uncontrollable.
Mr Maves: Sabotage or something like that.
Mr Hardeman: This is not taking liability away from anyone.
Mr Maves: So "based on nuisance" is the key phrase for me.
Mr Marchese: Mr Maves raises a good question in terms of wilful, but how do you prove that? If it were to be the case that there was some wilful tampering or some problem that was caused, we wouldn't ever know that. An individual homeowner would never know whether it was wilfully done or not; you'd have to prove that, and that would be a tough thing to do. Is that in line with what you're asking, Mr Maves?
Mr Maves: It's probably fair that you do have to prove that. I just want to make sure that if it is wilful, there is liability.
Mr Marchese: You'd have to prove wilful, though. Who is going to --
Interjection: The courts.
Mr Marchese: Of course.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment?
Mr Marchese: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Marchese has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour of the amendment?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Todd Decker): Ms Fisher, Mr Carroll, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Maves, Mr Tascona, Mr Hardeman.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Lalonde, Mr Gerretsen --
The Chair: Oh, sorry. Your hands were up? All right.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Lalonde, Mr Gerretsen and Mr Marchese.
The Chair: No. They were voting in favour.
Mr Gerretsen: As hard as it is to believe, we're with you.
Mr Marchese: It is hard.
Clerk of the Committee: It is noted in the record.
The Chair: Noted in the record. Thank you, Mr Marchese. The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 52?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 331.3 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 52 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Policy decisions
"331.3 No proceeding based on negligence shall be commenced against a municipality, a member of a municipal council or an officer or employee of a municipality in connection with the exercise or non-exercise of a discretionary power or the performance or non-performance of a discretionary function, if the action or inaction results from a policy decision made in a good faith exercise of the discretion."
Again, this amendment clarifies that the nuisance exemptions would apply. If the policy decision had been made to perform the function in that manner, the policy decision would not be subject to nuisance claims.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Marchese: We're on section 52, correct, section 331.3?
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Marchese: I just wanted to say that the effect of this is to put more and more municipal functions in the discretionary category, and I think when we do that the citizens will end up losing out in that regard. I'll be voting against that, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 52, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 52, as amended, is carried.
Any comments or amendments to sections 53 through 55 of the bill? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of sections 53 through 55 carrying? Contrary? Sections 53 through 55 are carried.
Section 56: any amendments or comments?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, we have an amendment. This deals with the ambulance section, doesn't it? Yes.
I move that clause (b) of section 1 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in subsection 56(1) of the bill, be amended by adding "or designate" in the first line after "judged by a physician."
Now, I've had a second amendment here.
The Chair: Are you going to table that, Mr Gerretsen?
Mr Gerretsen: I'm taking a look at it right now because it was just handed to me. I only have one copy of it, and that would basically be that we add the words "or health care provider designated by a physician" immediately after the phrase "having been judged by a physician."
The Chair: In other words, further defining the word "designate."
Mr Gerretsen: Further defining the word "designate." That's right.
The Chair: Would you wish to make that your amendment?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, I have an amendment to Mr Gerretsen's motion and I think it does what he was suggesting.
I move that this motion be amended to state that clause (b) of the definition of "ambulance" be amended by adding the words "or a health care provider designated by a physician" immediately after the phrase "have been judged by a physician."
Mr Gerretsen: That's the amendment.
Mr Hardeman: Yes, that's the same thing. We have the same people.
Mr Gerretsen: Okay.
The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, in the interests of clarity, would you be interested in withdrawing your first amendment where you just used the words "or designate"?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes. I think he's got both amendments in one document there, so it's better to use that.
The Chair: Everyone has in their packet the original amendment from Mr Gerretsen. The amendment that's now been put forward, instead of the words "or designate," would be "or a health care provider designated by a physician." That is identical to the amendment that Mr Hardeman was proposing, so I believe I can say that both of them are speaking in favour of this amendment.
Is there any need for further clarification? Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? Mr Gerretsen's amendment has passed.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 56, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 56, as amended, is carried.
1710
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 57 through 65 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of sections 57 through 65 of the act carrying? Contrary? Sections 57 through 65 are carried.
Section 66 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 66 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(41.1) Section 111 of the act is repealed."
This is a reference in the act that deals with the district of Muskoka requiring OMB approval where no one else requires that same function. It's deemed to be inappropriate to apply just to one area of the province.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment carries.
Any further amendments? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that section 66, as amended, carry? Section 66 as amended is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments to sections 67 through 70 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 67 through 70 carry? Opposed? Sections 67 through 70 are carried.
Section 71 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 71 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"(2) Subsection 18(3) of the act is amended by striking out `subsection 163(2)' in the fifth and sixth lines and substituting `section 167.'
"Transition
"(3) During the year that begins on the effective date and ends on the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) subsection 18(3) of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) surplus funds and the reserve fund of a municipal reciprocal exchange may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Same
"(4) An investment referred to in clause (3)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Effective date
"(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), the effective date is the day subsection (1) comes into force."
Again, this is a section to allow the cross-investment of funds.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 71? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 71, as amended, carry? Opposed? Section 71, as amended, is carried.
Any amendments or comments to section 72? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that section 72 carries? Contrary? Section 72 is carried.
Mr Hardeman, you have an addition?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"72.1 (1) Subsection 14(3) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is amended by striking out `subsection 163(2)' in the last line and substituting `section 167.'
"Transition
"(2) During the year that begins on the effective date and ends on the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) subsection 14(3) of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) surplus funds and the reserve fund of a municipal reciprocal exchange may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Same
"(3) An investment referred to in clause (2)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Effective date
"(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the effective date is the day subsection (1) comes into force."
The Chair: I must indicate to the committee -- and I'll give you a few seconds to make your case, Mr Hardeman -- that because the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was not opened up by the bill before us, this motion would need unanimous consent. Mr Hardeman, if you'd like to make your case.
Mr Hardeman: The motion is to deal with the cross-investing of the municipal funds, and we ask for unanimous consent to allow it to be done. It relates to all other investments in other areas, and we felt it was appropriate that it would also be covered in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
The Chair: Thank you. Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Gerretsen: Is it the right thing to do, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: Yes.
The Chair: Seeing that we have unanimous consent, is there further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Section 73 of the act: any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 73 carry? Opposed? Section 73 is carried.
Section 74 of the act: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 74 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(11.1) Subsection 111(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"`Dealing with land and personal property
"`(2) The power of the Metropolitan corporation to acquire land and personal property for the purposes of the Metropolitan corporation includes the power to acquire, use, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of them for the purposes of the commission.'"
It's a clarification of wording for dealing with land with Metropolitan Toronto. I would also suggest that this also requires unanimous consent to allow it to be done.
Mr Marchese: What is "the commission"?
Mr Melville: It's the Toronto Transit Commission, the TTC.
Mr Marchese: Should it say that?
Mr Melville: No, it does not need to say that, because in the context of the act that's already been provided for.
The Chair: Legislative counsel, Mr Hardeman, has stated that this is an allowable exception to the rule because other sections of the act have in fact been opened up already by the bill.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that section 74, as amended, carry? Opposed? Section 74, as amended, is carried.
Sections 75 and 76 of the act. Are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 75 and 76 carry? Opposed? Sections 75 and 76 are carried.
Section 77 of the act: Are there any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 65(3)(a) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, as set out in subsection 77(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) anything done with the approval of the board, if the approval is,
"(i) provided for by another act or by another provision of this act, and
"(ii) obtained in advance."
Again, this is just a clarification of wording.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 77, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 77, as amended, is carried.
1720
Mr Hardeman, do you have another addition?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Planning Act
"77.1(1) Subsection 40(3) of the Planning Act is amended by striking out `such securities as a trustee may invest in under the Trustee Act' in the ninth and tenth lines and substituting `securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.'
"Transition
"(2) During the year that begins on the effective date and ends on the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) subsection 40(3) of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) the money in the special account may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Same
"(3) An investment referred to in clause (2)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Effective date
"(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the effective date is the day subsection (1) comes into force.
"(5) Subsection 42(16) of the act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1994, chapter 23, section 25, is amended by striking out `such securities as the trustee may invest under the Trustee Act' in the second and third lines and substituting `securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.'
"Transition
"(6) During the year that begins on the effective date and begins of the first anniversary of the effective date,
"(a) subsection 42(16) of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date; and
"(b) the money in the special account may also be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Same
"(7) An investment referred to in clause (6)(a) shall not be continued after the first anniversary of the effective date unless it is a permitted investment under section 167 of the Municipal Act.
"Effective date
"(8) For the purposes of subsections (6) and (7), the effective date is the day subsection (5) comes into force."
The Chair: For the committee's benefit, because the Planning Act was not opened up in the original bill, this motion will require unanimous consent.
Mr Hardeman: It comes to the same grounds, for the requirement to include the cross-referencing of investments; that municipalities may be able to invest their money from the Planning Act in similar areas and similar transactions as they can in other acts. We ask for that unanimous consent.
Mr Lalonde: Under "Transition," the way you read (2)(a) is different from ours, the one we have.
The Chair: I was following along line by line. I think he said it properly.
Mr Gerretsen: Maybe they handed us a different amendment.
The Chair: I'm sure the clerk wouldn't have done that.
Mr Hardeman: Just for clarification, I will read (2)(a) again:
"(a) subsection 40(3) of the act, as it read before the effective date, continues to apply to investments made before the effective date."
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to put the amendment before the committee? Thank you all. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment carries.
Section 78 of the act: Are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 78 carry? Contrary? Section 78 is carried.
Section 79: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 79 of the bill be struck out.
The Chair: This motion is out of order. If you want to strike out a section, you would vote against it. Procedurally, you don't delete a section; you would vote against it -- as opposed to a subsection, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Marchese: Quickly, I wanted to thank the parliamentary assistant and the government members for listening to something the opposition has raised. We had serious concerns about this, and I'm happy that in one instance at least the government was paying attention. Thank you very much.
Mr Gerretsen: The first one in a year and a half.
Mr Hardeman: I want to suggest that this is not the first time that the government has withdrawn a section, but we will, as members of government, graciously accept your compliment.
The Chair: Thank you all. Any further discussion of this section? Seeing none, we'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 79 carries? Opposed? Section 79 is lost.
Sections 80 and 81 of the act: Are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question: Is it the favour of the committee that sections 80 and 81 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 80 and 81 are carried.
Section 82 of the act:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 82(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(1) Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 3, section 2, is repealed.
"(1.1) Section 6 of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 3, section 2, is further amended,
"(a) by striking out `33 members' in the first line and substituting `29 members';
"(b) by striking out `10 members' in clause 6(b) and substituting `seven members'; and
"(c) by striking out `three members' in clause 6(d) and substituting `two members.'"
This is an amendment to allow the change in composition and size in council in the region of Durham.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments? Seeing none, I'll put the question: Is it the favour of the committee that section 82, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 82, as amended, is carried.
Section 83: Are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 83 carries? All in favour? Opposed? Section 83 is carried.
Section 84 of the act:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 84(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Section 6 of the act is amended,
"(a) by striking out `25 members' in the first line and substituting `21 members';
"(b) by striking out `eight members' in clause 6(b) and substituting `six members'; and
"(c) by striking out `four members' in clause 6(e) and substituting `two members.'"
This is an amendment to deal with the council composition in the region of Halton, the same as the previous one was in Durham. They are locally agreed upon and just being implemented through this act.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 84, as amended, carry? Opposed? Section 84, as amended, is carried.
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 85 through 97? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 85 through 97 carry? Sections 85 through 97 are carried.
Section 98:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 98(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) Sections 15.1 to 19 and 22 to 40, subsections 47(1) to (4) and (6) to (9), sections 48, 48.1, 50 and 56, subsections 64(6) to (38) and 66(5) to (41), section 68, subsections 71(2) to (5), section 72.1, subsections 74(7) to (10), 74(13) to (15) and 74(17) to (53), sections 77, 77.1, 79 and 80, subsections 81(2) to (39) and sections 93, 94 and 96 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
Mr Marchese: What does it all mean?
Mr Hardeman: It's to relate to the dates that were in the bill that would be changed to deal with the date of the proclamation of the bill rather than as it relates to first reading of the bill. My notes say, "Clarification: Subsection 98(4) of bill 86, which provides for the commencement date of municipal debt and investment provision, is amended to reflect changes brought about after first reading of the bill."
1730
Mr Melville: It's simply a technical change to allow for the numbering changes brought about by the adoption of these motions.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 98? Is it the favour of the committee that section 98, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 98, as amended, is carried.
Section 99: Are there any amendments or comments on section 99? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 99 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 99 is carried.
Moving into the schedule of the act, are there any comments or amendments to sections --
Mr Gerretsen: I have just a general question, really, more than anything else. Why is the municipal elections matter dealt with by way of a schedule rather than a continuation of the act or a different part in the act? What is the significance of that, having it done by way of a schedule? Is there any?
Mr Scott Gray: I don't think there's any particular significance in it other than that it's a complete rewrite of the act and there's a whole bunch of other amendments, so you could have stuck them in -- legislative counsel can probably speak to it -- in the middle of the act.
The Chair: Could you introduce yourself?
Mr Gray: Scott Gray, municipal affairs legal branch. It's just a drafting style, I think.
Mr Gerretsen: Would the counsel have any comments on that? I'm just curious as to why such an important piece of legislation is done by way of a schedule in another act rather than standing on its own.
Ms Cornelia Schuh: Putting it in a schedule doesn't indicate that it's of lesser importance; it's just as weighty as the sections in the bill itself. It's technically neater when an entire act is being replaced to do it by way of a schedule when the rest of the bill consists of amendments to a large number of acts. If this had been introduced as a bill by itself, a new Municipal Elections Act, with the repeal of the old municipal elections legislation, there would have been no need for a schedule.
The Chair: So back into our consideration: Are there any amendments or comments to sections 1 through 6 of the schedule? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that sections 1 through 6 carry? Opposed? Sections 1 through 6 are carried.
Section 7:
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 7 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Municipal Act, s.220.1
"(5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not restrict the powers conferred by section 220.1 of the Municipal Act."
The Chair: Just before you comment, I'll note for the record that the official opposition had an identical amendment.
Mr Hardeman: I would point out that the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and the municipal solicitors have stated that there was some doubt as to the ability of municipalities to charge back election cost to other bodies, and this is to clarify that wording, that it in fact can be done.
Mr Marchese: I just want to say for the record again that the government is listening every now and then. This was one of the issues that I had brought forward that was brought by them. It's good to know that the government has made that change in order to protect municipalities, very good.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I just want to make sure that Mr Gerretsen adopts that explanation.
Mr Gerretsen: I think it was our amendment. They stole it from us.
Mr Tascona: I take that as a yes.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 7? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that section 7, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 7 is carried.
Section 8.
Mr Gerretsen: I move that section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Minimum notice to clerk
"(5.1) Despite anything else in this act, the clerk is required to submit a question to the electors of his or her municipality only if a copy of the bylaw, resolution or order, as the case may be, and a copy of the proposed question are transmitted to the clerk,
"(a) in the case of a regular election, on or before nomination day;
"(b) in the case of a by-election, 60 or more days before voting day."
This, again, is a recommendation of the AMCTO. It allows the clerks to have some reasonable period of time to actually give them enough time in order to prepare the necessary questions that may go to the general electorate. The way the act is written right now, it's theoretically possible for somebody to come up with a question the day before an election and the clerk has to comply with that. We're saying that whatever questions are going to be posed at municipal election time should be known to the general public so that the clerks have the necessary time to prepare, at least 60 days prior to the election. There's no time limit in the act right now.
Mr Marchese: I actually would have liked to address Mr Hardeman first perhaps because --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, could we set this one down and come back to it?
Mr Marchese: Agreed.
The Chair: Everyone's agreed? Section 8 shall be set down.
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 9 through 29? Seeing none, I'll put the question: Is it the favour of the committee that sections 9 through 29 carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Sections 9 through 29 are carried.
Section 30:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 30(1) and (5) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Employee of municipality or local board
"(1) An employee of a municipality or local board is eligible to be a candidate for and to be elected as a member of the council or local board that is the employer if he or she takes an unpaid leave of absence beginning no later than nomination day and ending on voting day.
"Same
"(5) Subsection (4) also applies to an employee of a municipality or local board who by being elected to the council of another municipality or to another local board also becomes a member of the council or local board that is the employer."
This is, again, to clarify the fact that the need to resign or take an unpaid leave of absence applies only if one is running for the local board or the council in question and had been employed by that council or board, not an adjoining or neighbouring board. It's for clarification purposes.
Mr Maves: If I'm a CEO of a municipality and I run for an election and I win, can I serve as a CEO still and at municipal council? Do I have to take one or the other at that point in time?
Mr Gerretsen: I think as the CEO you get more money.
Mr Tascona: If the CEO takes the unpaid leave of absence, is his position held or is there a discretion there?
Mr Hardeman: If the CEO is elected, they have to resign their position.
The Chair: The question was, while he's on a leave of absence is his position to be held for him?
Mr Hardeman: Yes, if a CEO would take a leave of absence without pay to run in an election, he would go back if not elected.
Mr Tascona: But if he's elected, then any employee that's elected effectively resigns?
Mr Hardeman: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Is deemed to resign?
Mr Hardeman: They cannot take a leave of absence for the term of office. They have to resign upon being elected.
1740
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 30? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that section 30, as amended, carry? Contrary? Section 30, as amended, is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments to sections 31 or 32? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 31 and 32 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 31 and 32 are carried.
Section 33: any amendments or comments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 33(2)(b) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out.
This section is the section which requires the 10 nominators for a nomination. It's one of the areas that the municipal clerks expressed a grave concern with, as they have to have the ability to accept or to reject a nomination. That nomination, under the new act, will be able to be delivered to the clerk any time after January 1 of an election year. There would be no voters' lists prepared in January, so the clerk would not be able to identify whether the 10 nominees were in fact legitimate. So, we felt it appropriate that we remove that requirement for the 10 nominees, recognizing that in the past the reason for the nominees was to eliminate frivolous candidates, and we are putting a deposit system in the bill, so it would really make the 10 nominators somewhat redundant.
Mr Lalonde: Anyone could deposit a nomination paper without having anybody to support his nomination?
Mr Hardeman: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: I have some difficulty with that, quite frankly, because especially if you put your deposit at only $100 -- I know that's not set out in the act, but that's sort of the amount that's suggested -- that somebody could run without having any nominators at all, I don't know.
Mr Marchese: This is serious.
Mr Gerretsen: I don't think you'll get rid of the frivolous candidates that way. The deposit fee isn't going to do it.
Mr Hardeman: After hearing the concerns of the municipal clerks and looking through past experiences, it would be very difficult to find even frivolous candidates who could not find 10 people who were willing to put their signature on the nomination papers. In the past, it has been assumed that people who signed nomination papers were somehow agreeing to also vote for the candidate. One could also go back and find nomination papers that were signed by the same nominators for quite a number of candidates for the same office. So the intent of the nominators has not been serving its purpose in the last number of years.
Mr Gerretsen: You're so persuasive, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Marchese: I support this, but not because of the explanation; because it makes sense. If a person running for office can't find 10 people to sign a nomination paper, they're in serious trouble, so I'm not quite sure that they would have gotten rid of nuisance candidates, really, because any nuisance candidate would find 10 people, it would seem to me. It's just an extra burden that one doesn't really need, so removing this is quite all right.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Any further amendments to section 33? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 33, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 33 is carried.
Section 34: any amendments or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 34 carry? Those in favour? Opposed? Section 34 is carried.
Section 35: Mr Gerretsen?
Mr Gerretsen: We have an amendment here. I move that section 35 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection: It's (3.1) --
The Chair: Excuse me, you missed the word "guidelines."
Mr Gerretsen: I did?
The Chair: You've got to read it.
Mr Gerretsen: Okay.
"Guidelines
"(3.1) In deciding whether a person is qualified to be nominated and whether the nomination complies with this act, the clerk shall follow the prescribed guidelines."
This again comes from the AMCTO. They were concerned about the fact that they could be held accountable. They in effect are given too much discretion in this act, and they would like less discretion so that they in effect can't be held accountable.
Mr Marchese: Imagine that.
Mr Gerretsen: They don't want to see wide discretion. The clerks recommend that in order to complete his or her duties with minimal ambiguity or legal exposure a regulatory framework be established that would set out at least some of the conditions or situations requiring acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers. That's their position.
Mr Hardeman: We don't feel that this amendment is required in the act. I think the government feels that under the present legislation the clerks have that responsibility as it's outlined in the act now. The main input we had from the clerks and treasurers on this issue was based on that issue of the nominators, that they could not January 1 verify that was a legitimate nomination, because they wouldn't know whether the nomination paper --
Mr Gerretsen: They also don't want to have a lot of discretion either that somebody is a legitimate --
Mr Hardeman: No, but I believe, Mr Gerretsen, that is the only part of the discretion that has changed from the present act to the new act, that they've always had to make the decision whether it was legitimate.
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, but they don't even like the discretion they've got under the existing act.
Mr Hardeman: But I think it's important to recognize that part of being the chief electoral officer is that you have to make decisions, and this is one that I think --
Mr Gerretsen: You and I realize that --
Mr Hardeman: -- no one else but the clerk is in the position to make that decision.
Mr Gerretsen: Well, I'm moving it anyway, because I'm with the clerks.
Mr Marchese: I thought the clerks made a good case. Although you point to the one example, that's one example of discretion that they have to deal with, but there were other concerns that they had around it which Mr Gerretsen was speaking to. I didn't think it was terribly unreasonable.
The regulations we would propose would include but not be limited to the following conditions that would authorize the rejection of nomination papers, such as: failure to file the necessary financial forms from the previous election; failure to file a proper or complete registration nomination form, which we were dealing with; failure to make any declaration deemed appropriate by the clerk; failure to provide personal identification to the reasonable satisfaction of the clerk upon request.
These were issues that they were raising that I think still apply to the act. If there is other comment from the other policy people than the ministry legal staff, I wouldn't mind hearing from them.
Mr Hardeman: I think the issue is that the act will direct the qualifications for a candidate to be a legitimate candidate, such as having filed the appropriate papers and made the appropriate deposit. I think all the things that you suggested should be in regulations are in fact the requirements of the act.
Under the present legislation and under the proposed legislation, it will be the clerk who has to decide whether they have met the act, not to make judgements of whether the individual is a good or a bad candidate but whether they have met the requirements of the act.
Mr Marchese: I understand.
Mr Hardeman: For us to have a regulation to say "and the clerk must check these items in the act" seems somewhat redundant. I think most clerks are quite capable of going through the act to see what is required of a candidate and to see whether the candidate has met those requirements.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, I'm not sure we're dealing with our concerns. The clerks have this power, unfettered. They admit that is the case. They're worried about this unfettered discretion they've got. That's what they're speaking to. You're saying that's the power they've got. They're saying, "Yes, but we're frightened of this power we've got, because it leaves us liable."
If you continue to say that's the power they've got, it doesn't deal with the fact that they're worried about this power that is in the act. I'm not sure that it would be too overly cumbersome to try to deal with their concerns as they were suggesting. They were proposing a number of things that could go into guidelines that would be worked, by regulation presumably, with the ministry staff to deal with some of their concerns.
1750
I'm not sure why we wouldn't try to deal with those concerns that they have. They seem to me legitimate. They're not really partisan at all. These are clerks who are very worried about liability and how we protect them from that unfettered freedom they have to determine that discretionary power they have. It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to try to deal with their concerns. The question is, why aren't we trying to do that, given that this is an opportune moment to do so?
Mr Gerretsen: It's so nice to deal with a group that actually wants less power. Usually, it's the other way around.
Mr Marchese: If you want to stand it down to give you some time to reflect on --
Mr Hardeman: For clarification, if I could just read the notes I have here, subsection 33(2) sets out certain requirements for a nomination: "(a) be in prescribed form...consent to nomination and a declaration of qualification, both (be) signed," and the filing fee be paid. Subsection 29 provides that a person may be nominated only if they are qualified to hold office and they are not ineligible under any act to be nominated or hold office. Subsection 12(3) allows the clerk to request proof of qualifications. It is the ministry staff's opinion that the legislation is clear enough that regulation with guidelines would not add anything.
Mr Marchese: I see. What page is that on again, please? Do you have a page reference? Does somebody have a page reference?
Mr Hardeman: No, that is not a page; that is notes that were written down for me so I could make sure --
Mr Marchese: Subsection 32(2) is where in the act?
Mr Hardeman: That's the qualification to hold office.
The Chair: While Mr Marchese is doing that, is there any further discussion from any other members?
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): It appears to me like it's a redundant submission because in fact if the powers are already allocated to the election officer through the guidelines, no one there has to certify in fact that the person has to do their job. I don't think anybody is questioning whether or not they should do their job or whether or not the decision-making capacity is there. I think the guidelines state what the capacities are, and it's no more than saying, "Just do your job."
Mr Gerretsen: The clerks basically want as little discretion as possible so that they can be subject to as little criticism as possible. That's what it boils down to. They feel that if there were guidelines that set out the procedure, it would make their life a little easier. But I could understand the other argument that if you want to be a clerk, certain things come with the job, and certifying a nomination is one of them. That may leave you open to attack by some people. But why don't we do this for the clerks?
The Chair: We'll just see if Mr Marchese has any further comments. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is lost.
Any further amendments to section 35?
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, I have another amendment here, and that's an addition.
I move that section 35 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Protection from liability
"(6) No proceeding shall be commenced against the clerk in connection with a decision, made in good faith, to certify or reject a nomination."
This is much like the last argument that we went through. Basically, these people don't want to be sued or they don't want to be involved in actions by candidates who may, for one reason or another, be disqualified. They basically want a section in the act that states that if they've acted in good faith, they cannot be personally sued.
Mr Hardeman: I again think it's a redundant amendment. I think the clerk is obligated to do certain functions. There is a statutory authority that a clerk has; one of them is to be chief electoral officer for the elections. I think if they do make errors in judgement, that's why municipalities make sure they carry insurance to cover such eventualities.
I don't think the other areas of the act that point out the statutory authority or the statutory requirements of the clerk include the fact that if you do it wrong, you can't be held liable, so I think that would be an inappropriate amendment.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Are you suggesting that the clerk be held harmless or the municipality be held harmless?
Mr Gerretsen: The clerk.
Mr Chudleigh: The clerk personally?
Mr Gerretsen: Because the clerk makes the decision as to whether or not the nomination is valid, initially. If they act in good faith, they shouldn't be held --
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is lost.
Mr Gerretsen: You guys will never be guest speakers at the clerks' conference.
The Chair: Any further amendments to section 35? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 35 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 35 is carried.
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 36 through 65? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 36 through 65 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 36 through 65 are carried.
Section 66:
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 66 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"No penalty
"(4) No employer shall impose any penalty on an employee who refuses to provide services voluntarily as described in subparagraph ii of paragraph 2 of subsection (2)."
This is just to clarify that no employee can be penalized for not volunteering their time to work on behalf of a candidate in an election.
Mr Marchese: Hear, hear.
Mr Hardeman: Hear, hear. Everyone should do that voluntarily.
Mr Tascona: Just for the record, when you say "penalty," what are you getting at? Are you getting at no monetary penalty, any discipline, anything affecting him in the employment relationship?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. As an example, if an employer was to ask an employee or to have an employee go out and campaign and help in a campaign and the employee was not prepared to do that, the employer could not say, "Well, if you won't campaign, then we don't need you today." They could not be penalized in their regular work for not being willing to work on behalf of --
Mr Tascona: So it would cover monetary measures and disciplinary action.
Mr Hardeman: I think it would be both, yes.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Mr Marchese would like to give the government a third accolade here.
Mr Marchese: Oh, no. I'm just agreeing.
Mr Hardeman: That's close enough.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman was quite clear.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is carried.
Further amendments to section 66? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 66 carry? Opposed? Section 66, as amended, is carried.
Are there any comments or suggestions on sections 67 through 70? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 67 through 70 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 67 through 70 are carried.
Section 71:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 71(3) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out.
Mr Marchese: After Mr Hardeman speaks, I want to speak. This is a bad one. Read the note at the bottom; this is a bad one.
Mr Gerretsen: You've gone too far this time.
Mr Hardeman: No comment, Mr Chair.
Mr Marchese: It's quite clear. This is wiping out the $5,000 limit regarding the total contribution a person can make. Obviously, individually they can contribute up to $750 to any individual campaign and that company, conglomerate or whatever it is can then give out $750 to any other campaign up to $5,000. That's a lot of money. Most of us ordinary folk, or many of you who might have run municipally -- if you have the connections to those types of people, you might be able to get some of their money, but some of us don't get that kind of money. Some of us don't want that kind of contribution from those companies, in fact.
1800
But what this does is to say that a company can decide that they've got $10,000 or $20,000 to give away and they want to spread their largess across the city of Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto or Hamilton, wherever they want to go. That's a lot of money to give away to influence those municipal politicians, because that's how you influence people: through your ability to give money to their campaigns.
I don't know where this amendment comes from. I don't know who's encouraged this committee's members to support this, but it comes out of the blue. We never had any inkling from anybody that this was going to come up as a matter that was going to be an amendment here. I find it objectionable. There's an answer to -- we're striking it out?
Interjection: No, no.
Mr Marchese: Oh. Mr Hardeman?
The Chair: Mr Gerretsen first, but Mr Hardeman does have a response.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to hear from him as well. Is Mr Hardeman suggesting that the government believes that councils can be bought? Because that's what he's suggesting by striking out this section. I mean, if you can give any candidate as much as they want, you can give up to $750 to every candidate who's running, you could buy a council. Is the government in favour of councils being bought this way?
Mr Hardeman: Definitely not, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: Then why are you voting in favour of having this removed?
Mr Hardeman: First of all, I apologize for saying I had no comment on it, because it seemed like a very simple resolution.
One of the reasons we are recommending the removal of the $5,000 -- the act presently says that an individual can contribute a maximum of $750 per candidate, with no more than $5,000 per council. There are a great number of councils where that would include every member of council at $750. It was thought, as we're looking at reorganizing government and local government, that there may very well be much larger councils, and an upper limit on how much could totally be contributed to individual councils was deemed inappropriate and unfair to some councils as opposed to others. If a council in Kingston has five members, anyone can contribute $750 to every member on council or whatever number they wish to contribute to. If another council has 56 members, they are prohibited from contributing any more than the up to $5,000 total. So we think it's appropriate to leave that, to take the ceiling off but leave it on as $750 per candidate.
Mr Carroll: It is well to point out here that the individual limit is still only $750, and I think to say that any individual could be bought for 750 bucks is really pushing credibility. If a council is in a position to have all of its members supported at $750, then why shouldn't every council be in a position to have all of its members supported at $750? I think you eliminate some people from that kind of support with the $5,000 limit. This way, we make it available that every member who runs can get $750 from the same contributor if in fact they are worthy of it. So I think we have to keep in mind that it is still $750 per candidate, and that is what eliminates any possibility of somebody being bought.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure Mr Hardeman is correct in saying that there's a $5,000 limit per council. I think there's a $5,000 limit as total contribution.
Mr Hardeman: No, no.
Mr Marchese: Per jurisdiction? Per council? It's even worse. That's even worse.
Mr Hardeman: For correction purposes, the act presently says $5,000 maximum --
Mr Marchese: Per council. Yes, that's even worse. If I was correct in my previous interpretation, that was bad enough, but this -- somebody can give up to whatever amount. It could be higher, and of course it can be for every council, wherever they have dealings with those people. I just think this is obscene; I really do. I believe that's a lot of money that can be made to those individuals and that is influence. Whether you say "bought" or not, however you want to word it, for me that is a great deal of public influence on those individuals. I really find that objectionable.
I think $5,000 is already a great deal. Whether council is made up of 20 or 10, you are making a sizeable contribution to those individuals. I would find it strange that such a company would make a contribution to all of them. Maybe that happens; I'm not sure. But even if they make a contribution to all the politicians, as opposed to selective contributions to some, that's a lot of bucks. I find this objectionably obscene. I want to say that for the record. I'll be voting against it and I want a recorded vote when we do this.
Mr Gerretsen: Just as a matter of clarification to Mr Carroll, I never said individual members can be bought. I said councils can be bought this way, which is a little bit different.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gerretsen. Any further discussion? Seeing none, and Mr Marchese has requested a recorded vote, all those in favour of the amendment?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Baird, Mr Carroll, Mr Chudleigh, Ms Fisher, Mr Hardeman, Mr Maves, Mr Ouellette, Mr Tascona.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Interjections.
The Chair: We are voting for the amendment to the schedule that was --
Mr Hardeman: I made a motion that I move that subsection 71(3) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out, and that's what I voted in favour of.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, that's an entire section, not a subsection. You can't delete an entire section to a bill.
Mr Gerretsen: You guys have got answers to everything. I want to be recorded as opposed, then.
The Chair: Thank you. We were at that stage in the vote. All those opposed?
Mr Maves: Mr Chair, we have a question.
The Chair: No, we're in the middle of a vote. We don't have a question.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Gerretsen, Mr Hoy, Mr Lalonde, Mr Marchese.
Mr Maves: I didn't vote, and the reason I didn't vote was because I wanted to find out -- I'm not sure if it was in order.
The Chair: The motion is in order.
Mr Maves: So the motion to withdraw that section from the bill is in order and that's what we're voting on?
The Chair: The subsection. You can withdraw a subsection from a bill. Yes, it is in order.
Mr Maves: Did they have --
The Chair: You were recorded as voting in favour when the clerk read out the names.
Mr Maves: Without putting up my hand.
Mr Marchese: See the assumption Steve made.
Mr Maves: Was that the wink in my eye?
The Chair: Moving right along, are there any further amendments to section 71?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 71(4) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by striking out "subsections (1), (2) and (3)" in the first line and substituting "subsections (1) and (2)."
Mr Marchese: What does that do, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: This is to amend subsection 71(4) to delete references to subsection 71(3), which is no longer included in the bill as a result of the previous vote.
Mr Marchese: Terrible amendment.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 71, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 71 as amended is carried.
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 72 through 75? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 72 through 75 carry? Opposed? Sections 72 through 75 are carried.
Section 76:
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 76(4) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Maximum amount
"(4) During the period that begins on the day a candidate is nominated under section 33 and ends on voting day, his or her expenses shall not exceed an amount calculated in accordance with the prescribed formula."
This is an amendment to move the allowable election expense to regulation as opposed to legislation.
Mr Marchese: I'm worried about this. I'm not sure why we're doing it. There's probably an explanation, no doubt, but it obviously wipes out the spending limits and gives authority now to do this under regulation. I'm worried about the implication of it because my sense is that we might be allowing, under regulation, to increase the amounts that people could spend. You might relieve me of that fear, which would be good, but I am worried about what is happening under this kind of proposition here. Perhaps, Mr Hardeman, you might want to comment on that. I don't know if staff have any explanation with respect to this.
Mr Hardeman: We think that the system needs to be changed because of the change in the voters' list and the nomination period being eight months as opposed to 28 days. The voters' list that will be in place at the actual time of the election could very likely be smaller than the voters' list that included transient people, both those who moved in and who moved out.
Mr Marchese: But the population would remain the same. I mean, how would the electorate decrease?
Mr Hardeman: In an area where we have a large tenant population, the tenant moving out may very well not be removed from the voters' list when the tenant moving in has been added on. They walk in and add themselves on to the voters' list. The old ones are not removed so the voters' list would tend to be larger until it was actually calculated. To make sure that can be adjusted over the period of time, we deem it appropriate that we should do it in regulation.
The Chair: The committee will stand recessed until immediately after the vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 1811 to 1821.
The Chair: We were in the middle of discussing an amendment to section 76. Were there any further questions arising from that?
Mr Marchese: You are anticipating possibly reducing the spending limits because there will be fewer people enumerated, is what I understood. Is that is likely to happen then?
Mr Hardeman: Could you try that again, Rosario?
Mr Marchese: I think part of what you were saying is that you're anticipating fewer people to be enumerated and because that is likely to be the case, possibly we may have to adjust the ceilings. Is that correct? So the ceiling isn't likely to go down. The spending limits therefore are likely to go down more than up?
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that the legislation deals with whether it's going up or down. The spending limits should be set by regulation instead of legislation so they can be varied over time.
Mr Marchese: I understand that. If we could just get one of the other folks there to --
Mr Jones: It's been argued that with changes to the way that enumeration can be done in future we may step away from a list that is today very inclusionary. It actually has more names on it than there probably are entitled to be there. If we tighten up that enumeration process and the list ends up being more exact in terms of who's entitled, you want to have the ability to be able to maintain the spending limits by being able to change the formula to account for the fact that there's a shorter voters' list than there is now.
Mr Marchese: But I thought that was automatic. I thought that the spending limit is tied to the numbers of people enumerated or on the voters' list.
Mr Jones: That's right.
Mr Marchese: So once we know that, the ceiling is tied to that. Why do we need this in order to get to that?
Mr Jones: But if you have a voters' list that errs on the side of including people, as we have today, then you have a spending limit that's a certain amount. If the list ends up having fewer people on it because you're more exact in your enumeration and you think it's appropriate that the spending limit stay relatively the same, then you want to adjust the formula to take that into account.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Ouellette: Why are we changing the legislation to call for inadequate election lists?
Mr Hardeman: I would point out that the legislation also deals with providing the opportunity to come up with new types of voters' lists, that they will not all be done as they presently are, and as the numbers change it may be appropriate to change the spending per capita. Presently, the spending is based on so many dollars for the office and then so much per capita of your electorate, and over time it may be appropriate to change that. Our proposal is to do that by regulation as opposed to having to change the legislation to change the 25 cents or whatever the number is per capita that one can spend on an election campaign.
Mr Gerretsen: It seems the member for Oshawa is having second thoughts about this bill.
The Chair: We will find out soon enough, Mr Gerretsen.
Seeing no further discussion, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried. Is it the favour of the committee that section 76, as amended, carry? All in favour? Contrary? Section 76, as amended, is carried.
Are there any comments or amendments to sections 77 or 78? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 77 and 78 carry? Contrary? Sections 77 and 78 are carried.
Section 79: any comments or amendments?
Mr Gerretsen: We have an amendment, and it's basically an addition of subsection (8.1). I move that section 79 of the Municipal Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Restructuring
"(8.1) Subsection (8) also applies with necessary modifications if,
"(a) the municipality has been restructured since the last regular election; and
"(b) the candidate is nominated for an office on a council or local board whose territorial jurisdiction is the same as or overlaps that of the former council or local board."
It's basically intended to deal with the situation where you've got an amalgamation or a restructuring, that at least the funds that were there before, that were put in trust for his candidacy before, should still be made available to him.
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest that further along in the government's amendments we have an amendment that deals with the situation of restructuring and the minister's power to provide regulations to deal with the one time.
Mr Gerretsen: Which amendment, 95.1? If that covers the situation, I'd be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Gerretsen has withdrawn his amendment.
Any further amendments to section 79? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 79 carries? Opposed? Section 79 is carried.
Are there any amendments or comments for sections 80 through 87? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 80 through 87 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Sections 80 through 87 are carried.
Section 88: any comments or amendments?
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 88(11) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Voters' list
"(11) A voters' list prepared under this act shall not be,
"(a) posted in a public place; or
"(b) made available to the public in another manner that is prescribed."
This amendment is to deal with the privacy commissioner's concern about it being posted on the Internet, which would be the same as putting it in a public place. We are covering that concern by this amendment.
The Chair: I believe that might be a typo, Mr Hardeman. "Than is prescribed" as opposed to "that is prescribed" would be grammatical.
1830
Mr Hardeman: I stand to be corrected. I believe it's an appropriate comment, that other manners in which they may not be posted will be prescribed. The minister may, by regulation, prescribe that it cannot be posted on the Internet.
Mr Marchese: The phrasing could have been improved, I think is what you're getting at.
Mr Tascona: The intent is that it's made available to the public in the manner that is prescribed.
Mr Hardeman: No, I think the intent of the amendment is that the minister will not prescribe how it may be posted; he will prescribe how it may not be posted. One of those would be the Internet, but there may be others. He may prescribe how lists cannot be posted.
"A voters' list prepared under this act shall not be... made available to the public in another manner that is prescribed." By regulation, the minister could prescribe that it can't be posted on the Internet, it cannot be put over the television, it cannot be made available on local computer networks. He may prescribe how it may not be made available, but the municipality or the electoral officer would be able to make it available in any manner which is not prohibited.
Mrs Fisher: I'm not disagreeing with the intent of what you're trying to say. Given that eight out of eight people sitting at the table are confused by it, is now not the time to correct it, to put in language that somebody can understand?
Mr Gerretsen: The government should withdraw this bill and get their act together.
Mrs Fisher: Oh, John, settle down. All I'm trying to suggest is that if eight out of eight are confused by it, this is the time to get it right, not to get it wrong. There must be a way of wording it that makes it right on.
Mr Gray: The intent is that the list not be "made available to the public in any other manner that's prohibited by regulation." If you want to get more precise, we could do something like that. You could say you can't make it available if it's prohibited by regulation, that kind of language. I think this says it.
Mr Gerretsen: It raises all sorts of other questions, though. Can it be made available? Does that mean somebody could go into the clerk's office and just look at it? Can a person in effect make a copy of it and take it out of the office with them?
Mr Gray: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: If you do that, how is that going to protect the public any more than when it was posted on the telephone poles?
Mr Hardeman: I think it's important to recognize that the intent of the amendment was not to prohibit people from knowing who is on the list of electors. It was to make it less public and thus make it safer for the people on the list. It was to prohibit the posting in public places, on telephone poles, in the local service station and so forth. Upon reviewing that, there was concern expressed that with modern technology there were ways it could be publicly posted other than the hydro poles. This is to prevent that from happening, but not to limit the ability of a voters' list to be public. They are public lists.
Mr Maves: I think Mr Tascona's basic point is that there's going to be one way in which the voters' list is going to be made available, and you're saying you want to prescribe a thousand different ways it can't be made available. Wouldn't it be easier just to prescribe the one way it's made available? Then you'd just put in here "than as prescribed," change the "that" to "than." You wouldn't have to do a list of all these different ways that it couldn't be made available, just one way it could be made available. Isn't that the easier way to go about it?
Mr Hardeman: I think the concern was that there may be a number of ways in which it can be made available.
Mr Maves: But less than can't be made available.
Mr Hardeman: I think the intent of the legislation is fairly simple. It is trying to eliminate the public posting, whether that be on the traditional hydro pole or by electronic means. It's to eliminate the public posting. Any other way of circulating the list is still appropriate.
Mr Marchese: If I didn't know any better, I would think the government members are filibustering.
On a serious note, this is actually quite simple. I think it could have been improved grammatically, but it says, "shall not be...made available to the public in another manner," and I think the intent of what follows is "yet to be prescribed by regulation" or "to be prescribed by regulation." I'm not sure whether the lawyer, Mr Gray, has any other wording change to make it easier. If he doesn't, I suggest we move on, because it's quite clear.
Mr Gray: This can be said in many different ways. I think this language works. You people can come up with something that you're more comfortable with: "which may be prohibited by regulation," someone's suggesting, "any other manner which is prohibited by regulation."
Mr Marchese: That's even worse. Leave it alone. Mr Chair, I'm ready to vote on this.
Mr Baird: Many women particularly didn't want the fact that they were the only person in a household over the age of 18 posted on a street pole. It was brought forward by Mr McGuinty, and I believe it passed second reading. It was brought forward for that reason, and I voted for it at second reading because I think people had just cause. Some of these voters' lists were not only were posted on telephone poles months after the election, but in a windstorm they were flying around the street. People had just reason not to want the information to be that available, but if someone wanted to look for it with specific intent to do so, that would be a good idea.
Mr Marchese: Nobody is disputing the intent of what's here. A lot of people were very concerned about their names being made public, and I agree with that. But (a) and (b) cover both what we are familiar with and what we don't know, that has to be worked out by regulation. Internet is an example of that, and there might be other examples they want to work out. We agree with this.
Mr Tascona: If it was the desire of the committee to change the word "that" to "than," what would be the procedure?
Mr Hardeman: I suggest that would again put the onus on the minister prescribing any way that it may be posted, when the intent of the amendment is strictly to allow the minister, by regulation, to prohibit some of the ways that it may be circulated. Your suggestion would be the other way. He would have to prescribe all the ways that it could be circulated.
The Chair: Is there any new discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is carried.
Shall section 88, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 88, as amended, is carried.
Are there any amendments or suggestions to sections 89 through 94? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that sections 89 through 94 carry? Opposed? Sections 89 through 94 carry.
Section 95: I should inform Mr Gerretsen that because your motion dealt with 35(3.1), which was defeated, that motion would not be in order.
Mr Gerretsen: You know how to hurt a guy, don't you?
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, I believe you have an amendment.
1840
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 95(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(e.1) prescribing a formula for the purpose of subsection 76(4) (maximum amount of expenses)."
This is a companion resolution to the previous one where we took the election expenses out of the act. This gives the minister the authority to pass regulations to set those expenses.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Marchese: I'm just worried about that.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 95 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Different formulas
"(3) Under clause (1)(e.1), a different formula may be prescribed for candidates for the office of head of council of a municipality than is prescribed for candidates for other offices."
Again this is a companion resolution to allow the minister, by regulation, to set different standards for different offices, that the head of council could get different election expenses than the other members of council.
Mr Marchese: I just want to make a note here that "than" appears in this change, in the last sentence, you will observe. I'd just bring your attention to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Is it the favour of the committee that section 95, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 95, as amended, carries.
Mr Hardeman, you have another addition?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. I move that the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"Transitional regulations, municipal restructuring
"95.1(1) The minister may, by regulation, provide for transitional matters that affect an election and arise out of the restructuring of a municipality or local board.
"Same
"(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may be made retroactive,
"(a) in the case of a regular election, to January 1 in that year;
"(b) in the case of a by-election, to the first day of the period described in paragraph 2 of subsection 65(4).
"Same
"(3) A regulation made under subsection (1) may be particular or general in its application.
"Same
"(4) A regulation made under subsection (1) applies despite anything else in this or any other public or private act."
This allows the minister, by regulation, to deal with the other matters that were previously discussed as they relate to restructuring and elections in the election year.
The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? Mr Hardeman's amendment is carried.
Section 96: Are there any amendments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 96 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 96 is carried.
Shall the entire schedule, as amended, carry?
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chair, there is still that one section that was set aside.
The Chair: Forgive me. Thank you, Mr Gerretsen. I appreciate your reminding me. We set down subsection 8(5.1). I believe Mr Hardeman was getting some more background information.
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure I have much background information. The concern was that this amendment is specifying a time by which questions for the ballot must be given to the clerk before they could be on the ballot. I'm informed that the present legislation does not require such time frames. If it's not in in sufficient time, it would not be on the ballot. It would behoove everyone to have it in in sufficient time so the municipality can pass a bylaw to put it on the ballot. If the municipality does not pass a bylaw to include it on the ballot, it doesn't go on the ballot and it would have to wait till the next municipal election.
Mr Gerretsen: What is sufficient time, though? Nomination day is the day when the ballot for every position in the municipality is set. People know who's running for what and they can print the ballots. All we're suggesting with this amendment, and it's an Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario recommendation, is that the same thing applies to a question; in other words, that nomination day be the last day on which a question can be put to be voted on at election time. If you have a special election, then it should be 60 or more days before voting. We're making it easier on the clerks so that they know what to prepare for. Just because it isn't in the present act -- it may be an oversight in the present act.
Mr Jones: One of the things that has to be kept in mind here is that at a by-election, if you're going to have a special election for the purposes of putting a vote to the electorate, it's only triggered by somebody -- a school board or a public utility or a council -- putting the question to a vote and then advising the clerk to hold the election. The trigger is already there, so the suggestion that you need one that says in the case of a by-election 60 or more days before voting day, that's already in the legislation, in the section dealing with the calling of a by-election.
Mr Gerretsen: You've got me on that one, but it still doesn't say anything in the act, and I think the parliamentary assistant has just confirmed it, there's nothing in the act that states that a question to be posed to the general public on the regular election day has to be in to that clerk by a certain date. It's theoretically possible for a question to be put even a week before voting day.
Mr Jones: No, it's not practically, administratively or theoretically possible, because the law requires notice to be given to the public. There are certain administrative things that a clerk has to do to prepare a ballot. A week before the election, you're already going to be into advance polls. You're going to have some people --
Mr Marchese: All the clerks are wrong?
Mr Gerretsen: Have you discussed this with the clerks? That's all I want to know.
Mr Jones: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: And were you able to convince them?
Mr Jones: Well, obviously not. I'm trying to convince you now.
Mr Gerretsen: I think the clerks make eminent good sense. We all know that it's the clerks who really run the municipalities and determine whether a municipality is properly run. If they put this forward --
Mr Jones: And determine what's the appropriate day by which to have your question to the clerk for the purpose of it being included as part of the regular election.
Mr Gerretsen: But the clerks don't want that kind of open-ended responsibility. They'd much rather have it tied down in legislation, that it says it can be no later than nomination day.
Mr Marchese: I was convinced by some of the arguments the clerks seemed to be making; their interpretation seemed to be valid, from my obviously limited knowledge of this. But you're saying it is already within the act, that they have protections that will give them plenty of time to be able to administratively deal with a referendum question that could be placed. You're saying that in the act they are protected from the worries they seem to have. So where is the reading or misreading of this? How does it happen that they have one interpretation as municipal clerks, who seem to have a great deal of experience, and that we, through you, have a different knowledge of this? Where's the misinterpretation that's occurring here?
1850
Mr Jones: I don't think it's a matter of misinterpretation. It's how fixed do you want the legislation to be? Do you want to be able to say that September 1 is the day?
Mr Gerretsen: Nomination day.
Mr Jones: But maybe nomination day is an inappropriate day in certain municipalities.
Mr Gerretsen: Why?
Mr Jones: Why? Because of the lead time for doing certain things. If you have to give notice to the public of the fact that you're going to put a question on the ballot and you're going to have your advance polls starting, say, three or four days after nominations are closed and you're going to run a continuous poll for 22 days, then nomination day may in fact be too late.
Mr Marchese: You're saying protections are already there.
Mr Jones: The clerk has a lot of decision-making power in this new act when it comes to administrative things. The clerk can say, "I need to know by this date in order to manage and run this election."
Mr Marchese: So he or she cannot be totally surprised by a council, which could surprise the clerk through some vote that might occur around referendum.
Mr Jones: The council could ask the clerk, but the clerk would be within his or her right to indicate that administratively they could not accommodate this request.
Mr Marchese: I guess the fear is that the clerk may not be asked. Council may make the decision -- is that possible?
Mr Jones: You have to ask the clerk. The clerk has to prepare the ballot. The clerk has to make the necessary --
Mr Marchese: So in dealing with such a motion, the clerk would know of the motion, obviously, and would be there to respond.
Mr Jones: True, and a council 99 times out of 100 would ask the clerk in advance, "What's the last day that we can possibly put this question?"
Mr Marchese: And they listen to the clerk, of course.
Mr Jones: On election matters, yes.
Mr Gerretsen: But there's also another scenario, and that is the fact that the clerk may very well, for whatever reason, not want to deal with a specific question because it means more paperwork, more ballots etc. Under your scenario, a clerk could three or four months before the election say, "We can't deal with that question," particularly if it's a referendum that's being asked for by a group of citizens.
It's much better to set it out in precise legislation in exactly the same way. On nomination day we know exactly who the candidates are going to be and the question should be there on nomination day.
Mr Carroll: I just want to pose this question to the parliamentary assistant. We've had a couple of instances now where the clerks, through their association, are asking for less responsibility. As I understand the municipal structure, the clerks are fairly senior officers in the whole municipal structure. Have you any idea why they would be asking for less responsibility and less authority?
Mr Gerretsen: Come on. That's too political a question.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Carroll, I have absolutely no idea why an organization such as the association of clerks would be concerned about having more responsibility. I'm sure they are quite capable of making these types of decisions; they have in the past and they will in the future, I think.
Mr Gerretsen: I can give you a reason: The clerks don't want to get involved in the political jockeying that goes on in municipalities and they don't want to get caught in between two potential candidates -- they may have to work for one of them somewhere down the line -- if somebody raises a technicality or whatever. They would like to have it prescribed as detailed as possible so that nobody can accuse them later on of perhaps taking sides in an election.
Mr Marchese: It's not political at all. These clerks have made a recommendation that supports this government with respect to removing that $5,000 ceiling. I wondered: "Why would they do that? It's a highly political thing. Why would they get involved in stuff like that?" To be fair, they obviously have a number of concerns they wanted to raise -- not political, obviously.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to make one comment on the issue of setting a deadline or a certain date. It's important to recognize that putting a question on the ballot, with giving public notice and making sure all the information is available, may take longer than from nomination day to the time the clerk is instructed to print the ballot. The government's suggestion is that it's more appropriate for them to set the time lines as to how soon it must be in to be included in this year's ballot.
Mr Marchese: I'm ready for the vote.
The Chair: Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, I'll put the question. All those in favour of Mr Gerretsen's amendment?
Mr Gerretsen: I'd like a recorded vote.
Ayes
Gerretsen, Hoy.
Nays
Baird, Carroll, Chudleigh, Fisher, Hardeman, Marchese, Maves, Ouellette, Tascona.
The Chair: That amendment is lost.
Shall section 8 carry? Section 8 is carried.
Shall the schedule, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the act carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.
That concludes our clause-by-clause deliberation on Bill 86. Thank you to the committee -- record time.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I think it should noted that we've been very cooperative.
The Chair: I would be pleased to note that for the record. This committee stands adjourned till the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1856.