CONTENTS
Tuesday 27 September 1994
Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 163, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l'aménagement du territoire et les municipalités,
projet de loi 163, M. Philip
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Malkowski
Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Harnick
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Bisson
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Ms Harrington
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
McKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal policy planning branch
Perron, Linda, solicitor, legal branch, corporate resources management
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1013 in committee room 2.
PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DES MUNICIPALITÉS
Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're into clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 163. Just as a comment to the committee, we're ready to deal with sections 1 and 2, but I would suggest that we defer sections 1 and 2 because they deal with schedule A and schedule B, which are at the back of the bill and have yet to be considered. I suggest we defer those two matters and move quickly into section 3. We'll ask the government member to --
Interjections.
The Chair: Are we going just a tad too fast?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): No, great, but I want just one clarification. I want the parliamentary assistant to give me the answer to a very simple question. You were asked this morning on that news conference how many amendments you had. I didn't quite get the answer. How many was it said there was?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): It was said a lot. I think they said there were 50-some amendments.
Mr McLean: That's 50-some amendments there?
Mr Hayes: Do you want to include all of the Liberals' and Conservatives' that are duplicated?
Mr McLean: I think the question was asked, how many amendments were there to the bill?
Mr Hayes: Do we know exactly how many amendments we have to the bill? Maybe the clerk can help us. I want you to have the right answer there, Mr McLean.
The Chair: Hold on, please. Ms Bryce, do we know how many amendments the government has introduced?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Yesterday I believe there were about 102 filed with my office.
The Chair: Okay, Mr McLean? Very well. Moving on, subsection 3(2). Mr Hayes, do you want to speak to it or introduce it or read it for the record?
Mr Hayes: We have an amendment. You prefer us to read it all into the record?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 3(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Section 1 of the act is amended by adding the following definitions:
"`first nation' means a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada);
"`public body' means a municipality, a local board, a ministry, department, board, commission, agency or official of a provincial or federal government or a first nation; (`organisme public')"
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Can the parliamentary assistant clarify what this does? As I understand it, the change would make Indian bands public bodies.
Mr Hayes: That's exactly what it does.
Mr David Johnson: It would provide wider rights of appeal. Could you be more specific in terms of what those wider rights of appeal would be, what rights of appeal they would have today and what rights of appeal would exist under this?
Mr Hayes: The bill proposes to deem an Indian band to be a person for the purposes of the Planning Act. The Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and the Six Nations expressed concern with this definition. It would provide wider rights of appeal and it recognizes that first nation is more like a public agency than a person.
Mr David Johnson: I see that, but what I'm asking specifically, could you give us some examples of what those wider rights of appeal would be?
Mr Hayes: I'm going to refer that to staff.
Mr Philip McKinstry: In the Planning Act right now, the public bodies have some slightly wider rights of appeal. For example, under appealing rights of plans of subdivision conditions, there's no time limit on a public body, whereas there's a time limit on a private applicant. Therefore, the Indian band would be able to use the same kind of time frame as the public body.
Mr David Johnson: I'm just following up on that. I thought that some of the comments this morning from the minister and the parliamentary assistant indicated that public bodies were going to have to essentially follow the same time line and field procedures that individuals would have to follow.
Mr Hayes: That's correct.
Mr David Johnson: If that's correct then --
Mr McKinstry: That's true, but that's a slightly different issue in the sense that what happens there is we were saying that private individuals could be dismissed at the OMB or by the approval authority if they didn't get involved early and public bodies did not have to follow that rule. We were very keen to demonstrate that in fact everybody should be involved early in the process. Therefore, that will be changed by these motions to say that public bodies have to be involved early or they could be dismissed.
1020
Mr David Johnson: I'm just trying to get a handle on what this really means. It means that the Indian bands then would have a longer period to appeal subdivision approval. Is that what it means?
Mr McKinstry: Just to go back to what it really means, it's that first nations will have to receive notice from municipalities, and that's not so under the current Planning Act. Therefore, they were deemed initially a person; now we're just changing that to a public body. This is actually a fairly minor change and it does also recognize the Statement of Political Relationship, which indicates that Indian bands and the government should deal on a government-to-government basis and therefore we are giving them that additional.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I know they had expressed some concern when we were in Niagara Falls. Has this change come about with consultation and, I would want to say, agreement with the bands there, the first nation people?
Mr McKinstry: We discussed this with the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and it was clear to us from the hearings that they wanted some wider rights of appeal. The public bodies would be satisfactory to them.
Mr Curling: But there was no further consultation or meetings with the bands themselves.
Mr McKinstry: No, there were not.
Mr Curling: So we're not quite sure whether or not --
Ms Linda Perron: Perhaps I can respond to that question. My name is Linda Perron, counsel, Municipal Affairs. I did speak with the solicitor for the Six Nations band after they made their presentation at standing committee and set out the motion that we were proposing, and it was satisfactory to him.
It clearly addresses on point the concern raised by the band at the standing committee in Niagara Falls, wherein the current bill deems them to be persons for the purpose of the act. We have changed the wording to refer to them as a first nation and in addition to include them in our list of public bodies in the definitions section.
Mr Curling: They had expressed some concerns, as you know, even of relationship, not only how they are addressed in the legislation but what kind of relation they have. They didn't want to be seen as someone who was just consulted and then that's it; in other words, as you said, to be treated as a nation. This description here would give them that kind of recognition. Is that it?
Mr McKinstry: That's correct.
Ms Perron: What it does is the use of the term "first nation" is more consistent with the wording that is used in the Statement of Political Relationship with the first nations in Ontario. Once they're identified as a public body within the Planning Act, then our regulation-making powers will authorize us to identify a first nation on a reserve as a body that's entitled to receive notice from a municipality or other types of approval bodies when dealing with applications and processes under the Planning Act.
Mr Curling: This is what they're concerned about, not only about receiving notice, but would they be consulted if any decisions are going to be made? I don't want to call it negotiation, but --
Ms Perron: After notice is received, then the approval body has to analyse and deal with the comments or objections provided by public bodies and persons in general, so that would be a natural process that would occur afterwards.
Mr David Johnson: I have just one other question. With this amendment then, that the first nation bands would be considered a public body and the requirement apparently that's coming in that ministries and agencies etc must "be consistent with" the policies, would that apply to the first nations bands as well, their comments? If they're deemed to be a public body, my sense now is that all public bodies, in commenting on planning matters, must be consistent with the policies. Is that right? If all the amendments go through, does that apply to first nation bands as well?
Ms Perron: No, the scope of the motion that we're proposing to add subsection 3(6) to the bill would not apply to first nations.
Mr David Johnson: It applies to all other what I'd call public institutions: the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment etc.
Ms Perron: Commissions or agencies and Ontario Hydro.
Mr David Johnson: It applies to all public agencies and bodies, but it doesn't apply to this public body. Is this the only "public body" that that amendment would not apply to?
Ms Perron: Yes, I would think so.
Mr David Johnson: Did you give any thought to that? Does that concern you?
Mr McKinstry: I guess one way of looking at that is the ministry's agencies and the like are bound as they move into the planning application framework under this act. First nations make comments on this to municipalities, but they don't make decisions under this act. Therefore, it is the ministries that are bound, because they in fact are making comments, submissions, giving testimony and things like that under the act.
Mr David Johnson: So that was an intended course of action, then, rather than an oversight.
Mr McKinstry: That's right, yes.
The Chair: Any other comments? Seeing no other speakers, all in favour of this amendment? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 3(3) of the bill, subsection 1(2) of the Planning Act, be struck out.
This is really a consequential amendment to deal with the previous.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
The whole section, then. All in favour of section 3 as amended? Opposed? That carries.
Mr McLean: I move that clause 1.1(a) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out "sustainable economic development" in the first and second lines.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Chair, can I ask through you to either the parliamentary assistant or the staff that are present if there is a definition of sustainable economic development, if there's anywhere that I can look and find such a definition?
Mr McKinstry: The act does not contain a definition of sustainable economic development. However, our view is at the policy level that we're attempting to promote development in Ontario, we're attempting to promote it in terms of sound, healthy communities, in terms of a healthy environment. The government's view is that "sustainable economic development" means development that recognizes that economic development is important but also that the environment is important.
Mr David Johnson: I think we would all support development that assists the economy and is sensitive to the environment. The parliamentary assistant and the minister this morning made it clear that they wish to cut through red tape and they wish to put in place planning procedures that encourage a speedy response to economic development proposals.
The concern is, notwithstanding our concern for the environment etc, if phrases like this are used that are not defined, then there is a great possibility that different people will apply different definitions. For example, somebody said to me if a proposal comes forward that doesn't have solar heating in it, if you use electrical heating or gas heating or something like that, is that sustainable economic development? Perhaps a development should be compelled to use solar heating, which I guess, without thinking too far about it, may be considered to be sustainable.
There's a concern, I know, in some quarters, and some people have made deputations -- I think the home builders may be one -- that clauses like this can be used by people who are opposed to a development. They can use this to hold up a development, slow it down and apply more red tape around the whole proposal.
1030
I wonder if I could get some comment on that. Perhaps that hasn't happened up to this time, but it certainly is a phrase that will be interpreted in many different directions by many different people. Perhaps I could get a comment on that. I'm concerned and certainly the home builders are concerned that it could be used to slow down development.
Mr McKinstry: Yes, we have thought long and hard about the effect of the act on development in Ontario and we think that we provide processes that will actually speed up development. In terms of how the purpose section will interrelate with other processes in the act, I draw your attention to the fact that there is an extensive comprehensive set of policy statements.
The policy statements are really the things that decision-makers will be looking to under the new act to make their decisions. The purpose section of the act sets a framework for how the act operates. The policies will be the things that drive decisions under the act.
Mr David Johnson: I understand all that but I guess I'm getting down a little bit closer to the road. If there was opposition to a particular development, let's say, on a basis that this subdivision was not sustainable, it didn't use the right fuel source -- let's take the case in point that the buildings were not heated by some sort of solar mechanism -- would the ministry consider that to be in violation of the purpose of the act, that the act is to promote sustainable economic development?
Mr McKinstry: Again, to go back to the wording, it talks about promoting sustainable economic development and then the policies talk about what kind of development, what the parameters of development are, and the policies don't address solar heating. So my view would be that you could not deny an application for a minor issue like that where it was consistent with the policies. Again, I would say that the purpose of the act is to set the framework. The policies are the things that make the decisions.
Mr David Johnson: Could you give us some idea of what the ministry would consider to be a violation of sustainable economic development in a specific case -- the development of a subdivision, let's say -- that would violate the purpose of the act, that you should be promoting sustainable economic development? Can you give me a specific instance where the ministry would consider that to be violated?
Mr McKinstry: What we're saying here is we want to promote development that won't fail, that we're really talking about how "sustainable" gets defined. But again I can't stress too much that in fact it's the policies we have to look to. The purpose of the act simply sets out what the act's purpose is. It doesn't indicate to the decision-makers the things they have to take into account. This is talking about what our purpose in setting out these policies is, what the framework for the policies is.
Mr David Johnson: Do you think that this will be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the province of Ontario?
Mr McKinstry: The policies will certainly have scope to be interpreted in different ways in different parts of Ontario. That is our intent.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I applaud Mr Johnson for his amendment. There are parts of it that I can support, but the part that I can't is the total removal of sustainable development. I think, picking up some of the comments of the deputants that came forward, they had the concern about strictly focusing on economic.
I'm thinking specifically of the CELA, Canadian Environmental Law Association, deputation. Their focus was, mentioning the Brundtland report, that if this is going to be altered, they would prefer that the word "economic" were deleted and that it read "to promote sustainable development," which would be much more environmentally friendly than strictly focusing on the economy and how that might drive development into areas that might not be appropriate for it.
That's my simple comment on Mr Johnson's amendment.
The Chair: Mr McLean actually made that amendment.
Ms Haeck: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr David Winninger (London South): My point, which I'll probably put in the form of a question, was quite similar to my colleague Ms Haeck's. We heard earlier from the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto that you don't necessarily need the word "economic" in the phrase "sustainable development." Now most of us know what sustainable development means and, as Christel Haeck pointed out, it gained more popular coinage as a result of the Brundtland report, Our Common Future.
But if sustainable development means physical, cultural, economic and social wellbeing, then we place economic factors on a same-level playing field with other factors such as physical, cultural and social. The point that was made earlier is: Why do we need to highlight the economic component in sustainable development when sustainable development already comports some notion of economic development that also accords with our social, cultural and physical concerns?
My question to the ministry was going to be this: Do you agree that sustainable development does include the economy and economic considerations as a factor? If so, can we dispense with the use of the term "economic" and, if not, what's the rationale for keeping it in there?
Mr McKinstry: I'll start with the last part of the question first. The government was very keen to make it clear to people using the planning process that economic development was important. It was important in a healthy environment, that's certainly key, but that economic development was important. In terms of the phrase "sustainable economic development" that would be why it's there: to demonstrate that the government in passing this legislation wants both to protect the environment but also to promote economic development.
Mr Winninger: If that's the answer then, why would we mention economic and not environmental as qualifiers for the term "sustainable development"? Why is it necessary to have one term but not the other?
Mr McKinstry: We have placed, actually, both concepts in that clause. We've talked about sustainable economic development, and I believe it says, "in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this act." So we've tried to incorporate both those concepts into the first clause of the purpose.
Mr Winninger: I think I understand your answer. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
Mr David Johnson: I think that's the point. Mr Winninger started off his questioning saying, "We all know what we mean by sustainable economic development," and then he made it perfectly clear that none of us has a clue what this is about. Nobody knows what sustainable economic development means. If somebody does, please speak up and tell me what it means.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr David Johnson: Jim is going to tell me. I hope he does. See that's the problem: We should not --
Interjections.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Johnson, hold on. I can't hear a word. Order, please.
Mr David Johnson: We should not be putting phrases into a bill in the legislation that are undefined and that obviously there's a great variance of opinion as to what they mean. They frankly should be defined. If they're not defined, then they are going to be a source of friction. There are going to be many different interpretations and obviously people are going to use them to further their own goals on any particular planning proposal, whatever their goals will be.
This is not going to lead to a speedy resolution of planning issues; this is going to be, unfortunately, another impediment for planners and councils and people who are hoping to build and bring economic development. It's going to be another impediment that they have to deal with, and I simply point that out that obviously from the discussion, people don't know what to do.
1040
Mr Curling: I just want to echo many of the things I've been hearing when we go to hearings in regard to the same point about sustained economic development. Some of the things that Mr Johnson was saying I carried further, that when we're making legislation and the more words we put in that are ill defined or unable to be defined, what it has done is lawyers have a field day on this and challenges will be there.
The main purpose, I gather, is that we're going to streamline and make this thing more efficient, and to be held up again about an ill-defined word, I don't call it streamlining. I thought that the government would have responded, seeing that they're trying to rewrite the entire legislation all over again, that this one would have been taken into consideration.
I have a feeling that since we can't get a definition of sustainable economic development, we would be much better off deleting it. I remember earlier on in one of the presentations that the request was to refer to this as a "sustainable development" rather than a "sustainable economic development." I hoped really that the government would have responded by amending this. I still, with the explanation I'm hearing from the ministry and from the parliamentary assistant, don't understand what sustainable economic development is.
I just wondered if somehow some definition could be given to satisfy one that there's no doubt in people's minds. I heard what the ministry said and I hope I'm right in interpreting what you're saying, that it is done; that it can be defined in different areas for what it really means relevant to that community. I don't know how, if that's a dangerous thing or not, because each person will then say that what it means to them in there may not mean even the same neighbourhood, and there's a long debate that would happen in the fact that things dragged out in courts or maybe at the OMB. I would appeal to you to take another look at it, maybe stand this one down and take another look and come back at it later on.
The Chair: I see no other speakers. Mr Hayes, did you want to comment on the issue of standing down this motion?
Mr Hayes: No, we're not going to stand down the motion, Mr Chair.
Mr McLean: What we have just discussed proves the point that "sustainable economic development" should be taken out. There's no doubt in my mind and I think the members should vote for this motion.
The Chair: Okay. We're ready for the vote. All in favour of the amendment moved by Mr McLean? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Liberal amendment, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Section 4 of the bill, clause 1.1(b) of the Planning Act: I move that clause 1.1(b) of the Planning Act as set out in section 4 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "which respects the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils and the economic interests of participants."
The Chair: Speaking to that, Mr Grandmaître?
Mr Grandmaître: Good question. I left my notes at the office.
The Chair: But you could say self-explanatory if you like.
Mr Grandmaître: What we're basically saying is that if we want the decision-making process to work at the municipal level, we have to give these councils better tools to work with and be more accountable. That's all I have. Do you have more notes, Alvin?
Mr Curling: We can come around again.
The Chair: Other speakers, Mr Wiseman and then Mr Johnson.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I don't think I'll be supporting this amendment for a number of reasons. If you want to talk about ambiguity, you've got it here. Even the mover of this motion off the cuff was having a tad of difficulty explaining what it meant.
The phrase that leaves me wondering what it really means is "the economic interests of participants." If it were left to me to interpret that, it would seem to me that it would say to councils that this is an overriding clause that would allow the councils to disregard the other sections of the act with respect to the environment and the sustainability portions of what this section of the bill is trying to do.
The phrase, "accountability of municipal councils," I would assume is trying to reflect that councils are elected, they can do whatever they want and they are accountable only every three years. I think that is not exactly the intent of this section of the act either; therefore, I would not like to see this kind of a phrase find its way into the act in terms of overall ambiguity and the really overriding sense that it might have on other parts of the act. I would urge all members to not support it.
Mr David Johnson: It really depends on your attitude towards planning. If your attitude towards planning in the province of Ontario is that it should be led by the provincial government, mandated by the provincial government, and the provincial government should lay out specific criteria and planning procedures and the municipalities should toe the line and should simply follow and be led by those provincial mandates and procedures, then, yes, you would vote against this amendment.
On the other hand, if you feel that planning in Ontario should be the primary responsibility of the municipalities and that the role of the province is to make broad policies but the role of the municipalities is to plan within their communities -- their communities which are different municipality to municipality, Oshawa to Toronto to Thunder Bay to Ottawa, all having different kinds of situations and different planning problems -- then you would acknowledge the role of municipalities in the planning system. That's all this motion is requesting.
This motion is requesting that we recognize that municipal councils play the key role in terms of accountability to the people in their community where the real planning takes place. The clause, as it is framed in the bill, reads "to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy." That's clause 1.1(b) in section 4. It clearly sets forward the province as leading the planning in the province of Ontario and it does not enunciate a role for municipalities.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, acting on behalf of its some 800 municipalities, has simply suggested this amendment, which Mr Grandmaître has enunciated, that we recognize the role of municipalities in the planning process in the province of Ontario, and indeed the economic interests of other participants, community groups.
Just to quote from AMO, they said, "A provincial policy-led planning system without a commitment to respect local accountability and decision-making authority would amount to a rigid and directive planning regime with little regard to the diversity and the unique characteristics of the hundreds of municipalities across the province."
I suggest that we wouldn't condone such a planning system. I don't think the government condones such a planning system. This is a simple amendment put forward by the Liberals, but we certainly support it. It's one that was recommended by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Mr Hayes said this morning that we need all-party approval and here's one we can get all-party approval on right here.
1050
Mr Winninger: I think the next government amendment to section 4 of the bill does in fact recognize the role of municipalities in planning. I think that's an important acknowledgement to make there. But, at the same time, I'm a little concerned with the rest of Mr Grandmaître's amendment, which would require the planning process to respect the economic interests of participants. I think by highlighting the term "sustainable economic development," that has already been done.
My experience in London has been an unfortunate one in the past, where the economic interests of participants always seemed to prevail. Ironically, it's Bill 75 that required the city to step back and plan for 20 years into the future and look at social, cultural, environmental and agricultural concerns in a very coordinated way for the first time.
I think the economic interests of participants has always been a very weighty consideration in municipal planning. I don't know that we need to highlight it again there, but I do see an importance in the role of municipal councils. That should be acknowledged, and I think it is in the next government amendment.
Mr Curling: I think the amendment is self-explanatory. It is very consistent with the policy that your government has put out, Mr Chairman. I'm going to read it again slowly: "which respects the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils and the economic interests of participants." Mr Wiseman was feeling like, "Oh, if we give away all this power, what's going to happen?"
I just want to call your attention to your empowering municipalities policy. As you indicated all along, that is chiselled in granite and cannot be moved, and here it says:
"The proposed legislation to reform the planning and development system in Ontario addresses this problem by giving municipalities greater local control over the development process. It is based on the belief that planning the development of Ontario's cities, towns and rural areas can best be accomplished by the people who live there."
The fact is that all it is saying here is that giving the municipalities and respecting as a matter of fact -- it's a very easy word -- "which respects the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils and the economic interests of participants." When you look at the entire section 4, it talks about the province and the provincial policy consistently, and this part of it just zeroes in on, to whom are we speaking and to whom are we giving that respect and authority?
We strongly believe that the people within the municipalities and those regions are able to make those decisions that will affect their lives and improve of course their wellbeing. This is what it's all about. I'm surprised that your party would say -- Mr Winninger is saying: "It is implied. Just trust us. It's implied there." But it's easy here to say that it is a matter of respecting those decision-making authority bodies. I would strongly ask you to be consistent with that policy which you wrote empowering those municipalities. This motion that we have put forward is indicative of trying to conform to the policy the government has put forward there.
Mr Hayes: Of course Mr Winninger already has mentioned about the government motion, which certainly will recognize the role of municipalities in planning by adding a new provision in clause (f) in this regard. As far as the accountability of municipal council, it's addressed through the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act. So these things are being done. The economic interests of the participants are being dealt with in clause 1.1(a). We feel that we will be addressing this concern in the government motion.
Mr McLean: I don't think the government motion covers what we're covering here in this resolution. We heard from many participants that came before us and wanted to have input into what's happening within their communities. They made a lot of presentations with regard to how they wanted to participate, and that's what this resolution does. It adds to it.
You are only talking about the role of municipalities in planning, but here we're talking about the accountability of municipal councils and the economic interests of participants. That's what people want, to have some interest, to have some input, and I think this is the proper resolution that we should be passing.
Mr Grandmaître: A quick question to the parliamentary assistant: You just said that accountability was covered through the disclosure legislation. Can you expand on this?
Mr Hayes: Yes, it's actually dealing with the open local government meetings. It's there, and they have to be accountable, they have to be open.
Mr Grandmaître: So you're deducing that accountability means what you just said? You're saying that accountability means that it's covered under the disclosure.
Mr Hayes: Well, it is covered under there and, at the same time, I have already indicated that we are going to add a new provision. The government proposed an amendment that will certainly recognize and accomplish what is required here. Certainly the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Urban Development Institute have expressed these concerns and this is the route that they wanted us to take. I think we're meeting that.
Mr Grandmaître: This amendment relates to AMO and the rest of UDI and the builders' association. This is their request, so how can you say that --
Mr Hayes: All I'm saying to you is that amendments have come forward and you will find, as we go through, that we have met a lot of those concerns and we will be addressing a lot of those concerns, but we feel that our motion will cover that concern, because you have your specific wording --
Mr Grandmaître: Well, Mr Chair, can I stand down my amendment and when we come to the amendment that you're referring to that will cover this amendment, then I'll pull it. But until then let's stand it down, because now what the parliamentary assistant --
The Chair: We need unanimous consent for that.
Mr Grandmaître: What the parliamentary assistant is telling me is that it's covered elsewhere, with another amendment, and I want to see it.
Mr Hayes: You have it.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to stand this matter down? There is no unanimous consent, Mr Grandmaître. Mr Johnson.
1100
Mr David Johnson: I think maybe the parliamentary assistant can clarify. I sense that he's talking about two different aspects of the bill. The one aspect is number 6, I think -- just let's see if he nods his head -- which indicates that there's a clause that'll be put in to recognize the role of municipalities in planning; in other words, to say that, "Yes, municipalities do exist," which I must say is a very barebones sort of recognition. That's one aspect.
I think the parliamentary assistant has also indicated that there is something in the conflict-of-interest section of this bill that pertains to the accountability of municipalities. But perhaps he could clarify that, because I'm lost as well as to what the second reference is to.
Mr Hayes: It's in the disclosure of interest part; it's Bill 163. There's no amendment for that. It's already in there. Then the other one, like I said, we do have an amendment that will certainly address this.
Mr David Johnson: Just to assist us then in voting here at this point, can you point out to us where you're referring to in the conflict-of-interest section with regard to accountability?
Mr Grandmaître: What page?
Mr Hayes: On page 89, the disclosure of interest act, when we talk about pecuniary interest, item 3.
Mr David Johnson: So when you're talking about --
Mr Hayes: You're talking about disclosure, you're talking about accountability, and this certainly, if you go through the whole thing, spells it out.
Mr David Johnson: All right. I don't see that. I don't see the word "accountability" there, but you're --
Mr Hayes: I don't think you have to have the word. I mean, I think it's there. If they are disclosing, they're certainly becoming accountable, right?
Mr David Johnson: So that's how you're interpreting accountability. My suspicion is, Mr Hayes, that the municipalities are generally speaking in a planning sense and that the municipalities have accountability to the people under their jurisdiction for planning procedures. They have that because of a series of public hearings and the fact that they're very close to the people. I think that's what AMO intended, that was, accountability with regard to planning. Could you tell us --
Mr Hayes: Well, that's exactly what we're saying to the motion, and I guess I can jump ahead. We're saying that we add 15 to recognize the role of municipalities in planning, and that's what we're dealing with here.
Mr David Johnson: Would you agree that your statement, though, is very much more barebones? It doesn't use words like "decision-making authority" and it doesn't use words like "accountability." I think "role" is a very spartan word to describe that.
Could you tell us what part of AMO's amendment you object to in principle? Is it primarily the part of it that pertains to the municipal councils or is it the part that pertains to --
Mr Hayes: I guess really I should answer this with a question to the mover of the motion. Can you explain what you are talking about in your motion about the economic interests of participants?
Mr David Johnson: I assume that, just to finish on my part, and then I'll be glad to have Mr Grandmaître respond to that.
The Chair: Hold on, Mr Grandmaître. That's a question you might respond to in a second. Mr Johnson.
Mr David Johnson: I assume, Mr Hayes, that you don't object to the aspects that refer to municipalities, in other words, the words "which respects the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils." Do you object to that part?
Mr Hayes: Our motion will accurately reflect that we are recognizing the role of municipalities in planning, and we feel that our motion will certainly address the concerns of AMO.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, do you want to respond to the question Mr Hayes raised?
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, I still want to stand down my amendment until we deal with --
The Chair: I understand, but there was no unanimous consent for that.
Mr Grandmaître: Was there a vote taken?
Ms Haeck: Yes, a voice vote. I said no.
The Chair: I asked whether there was unanimous consent and two or three said no, and that's all you need.
Mr Grandmaître: Then I'm disappointed. If we want to empower municipalities, if we want to create a partnership with our municipalities, you'd better change the title of your famous Understanding Ontario's Planning Reform, because you are not respecting what you're saying in that document.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, all in favour of this amendment moved by Mr Grandmaître? Opposed?
Mr McLean: It's a tie vote.
Interjections.
The Chair: No, we're not waiting for him; we have had the vote. The Chair will vote against the amendment based on the general rule that Chairs here support, that we keep the status of the bill as it was.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Chair, could I just have a point of procedure? Does the Chair not vote only in case of a tie?
The Chair: That's what I just did.
Mr David Johnson: There were five for and there were four against, so it wasn't a tie.
The Chair: Mr Hayes is a member of this committee.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Hayes does have a vote? Yesterday I was told he doesn't have a vote.
The Chair: He has been subbed for the entire bill, so he's a member of this committee with full entitlements to vote.
Mr Curling: Could you explain again why you voted for this?
The Chair: The Chair normally supports the status quo of any particular bill that is presently before us. That is what we all do, as a general rule.
Mr Curling: So you the vote with the government any time there's a tie?
The Chair: I am voting with the bill as it is, and that's the general rule we apply as Chairs.
Mr Curling: The status quo. What is the status quo?
Interjection.
Mr Curling: You're not the Chair, Mr Wiseman.
The Chair: If the committee can't come to an agreement, it's not the Chair's duty to necessarily make that decision for you, so the Chair simply supports the bill as it was. That's what we do all the time. That's nothing new.
Mr Curling: So they vote with the government all the time.
The Chair: But, Mr Curling, it is nothing new that I do as a Chair or that any Chair does.
Moving on: This amendment is defeated, and we have a PC amendment next.
Mr McLean: Mr Chair, our amendment is the same as the previous one we just voted on. I will withdraw it in the interest of time.
The Chair: Wonderful. Moving on to a government amendment.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 1.1 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(f) to recognize the role of municipalities in planning."
Mr McLean: I want to know from the parliamentary assistant where in this legislation it says the local community participants will have some input with regard to the role of the municipalities in planning.
Mr Hayes: This is one thing we're doing in this bill, making sure the public does have access and does have the right to participate, and it's certainly in there all the way through the bill. One of the main purposes of this bill is to have that public input.
Mr David Johnson: I wondered whether, in the spirit of unanimity here, we could agree on an amendment that would read "to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning." I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would be agreeable to that amendment.
1110
Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, I think this committee has already voted on the intent Mr Johnson is bringing forward; it was in the previous one. We feel this will certainly recognize the role of municipalities in planning.
Mr David Johnson: Then can I move an amendment?
The Chair: You can, yes, and we can vote on an amendment.
Mr David Johnson: It would be to delete the words "role of municipalities" and insert in their place "decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils."
The clause would read "To recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning."
I take to heart what the parliamentary assistant indicated, that we've already discussed this, but in actual fact I think the sticking point on the previous amendment was the phraseology beyond that, which read "in the economic interest of participants," and I've not included that aspect in my amendment.
This is what the municipalities were requesting, the kind of phraseology that we use. I think it speaks to many of the concerns that have been raised here this morning, and I would ask that the parliamentary assistant and the government members have a look at that. It doesn't put in the phrase "economic interest of participants," which I think the government members are very concerned about. It simply addresses the municipalities' -- I don't know what word to use here -- role or the municipalities' part in terms of planning. I know it's something they feel fairly strongly about.
The Chair: Can I suggest that I think we've had --
Mr Hayes: Can I speak on that, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I was about to say that since we've had some discussion we could go for the vote, but if you want to speak to that, go ahead.
Mr Curling: Mr Chair, can't we speak to the motion?
The Chair: We're going to be speaking to the amendment to the amendment at the moment, okay?
Mr Hayes: Taking a look at this, deleting the "economic interest of participants," because that's very vague too, I believe that "recognize the decision-making authority and accountability" can be added in there. We'll support that, Mr Chair, in the essence of cooperation.
Mr Wiseman: Could I just ask for a point of clarification on that, that we are not including "economic interest of participants"?
Mr Hayes: No, we're not.
The Chair: That's what he just said.
Mr Curling: I just want a point of clarification. The parliamentary assistant is on this committee, subbed in as part of the government delegation or committee members. Is that so?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Curling: So he also will respect the rotation period, not to bring in a time.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Curling: Okay. I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr Hayes: I never do.
Mr Curling: No, I don't think you do. I just want to make it clear.
In speaking to Mr Johnson's motion, I think it makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, when I was looking at the government motion, it actually lacks clarification. It was just "recognize the role of municipalities in planning." That's what the entire bill is all about, to recognize the role of municipalities in planning, so an amendment to that effect is like saying, "Let us put a new planning act together to recognize the municipality in planning."
The amendment Mr Johnson put in, which I'm speaking to now, clarifies exactly what you're recognizing: You're recognizing the decision-making authority and the accountability of the municipal council. I will be definitely voting for that amendment. I know the parliamentary assistant said he'd step his own down because he'd like to include Mr Johnson's own. Here's an opportunity, since you want to move quickly on this, that we will just call the vote, and I will be voting in favour of this one.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'll be voting in favour of it because it's much more specific and I think it's very important to add. "The role of municipalities in planning" is too general, and it raises questions. You've used the term "decision-making authority and accountability," which I think we need to stress every time, and I strongly support it.
We have a member here from the city of London who is upset and opposed to the way London has been planned. That's unfortunate, and the government has compounded the error by adding 64,000 so that can be badly planned, apparently, too. And we have a member from one of the Durhams, who is upset with Durham regional council. I don't think what they consider bad examples of planning in Ontario should really colour the intent of the whole bill, and I think it's very important to add the decision-making authority. We should all support it because it's an improvement: It's decision-making and accountability, and we want to stress that wherever possible. I think it's good and I strongly support it.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment to the amendment? That carries.
All in favour of the amendment, as amended? That carries.
All in favour of section 4, as amended? That carries.
Mr Curling: I move that section 2 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by,
-- (a) striking out the part preceding the clauses and substituting the following:
"2. Every minister of the crown and every ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario Hydro, in carrying out their responsibilities under this act, shall have regard to matters of provincial interests such as,"
-- (b) striking out clause (q).
An explanation for this is that we've heard consistently that people were opposed to the fact that everyone wasn't adhering to it. Some were following certain procedures "consistent with" and some were "having regard to." I would say that, to put a percentage on it, 90% of the people who came before us said that all ministries and all those I've included in this amendment, boards and all that, should have regard to matters of provincial interest. We could not understand why Ontario Hydro and some other ministries were not consistent with the policy you've laid down as you talk about "consistent with." We think the words "shall have regard to matters" would be a much better way of making it consistent.
Mr David Johnson: I thought I had heard that the government was going to bring forward an amendment in this regard. As I understand it, this would compel all the ministries to be consistent with the policies laid down by the province. I was sure I'd heard this morning -- maybe the parliamentary assistant could comment -- that it was the government's intention to move in this regard.
Mr McKinstry: If I can clarify, the section we're dealing with now is section 2, which is a very broad range of provincial interests which the minister and municipalities must have regard to in their planning actions. It's a very broad list.
The policy statements mentioned under section 3 talk to the policies and the fact that the minister and the municipal board and the municipalities must be consistent with them. It is in that section that the government is proposing a motion to include other ministries in the things they do towards Planning Act applications.
Section 2 is simply a very broad range of things that municipalities and the minister need to think about in making decisions.
1120
Mr David Johnson: There's quite a list of functions here: the protection of ecological systems, the protection of the agricultural resources, the conservation of natural resources etc. Can you indicate to me, in this case, why Ontario Hydro, for example, was left out? The words here are "shall have regard to." Why shouldn't Ontario Hydro have regard to these considerations?
Mr McKinstry: In fact we've added Hydro to section 3, with the other ministries, in being consistent with the policy statements. But in this case, as I said, this is just a very, very general list which those decision-makers making decisions under the act, the municipality and the minister, must have regard to. They're very broad and general issues to keep in mind.
Mr David Johnson: Is there any particular problem in terms of including Hydro in here, as it's been included in your later amendment?
Mr McKinstry: We've included Hydro twice. We've also got a section that says Hydro must have regard, in all its actions, to policy statements.
The point I was trying to make is that the policy statements are more specific than this general list, and they articulate, coming out of this general list, what the actual provincial interests are that are laid out in policy. That's what the government's sense is that the decision-makers should be consistent with. This is for the minister to have thoughts of, having regard to, a very broad and general list of things.
Mr David Johnson: In view of the fact that the policies are very much more specific, I guess you're saying that's where the teeth really are in terms of ministries being "consistent with." To use that phrase again, wouldn't it be more consistent if all ministries and Ontario Hydro were included here as well? Doesn't it provoke the question, if they're included under the list where they must be consistent with the policies, why wouldn't they just automatically be included here as well? What rationale would there be for excluding them here? I mean, just to be consistent, the same list all the time.
Mr McKinstry: This section is "have regard to," of course. As I said -- I know I'm repeating myself -- our sense is that this is simply things the decision-makers under the act, the people who are actually making the decisions -- it's the very, very broad framework they must have regard to, and then the policies articulate in somewhat more detail.
Mr David Johnson: Let me just take one last shot at this. If every ministry, board, commission and agency of government, including OMB and Ontario Hydro, were included here, as is recommended by this motion, what consequences would you foresee that would be undesirable? What would happen that would be bad as a result of including them in here?
Mr McKinstry: I can't give you a thorough legal analysis, obviously, because we've only had these motions for a day, but my sense is that it would give the impression that we were trying to further bind a very wide range of decisions when all we're doing in this section 2 is setting out some very general points which the decision-maker under the act must have regard to.
Mr David Johnson: Just to switch to clause (q), which is part of this amendment as well, it states that the council of a municipality, for example, or a local board, a planning board, shall have regard to "(q) any other matters prescribed," which is indeed very general. Can we be at all more specific in terms of what the ministry anticipates prescribing? I think municipalities are just wondering what's coming down the pipe.
Mr McKinstry: The government's thought there was that issues emerge all the time, and, remembering that this is a framework of "have regard to," a very general framework, this is a mechanism by which the government can indicate to itself and to municipalities any new emerging issues that people need to keep in mind in a general way in making decisions under the Planning Act; also remembering that for policy statements the normal process is quite lengthy, rightly so, and involves a lot of input from the public. This is simply a way of indicating for the public what the government will be thinking about in terms of emerging issues. We don't have any specific idea of what might go in there.
Mr David Johnson: I understand that one of the amendments coming up, which has been requested -- and I must say the government has reacted to a certain --
Mr Hayes: A lot.
Mr David Johnson: I'll say quite a number of concerns. How's that? One of the concerns that I believe the government has reacted to is that this would be reviewed every five years.
Mr McKinstry: That the policy statements would be reviewed every five years.
Mr David Johnson: The policy statements. I wonder if another way of tackling this, rather than throwing in a catch-all here so you can prescribe anything at any minute, would be that as circumstances change during that five-year review -- and this is what municipal councils would do through their official plans, that sort of thing, when they review every five years, which they're supposed to; it's tough to do, but let's say every five years -- as conditions change, then that review points out the changed circumstances and they make changes to reflect those circumstances at that point. Then there can be a full debate and everybody can be party to it.
I think the problem a lot of people have with the regulations where you can prescribe things is that they just sort of sneak in in the dead of night and there isn't necessarily any debate. I'm sure that wouldn't happen in this ministry, but there have been accusations that that does happen at the provincial level, that regulations allow for things to come in without debate.
Would you consider that, not as an alternative avenue, the five-year review for updating this whole planning process including the policy statements, but perhaps including this bill or a successor to this bill as opposed to prescribing things without a full debate?
Mr McKinstry: The committee will obviously decide on whether or not to accept motions or amendments to motions. My sense is that this is simply a power to allow the government to establish so the public can see what new emerging issues are. Remembering the "have regard to" framework and remembering that it is aimed to the decision-makers under the act, there doesn't seem to me to be very good reason for linking it to a five-year review.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman, you were on the list.
Mr Wiseman: No, I would like to be removed from the list. I understand this section now, from the point of view of clarification, and I'll be supporting the government's position in the bill.
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to go back to section 5 of the bill, section 2. The reason we would like to see Ontario Hydro included in this section is that if you read on, it's "shall have regard to, among other matters." This is why we would like to strike out clause (q), which says, "any other matters prescribed." Aren't we repeating ourselves?
Mr Eddy: Yes, I think we are.
Mr Grandmaître: What's the difference between "among other matters" and clause (q), "any other matters prescribed"?
Mr Hayes: We're talking about "other matters," other matters pertaining to that local municipality. Then we go on to talk about "matters of provincial interest such as," and then the minister prescribes other matters. That's what that's saying.
Mr Grandmaître: And you don't think Ontario Hydro comes under "other matters prescribed." Is that what you are saying?
Mr Hayes: What I'm saying to you is that we're not being repetitive here. When we talk about "among other matters," that's really dealing with the municipality or local board or planning board. And then when we talk about the "other matters prescribed," it's the minister who prescribes other matters.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but in section 2 you're saying, "among other matters, matters of provincial interest," and in (q) you're saying "any other matters prescribed."
Mr Hayes: I'll ask for clarification from Mr McKinstry.
Mr McKinstry: What this section is talking about is that these are the broad planning principles which decision-makers under the act have some regard to. It's not an exhaustive list, so that's why we're saying "among other matters" that the decision-maker sees as good planning principles. The specific prescribing power at the end is to identify matters that emerge. Because the world is changing quickly, new things emerge all the time, so it's a way of getting them on to the list so people at least have thought to them when they are making decisions under the act.
1130
Mr Curling: The amendment stated that we want every minister, not only the minister. We could take it another way around: Delete all that from (a) to (p) and just say "any matter prescribed." What you have done here is make a listing of all these things you're prescribing, as you said here, "matters of provincial interest such as," (a), (b), (c), (d), right down to (p), and then when you thought you have exhausted it, "Oh, no, no, and any other thing we can think of, if we got up one morning and felt we should prescribe it."
I think what you should do, to save paper, is eliminate (a) to (p) and just say straight here, "of provincial interest that we will prescribe."
Mr Grandmaître: Then it covers everything.
Mr Curling: Then we've covered everything. Come very straight with the municipalities and say: "We're not giving you any leverage at all, any decision-making. We're going to name all these things here, and in case we forgot anything, at any time of the day, we will prescribe some other matter." Wouldn't it be better that way?
Mr Hayes: At one point we were talking about not being specific. We're being very specific here, and now the opposition is saying not to be specific. What this really intends when we say "any other matters prescribed" is that the government certainly should retain the ability to prescribe any other matter of provincial interest. This provision does provide the government with the flexibility needed as a response to emerging planning issues. I think that was already indicated earlier.
Mr McLean: Just for clarification, didn't the minister this morning say he wanted to take that "matters of provincial interest" out of the bill, in the news conference you had?
Mr Hayes: No. I'll just make sure you get the proper clarification, and I'll ask Mr McKinstry.
Mr McLean: Isn't that what the minister said this morning?
Mr Hayes: No, it's not.
Mr McKinstry: That is what the minister said. What he was referring to was a current tool in the Planning Act, which is a powerful tool, which allows the minister to declare a matter of provincial interest when it is before the board. What that means is that when the board makes its decision, it is subject to review by cabinet.
Mr McLean: And he's taken that out.
Mr McKinstry: And that will be taken out. This issue in section 2 is simply a broad range of good planning issues which municipalities and the minister would have regard to. This is not a tool that would allow the minister to intervene so much as to set out what the provincial interests are so people are aware of them.
Mr McLean: So is it still in the bill that the minister can defer the bill while it's at the OMB before it is finalized? There was some section in the act and I just wanted a clarification on that, that the minister could defer a bill before the OMB before it was finalized.
Mr McKinstry: Once a matter is before the OMB, the minister will have the same kinds of ability to intervene that other members of the public have, which is appearance before the board. The board's decision would be final. There will be no ability for the minister to take it back to cabinet for change or ratification.
Mr McLean: But he could withdraw it due to a provincial interest at that time.
Mr McKinstry: No. Once it's before the board, the board has carriage of the matter and the board can make the decision on how it gets finally disposed of. The only avenue the minister would have is to appear before the board and argue his case before the board.
Mr Wiseman: At what point does the minister have the power to declare a provincial interest?
Mr McKinstry: Currently, the minister has the power under all the Planning Act tools, which are official plans, subdivisions, zoning, zoning orders. He must declare that before it goes to the board and then the board makes a determination and then it's subject to review by cabinet. That's the current process which will be changed.
Mr Wiseman: And the suggested changes are?
Mr McKinstry: To simply delete the ability of the minister to declare a provincial interest.
Mr Wiseman: Period.
Mr McKinstry: Period. So there will be no ability to bring it back.
Mr Wiseman: That's page 16, I guess.
Mr McKinstry: It occurs throughout the Planning Act currently so I can't tell you all the exact sections, but each instrument, like a subdivision, like a zoning order, like an official plan, would have that reference currently in the Planning Act.
Mr Wiseman: This is a new piece of information. We didn't hear from anybody that this change to provincial interest was going to take place. That wasn't part of public hearings, that wasn't part of any kind of discussion that was taking place, and the public has had no opportunity to comment on this change and to have input into it.
Mr McLean: Nor had the opportunity to question the hundred amendments we got.
Mr Wiseman: No. I think a lot of the amendments we have are in response to what we've already heard.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman, is that a statement or a question?
Mr Wiseman: It's a comment.
The Chair: Okay. We understand that.
Mr David Johnson: Just in terms of your response to Mr Wiseman indicating that there will not be now the opportunity to declare a provincial interest --
Mr Wiseman: That isn't necessarily the position.
Mr David Johnson: Well, that's one of the amendments that's coming forward. I might say I disagree: I think that question did come up and I think the ministry is responding, that the parliamentary assistant and I'm sure everybody else is responding to concerns that did come up through the deputations. You look like you want to make a comment on that.
Mr McKinstry: I was just going to make the comment that Mr Wiseman made, that there's a motion before the committee, but the committee obviously has to decide whether to believe that.
Mr David Johnson: At any rate, that's going to be a motion and that's been put forward. Isn't it an unfortunate use of words here, then, where it says in this particular clause that municipal councils, in a sense, "shall have regard to...matters of provincial interest"? I realize it's just general principles and they only have to "have regard to," but still they do have to have regard to matters of provincial interest.
Mr McKinstry: If I could respond to that, Mr Chair, one of the things about legislation that I have learned through this process is that legislation uses specific terms to mean specific things. In the Planning Act, for example, there's something called a declaration of provincial interest, and you have to use the whole phrase to really get the concept of what it means when the minister declares a provincial interest. Section 2 is the broad general matters of good planning about which the government says, "These are all matters of provincial interest." The declaration -- and I understand that it may be somewhat confusing -- is a very specific reference.
Mr David Johnson: That's what I'm saying, that it may well be confusing to some municipalities. Essentially, it looks like the same phraseology and they may take it to mean the same thing. I think it's unfortunate that there couldn't be another way of phrasing this.
1140
Ms Haeck: I'd like to follow up on a number of the queries that have taken place on this issue of "provincial interest," "have regard to", "be consistent with." Item (d) of 2 is something that is of significant interest to my constituents, the issue of "conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest."
I have had the occasion to be at arbitration and mediation hearings; you hear the word "reasonable" used a lot, and I think the definition of that frequently is open for debate. I look at the word "significant" and it's one that always gives me some pause. I'm wondering to what degree we can get a definition from the ministry of culture -- I'm not sure if there's anyone here from the ministry -- as to its view of what the meaning, the definition of the word "significant" is before we wrap up discussion on this clause. I know it is of, shall we say, significant interest to my own constituents.
Mr McKinstry: There are two ways I'd like to answer this. You're referring to (d), the significant architectural. As I said before, these are very general, broad matters of provincial interest, so we did not make any attempt to be specific in the definition. However, in the policy statements we have much more specific reference to the protection of archaeological and heritage resources and the way in which that will happen, and the guidelines will help spell that out.
Ms Haeck: I have looked at that myself because it is of such concern to my residents, particularly in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. They have raised with me as recently as this past weekend their concern about archaeological features or architectural features in their respective communities. In terms of the word "significant," I would like to get a better handle -- because it's repeated in the policy statements, not just here. It is also in the policy statement.
If it only means a building that has been designated by LACAC, you are ignoring, to use the word again, "significant" amounts of other facets of the community that should receive some sort of attention. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate if we get a handle on what the word "significant" means in people's minds. I have an idea of what it means in mine, but I'm not a lawyer. I suspect that lawyers get paid to have a good time with words like "reasonable" and "significant." A lot of time can be spent defining that, and I'd much rather spend it now than, as we do regularly in the community, watch significant parts of our heritage be destroyed because it doesn't happen to have the appropriate plaque on the wall.
The Chair: Is that a question?
Ms Haeck: I would like to hear the definition, yes. It's one I've been asking for some time, so I'm obviously very much concerned.
The Chair: Is the question to define what --
Ms Haeck: What does the word "significant" really mean in the scheme of things? That's what my constituents want to know, and I'm on record as being concerned about it in many places, including here. I would dearly like to have an idea of what that does before we move to another section.
Mr McKinstry: As it's clear, the legislation does not define it. My understanding is that one would go to dictionary definitions and also to the policy statements. I think what we would say is that it is important resources, resources that are important to the community, that have some significance, if you like, if I can use the word again. This particular section, because it is broad and general, does not attempt to define it. We are doing work on the implementation guidelines and the task force and the technical committee, however, to think about how the policy statements would get implemented.
Ms Haeck: Has that task force dealt with these kinds of definitions?
Mr McKinstry: The task force has heard presentations from the ministry responsible for that guideline. I think it's called the ministry of culture and communications now.
Ms Haeck: No. Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
Mr McKinstry: Culture, Tourism and Recreation; I'm out of date. The task force is now thinking through whether they like that or not and how that might work.
Ms Haeck: Well, I'm still concerned.
Mr Wiseman: Just in the light of your explanation, I've become more concerned. This section deals with section 2 of the act, and I was just about to look up what section 2 of the act says. What is the fundamental difference between section 2 of the Planning Act as it currently exists and what this section will do?
Mr McKinstry: We are just checking the exact differences. The introduction is different: "the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board" have been added.
Mr Wiseman: And it's been added with the comment "shall have regard to." Why would we put "shall be consistent with" somewhere else, I think later on -- is it subsection 3(5) of the act is repealed? -- have "shall be consistent with" there and not have "shall be consistent with" here?
Mr McKinstry: A lot of public input and a lot of work went into the words of the policies, because we appreciated that people needed to have some idea of exactness when we were applying the test of "shall be consistent with." The section 2 items are broad and general, and we felt these were matters where municipalities and decision-makers should "have regard to" because they are broad, general, guiding principles.
Mr Wiseman: When you compare this section with the policy statements and you're trying to define in your official plans and your official plan amendments and so on, which section will take more weight?
Mr McKinstry: The policy statements, because they are more specific and they do have a "be consistent with" test, would obviously take precedence in terms of the consideration. The municipality, the minister, will think about the broad, general range first and then will go into the policy statements to meet the test "to be consistent with."
Mr Wiseman: I share some of the same concerns my colleague does in terms of the definition of these phrases, the comments that perhaps they don't define in a clear enough way what it means. For example, (g) "the minimization of waste": That's a very large topic where I come from. I could spend the next probably five hours describing what I would define as the minimization of waste.
Mr Hayes: Please don't.
Mr Wiseman: Yet here we don't know what it means; it's "have regard to." That doesn't seem to me to be strong enough in terms of "shall be consistent with." It should be "shall be consistent with the waste reduction policy of the waste reduction act." What does it mean? All it is is "have regard to." It doesn't seem like a very strong statement and it's not clearly defined. What do we mean by "the minimization of waste"?
Mr McKinstry: The minimization of waste is another general planning policy where, in the making of decisions, municipalities should be aware, ministers should be aware, of thinking about waste and any waste issues that arise out of, for example, a plan of subdivision. As I said, there's no attempt to define these matters because they are broad and general and they're things that decision-makers should keep in their minds.
1150
Mr Wiseman: But shouldn't this be "shall be consistent with the 3Rs regulations and the waste reduction, Bill 143, Bill 7," that the minister and the ministries should be forced to be consistent with that as much as they should be consistent with the policy statements? We heard from John Sewell, and he said "shall have regard for" is like saying, "I've taken a look at it, I've regarded it, and then just dismantled it." Shouldn't the ministries and the minister be as constrained to follow the policies as everyone else? And that would require stronger phrasing.
Mr McKinstry: The minister is required to follow the policies, under section 3 of the act, required to be consistent with them. As I said, it is difficult to impose a "be consistent with" framework when the matters to be considered are broad, are general and are not specifically defined. We've gone to a fair amount of effort within the policy statements to provide definitions and also to provide implementation guidelines to explain examples of how they might be worked out. That's not the case with section 2.
Mr Wiseman: I'm still a little bit leery about this lack of definition. It says "the protection of ecological systems," and we heard from the council of the mayors of the greater Toronto area, who were asking for a broader planning system. You would have to have people taking into account that the Don River, the Rouge River, Duffin Creek and all these other rivers, the Humber, have their headwaters in different municipalities and flow through various jurisdictions, yet we don't have, according to them, any way to commonly plan. So how can the minister "have regard to...the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions," if we don't have this kind of planning?
What I'm trying to get here is just a little clearer idea of what this act is going to do with respect to this whole area, (a) through (p).
Mr McKinstry: The policy statements are very specific about the protection of -- I'm trying to think what the actual words are -- ravines and river systems, and that addresses your concerns on those creek systems, that municipalities must be consistent with the policy statements which say you have to protect valley and stream corridors.
Mr Wiseman: But if you have a situation as has arisen on the Rouge River, in the Rouge park, where private developers own large tracts of land in the area that's designated as the Rouge, the previous Planning Act "shall have regard for" under this section says the protection of the natural environment, including the agricultural resource base of the province and the management of natural resources. That had absolutely no impact. In fact, the minister had to declare provincial interest on the land holdings in the Rouge in order to prevent them at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing from going forward and perhaps having development done.
I'm just wondering how in the future a minister, who you're saying may or may not have the power to declare provincial interest in that situation, will be able to protect those environmental features when it seems that other aspects of the act have perhaps been negated at the Ontario Municipal Board? While there will be a physical or environmental feature that the minister would like to save, he or she will not be able to do so. The act has been powerless and its implementation has been powerless to preserve as well.
Mr McKinstry: Currently, the policies under the Planning Act do not address the protection of river and stream valleys. That's what will be different in the future. There will be policies under the act towards that protection.
Mr Wiseman: If I remember the policy -- and you can correct me on this and I hope you will -- what we're talking about are floodplains. Or are we talking about if there's table land in the midst of a valley, that would also be included in the policy statement if that table land is above the height of the 100-year highest flood mark?
Mr McKinstry: If I can quote the policies, one of the policies says, for example, "Development will not be permitted on adjacent lands to (1) and (2)" -- and that's some other stuff -- "if it negatively impacts the feature or the ecological functions for which the area is identified." It's also saying, "Development will not be permitted in significant ravine, valley, river, and stream corridors, and in significant portions of the habitat of endangered species and threatened species."
Mr Wiseman: There may be a circumstance, though, where a large chunk of table land between two sections of the same river doesn't meet that requirement but should be saved as a natural corridor or part of a system, but the Ontario Municipal Board may not agree and the developer may not agree and the council may not agree. Currently the minister could declare provincial interest on that and that would be something the government could act on. What happens if everything fails?
Mr McKinstry: The issue of provincial interest is not one I really want to comment on; it hasn't come before the committee yet, so I don't know what would happen.
Mr Wiseman: But I'm talking about this section. There are some differences in this section, but the key phrase "shall have regard for" is the same as under the old Planning Act. Under the old Planning Act it sounds really great -- "the health and safety of the population," "the protection of farm land" -- but this just didn't happen anywhere. That's my major concern, that "shall have regard for" is too weak a phrase even in this section of the bill.
Mr Hayes: Just really quickly, Mr Wiseman is raising a valid point, of course, but at the same time they still have to be consistent with these policies. Even though that says "have regard to," there are different things in here that aren't really spelled out in the policies. They still have to be consistent with all the policies.
The Chair: I'm going to recommend that we recess. Ms Haeck is on the list, so we're not ready for this vote yet. This committee is recessed until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1410.
The Chair: Ms Haeck, you were on the list to speak to the item that we were dealing with prior to recessing.
Ms Haeck: Actually, Mr Chair, since there was an awful lot of discussion which some of us have managed to conclude over lunch, I will at this point give up my place in line.
The Chair: Very well. We're ready for the vote. All in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed? Okay, that amendment is defeated. We now have a PC amendment.
Mr McLean: Identical to the previous one that was just defeated, it's section 5 of the bill, section 2 of the Planning Act, and in the essence of time I will withdraw that amendment.
The Chair: Very well. Next amendment, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Thank you, Mr Chair. Section 5 of the bill, clauses 2(h) and (q) of the Planning Act. I move that clauses 2(h) and (q) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out.
We've had a lot of discussion on that this morning, and it appears to me that those two -- "any other matters prescribed" is what (q) stands for and "the orderly development of safe and healthy communities." We don't see that there's any need for those to be in this section 5, section 2, and I'm requesting that they be struck out of the bill.
Mr David Johnson: Could I ask, either through the parliamentary assistant or his right-hand person there, could somebody give me a definition of a "healthy community"?
The Chair: We're in trouble. Mr McKinstry, give it a try and be as exhaustive as you can.
Mr McKinstry: As I said before lunch, these are general good planning principles. We have not attempted to define any of them, and therefore the dictionary definition would apply, but as a general planning principle it would seem to the government that safe and healthy communities, communities where people can live, where they can be secure which have good environmental qualities, which have good civic qualities, are an important provincial interest.
Mr David Johnson: Since this is in your planning document here, I assume that you have something in mind beyond the generalities. When we're talking about the word "healthy", are we talking about hospitals, are we talking about public health? You know, if you look in the dictionary -- I don't know what the dictionary would say about the word "healthy"; it's probably broad-ranged -- what context are we thinking of in terms of the word "healthy"?
Mr McKinstry: It's an overall concept for communities as a whole, so it wouldn't refer specifically to the provision of a particular hospital. However, it would refer to having industries that are not polluting, to having neighbourhoods that respect the environment and to having safe neighbourhoods -- that's the other reference in there -- where people are secure.
Mr David Johnson: Do I gather from your comments then that the word "healthy" pertains more to the environment? You see, when I saw the word "healthy", I assumed you were talking about health, such as public health or maybe that a community would have a number of hospitals, something of that nature, everybody would be immunized or something like that, but you're really --
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): You think that's healthy?
Mr Wiseman: We were sort of thinking they'd all be New Democrats.
Mr David Johnson: Can we immunize against that? I don't know.
You're telling me now that this is really directed towards environmental concerns, is it, as opposed to health concerns?
Mr McKinstry: I gave some examples which happened to be environmental. Those are not the only parts of the definition. It also includes the overall health of the community, that it's a viable community, that it has jobs for people, for example. It is the overall health of a community. It includes the environment and jobs and adequate health facilities.
Mr David Johnson: Christel Haeck raised the question of the word "significant," which is one I think she does well to raise, because a number of people have raised that before. I think at least the word "significant" has probably appeared in other documents; I'm not sure, but I suspect it may have, with probably the same concern. Has this phrase "healthy community" or "safe and healthy community" been used in any context in planning in the past or is this the first?
Mr McKinstry: I can't tell you about any other planning context. I'm not aware of whether it has or has not.
Mr David Johnson: I'm sorry, your title is?
Mr McKinstry: Acting director, municipal planning policy branch.
Mr David Johnson: Within Municipal Affairs?
Mr McKinstry: In Municipal Affairs, yes.
Mr David Johnson: Is this a phrase that has been used, to the best of your knowledge, in any other piece of legislation?
Mr McKinstry: I don't know about legislation; I can't say whether it's been in legislation or not. Certainly the concept is fairly common in planning as an academic discipline, if you like. Planners think about safe and healthy communities.
Mr David Johnson: I'm sure planners since time began have thought about safe and healthy communities in some sort of airy-fairy context or whatever, but by introducing it here, I think the concern is that when you come down to, let's say, a planning meeting and municipalities are directed to have regard to this concept, whatever it is --
There are two sides to this issue. I think Christel Haeck has probably pointed out that on the one side there would be concern that maybe the development industry would have a definition of "significant" that would exclude many archeological or historical features, and perhaps the local municipalities would go along with it, in which case there wouldn't be the protection.
On the other side of the coin, the building industry, for example, would be concerned that somebody would use these kinds of ill-defined or undefined phrases such as "significant" or "safe and healthy communities" to essentially object to any kind of development whatsoever and say they object on the basis that it's not a safe and healthy community. There's no definition. Take 100 people and there'll be 200 versions of what it means. This could actually be an impediment and something for those opposed to grab on to. I wonder what your comments would be in that regard.
Mr McKinstry: The policy statements, in some senses, take some of these concepts and refine them more thoroughly. The policy statements which people must be consistent with would actually give more refinement on the kinds of communities that should be developed and where they should be developed and the orderly nature of the development that would take place. That's really where people would be going when they're thinking about "being consistent with."
Just to return to your previous comment, the old Planning Act, the existing Planning Act, actually has the words "the health and safety of the population." What we simply did is focus on the community rather than the population, that the community as a whole needs to be healthy and safe. The concept's already in the Planning Act.
Mr David Johnson: From your comments then -- you've indicated that the policy statements are more specific and that's where the primary concern would be -- I'm having a little trouble and I think maybe Mr Wiseman was earlier today too.
1420
Mr Wiseman: Not any more; I've got that all figured out.
Mr David Johnson: He's got it all figured out. All right. Maybe he'll explain it to me. On the one hand, we have the policy statements; on the other hand, we have this, "this" being the set of principles -- or something of that nature, I guess -- that the municipalities have to have regard to. Really I think what you're saying is: "Don't worry about these principles. Worry about the policy statements, because that's where the action is." If that's the case, then why do we have these principles if they really don't mean anything?
Mr McKinstry: I guess I wasn't saying, "Don't worry about the principles." I think it's important that decision-makers look at the principles, and the principles are quite wide and broad. It helps them focus their minds on the different issues in planning that they should be considering when they're considering planning applications. When they're making their decision, they've got some very specific direction that they must be consistent with. It really is one thing flowing out of another thing.
Mr David Johnson: Yes. Could you foresee a scenario whereby there could be an objection to, let's say, a subdivision or something of that nature, because --
Mr McKinstry: Under this section?
Mr David Johnson: Under this section, yes, under clause (h). The objection would be that the municipality did not have regard to the orderly development of a safe and healthy community, so therefore I object and wish that this subdivision which the municipality has approved be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, for example, for a review and be overturned?
Mr McKinstry: People object on all kinds of grounds, so I wouldn't predict who might object and on what grounds. However, it seems to me that at the Ontario Municipal Board the board will have to be thinking about being consistent with the policy statements, and the policy statements are more specific, so the most specific direction would come from the policy statements.
Mr David Johnson: In terms of the ministry's review itself, the ministry will have to be satisfied, I guess, that any planning proposal be consistent with the policies.
Mr McKinstry: The ministry's role in the future certainly will be to approve upper-tier official plans -- regions and counties. The long-term scenario envisaged by the commission and the government is that municipalities will be responsible for development applications, regions and counties will be responsible for lower-tier approvals. The minister would be responsible for consistency on applications that he approves. Other decisions would be responsible for consistency in applications which they approve.
Mr David Johnson: All right. Now, at the regional level, if there's a subdivision -- and some of the regions, I think, have the authority for subdivisions -- is not, as I understand it, the provincial government looking to see that any regional actions would be consistent with the policies?
Mr McKinstry: I guess it depends how you look at it. Certainly, the different ministries are likely to be involved in significant or large or provincial-scale applications at the local level. The province is not going to review all development applications, but the individual ministries -- where there's a wetland, for example, MNR would be involved; where there are contaminated sites, Environment and Energy would be involved. So the provincial government would maintain its role.
Mr David Johnson: I guess I'm jumping ahead a little bit, but I'm trying to get the difference between this area and the policy area. In the policy area it says that, "The municipal board under this act and such decisions under any other act as may be prescribed shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1)." Somebody has to ensure that a decision of a council or a municipality, a local planning board, is consistent with the policy statements. I presume that entity is Municipal Affairs, I would guess.
Mr McKinstry: My understanding of how the act works is that it places an onus on decision-makers to be consistent. The legislation places the onus on the decision-maker, and therefore the decision-maker is required by law to be consistent with the policy statements.
Mr David Johnson: But who is the enforcer? If the local municipality is not consistent, then who is checking that and who is enforcing it?
Mr McKinstry: There could be many checks and balances in the system. There is that appeal, at the end of the process, to the OMB. It could be the province, it could be a community group, it could be an individual who might say, "I don't think this is consistent and I'd like to have a chance to be heard by the OMB."
Mr David Johnson: The reason I ask those questions is because I'm trying to determine the difference between there and here. Here, under these principles, the municipality "must have regard to." Who is checking up on that? Again, is that simply by appeal, somebody issuing an appeal on the decision of a municipality, saying, "The municipality did not have regard to a safe and healthy community," whatever that is, "and therefore I appeal."
Mr McKinstry: It is possible that someone might launch an appeal based on one of the section 2 matters. However, it seems that the board will be looking to the specifics of the policy statement to determine consistency. They'll be looking to the broad issue of whether these proposals satisfy, on a very broad conceptual level, the matters in section 2.
Mr David Johnson: We've had this kind of discussion, but we've had a number of instances raised today where words or phrases are not defined. I think there's frustration on both sides of this table, which has been expressed today, over various words, such as "significant." I've heard the word "reasonable"; it's come up. It's interesting to know what the word "reasonable" means. Earlier this morning we had sustainable economic development, which is not defined here. We have "safe and healthy communities," another phraseology which is not defined.
There are certainly people involved in the planning process in the province of Ontario who are just waiting for the numerous different interpretations that are going to take place on these words and their impact. I think people, whether they're concerned that too much development has taken place or they're concerned that there's too much red tape in the development process and we should speed up development -- so they're coming from the other side of the equation -- on all sides are concerned that phrases and words are creeping in that are not defined and it's going to quite likely result in a considerable amount of confusion. That's primarily why Mr McLean has moved that amendment.
Mr Winninger: Just briefly, in response to a couple of comments that were just made. I don't believe you can ever narrowly circumscribe the meaning of a healthy community.
For example, I mentioned earlier Bill 75, the annexation bill for London, which led to the establishment of what's called Vision '96, a whole process of consultation through committees to define what the next 20 years of planning should look like in London.
What happened in that case was that several people came forward and said, for example: "A healthy community doesn't just mean you've got enough hospitals, walk-in clinics, a public health unit and so on. It goes beyond that." A clergyman came and said, "Well, there's a spiritual dimension to health, so you need to make sure you have churches that will serve the spiritual needs of the community." Psychologists and other mental health practitioners said, "Well, mental health is an important component, so in your planning you have to address that need as well."
So there's physical, mental, emotional, spiritual already there that need to be factored into that planning process and when Mr Johnson asked, "Is this being done anywhere?"
I would say London is already an example of where the broader definition of health is being put into practice in the planning implementation.
The comment then about, "How can we define a healthy community?" is one I think that the community itself has an important role to play in defining. What the needs are of that community will have to emerge through the official plan. That's the response I wanted to make to Mr Johnson's comments.
Mr McLean: I just want clarification from the ministry with regard to clause (h) and clause (o): (h) is "the orderly development of safe and healthy communities"; (o) is "the protection of public health and safety." What's the difference between those two?
Mr McKinstry: "The orderly development of safe and healthy communities" is, as I said to Mr Johnson, the overall development of a community that satisfies the needs of its residents, has the right facilities and is safe for people to live in.
On "the protection of public health and safety," more goes towards the policy statements on flooding, Great Lakes flooding as well as riverine flooding, and the policy statements on contaminated sites where municipalities' decision-makers should have some regard to permitting development in areas that might not be safe for human health.
1430
Mr McLean: Wouldn't clauses (c) and (d) kind of cover that then, protection in clause (a), "the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions" when you're talking about the health of the public, of the community, of streams, erosion and that type of thing?
Mr McKinstry: Clause (c) talks about, "the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;" and that deals with conservation of the natural resources as opposed to the protection of health.
In our flooding policy statement, we talk about not allowing development on floodplains because of the danger to human health as opposed to other features that are protected because of the intrinsic value of the feature.
Mr McLean: Then the last question I have is, what would come under "any other matters prescribed"? It seems to me you've got more than enough in there now. What can come under that?
Mr McKinstry: The world is a rapidly changing place and we don't know what emerging issues might come out. Therefore, that allows the minister to speak to emerging issues and to let everybody know what those emerging issues might be.
The Chair: M. Grandmaître, has your question been answered or not?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, one short question to -- now that you're using "health" and promoting healthy communities and so on and so forth, will we have a definition of what you really mean, because it is confusing when we see the words "health" and "healthy" in different sections of the bill? Are you going to provide us or provide the public with a definition of how you use the words "health" and "healthy" and what it really means?
Mr McKinstry: My understanding of the way legislation works is that definitions, where they're to be included, are included in the legislation itself and those definitions are not at this point in this definition. As I said, these are broad, general concepts, so we're not attempting to give very precise definitions of them.
Interjection.
Mr McKinstry: In terms of the policy statements, the guidelines will certainly address a lot of the issues of what the terms mean in the policies. That's certainly true and that's going on now.
Mr Wiseman: I just want to ask a question. I think I understand this section now and that these are --
Mr McLean: You're the only one who does.
Mr David Johnson: He's not confused.
Mr Wiseman: I'm not going to say anything. Basically what we're doing here is outlining in broad principles the terms with which the minister will be required to exercise the responsibility as Minister of Municipal Affairs and planning in the province?
Mr McKinstry: That is certainly one of the clear intentions of that section, yes.
Mr Wiseman: If, for example, the minister is going to make a decision in an area or whatever, then these should be the broad principles the minister should look at.
Mr McKinstry: I would agree with that, yes.
Mr Wiseman: Basically what we're seeing, in real life then, in housing and in other areas -- Cornell, for example, in the Markham area and Seaton in my area -- these areas are being planned with input from the community and they are defining what these mean within the context of the local community as opposed to these being the hard-and-fast principles. What we're doing here in this section is setting it out to the minister and saying: "Look, planning in Ontario you will have regard for. When you're sending out a policy or if you're setting into motion any kind of activity, these are the principles that you should be following."
Mr McKinstry: Yes, I think that is true.
Mr Wiseman: Therefore, it's not necessary in this area to have the strident "shall be consistent with" definition that we need later on when we're getting into the specific planning of subdivisions and official plan amendments. Do I have that right?
Mr McKinstry: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: Then I want to vote on this now then.
Mr Hayes: Just on that point, people asking for certain definitions, I was just thinking back to my previous job as occupational health and safety representative. We have the Occupational Health and Safety Act and there's no clear definition of health and safety in that act. So I mean, it's --
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: No, it's not a surprise.
The Chair: It's consistent.
Mr Hayes: You fellows should understand the common sense, you know.
The Chair: There you go. Okay, moving on, I think we're ready for the question. All in favour of Mr McLean's amendment? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
All in favour of section 5? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 6(1) of the bill, subsection 3(2.1) of the Planning Act, be amended by adding the following subsection to section 3 of the Planning Act:
"2.1: Policy statements issued under this section shall not be specific in their application to an area of the province."
This is a recommendation proposed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario with which we agree, and it's simply because we don't think that individual areas of the province should be picked out for special treatment, inordinate treatment, by provincial policies, planning policies.
Ms Haeck: I know Mr Eddy is a strong advocate for agriculture and if this particular provision would go forward it would, I think, compromise programs like the tender fruit land projection program that the Ministry of Agriculture is trying to put in place in my own riding. I continue to advocate on behalf of programs like that and obviously there are other instances where something like this might come forward. So I'm sorry, Mr Eddy, as much as I understand the idea of trying to provide an umbrella and some consistency across the province, I think my residents would have some great concern about this and I can't support it.
Mr David Johnson: As Mr Eddy has indicated, this comes out of concern of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and my understanding is that they are attempting to convey the opinion that, again, the provincial government should have broad policy statements but that the policy statements should not be specific to any one area of the province.
I'm wondering, first of all, if the ministry and the parliamentary assistant agree with the concept that AMO's putting forward that the provincial government should have broad policy statements, but the municipalities should be able to govern within that, within their own areas?
Mr Hayes: In response, this power -- actually, the province currently has it and I haven't heard of any problems with it in the past, but it is necessary for the province to maintain the flexibility to respond to emerging issues. I think it's very important that we have that, so we can't support this.
Mr David Johnson: Can you give me an example, through the parliamentary assistant or the staff, of a situation where you feel that the provincial government needs to retain fairly specific powers within an area of the province, and that if this clause was inserted, it would cause problems for the province?
Mr McKinstry: The first thing I'd say is that the government wants to set broad policies. Even where they were setting a specific area, I suspect that the policy direction would remain broad and in terms of specific areas of application, there could be many. There's been a lot of work, for example, done with the different GTA municipalities on some kind of guideline for the GTA.
1440
There have been thoughts on the Oak Ridges moraine that it could be a provincially significant area and requires some kind of policy direction. There could be many areas of the province where there is an overriding provincial concern and where there's some sort of policy direction needed, but it would be broad policy direction for specific areas.
Mr David Johnson: Can you give more specific examples? Are you talking about housing, for example, housing targets, affordable housing and that kind of thing? Is that the type of thing they're contemplating?
Mr McKinstry: I don't know what a minister or cabinet might direct that this be used for. I would think it would be broad general policies for an area, so it is less likely to target housing as to say, "For this area, here are the broad provincial interests," protection of aquifers or promotion of growth or whatever, depending on the area.
Mr David Johnson: Municipalities are concerned that authority is being lost and that the province of Ontario is stepping more and more into planning with specific directives. I guess Bill 120 is one case that they quite often point to and various aspects of this bill as well. Do you view that as being the future of planning in the province of Ontario? Is that the way we're headed?
Mr McKinstry: The government has been fairly specific in setting out the principles behind this bill. One of them of course is municipal empowerment. The current act allows the province to have policy statements for the whole province or for specific areas, so I wouldn't see that the provision in the current bill would change the status of the province in relation to municipalities at all. The government does wish to empower municipalities and is doing many things to do so.
Mr Grandmaître: The special areas that you're relating to -- would they include, for instance, the Niagara Escarpment plan and the parkway west plan?
Mr McKinstry: The Niagara Escarpment plan was developed under its own legislation so it has its own legislation.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but the minister still has a word to say about that. Nobody in the commission -- they're on their own, but the minister does have an eye on what the commission is doing and if he doesn't like it he can step in, right?
Mr McKinstry: As far as I know, there's an appeal to the board by the minister. The minister does not have the power to veto, for example, the --
Mr Grandmaître: No, no, I'm not saying he can veto what the commission is doing but he can appeal -- right? -- what the NEC is doing or the parkway west. So these -- I call them special areas -- are what you're relating to, special areas where they have a special plan like the GTA and all of these great areas?
Mr McKinstry: Just to clarify, the Niagara Escarpment planning area is a very specific kind of tool which has its commission; it issues development permits. It's a very, very detailed planning tool.
Specific policy statements would not at all look like that. They would be broad general policies for a specific area of the province and the examples I gave were just examples. I have no idea what the government might do in those or other areas where there's some kind of area of provincial interest.
Mr Eddy: While I can understand AMO's concern, and I did when I proposed this amendment, I have even greater concerns now that I've heard the explanations. I know why the municipalities are concerned about this because, if we don't have this, it means any area can have special policies. Maybe you want that, but it seems to me that it will completely remove local planning decisions from any area.
Every area is special and nearly every area has specific and special land formations or aquifers of various types. In my area we have great aggregate deposits and aquifers. The aggregate deposits are protected, of course. You have a broad policy stating the provincial interest. When it comes to aquifers, aquifers are common across this province. In nearly every part there are very important aquifers, so if you're going to develop a policy, it should apply across the province.
One member mentioned preserving the tender fruit lands and a program for that. I don't see that program being affected by this amendment, because that's agricultural land and indeed the program is to maintain the agriculture there, so I don't really see a problem. You might want to comment on that.
We mentioned the Niagara Escarpment, the special legislation and special hearings etc, and you have the conservation authorities holding special hearings, as well as the municipalities in certain areas.
Oak Ridges moraine: You may want to indeed have special legislation for that. I don't know what's going to happen.
It seems to me that this amendment is necessary in order that a minister can't bring in policies -- you say they're broad policies. They're not broad policies, they're very specific policies for certain areas. I just think we should be dealing with the whole matter of provincial concerns on broad planning policies for the entire province, or indeed we do not have local or community planning.
Mr David Johnson: I wasn't sure, when I was getting into this, exactly what's being proposed here, but do I understand this correctly: if I'm a builder and I'm trying to think of what I have to go through for a certain application, then I would have to comply with the local official plan in zoning, I would have to comply with the regional official plan, I would have to be consistent with the provincial policies, I would have to have regard to the provincial principles which are enunciated on page 4 and, on top of that, again there may be another set of regional broad, general policies?
Interjection: They'd be in the official plan.
Mr David Johnson: So they'd be on top of that again; there's sort of five levels, is that correct?
Mr McKinstry: I guess you need to think of the instruments flowing one from the other. The local plan is required to be conformed to by the regional plan. Both of them are required to be consistent with the policy statements. Therefore, the builder, in doing a development application -- there would be some sense that in fact all of these documents would not be contradictory under the act and therefore they could be fairly confident that when they look one to the other, what they'd be seeing is a greater level of detail rather than some different requirements.
Mr David Johnson: I assume they wouldn't necessarily be contradictory, but they could well be different and they may go beyond being just a further detail of the next one up or down. It's quite possible that it would have five different sets of criteria or standards or policies to go through: local planning, regional planning, provincial policies, provincial principles, and what could be another set of policies -- I guess you call them broad policies -- in addition to that again, called regional policies?
Mr McKinstry: Yes. Section 2 is for the decision-maker to keep in their mind. The developer is unlikely to be thinking of the broad principles in section 2. The developer will be thinking about the application being consistent with the policy statements and the local and regional plan. The act does require conformity to those plans, so the law says the local plan has to conform to the regional plan. Therefore, if the municipality is obeying the law, then the developer would only be looking for some further detail at the local level.
1450
Mr David Johnson: It sounds like a lot of red tape to go through.
Mr Wiseman: I just want to see if I have this now, and you can help me out again. Basically, what you're saying is that this section applies to the municipalities and the regional governments when they're creating their official plans. If I as the home builder get the official plan and I look at it and I decide whether I'm going to buy that piece of property according to what's in the plan and I buy the piece of property according to what's in the plan and I come forward with a plan of subdivision based on what's in the plan, I really shouldn't have too many problems, should I?
Mr McKinstry: If the plan is consistent with the policy statements, that's right, and that's the intent.
Mr Wiseman: Now, if I come forward with a plan of subdivision or a request for official plan amendments, that's when I'd better be aware of all these other things, because then the council can say: "We have an official plan. We created it. You bought on the basis that you knew what was in the official plan, so why are you coming forward with us now to change the densities or to change the commercial-industrial designation on this when we've already done all that work?" So really, the time that this could become onerous on a home builder is if they want something other than what has been approved. Then they have to be aware of what they're asking for, because it may change and it may impact on the policy statements. Do I have that?
Mr McKinstry: They would certainly have to be aware if they wanted a change to the official plan document or the policy statements, yes.
Mr Wiseman: Okay, so that's pretty simple.
The Chair: We're ready for the vote. All in favour of the amendment by the Liberal member? Opposed? That amendment is defeated.
A PC amendment?
Mr McLean: It being identical to the previous one, in the interest of time I'll withdraw that amendment.
The Chair: Very well. A Liberal amendment.
Mr Curling: This is to subsection 6(2) of the bill, subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act.
I move that subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "shall be consistent with" in the fifth line and substituting "shall have regard to."
You have heard over the time we went around the province that they felt that "have regard to" is much more in line with empowering the municipalities to develop their own policies but "consistent with" showed somehow that they have to conform fully with the policy and left no kind of leverage for the municipality in that regard.
It was said, I think, that about 95%, a whopping majority of the people, wanted that changed to "shall have regard to." It is just in conformity to what we're hearing. We're in full agreement with that being changed to "shall have regard to" instead of having "be consistent with."
Mr Hayes: Of course, this government has been consistent all the way through, right from the beginning, that we will keep "be consistent with" --
Mr Curling: Being wrong.
Mr Hayes: -- in this legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr Sewell this morning -- many of you watched the press conference -- got up and just gave stronger support than ever that we should stick to "consistent with" because he said there isn't much sense in having policies if you're not going to be consistent with them. So we have not changed our mind on this.
Mr Curling: But I hadn't completed, and he had started to respond to it.
Mr Hayes: No, it was my turn to talk.
The Chair: He's the speaker now on the list responding to this issue.
Mr Wiseman: I think all the members of this committee have been on the road and have heard what I've had to say with respect to this section. We heard from a number of groups like Save the Rouge and the group from up north and a lot of ratepayers' associations and other environmentalists who believe that at the very minimum it should be "consistent with." We even had one amendment that said, "shall be consistent with and conform to" as the suggestion for an amendment to this section.
My own personal position on this would be that "will conform to" would be a better phrase than "shall be consistent with." But for the sake of compromise and to show that I'm a reasonable fellow, I will support this section "shall be consistent with," knowing that there are large numbers of people out there who want to have the balance of power addressed in terms of being able to have input into decisions that are being made in the community.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'll pass. Mr Wiseman's spoken very eloquently.
Mr Curling: Before I was stopped, I wanted to develop the other aspect of it too. As the parliamentary assistant said that he wants to be consistent, I will then say that this is a good system, to say that we will be consistent to the legislation. Why is it, then, that other ministries and Ontario Hydro are not "consistent with"? Now you have that they will have "regard to."
The fact is that we feel very strongly that Ontario Hydro would have a vested interest; other ministers too, so all ministers. If you have legislation, let's not have some legislation for some ministers or ministries and some agencies and another aspect of it interpreting the legislation for others. I would say, why don't you be consistent, then, and have that they should be "consistent with" or change it all to have "regard to"?
Mr Hayes: I don't want to jump ahead of the legislation, but you'll see as we go on in the legislation that your concern about other ministries being consistent with will certainly be dealt with.
Mr Curling: So it would have to be changed. You're saying, then, that Ontario Hydro, all the ministers and all the ministries will be "consistent with"?
Mr Hayes: That's right. That's what we've got here.
Mr Curling: So that's one point it helps, but the other argument --
The Chair: Are you going back on the list, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: No, he was trying to respond to my point.
Mr Hayes: Simply because we have listened to the public out there, and we've also listened to the opposition members.
The Chair: Very well. Okay.
Mr Curling: No, he was responding to and trying to define --
The Chair: Okay, Mr Curling, you go right ahead. We're going to stop the dialogue, though, however. Go ahead. First, make some comments.
Mr Curling: So the first point is what you said you're going to bring later on, which you don't want to discuss now, that everything else would be "consistent with."
Mr Hayes: Consistently in order.
Mr Curling: In order -- oh, you'll be consistent in order. But the other argument was made that "consistent with" seemed to bind them into just the policy and there's no flexibility at all for the municipality to be creative.
Mr Hayes: Not so.
Mr Curling: The words "have regard to" would make it easier for them to develop their own policy, of course having regard to the policy of the province.
Mr David Johnson: Could I ask the parliamentary assistant or the staff, what is the difference between "be consistent with" and "be consistent with and must conform to" from the point of view of Municipal Affairs?
Mr Hayes: Well, I would just say to that -- "be consistent with" and "conform to" -- I think "conform" probably sounds a little bit stronger than "be consistent with." In other words, I think, as Mr Wiseman would like to have in there, it's stronger language to make sure that the policies people do that.
1500
Mr David Johnson: I appreciate Mr Wiseman's desire, but I fail to see the difference between the two. If you must be consistent with something, then I don't know how you could fail to conform to it. In other words, it is a directive, it is a must. "Thou shalt not stray one millimetre." This is it or nothing, that sort of thing. Beyond being consistent with something, I don't think there is anything.
Mr Hayes: I think this particular amendment does not even address "to conform with." So I don't know why we're even discussing "to conform with," because one member made a comment. It's not in this amendment. The only thing we have in this amendment is saying that you want to strike it out and change it to "shall have regard to." It doesn't say anything in this amendment about conforming.
Mr David Johnson: Can I explain, then, why I asked the question; because municipalities will wonder precisely what this means. If it's the government's view that this does not mean total compliance to the policies, I think we should know that here at this point. From Mr Wiseman's comments, I gather he doesn't feel that this would necessarily lead to total compliance with the policy statements.
Mr Wiseman: That's right.
Mr David Johnson: He's confirming that by his nodding head and "That's right" comment.
Mr Hayes: So in other words, he's saying there's flexibility there, is that correct?
Mr Wiseman: That's what we're saying, yes.
Mr David Johnson: That's apparently what Mr Wiseman is saying, and I'd like to know the parliamentary assistant's views on what flexibility the municipalities do have with the words "shall be consistent with policy statements."
Mr McKinstry: In terms of the definition of "be consistent with" and what it actually means, what we're doing is working with the implementation task force to get a common understanding among stakeholders of how this will actually work in practice so that the guidelines will address to some extent the kinds of things that the government has in mind for "be consistent with."
But there is a difference between "conform to" and "be consistent with." "Conform to" is talking about making the same, corresponding to or bringing oneself into conformity. "Be consistent with" is much more addressing in accord with or in harmony with and gives much more of a level of flexibility.
Now, the Sewell commission did a lot of work on this point and had a lot of discussions. They felt that there were actually three different stages or three different levels: regard, consistency and conform. They felt that "consistency" struck the right balance.
Mr David Johnson: What puzzles me a little bit is that if there are a handful of words that have caused controversy in this whole debate, in this whole study, it would be the words "shall be consistent with," four words, I suppose. While I recognize that the government is being responsive to a number of the concerns that have been raised, surely a clarification of those words through this whole process up to this point and precisely what they mean to the municipalities would have been the number one thing that could have been done to set the minds of municipalities at ease. Perhaps comment on that, number 1. But, number 2, I gather what you're saying is that in the regulations, then, there's going to be some definition of the words "shall be consistent with." Is that what you're saying?
Mr McKinstry: I was talking about the implementation guidelines of the policy statements, which are being developed in conjunction with the task force.
Mr David Johnson: When would we expect those implementation guidelines?
Mr McKinstry: They would be released at the same time as proclamation of the bill.
Mr David Johnson: In January?
Mr McKinstry: In January 1995.
Mr David Johnson: Is there any particular reason, in view of the fact that there has been so much concern expressed about those words, why that definition, if I can use that phrase, wouldn't come out before consideration of this bill so that municipalities and builders and everyone who's concerned about this phraseology would know what it means and perhaps could put their minds at rest before the bill was passed?
Ms Perron: Just as a point of clarification on the legal drafting, when the idea is proposed, our role in drafting legislation is to make sure that the terminology is clear. But if the terminology that's to be used in legislation is not to have a different meaning from the meaning of the word in its ordinary sense, in the dictionary definition or whatever, then it is not appropriate to define it in legislation. So in this case the phrase "be consistent with" is expected to have its common and ordinary meaning. Perhaps legislative counsel can explain also that it's against drafting conventions to define a word when in fact you want it to have its ordinary dictionary meaning.
Mr David Johnson: Okay. Just for an example, then, to maybe help me because this is really new to me today, the way it was being interpreted was that you must abide by the letter of the law, the provincial policies, and there's not a millimetre of give in this whole thing. But you're telling me perhaps something different here today. Let's look at affordable housing. There's a requirement now in the policy statement that it be affordable to the lowest 30th percentile of the household income, which I think is up from 25%. The requirement for 30% affordable housing now, I think it was 25% before. If a municipality brought forward proposals that remained at the 25th percentile, 25% affordable housing, would that be consistent with 30%?
Mr McKinstry: The policy statement says "where feasible." So there is some leeway in the policy statement. In terms of where it says that no less than half of the new housing requirement be affordable to the lowest 30th percentile, it's where feasible. That's basically a recognition of the fact that if this needs to be publicly funded, you've got to worry about whether there is money for the public funding. So there is some flexibility within that statement of the policies.
Mr David Johnson: Let's look at another part of the policy statement, policy statement B, looking at clause 9 on page 8, where it says, "Extensions to the settlement area will be permitted only if the following conditions are met...." That doesn't say "wherever feasible" in that one; it says, "extensions to the settlement area will be permitted only if the following conditions are met...."
Are you saying today that because the phrase "shall be consistent with" is not absolute, I think is what you're saying here today, that there could be some exceptions to the conditions that are under clause (b), whereby there could actually be an extension to a settlement area that doesn't meet these criteria?
Mr McKinstry: If you read the policy under number 9, it talks about, "the amount of land included within extensions is justified." So what we're really looking for there is for the municipality to go through a justification process. By its very nature there's flexibility there, because the municipality has to justify it; it has to develop population projections, it has to indicate how much land it needs. So that, by its very nature, is a dialogue that has to take place with ratepayers, with the municipality, with other ministries.
Mr David Johnson: Who would be the arbitrator of the justification in that case? Who does the municipality have to justify the extension to?
Mr McKinstry: The body that will be approving the official plan amendment that will permit it; so it could be the province, it could be an upper tier, it could be a region, it could be a county. It could be the OMB.
Mr David Johnson: It could be the OMB. In the case of the province, would the province exercise some latitude, then, based on the fact that the words "shall be consistent with" -- I don't know what sort of a straightjacket that puts the justification in. Are you telling us that there would be latitude at all similar to the latitude that exists today, or would there be less latitude than exists today?
Mr McKinstry: What has been stated a number of times in this committee as we've gone through the hearings is that "be consistent with" does allow some flexibility at the local level. What we're doing right now is developing implementation guidelines through the task force, as I said before. One of the things we'll be talking about is how municipalities might do these things, giving some best practices, some examples, ways that their justifications may be carried out, talking about examples of logical extensions, things like that. The implementation guidelines will deal with these issues and put some parameters for municipalities around them.
1510
Mr David Johnson: When we were in Thunder Bay there was a considerable amount of concern expressed that the policies pertain mostly to Toronto, are Toronto-based policies, and that Thunder Bay and northern Ontario are considerably different. Ineed, I suppose many rural areas would consider themselves to be different. I think one of the concerns was that essentially the policy would close down development in northern areas, northern communities such as Thunder Bay that need development, and perhaps in many rural areas even in southern Ontario. Are you assuring us that there will be enough flexibility in areas like Thunder Bay that they won't essentially just close down development whatsoever?
Mr McKinstry: If I could give the committee an example, the wetlands policy statement, for example, has a different approach to wetlands in southern Ontario than northern Ontario. This is in recognition of the fact that there are few wetlands left in southern Ontario, whereas in northern Ontario, as people say, there is little dry land. So there is a recognition within the policies, and wetlands is an example, that there are differences in the way Ontario is to be planned.
Mr David Johnson: In terms of the amount of consistency with the policy statements, will that vary from region to region? Will consistency with the policy statements be applied with the same latitude in Toronto as in Thunder Bay, as in Ottawa, for example?
Mr McKinstry: The test "to be consistent with" is the same, but as we've talked about in this committee before, there is some flexibility for municipalities. It isn't "conform."
Mr David Johnson: Will it be the local Municipal Affairs representative who will make that determination or will it be Municipal Affairs here in Toronto?
Mr McKinstry: If the application is being decided by the minister, it's the minister who makes that determination, and the minister may delegate that. The minister would have to decide how the ministry is organized to deliver it. I can't really answer that specifically.
Mr David Johnson: In Thunder Bay, let's say, again where we were at, if there was a change -- they don't have regional government there, do they?
Mr Eddy: It's a one-tier region.
Mr David Johnson: One tier, yes. In that case, if there was, let's say, a zoning application, would it not be Municipal Affairs that would --
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: No? Who would give approval for that?
Mr McKinstry: Zoning is a municipal matter and the provincial government really does not get much involved in that. If there are no objections, it's just approved. If there are objections, it goes on to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr David Johnson: If there were objections, then the Ontario Municipal Board would have to determine if it was consistent with the policies.
Mr McKinstry: That's right.
Mr David Johnson: Okay. Now, if it was an official plan amendment, then it would be who? Municipal Affairs?
Mr McKinstry: The province, yes. Municipal Affairs.
Mr David Johnson: All right. So if it's an official plan amendment, then would it be the local Municipal Affairs in the Thunder Bay region and northern Ontario that would make a determination if it was consistent or would it be Municipal Affairs here in Toronto?
Mr McKinstry: The minister would always be accountable for the decision, wherever the decision got made. As I said, I can't really comment on how the minister would want to organize his ministry to deliver this new planning system.
Mr David Johnson: Have you received any concerns expressed that various regions would much prefer to deal with ministry staff in their own particular region, as opposed to ministry staff located here in Toronto?
Mr McKinstry: Yes, and certainly our regional offices are very important parts of the organization.
Mr David Johnson: But there is concern today expressed that, particularly in Municipal Affairs, decisions are made here in Toronto, and it takes for ever to make them, and they would prefer to deal with Municipal Affairs within the regions. Is that a message that's come through?
Mr McKinstry: Certainly there is that message, yes. I guess the other thing to think about is, many of the decisions would be made locally. The official plan and amendments for Thunder Bay might be decided by the minister, but subdivisions, consents, those kinds of things would all be decided locally.
Mr David Johnson: Last question then: There are policy directives that are on the books right now. Before these policy statements, there were about three or four policy statements, I think.
Mr McKinstry: Four.
Mr David Johnson: I'm just not clear, it's probably here somewhere, but how does this "shall be consistent with" apply to those existing four policy statements?
Mr McKinstry: Policy statements, just for the clarification of the committee, are the wetlands policy statement, floodplains policy statement, mineral aggregates policy statement and housing.
The first three -- wetlands, floodplains and mineral aggregates -- have been folded into our comprehensive set of policy statements, which look like this, and the policy intent has not been changed. Housing has also been placed into this document, and the policy has been somewhat changed. Those policies are all within the framework of the comprehensive policy statement.
Mr David Johnson: There are no other policies then outside of the document entitled Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements.
Mr Eddy: Yes, based on preference.
Mr David Johnson: That's true.
Mr McKinstry: There are no policies which decisionmakers must be consistent with under the Planning Act. This constitutes the Planning Act policy statements.
Mr David Johnson: I said that was my last question, but now Mr Eddy's prompted me. How does Bill 120, the accessory apartment bill, fit into all this? In a sense that's a policy; I guess you probably don't call it a policy statement, but there really is a policy directive. How does that fit into this whole thing then?
Mr McKinstry: My understanding in Bill 120 is that it's a legislative amendment and that legislation is made and legislation must be obeyed by the citizens of a province. This is a policy directive which municipalities and decision-makers must be consistent with, and I think it is fairly significantly different from Bill 120.
Mr David Johnson: "Must be obeyed" is more strict than "must be consistent with," is it?
Mr McKinstry: Legislation is certainly the strongest method of government control.
Mr Curling: I just want to follow up on that question. If there is a policy statement in regard -- and the comprehensive policy is inclusive of that, housing, and 120, the legislative amendment which affects policy on this one, on Bill 163, would that have an impact on this comprehensive policy in 163?
Mr McKinstry: Sorry, I missed that.
Mr Curling: Bill 120 is a legislative amendment which has an impact on basement apartments and, as a matter of fact, to go further, has an impact on the affordability of housing. Bill 163 has within it a policy in regard to housing.
Now, does 120 have an impact on 163, on the comprehensive policy in housing? Would it have an impact on it, the cost of basement apartments and intensification and things like that? Because it would change the Planning Act; it would have to be "consistent with."
Am I making myself plain? I would see that it would have an impact. If you're making changes to the legislation, it would have an impact on this new policy.
Mr McKinstry: Bill 120 implemented provisions in a legislative way from the policy statement passed a number of years ago on housing. However, the policy statement still contains encouragement to municipalities to go further. This is encouragement for them to go further in permitting intensification where the services permit. So they fit together fairly nicely.
Mr Curling: It would change it, though. I think the concern that municipalities have is that if you set up a comprehensive policy, there are amendments to legislation that have an impact on the policy. It seems to me that there are new policies that are going to come in to effect this comprehensive policy from time to time. You named a couple of policies there and --
Mr McKinstry: if I could actually read the provision out of the policy statement, it says, "Small scale intensification will be permitted in all areas permitting residential use, except where infrastructure is inadequate, or there are significant physical constraints. This is in addition to the Planning Act provision permitting certain houses to have two residential units."
Mr Curling: So Bill 120 is consistent with this policy.
Mr McKinstry: Yes. It's mentioned in this.
1520
Mr Curling: There will be other policies that may come in later on, over and beyond the policies we have in that comprehensive policy. It seems to me they are more concerned -- and maybe in the next subsection we could talk about that, about new policies coming in. I know you've explained as much as you can, but I still have a doubt.
You can proceed if you want, Mr Chairman, because I don't think I'm going to get an answer.
The Chair: I see no other speakers. We're ready for the question. All in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed? That's defeated.
Mr McLean: Subsection 6(2) of the bill, subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act: I move that subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "be consistent with" in the fifth line and substituting "have regard to."
The Chair: Mr McLean, speaking to that amendment. There is a word change obviously, as Mr McLean might explain. Go ahead.
Mr McLean: There is one word changed in that. "Shall" has been taken out of that one, and I thought that would make a different motion.
Mr White: Do you think so?
Mr McLean: I thought that we may be able to put the motion and have it carried. He's already voting yes.
Mr White: Mr Chair, I must suggest that this motion is out of order, seeing that it's substantively the same as the previous one.
The Chair: I understand what you're saying, Mr White, but given that there is a change with that word, it does change the amendment quite a lot. Further speakers to this?
Seeing none, all in favour of this amendment? Opposed? That's defeated.
Mr Curling: Subsection 6(3) of the bill, subsections 3(5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) of the Planning Act -- before I move this, maybe I could ask a question. You do have that policies will be reviewed every five years now, coming down. At one stage, there were no policy reviews. Now the government is going to introduce a --
Mr McKinstry: Correct.
Mr Curling: Okay. Even with that, I will proceed.
I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) Section 3 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"(5.1) Other policy directives or implementation guidelines issued by any ministry do not constitute a provincial policy statement or interest as described in this section.
"(5.2) If a policy statement is issued under subsection (1), the minister shall from time to time, and not less frequently than every five years, determine if there is a need to revise the policy statement.
"(5.3) If the minister fails to revise the policy statement or make an order declaring a revision is not necessary within the five-year period, the policy statement is deemed to have been revoked at the end of that period."
Let me just review that, because we just had a discussion a minute ago about what could constitute a new policy. We're saying that from time to time the minister will come out and make statements and say, "That is the provincial policy statement." We want to say, "Are we going to be seeing within the next five years down the road" -- you're telling me in this legislation that later on the policy is subject to review. But within that five years, it seems to me, I want to make sure that there are no statements being made that then constitute a new policy statement for this new Planning Act.
Subsection (5.2) is of course, "...from time to time, and not less frequently than every five years, determine if there is a need to revise that policy statement." I presume in anticipation that you're going to use your numbers here and maybe defeat this motion; that if you put a policy in, within two years that policy is also subject to a review within the time of the five-year review.
Subsection (5.3): If you fail to do so -- the minister, that is -- can revise the policy statement or "make an order declaring a revision is not necessary within the five-year period." In other words, it's kind of a sunset clause.
We want to know that we don't just give them carte blanche and say, "Here we are, we make a policy and it's not for review," and you bring that iron fist down again on the poor municipalities and say, "That's our policy."
We can say that even in defeating this, since we anticipate that your amendment will review in five years, there is some -- I don't want to call it constraint, since Mr Wiseman had all his talk about "conform with" and almost handcuffing the municipalities to conform to the policies of the provincial government -- but there is a sunset clause that it can be reviewed within that time.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Mr David Johnson: Just a question of the staff: The government has some of these amendments coming up, I believe.
Mr Hayes: We do have, yes.
Mr David Johnson: One that I don't think you have coming up is the sunset provision. As a general rule, I would say there are many people out there in the province of Ontario and many people associated with government in general who are increasingly calling for sunset clauses on legislation so that they don't clutter up the books for years and years. I wonder if the government has any basic objection to a sunset provision.
Mr Hayes: When we talk about the policies, we're talking about sound planning principles and development policies, and of course that's the way they're set out. But while we agree with the five-year review, we do not agree that we should just throw out all the policies that we've agreed with in the first place. It just doesn't make sense to us, rather than review. It makes more sense to review, I think, than just to automatically revoke and throw out policies that may very well be very effective at that time and in five years. There isn't much sense in doing that.
Mr David Johnson: I'm not so sure that what you're saying is contradictory. It's just basically saying that if you do the review, which you're agreeing --
Mr Hayes: No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that just because we haven't reviewed it or the minister hasn't reviewed it immediately -- what you're suggesting here in this resolution is that we just throw them out the window, and we're saying we prefer to review rather than just throw them out. If it's necessary to revise and make changes, then I'm sure it will be done at that time.
Mr David Johnson: It does demonstrate a commitment on behalf of the government to actually do the review. I just thought you may wish to show that commitment by accepting the sunset clause.
Mr Hayes: We have an amendment to deal with this, and I think it will certainly meet the concerns of the public and others who had concerns about the review.
Mr Eddy: I support the amendment of course because it has several advantages, and one is that it's not only a commitment of the government, it's forcing the minister to do something. As you know, governments change from time to time.
Ministers change sometimes even more frequently than governments, and you may have a minister who really doesn't want to open up a policy statement, and yet there may be considerable public discontent with it, or a necessity indeed to review it, and it shouldn't be glossed over or just forgotten.
1530
No policy needs to just disappear off the books; the minister reviews it. It gives the minister the opportunity to say: "This needs to be reviewed within this time frame. It must be reviewed, and we'll call for some public input. We'll discuss it with AMO or with the municipalities." I think it's an exit.
Sunset clauses are really good. This is what you might call a beautiful amendment, because it does have the sunset clause in there and it means that the minister and the government must review the planning policies that are there. I think it should be supported.
Mr Hayes: "The minister shall."
Mr Curling: I just want to raise this point, and it seemed to be missed. If the minister fails to revise the policy -- no one is saying, "Let's throw it out" -- what we are trying to say, and which the parliamentary assistant has said quite a number of times and I fully agree with him, is that things change and the municipalities change and sometimes they want their policies changed with it. Therefore, if the minister fails to revise that policy, what we are saying is sunset that. When he made mention of the fact that we just can't throw out something like that because -- we're saying, if he fails to react, if he fails to be sensitive to the municipality, if he fails somehow not to want public input, as he said, to empower, if he fails to see that empowering the municipality is a way of hearing their advice, then what we do is, the policy statements would be deemed to have been revoked at the end of that period.
I'm going to appeal again to the parliamentary assistant, who has the ear of the minister and, of course, to the big bureaucracy that helps them to draft this wonderful legislation, to let the minister be accountable to that municipality. Let the minister be put in a position that he can have input from the municipality. If he fails to do so, those would have been deemed to be revoked at the end of that period.
Mr Hayes: Actually, we are not doing anything differently here than what we are asking the municipalities to do when they review their official plans. We don't have a sunset clause put in there for the municipalities either. I just look at this. I know the intent is to try to assure that the policies will be reviewed, and we'll be meeting that, but just to say, "If you haven't done that immediately we're going to revoke it" -- I'm sorry, that to me is not being very responsible.
Mr Eddy: It's just that it says, "If the minister fails to revise the policy or make an order declaring the revision is not necessary within..." the time frame. It's a protection. The protection is built in.
Mr Hayes: We have a protection in the amendment here and it says that "the minister shall," and if you'll be patient we'll get to that.
The Chair: Are there further speakers? Very well. Moving on to the vote, all in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
The PC amendment.
Mr McLean: It being the same as the Liberal amendment, I'll withdraw it.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) Subsection 3(6) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Advice consistent with policy statement
"(6) With respect to any planning matter under this act, the comments, submissions or advice provided by a minister or a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government or Ontario Hydro shall be consistent with policy statements issued under subsection (1).
"No restriction
"(7) Nothing in this section affects nor restricts the minister in prescribing any matter to be a matter of provincial interest under section 2.
"Deemed consistency
"(8) An official plan or part of an official plan approved by an approval authority or the Municipal Board after this subsection comes into force shall be deemed to be consistent with the applicable policy statements issued under subsection (1).
"Non-application
"(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to,
"(a) an official plan or an official plan amendment adopted before subsection (8) came into force; or
"(b) an official plan amendment requested by any person or public body before subsection (8) came into force, whether or not the official plan amendment is adopted.
"Review
"(10) The minister shall, at least every five years from the date that a policy statement is issued under subsection (1), ensure that a review of the policy statement is undertaken for the purpose of determining the need for a revision of the policy statement."
I am sure that will address everybody's concerns to make sure that all the ministries are consistent and that the minister shall, at least every five years from the date of the policy statement, review it.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to speak to part of it, and that's the part, of course, that I don't agree with, the "No restriction," subsection 3(7). "Nothing in this section affects nor restricts the minister in determining, declaring or prescribing any matter to be a matter of provincial interest and the procedure followed in so determining, declaring or prescribing under any other section of this act." That is far too broad. We can't --
Mr Hayes: That's a very good question. Mr McKinstry, respond to it, please.
The Chair: Are you asking a question in relation to --
Mr Eddy: It would be helpful if he would, yes.
Mr McKinstry: Yes, that piece has been replaced and that part referred to the declaration of provincial interest. It has been replaced and now it refers to prescribing a matter to be of provincial interest under section 2.
Interjections.
The Chair: Have we received our replacement from their original package?
Interjection: Yes.
The Chair: You may -- I'm not sure.
Mr Curling: We want to cooperate as much as possible. Here we are, we had done a lot of homework in doing this aspect, for example, and this came in now. Can we stand this down now so that we can get a chance? This was delivered to us in flight, for all of these amendments coming through. You see we have almost one looking like a Bible here of amendments and we want to make sure these things are consistent with, so could we ask that this part be stood down so we can digest it better?
Mr Hayes: If I may, Mr Chair.
The Chair: All right, Mr Hayes, go ahead.
Mr Hayes: I appreciate what Mr Curling is saying, but to say it was just dropped there -- my understanding is that you had received that at 10 o'clock this morning, the information on that.
Interjections.
The Chair: It was actually delivered this morning to all of us. We may not have put the replacements into the package, but we all got them.
Mr Curling: Mr Chair, we weren't sitting down idly when he dropped this at 10 o'clock.
The Chair: Mr Curling, I appreciate that. Let me ask to see whether there's unanimous consent to stand it down, all right?
Mr Curling: No, before you have unanimous consent, let me just explain. The fact is that when the new set of amendments came in, we had thought to organize ourselves within that time and while we appreciate that amendments will be coming in by the second every time, we have to somehow put them in a form of --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: No, it's true, because here we are now reading that section and of course the clerk was right on time in dropping that at 10 o'clock. But we are just about getting our sets formulated and we were reading the one that was not in place yet and he said, "It's replaced." We had no chance to read that and the parliamentary assistant is telling me now it was dropped here from 10 o'clock this morning and we should have read it. We'd like to caucus this matter.
Mr Hayes: Mr Curling, you're saying that the amendment you received before -- you didn't have a chance to study it?
Mr Curling: We did.
Mr Hayes: In other words, what we've done here is that you studied that and, of course, Mr Eddy is saying it's way too broad. We took out --
Mr Curling: We don't know.
Mr Hayes: We took those things out that really will address Mr Eddy's concerns. So if you've read all that -- Mr Eddy, I'd like --
The Chair: Mr Curling is saying that I guess he didn't get a chance to see the replacement to the original section and he's asking for us to stand that matter down. Is there unanimous consent to stand this matter down?
Mr Hayes: For when? Until when?
1540
The Chair: You just stand it down. It means you deal with it later on.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: I don't see anything wrong with that.
Mr Hayes: Yes, no problem.
The Chair: Okay, this matter's stood down then.
Moving on to section 7, Liberal amendment. Mr Curling, is somebody moving this amendment?
Mr Curling: I move that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Section 4 of the Planning Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"(6) Despite subsection (1), the approval authority under section 50 of the Condominium Act is delegated to the local municipality in which the condominium is situate on and after January 1, 1996, and the minister may make regulations prescribing procedures and other matters related to the approval process."
This is again actually empowering the municipality, bringing government closer to the people, and these decisions are not made, as they would feel, at Queen's Park downtown or wherever, but sensitive to the municipalities. We hope that of course the necessary regulations would be then drafted, and the government is pretty good at drafting regulations afterwards, to conform with the matters that are related to the approval process of it.
Mr David Johnson: Could I just have the ministry's reaction to this?
Mr Hayes: This issue right now -- I believe it does have some merit in it but at the same time there is between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations some discussion going on really on how to deal with this particular issue. As the parliamentary assistant to Municipal Affairs, that's all I can tell you today.
Mr David Johnson: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, I kind of missed this. I believe this is one of the recommendations that --
The Chair: Mr Johnson, I'm sorry. Mr Hayes was asking whether -- he wants to stand this matter down.
Mr Hayes: Yes, I do. I would like to stand this down.
The Chair: Is there agreement to stand this down? Very well, this is stood down as well. Section 8.
Mr Curling: Section 8 of the bill, subsection 14.1(1.1) of the Planning Act: I move that section 14.1 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) If a county has approved an official plan or is prescribed to have one, the local municipalities may not establish a municipal planning authority unless the consent of the county council is first obtained."
I think this is quite self-explanatory and I feel that again it is consistent with -- that word that you always like -- the empowering of the municipalities. Many people have complained that they have done a lot of work in this and would like to see legislation that comes in to put that out of place. So we say to you that you should support this in that matter and I'm sure Mr Eddy would have a lot to say about this matter, having such great experience in this regard.
Mr Eddy: I try not to have a lot to say about any single subject, but certainly this one does concern me and I think, Mr Chair, you'll recall the many county council representations that we had before us. I think that was the major concern of all of them that appeared and I'm sure all county councils would agree with this. They're really upset about the possibility of their member municipalities dropping out to form alternative planning arrangements. I have no problem with cooperating -- indeed I encourage it -- with cities and adjoining municipalities, but to allow or to form planning organizations which take area municipalities, constituent municipalities, out of counties, can and would cripple many of the counties.
I think this is only proper, that the county council -- the government is encouraging and will be encouraging, I expect, all counties to have land use official plans. I don't agree with that, I think counties should have policy plans. If they have all of the constituent municipalities with local plans, the county needs input the same as the province sees itself as having to have input into local official plans.
I really see this as a backwards step, going back to the days pre-1983, when the Planning Act of that day was passed. One of the most important features of that particular act was indeed to dissolve planning boards, and many of them were intermunicipal and bring about a more regional type of planning system. The planning boards were seen as usurping the powers of municipal councils and there was a return to having municipal councils and county councils, upper-tier councils, be responsible for planning.
There's been considerable progress. If you feel that entering the official planning is an advantage to municipalities, there's been considerable progress in that regard. Indeed, the counties themselves petition the minister to allow counties to be designated municipalities in the first place so that they indeed could have county official plans. It's a real concern of the county councils out there, as it would be any of the regions in Ontario, to have the minister extract constituent municipalities from the area-wide planning body and to set up another type of planning body with adjacent municipalities.
I do think the matter needs some investigation and some assistance, perhaps, in having or requiring cooperation between separated municipalities and upper tiers. Indeed, that's happening with the formation in many of the counties of county-city or county-separated town municipal liaison committees with indeed some strong terms of reference. That's happened, to use London as a good example in this case, in the London-Middlesex municipal liaison committee. I hope it's still in operation.
Mr Hayes: Most of the things Mr Eddy said are factual.
Mr Eddy: Not all?
Mr Hayes: No, most of it is. I do respect him because he does have a lot of experience, certainly, in municipal issues, but I don't always agree with him.
Anyhow, what I want to say here is that, yes, a lot of counties did come and make presentations and they did have a concern about this issue. That is actually why the government is proposing an amendment to this which will state that the minister shall consult affected counties before approval -- the bylaw to establish an MPA to ensure the integrity of county planning has not been undermined. I think Mr Eddy would certainly support that, I hope. I'm sure he will.
Mr McLean: I think you'll see in here today that a lot of the amendments the Liberal Party have are the same ones that we have. The fact is that we took a lot of them from what was recommended by AMO and ROMA, the municipal representatives of this province.
It's unfortunate to me to see that every one of them so far has been turned down, because they're being recommended by the associations. We had several meetings with wardens and municipal people and a lot of input from them and these are some of the things they're asking for. Do they not know better than the government what amendments we should have? We think they do. I agree with this one very strongly. If this amendment is not passed, as recommended by AMO, then we're certainly wasting a lot of time here, because so far today every one they want has been -- there's only one that's been changed, but none of the ones we recommended have been accepted. I find it rather odd that we're being turned down as solidly as we are.
1550
Mr David Johnson: I'm looking at the amendment that the Liberals have put forward and that Mr McLean has essentially put forward. By the luck of the draw, the Liberals' came up first. It says that the consent of the county council must be obtained first, before a municipality could establish a municipal planning authority.
So in this motion, presumably the provincial government would go to the county council and would ask for the county council's position on the matter and the county council would take a vote, and if the vote said, "Yes, we the county council agree," then the province would give authority to the municipality presumably to establish a municipal planning authority. However, if the county council said, "No, we have a structure in place," and for reasons of avoiding duplication or for creating a conflict, perhaps within the planning, the county council said, "No, we feel that planning is being adequately addressed," and the county council said, "No, we're opposed to the municipality establishing a planning authority," then, in that case, according to the motion that's before us, that authority would not be granted by the province to the municipal planning authority. That's pretty clear. I don't think there's any disagreement on that.
However, if we look by comparison with the motion that's upcoming, it simply says "after consulting with the council of any affected county." But I guess the words "have regard to" could be put in here. The words "must be consistent with" do not seem to apply to this particular motion.
I wonder if maybe the parliamentary assistant could confirm to me that under the motion that the government is proposing, the government could ignore the resolution of the county council.
Mr Hayes: This government at least will not ignore the municipal councillors.
Mr McLean: You have so far.
Mr Hayes: Definitely not. We haven't.
Mr McLean: There hasn't been one passed yet.
Mr David Johnson: Would you explain to me then, Mr Paliamentary Assistant, why you use the phraseology "after consulting with," or if that's the case, what you're saying then -- I assume since you said it that you believe it -- why you have a problem with the motion that's before us right at this point.
Mr Wiseman: Because it doesn't allow flexibility.
Mr David Johnson: Wait a second now. Mr Wiseman says it doesn't allow flexibility but the parliamentary assistant says he doesn't want flexibility.
Mr Hayes: Did I say that? I don't believe I said that at all.
Mr David Johnson: What did you say, then?
The Chair: Let Mr Johnson complete his thoughts and then we'll --
Mr Hayes: It's quite obvious that there are --
Mr David Johnson: It's either a yes or a no. There's not a whole lot of flexibility in yes or no.
Mr Hayes: We get accused of not listening. It's quite obvious that there are members here who don't listen.
Mr David Johnson: All right, try again. Go ahead.
Mr Hayes: What we're saying here is that the minister will consult or should consult with the council of the county and that we do not want -- to put it in another way, we want to ensure that the county planning program is not negatively affected. That's why we feel that the minister should be able to sit down and consult with the county prior to just automatically making that decision, because there are cases where possibly we wouldn't be able to have any MPAs if we just arbitrarily did it the way you're asking.
Mr David Johnson: I'm sorry, I don't quite know how to interpret that. My question was, if the county council said, "No, we do not want you to proceed with the municipal planning authority," then in all cases would the government respect that view and would the government then not proceed? Or, as Mr Wiseman says, would there be flexibility? Would you ignore that advice in some cases and in some cases obey that advice? Which one is it?
Mr Hayes: I cannot sit here and make a commitment to you on what someone else may do.
Mr David Johnson: So you're saying that you want the flexibility and to ignore the advice of the county council?
Mr Hayes: No, I'm not saying to ignore the advice at all. I'm saying to you, and I'll say it again, that the minister will consult prior to implementing it.
Mr David Johnson: Then, if this was changed to reflect that "after consulting with," the minister would proceed with regard to the establishment of a municipal planning authority as outlined in the directive from the county council --
The Chair: Your question, Mr Johnson?
Mr David Johnson: If your amendment was amended to establish that the ministry would proceed after consulting with the county council, to be consistent with the --
Mr Hayes: If it does not adversely affect the county planning.
Mr David Johnson: The advice of county council.
Mr Grandmaître: Are we dealing with the same amendment?
Mr Eddy: No, actually, we're speaking to an amendment --
The Chair: Mr Johnson, please.
Mr David Johnson: The only reason I raise that is -- and I think Mr Eddy has alluded to it too -- that there is an amendment before us right now which says that the county council must give its consent before the province proceeds. But the parliamentary assistant has indicated that the government is not going to support that, but rather --
Mr Hayes: No, he's not indicating that whatsoever.
Mr David Johnson: Oh, you are going to support this?
Mr Hayes: No, we're not supporting this amendment.
Mr David Johnson: That's what I said.
Mr Hayes: I think I made that quite clear at the beginning, and I said that we have a motion that's coming that will address that issue, that AMO may not be totally satisfied that it didn't get its amendment word for word. But I'm sure that when they see this one here or they already have -- I know some people have and they have not really objected to our proposal.
Mr David Johnson: And the major difference is that your amendment says you only have to consult, but then you could choose to ignore it. I'm putting that part in afterwards.
Mr Hayes: No, if you consult, definitely you're not ignoring.
Mr David Johnson: Then, if you're not going to ignore, why not just use AMO's amendment?
The Chair: I think he's answered your question, Mr Johnson.
Mr Hayes: Several times.
The Chair: I have Mr Wiseman first and then -- I'm sorry, Ms Haeck. There are so many who want to speak to this, of course.
Mr Wiseman: Write it down.
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Ms Haeck: I think this is really the nub of the issue. I remember being in Napanee, listening to deputants from Trenton, I believe, who really very strongly indicated that the tricommunity planning area that they wanted did not coincide with the exact boundary lines of the two counties and Hastings wasn't particularly thrilled with it. So here you have sort of the greater Quinte area trying to come up with an innovative planning approach that affects several municipalities that are relatively close together but happen to be situated in two different counties.
With the motion that you've put forward, because the counties aren't necessarily enamoured of it, that kind of work would not take place. Under those circumstances, I think those municipalities should be commended for showing the initiative and undertaking a difficult process where the counties in fact have been less than progressive. So let's give some of those municipalities out there that have this desire to undertake the planning process the opportunity to do it where in fact those county governments may not be totally supportive.
1600
Mr Wiseman: I just wanted to add to that in that I think it would be a real shame that if you had an area where, say, three or four counties decided that a municipal planning authority was a good idea and one didn't, nothing could happen. I think that the compromise offered by the government is a good one in that if there are some really good arguments that could be used for a county not to be involved in an MPA, they would be listened to and then a decision would be rendered.
But if they aren't good reasons and if for the sake of good planning for all of the counties involved you couldn't do it because of the consent aspect of this amendment, I think you may be losing a wonderful opportunity to be progressive and to move forward. That's the reason that I don't think I could support it, and the same example came to mind that came to my colleague's mind. I can't support this amendment for that reason.
Mr Eddy: I think the two previous speakers have missed the point, from my point of view at least. This says where "a county has an approved official plan or is prescribed to have one," so it's not lack of planning that's going to trigger this. It says very clearly where "a county has an approved official plan," which means all of the municipalities are covered with an upper-tier plan; whether it's one tier at the upper tier or two-tiered, they're covered by an upper-tier official plan "or...prescribed to have one," which means they've got to get to work to have one right away.
I wanted to speak to the point where it's very necessary to have planning cooperation where counties adjoin each other and you might want to have -- Mr Wiseman is describing eastern Ontario. I know that concern there and I can see the advantage. I'm very much in favour of planning cooperation. In other words, adjoining municipalities, whether or not they're in the same upper tier, should really, and must, take into their official plan planning considerations so that the areas adjoining have compatible planning. That makes good sense and can and should be provided for.
But if it's good for Trenton -- and we're talking about the Quinte area, Trenton, Belleville and the township. It was the township between them that was so strong on it -- one township, not the other. The same thing happens in the Kingston area and Kingston township, which is in Frontenac county, adjoining Ernestown township, which has a population of some 30,000 in the adjacent county of Lennox and Addington. If that's the case, what's wrong with Peel, with Caledon in Peel, which adjoins the urban centre of Orangeville, right adjoining? Why wouldn't you let Caledon go out of Peel and go in with Dufferin or Orangeville and why wouldn't you let Tillsonburg, which is in restructured Oxford, go with Haldimand-Norfolk, which is on two sides of it?
What I'm saying is, if you're going to do it for the counties, then you'd better do it for the regions. I'll tell you, there's a strong, strong feeling, and I think we should all realize it and take into consideration across this province that the counties are treated in many cases as second-class citizens. So it's the counties that have an official plan or will be prescribed to proceed to get one that we're talking about. Why should you allow area municipalities in those counties to drop out of the county system or -- what is the word that we use in the case of the south and the north withdrawing? -- secede from the setup unless you're going to restructure the municipality? You will have across the province of Ontario many urban centres that are on or near regional or county boundaries.
I think what we need to look at is yes, facilitate the planning -- and by the way, adjacent municipalities do have the right to comment on their neighbours' official plans. That's been in use for many years and you have to notify your adjacent municipality. Regardless of whether it's a separated municipality or a municipality in another upper tier, you must notify it and take its concerns into consideration when you are or it can appeal it. So there is a mechanism and I think there needs to be a further mechanism, but I don't think this is the way to do it, by letting counties -- because the minister says it's fine and maybe the minister is from the Haldimand-Norfolk riding, shall we say, and suggests, "Tillsonburg should be with us and not with restructured Oxford."
You're opening a whole, the expression would be "can of worms," but I can't see why you wouldn't treat counties the same as you do regions, especially those that do have approved official plans or are prescribed to get them.
I hope I've made my point clear to the extent where I'll have some more members joining us on this important vote for the counties. Thank you.
The Chair: I think we're readying for the question. All in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed?
Mr Eddy: Oh, God, I didn't talk long enough.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Mr McLean: I move that section 14.1 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) If a county has approved an official plan or is prescribed to have one, the local municipalities may not establish a municipal planning authority unless the consent of the county council is first obtained."
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr McLean. I am just trying to see whether there was any wording change and I didn't note any. So I would rule it out of order, unless you're withdrawing it.
Mr McLean: I'll withdraw it then --
The Chair: Very well.
Mr McLean: -- grudgingly.
The Chair: Government motion. Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 14.1(2) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding after "minister" in the third line "after consulting with the council of any affected county."
I think I've made our position quite clear several times, Mr Chair.
Mr McLean: "The council...shall not pass a bylaw under subsection (1) unless the proposed bylaw is approved by the minister." I thought you passed a bylaw before you got the approval of the minister. Isn't that what subsection 14.1(2) says, "approval of bylaw"? "I move that subsection 14.1(2) of the Planning Act...." Aren't we still on the same --
Mr Hayes: We hear you. We're waiting. We want to make sure we give you the proper answer. I'll ask Mr McKinstry.
Mr McKinstry: If I understand your question, you're asking for clarification on how the bylaw approval works?
Mr McLean: Yes. I am asking how that subsection (2) applies to what you're amending here.
Mr McKinstry: Oh, I see. I think what we're saying is that the bylaw the municipalities propose to form a municipal planning authority must be approved by the minister and the minister must consult with any affected county before approving that bylaw.
1610
Mr McLean: "After consulting with the council of any affected county," so you're talking about abutting counties then.
Mr McKinstry: The affected counties, in my understanding, will be the counties which contain the municipalities that wish to form municipal planning authorities.
Mr McLean: But subsection (2) says, "The council of a municipality shall not pass a bylaw under subsection (1) unless the proposed bylaw is approved by the minister."
Mr McKinstry: I'm not clear what the question is.
Mr McLean: Well, I'm not clear what this is either; that's what I'm asking for. You're talking about 14.1(2) of the Planning Act, and that's on page 5, isn't it, 14.1(2), approval of bylaw?
Mr McKinstry: Right. The way the process in the bill is contemplated is that two or more local municipalities can pass a bylaw to form a municipal planning authority. That bylaw does not take effect before the minister approves the bylaw and our motion would say that the minister may not approve that bylaw until he has consulted with the council of any affected county.
Mr Eddy: I would expect that the minister would consult on the matter without having to put it in an act. I really think that would be a given, considering that the minister is an elected representative in the province of Ontario and represents constituents.
I feel very strongly that this is not strong enough, because what you're really doing is fragmenting the counties and restructuring the counties. At the present time, many counties have country library systems, but the legislation allows municipalities to opt out, and many have, in several of the counties having county library systems. Counties are responsible for county road systems, but because the legislation allows municipalities to opt out in some cases, and especially eastern Ontario, you have many municipalities that are not part of the county road system.
Now we're passing legislation that will allow certain municipalities in some counties perhaps to withdraw from the county for planning purposes. I wonder if there's any support for county government at all. I'm really concerned about it and I have to reiterate that you're treating the counties differently from the regions. You've got to remember that many of the regional boundaries are old county boundaries. I know it's quite different in Durham, where there was Ontario county and the united counties of Northumberland and Durham. They took municipalities and gave Simcoe Rama and Mara and they gave Peterborough county a township and Victoria county a township and made Northumberland and really made some tremendous changes, perhaps with some good reasons. Allan would know better about that than I would.
Mr Wiseman: We're still looking to find them.
Mr Eddy: No comment on that, of course. I'm really concerned about it and I think there needs to be some extra wording rather than just "consulting" because, as my native friends in my riding say, "The word `consulting' is used a great deal but it doesn't mean anything." Certainly this is better than nothing, but not much.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr McLean: There should have been some consulting on all these amendments.
The Chair: Sorry?
Mr Hayes: That's why we have the amendments, Mr McLean, because we listened to people.
Mr McLean: Absolutely not.
Mr Curling: Earlier on, when we were debating the Liberal amendment, the parliamentary assistant brought into place that this one would satisfy the concerns we have and we'd be happy about that. I anxiously awaited to debate this amendment and I am left dissatisfied with the fact that, as Mr Eddy so eloquently, profoundly stated, what you are doing here is not recognizing some of the things of the county. You're dividing up the counties in this respect.
The problem that we have, and I keep going back to that, is that I want to be consistent with your policy to empower the municipalities. Each time, as we go along, it seems to me that you have handcuffed these municipalities into conforming to just what the province wants and not what they want. Although they tried to say to you, and the AMO has written -- I put AMO way ahead of the government in knowing about some of the concerns in municipalities. They have made a lot of recommendations in this regard and you have completely ignored them.
I don't want to get into a shouting match with the parliamentary assistant, but I appeal to you, why would you not go along with what was said previously? I know we can't go back to the previous motion, but if the counties already have the official plan, you recognize them, and they don't have to form another planning authority unless the consent of the county council is obtained.
I feel you have not satisfied me in this motion. I hope you would consider that and make some amendments recognizing what we're saying here. In the meantime, it seems to me, while I'm appealing to you, and the Chairman himself would agree with me, the parliamentary assistant may have a comment on this matter.
Mr Hayes: Just very, very briefly, this government or this ministry would not go and implement municipal planning authority unless the county requested it, the local municipalities. I think that's really contrary to what was just said, how we are taking away from them. We are saying to them that --
Mr Grandmaître: So you're not giving the counties that power; you're leaving it in the hands of the ministry?
Mr Hayes: No, I didn't say that. If they want to request, that's where it's at.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just wanted to say, in part in response to Mr Eddy's sensitive account of the history of some of the changes that have been taking place with counties, but also of course the importance of the county system, there still has been a development. You cited some of the places in eastern Ontario, and as Ms Haeck pointed out with Sidney township, the same thing is happening along there that is occurring in Frontenac county with the growth in the southern part of it. There has to be some response to that which I think even the county would accept. That's why I think this is a good approach to it. Certainly the adjacent municipalities are going to have a lot of similar issues to contend with and there is going to be some movement or at least some cooperation there in one form or another which I think they might want to codify in consultation with the ministry and with the county.
Mr Eddy: Just a brief comment: I agree with what the speaker said, but also I think that can be done without extracting a municipality from its upper-tier legal government structure. I also would like to point out that by extracting it then it means that it's not planning with the other adjacent municipalities in the county. You're extracting it out. Thinking of the specific example, Sidney township, then it would not be planning with the municipality to the north or to the west, I guess it is; I've forgotten the geography.
The other thing that I wanted to mention specifically, and I guess maybe it has to do more with the next amendment, is that the county of course can take on the responsibility for financing sewer and water services in a county, and certain other services.
The Chair: All in favour of the government's amendment? Opposed? That carries.
A Liberal amendment.
Mr Curling: I move that subsection 14.3(5) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out.
1620
Mr Eddy: This is a difficult one now. If you allow a municipality or one or more constituent municipalities in a county to withdraw, the question is, should they continue to pay or contribute towards the planning program in that particular county? I think it was pointed out by some of the presenters that this certainly will adversely affect planning in that particular county, especially if they haven't proceeded to date with an official plan.
It's a concern. I don't know how it's going to be dealt with. If you allow them to withdraw, do you require them still to contribute some of the finances of a county planning program? I think it's a dilemma that the government will be faced with, so we propose the amendment, but I don't expect it will pass any more than the other one.
Mr McLean: I want a clarification from the minister with regard to "the Municipal Act shall not include an amount required to be raised for county land use planning purposes by a local municipality that is in a municipal planning area." Are you saying that they're not allowed to levy the county for that planning area? What's your interpretation of that section?
Mr McKinstry: What the bill --
Mr McLean: It's in the bill, the county levy: "If a municipal planning authority has been established, a county levy under section 374 of the Municipal Act shall not include an amount required...."
Mr McKinstry: Counties levy municipalities for various things, including planning, and what we're saying in this provision of the bill is that if the municipalities have entered into a municipal planning authority and are therefore not participating in county planning, they shouldn't have to pay to the county the planning portion of that levy.
Mr McLean: Then why should that section be in there at all?
Mr McKinstry: The reason that section was included is because it seemed unreasonable to require local municipalities that are not participating in county planning and not receiving planning services from the county to pay a planning levy to the county. In fact, we see this as a way of protecting the taxpayer.
Mr McLean: That's clear.
The Chair: All right, seeing no other speakers, all in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed? Okay, it's defeated.
A PC amendment.
Mr McLean: I'll withdraw mine.
The Chair: All right, all in favour of section 8 as amended? Opposed? Are there others? Two more, okay. Turn the next page. Government amendment. Mr Hayes, go ahead, please.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 14.4(2) of the Planning Act as set out in section 8 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "after consulting with the council of any affected county".
Interjection: Same tune.
The Chair: Same tune, yes. Discussion?
Mr Hayes: We've discussed it several times.
The Chair: Any discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That carries. Mr Hayes with the next one.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 14.8(1) of the Planning Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by striking out the first four lines (ending with "68") and substituting the following:
"14.8(1) Sections 2 and 3, subsections 4(1), (4) and (5), 5(1), (2), (4) and (5), 6(2), 8(1) and (3), sections 16, 16.1, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26, subsections 51(26) and (34), sections 62.1, 65, 66, 68."
Interjection: Bingo.
Mr Hayes: Thank you for your support.
The Chair: Discussion? Mr Johnson.
Mr David Johnson: Could we have a little bit of the rationale behind what this does?
Mr David Johnson: Just so I can sleep tonight with a clear conscience.
Interjection: It's a housekeeping amendment.
Ms Perron: Yes, it is a housekeeping amendment in the sense that, having created the concept of a municipal planning authority, we have to establish all the cross-references that are necessary in the act to make sure they have the authority when they're dealing with official plans or other matters and processes -- that they have the appropriate authority.
Mr David Johnson: Sorry, the cross-references for who?
Ms Perron: For the municipal planning authority. Instead of going through the act and adding, where we have "council" or "planning board" the expression "municipal planning authority," this is an easier, quicker way of making those references.
Mr David Johnson: And some of the initial references were incorrect, were they?
Ms Perron: They were incomplete.
Mr David Johnson: Incomplete. I see.
The Chair: Okay? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
All in favour of section 8, as amended? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Curling: Section 9 of the bill, section 16 of the Planning Act: I move that section 16 of the Planning Act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the prescribed contents and" in the first and second lines.
The Chair: Are you speaking to that, Mr Curling, or is that okay?
Mr Curling: You've moved pretty quickly through all of this.
The Chair: Okay. Other speakers?
Mr David Johnson: Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find this now. This is in section 16.
The Chair: Section 16, yes.
Mr David Johnson: Can somebody just identify precisely where this is?
The Chair: Page 10. You're right there.
Mr David Johnson: Oh yes, I had my finger on it. Again, I guess this gets back to the old saw about what is to come in the official -- we're dealing with the official plan of a municipality and the contents of the official plan, number one. Am I correct?
Mr McKinstry: Yes.
Mr David Johnson: One of the complaints of the municipalities is that more and more they're being directed as to what the contents of their official plans should be. Is this a message that the ministry has heard, that there is a concern that municipalities -- we talked a bit earlier today, for example, on Bill 120, which will require all official plans to be changed to recognize accessory apartments, which is not a great delight to a number of municipalities.
Here again we're talking about directing municipalities to contain certain goals or objectives or policies within their official plan and I wonder if the ministry is getting a reaction. Certainly in terms of the municipalities that are talking to me, and AMO's expressing this, there's considerable concern that municipalities are being directed to have too many specifics and they're losing their flexibility in terms of their official plans.
Mr McKinstry: We certainly have heard from municipalities that they had some concerns with the bill, and they were concerned that -- municipalities were not clear enough that municipalities had powers and authorities. The government has responded to that in many, many ways through the motions to try to make sure that municipalities are empowered and they don't have an excess of provincial supervision or overview.
In this case, the Sewell commission recommended very, very strongly, and we also heard people at the committee say very strongly, that we should go much further and say in the act exactly what the contents were going to be. We felt that a regulation would give some more flexibility as times change, as issues change, to be able to respond to municipalities in terms of what should be in their official plans. The regulation is being worked out with municipal representatives on the task force.
1630
Mr David Johnson: I may be asking the impossible to answer but, in my experience, the local community wants the municipality to have full latitude to be able to deal with local conditions. Yes, there will be people who will demand that the province do specific things, but they're very much in the huge minority, let's say. In any population you will find people who will be in opposition to what a local council is attempting to achieve and, yes, they will come to the government, but their numbers shouldn't be exaggerated, in my opinion, and their numbers I think are very slight. The municipalities and their position much more accurately reflect what the thinking is of the population within the municipality than do a handful of critics that may be demanding very specific standards or guidelines from the provincial government.
I'm wondering if you would comment on that. Have you any way of knowing, when you talk about people demanding that the provincial government set down exactly what the municipalities can contain within their official plan? My assessment would be that it's only a very few people who are saying that.
Mr McKinstry: I don't have the numbers in front of me of who supported the requirement that municipalities have a prescribed content, but certainly I would have thought from my hearing in the committee that it was more than a handful of people.
Mr David Johnson: I'm exaggerating a little bit too, but a vast minority, rather than a handful. I would say it's very much --
Mr McKinstry: I don't know the numbers.
Mr David Johnson: Let me ask you, since we're on clause -- are we just on 16 or 16(a)?
The Chair: Section 16.
Mr David Johnson: The whole of 16? Can I deal with 16(a)?
The Chair: The Liberal motion deals with that section, 16.
Mr David Johnson: All right. Let me just ask you then in terms of prescribed contents, which the Liberal motion is suggesting we delete -- we'll ask the question again we asked earlier this morning -- can you give any indication of what sort of prescribed contents you may be thinking of for the future?
Mr McKinstry: I don't know what the regulation will contain and I don't want to presuppose it, but some examples of things that could be in it would be that the official plan shall contain a map, for example; that the official plan shall address policy statements; that the official plan shall address the planning period for the municipality; that it shall establish urban boundaries. I think we're talking about things that municipalities normally address in their planning program.
Mr David Johnson: Can you tell us the procedure the ministry will follow in terms of determining what will be in the regulations? In other words, do you intend to consult with AMO, do you intend to consult with the municipalities and, if so, in what fashion and what time frame?
Mr McKinstry: What we're doing is -- we have three committees: the implementation task force which has representation from AMO, we have the technical committee which has representation from a number of municipalities and we have the rural table which has representation from municipalities. All three of those committees will be vetting, talking about and giving feedback on those regulations.
Mr David Johnson: In terms of implementing the regulations, is there any way that you intend to involve the members of the Legislature as a whole, or will this -- in other words, I'm thinking there's bound to be a difference of opinion and it seems to be --
The Chair: Can I ask, are you dealing with this?
Mr David Johnson: Yes, because we're talking about what's going to be prescribed, the prescribed contents in the regulations, and what I'm asking is will there be some sort of opportunity for the members of the Legislature to address whatever you determine as the prescribed contents.
Mr Grandmaître: Third reading.
Mr David Johnson: Will we know by third reading of this bill what the prescribed contents are? I don't think so.
Mr McKinstry: Regulations normally, if I could answer your first question, don't go through the Legislature, so I would assume these would not go through the Legislature. Our intent is to put out the regulations, the implementation guidelines and the proclamation of the bill at the same time in January.
Mr David Johnson: So it's proclamation, and it'll be after the third reading.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr McKinstry: Yes.
Mr David Johnson: So the members of the Legislature would have no opportunity to comment.
Mr Grandmaître: Surprise.
Mr Hayes: No, let me just address that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, go ahead.
Mr Hayes: It's not a surprise at all because this has been the procedure traditionally for years and years and years. This is probably one of the first times you'll have the regulations in place when you have the legislation in place and no other government has ever done that. I think we have done so well and that's what makes us different. But really back to Mr Johnson, that's why we have the implementation --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Hayes: -- committee and the task force and all of those people who will certainly have input on the guidelines and regulations. But for us to come here and to try to do it in this committee work -- we've got to have maybe a 20-year term or something to deal with these issues.
The Chair: Okay. I think we're ready to vote on this matter.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Chairman, if I'm at the wrong point, just tell me know, but should I ask my question on clause 16(a) now or do you want to take this vote first?
The Chair: I suspect you may want to ask it now.
Mr David Johnson: Okay, it says that, "An official plan...
"(a) shall contain goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social," -- and I underline to the parliamentary assistant and the staff social -- "economic and natural environment of the municipality...."
There are many official plans out there in the province of Ontario. A lot of the official plans are not necessarily, let's say, within the last few years.
I would suspect that many official plans of many municipalities were created back some time ago and perhaps, although municipalities hopefully try to update them every five years, there are limitations on money and resources and they do the best they can, but many of them may not have comments, for example -- what is it here -- effects on the social, environmental -- comments with regard to social impacts.
What position would that put the municipality in? Would they be compelled within some time frame to go through a new official plan process to ensure that social aspects and environmental aspects, for example, were inserted in the plan, if they didn't have those at the present time?
Mr McKinstry: Municipalities will be required to be consistent with the policy statements, and the decisions that are made in that municipality on development applications must be consistent with the policy statements, and the policy statements address social issues in terms of the fact that they say municipalities should deal with human services issues in their planning process. I don't think this would affect the validity of existing official plans. The municipalities will be required to bring their official plans into consistency with the policy statements, so it would be addressed in that way.
Mr David Johnson: That's fairly important, I think. You say you don't think this would affect existing official plans?
Mr McKinstry: I'm saying it would not make them invalid.
Mr David Johnson: Would not make them invalid. There would then be no requirement to update an official plan. Many municipalities would not have a social content to their official plans is my guess, but the fact that they wouldn't have it would not make their existing official plans invalid.
Mr McKinstry: The municipalities are required to review their official plans once every five years, and by motions in this package, if they are passed, they will be required to bring them into consistency with policy statements. If they're not consistent with policy statements, what that simply means is the development applications being approved in the municipality would still have to be consistent with policy statements and the municipality would be required under the Planning Act to bring their plan into consistency with the policy statements. But if the plan was approved under the existing act, it would not be invalidated by virtue of this provision.
Mr David Johnson: Municipalities, for example, that were short on resources, municipalities that have very limited funds, very limited opportunity to hire staff to go through another official plan process, are you suggesting that they would not be compelled to immediately go through a new official plan as a result of this legislation?
1640
Mr McKinstry: The legislation would require them to update their official plans in consistency with the policy statements; they would, that is true.
Mr David Johnson: So they would, then, have to update their official plans to be consistent?
Mr McKinstry: At five years; when the five-year review comes up, then they have to be brought in and made consistent with the policy statements.
Mr David Johnson: What percentage of municipalities do you think update their official plans every five years?
Mr Eddy: They don't have to update them. They have to examine them and decide whether to update or not.
Mr McKinstry: That's right. The requirement by the motion that will be brought in, if it's approved here, would be that they must be brought into consistency with the policy statements but not changed if they are consistent.
Mr David Johnson: Well, I'd like to see what's really going on out there in the real world. My suspicion is that there are a lot of official plans that are well over five years old. If that's the case, then it's the case because to some degree there's a difference of opinion on how to update the official plan, and it's sometimes the case that there's just no money to do it.
So what happens as a result of this bill? That's what I'm trying to get my finger on. Will the Ministry be saying to those municipalities, "Look, you must update your official plan to be consistent with the provincial policies"? Are you going to be telling them that?
Mr McKinstry: I don't know what the ministry is going to be saying to municipalities in five years, obviously, but certainly the legislation makes it clear, and therefore there is an onus on the municipality to comply with the legislation.
Mr David Johnson: Will there be any kind of funding to municipalities that are now apparently under some greater pressure to update their official plans, because of this bill, to be consistent with the policies? Is there any provision for funding from the provincial government as a result of that extra onus that is being placed on them because of this bill?
Mr McKinstry: The bill makes no provision for funding, no.
Mr David Johnson: No provision for funding, and yet they're required to be consistent with the policies in the sense that they have to update their official plan?
Mr McKinstry: One of the things the ministry has said is that in the new planning system the role the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would take is more one of advice and assistance, and the ministry is certainly interested in working with municipalities to help them with their updates, to help them with their planning progress. I just can't address the issue of what grants might or might not be given.
Mr David Johnson: I suspect they would say help would be mostly in the form of funding, if they're going to demand that official plans be updated. Does the parliamentary assistant have a view on this? Are municipalities going to be compelled to update their official plans so that they will be consistent with the policies, such as the social policy? They may already be consistent with some of the other policies, but the social aspect is reasonably new in the history of Ontario, and I suspect there are a lot of official plans that don't contain the full social consistency. Now, speaking from a political level, will you be expecting municipalities --
Mr Hayes: They're going to be reviewing their official plans every five years.
Mr David Johnson: You'll be expecting that?
Mr Hayes: I think we all understand that, and then of course they'll have to be consistent with the policies, and I think we've made that clear. The other thing is that to ask the staff whether people will be getting grants for this, I think that is always pretty well a political decision that's made. There are municipalities that have received funding to update their official plans in that nature, and there's nothing in here that says that will be stopped or continued. So that is just a decision that would have to be made.
Mr Curling: "Trust me."
Mr Hayes: No, it's what's called being up front and not saying, "Yes, maybe we will." I'm saying to you that those things are political decisions, but there's nothing in here saying that some of the funding and things now will not continue.
Mr David Johnson: What would your government then be looking for in terms of if a municipality sought a grant to update its official plan as a result of this "to be consistent"? What sort of criteria would you be looking for such that you would be amenable to giving a grant to that municipality?
Mr Hayes: This government, when we talk about any kind of grant, we look at the specific needs of that municipality, organization, whatever we're dealing with.
Mr David Johnson: Are you looking at the financial needs? Is that what you're talking about?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Eddy: We've certainly had some good discussion about the future and the effects of the new Planning Act. The parliamentary assistant has stated that the regulations will be ready by third reading, I believe that's correct.
Interjection.
Mr Eddy: Oh, I thought you had stated that earlier, taking credit that this is the first time it's happened.
Mr Hayes: When it is proclaimed, of course, that will be very long after it receives third reading.
Mr Eddy: Oh, by the time it's proclaimed, then.
Mr Hayes: Oh, yes, so people will know.
Mr Eddy: Okay. The implementation guidelines will be completed and ready by then too you expect.
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Eddy: Yes, okay, that's some time later, because many people are concerned, and regulations are important with bills. As a fairly new member of the House, I wouldn't agree with any government not producing the regulations in time to be considered with a bill because --
Mr Grandmaître: Same here.
Mr Eddy: No, really, because you don't know what you're getting in a lot of cases until the regulations are --
Interjections.
Mr Eddy: I have openly criticized former governments on many issues.
Interjections.
Mr Eddy: Yes, sometimes; many former former governments even more. However, coming back, I think it's a point that we really need to be cognizant of, and it's especially a concern I would think with many municipalities which are working on or have just completed or are about to complete their officials plans.
For the life of me, I've been thinking it would have been really good advice for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to have said a year or so ago, "Do not proceed with an update of your official plan or a new official plan at this time, because there is a new Planning Act, and you're going to have to revise it." I personally think it's quite a change in official plans.
I think that all municipalities which have official plans are going to have to do a great deal of work. It's going to hit those municipalities that don't have an adequate or a large permanent planning staff and have to hire consultants to do their official plans that are going to be required to get with it. I feel really concerned about the municipalities which have done so much work in just updating their official plans and having them submitted and maybe just having them approved. There have been several.
My own township, for the life of me I wanted to say: "Back up and don't proceed. There's going to be a new Planning Act. Why are you going through all these public hearings and meetings to update your official plan? Just hold on to it." But I haven't done that, because I didn't think it was my business, but then maybe I should've. But I really think there's a concern whether or not there can be a financial assistance plan or whether that's being considered. If you've just completed one, you have five years, but if your plan is two or three years old, there are some very serious implications I think here of what we're doing.
Mr Hayes: I think that's right. I think that Mr Eddy has made some very valid points here today. We'll take that message back to the minister.
Mr Curling: Could I say that the message you're taking back, if there is any municipality --
Mr Hayes: Is this a different message?
Mr Curling: No, I just want to be clear that if there is an official plan in place, say a year or two, and they need to be updated to be consistent with this new Planning Act, that there are funds that will be given to these municipalities, because, as you said, we are grappling with this now to even understand not only the legislation but also the amendments that come in every 10 seconds or so. Will these municipalities trying to understand the new Planning Act be given financial assistance to get consultants and all that to bring their official plans up to date to be consistent with the policy that you have so in granite carved?
Mr Hayes: I'm sure that the majority of the planners and the municipal planning people and a lot of the local politicians won't have too much problem understanding this legislation.
Mr Curling: There will be no assistance, then?
Mr Hayes: But if you're saying because of --
Interjection: We'll have problems paying for it.
Mr Hayes: Well, we don't know. The fact of the matter is that I don't think any politician should stand in front of people and say, "Oh, well, yes, you've got a request for money; we're going to give it." Those days are gone. There have to be conditions met, and there has to certainly be a need for it, not just for someone to come along and say: "Oh, well, we think that they need some money. So you be prepared to give it to them."
Mr Curling: I'm not saying that.
Mr Hayes: No. What we're saying is that, certainly with any kind of funding we're talking about, there has to be a need there for it, and I know that the minister will certainly look at that in that manner.
Mr Curling: But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that they've already done their plan, and this new act has come in; that when they examine it, they're not "consist ent with." They've spent their money already to get this plan up to date; they've done all their consulting and what have you. I'm saying to you now, would you say to us, as the representative of the minister and the government of the day, that financial assistance will be given to those municipalities that have gone through all of this already and because of your new act are not consistent with this plan? Would funds be given?
Mr Hayes: We see in this act that it could be very profitable to municipalities simply because it will take that much less and that we'll be streamlining the process. The developers will understand up front where they're at, there won't be a lot of delays and I'm sure they'll be able to encourage good economic development in their community.
Mr Curling: They won't get any money, then, or assistance.
Ms Haeck: As I'm listening to the comments, I'm struck by the fact that the different meetings that municipalities have with regard to updating their municipal plan or official plan, in reality none of that work is lost. I understand why you might not want someone to write the formal draft and say that everything is completed, but the reality is that for at least two years, if not longer, discussions about the proposed legislation have been floating around in the province.
I hear from my own municipalities the fact that they're dealing with intensification questions and what have you, and the legislation has not been passed. So I think the fact that the conformity of some plans may not be there, the fact is that those that are in the process have probably got an easier task than those that have something that's 20 years old, as in the case of Huron county, and Huron indicated when they came before us that they felt they had some work to do but they had really and truly already made a great deal of progress and had some strong direction.
So I don't see this in the same way as you do. I think that because the discussions have been going on for some time in fact the regions, the counties and the separated municipalities have a fair idea of what will in fact be required.
The Chair: All in favour of the Liberal amendment? Opposed? That is defeated.
Mr McLean, the next one is a very similar one. Do you want to withdraw that?
Mr McLean: I would liked to have talked about it, but apparently it's not going to do me any good, so I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Very well. Rather than moving on to the next section, which would obviously take us way beyond 5 o'clock, I would like to recommend that we adjourn.
The committee adjourned at 1654.