Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

AFTERNOON SITTING

CONTENTS

Thursday 26 November 1992

London-Middlesex Act, 1992, Bill 75

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

*Chair / Président: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre ND)

Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND)

Kwinter, Monte (Wilson Heights L)

Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)

*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills ND)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ward

*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Sterling

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Phillips

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L) for Mrs Caplan

*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Kwinter

*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr Jamison

*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Wiseman

*Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr Carr

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Chinnery, Dr Kathleen M. Chinnery, senior economist, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Gray, Scott D., solicitor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Mills, Gordon, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Neumann, Mary, policy assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel: Klein, Susan, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Consideration of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexions faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): We'll resume the hearing on Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex. We'll start off with a video submitted by Ben Veel. It will run about 10 minutes, and during that time the clerk will have a chance to have photocopies made of the Liberal motions.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Why are seeing this video? Why wasn't I told? I have another video. Can I show my video?

The Chair: Ask Todd.

[Video presentation]

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Chair, I realize this video has been submitted and I think it should be part of the official record, but I do believe we should be getting into our clause-by-clause vote today given the fact that there are several amendments to be done. If it is the will of the committee, I would ask that we proceed to that now.

Mrs Mathyssen: Could I ask, Mr Chair, since we've seen five minutes of what I can't really understand -- I mean, I have been watching the video, but I haven't really understood; I don't know if it's the quality of the video. But since we have looked at it, might I request five minutes of the video I handed to you? It gives you a view of the land that is to be annexed. It is simply a visual image. Run it for one minute.

Mr Sutherland: I would move that we go into our clause-by-clause vote now.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Could I ask a question, since I'm not a member of the committee and I don't know what's going on. Did we agree with people to show the video?

The Chair: It was submitted to the committee, and we said if we had a chance to view it, we would view it.

Mrs Cunningham: I don't want to be accused of not looking at something if somebody said we could look at it. I just want you to follow the rules. I'm not going to get accused again of not following the rules. So you figure it out. You're the Chairman.

The Chair: This is 10 minutes. The clerk has said to me that either we recess until the Liberals have got their amendments in or we let the video run. We can do either.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I apologize that we don't have copies at the beginning, as we should have; I realize that. We've been working on them for a number of days and conferred with legislative counsel. They should be here, I realize, and they're coming.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, it seems to me that if we're waiting for something, there's no harm at looking at the video. I'm enjoying it.

The Chair: Okay. Some people can close their eyes.

Mrs Cunningham: I'll look at Irene's too, if there's time.

[Video presentation]

1033

The Chair: I'd like to start off with opening remarks from the PA.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased to bring forward to this committee the amendments to Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex. I'd like to begin by explaining the process we will use in proceeding through the bill clause by clause.

There are 48 proposed amendments to Bill 75. However, many of these motions for amendment are of a technical nature and merely adjust certain sections of the bill in consequence of previous motions. While we will address each section of the bill separately, some of the technical amendments are repeated in related sections of the bill. With your permission, Mr Chairman, and with the full agreement of all the members of this committee, we will deal with these motions only once. In this way, we will be able to spend more time on the substantive changes to the legislation.

I believe it is important to point out that the proposed changes to this bill are as a direct result of our intensive consultation with the people of the London-Middlesex area, the elected officials and the residents. We have listened to their concerns and now propose amendments that will ensure that Bill 75 reflects their concerns.

We have listened to the residents, the leaders in the agricultural community and the social field and we have listened to the business community and the local politicians. We believe the proposed amendments address many of their concerns. We listened during the minister's public hearings held in London on September 24 and 25, and we listened to those individuals who have spoken before this committee.

The proposed amendments deal with important areas such as ensuring greater protection for municipal employees directly affected by the annexation and enabling greater flexibility around land use planning issues.

The first reading bill ensured that the new city of London be structured in such a way to accommodate and encourage more public participation in its future strategic planning. Social planning will be a key element in the future vision. To ensure this, we are proposing an amendment for the establishment of a social planning committee. In addition, we are proposing amendments that will call for a rural issues advisory committee. We are also proposing that the original compensation package to be offered to the county of Middlesex by the city of London be enhanced.

Mr Chairman, we are ready to proceed.

Mr Sutherland: Just before we go on, I want to get it clear on the record that we are to try and get through this bill today in that the agreement between the House leaders was that we were to have four days altogether, two days for hearings and then two days for clause-by-clause. That was subsequently amended by the House leaders to allow an extra day for hearings because there were numerous groups that didn't get on to the original list that wanted to present and so it was understood that we would just have one day to go through this.

I just want to say that, from my sense, what should go on today is that we should spend as much time, whatever, on each section and amendment, if people want to discuss, but it would be my sense that roughly around 5:45 it should be that everything is being put for the bill to have its final vote before the end of the day. I just want to make that clear. That is my understanding of how things are, so if we get backlogged due to lengthy debates on any one section, people should understand there's an expectation to have this finished today.

Mr Eddy: In other words, time allocation on debate. We're well aware of that situation.

The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, any problem?

Mrs Cunningham: I just want to add it was at the request of the committee that we add the additional day.

Mr Eddy: We were hoping to have an additional day.

Mrs Mathyssen: There's an amendment missing from the package that I submitted. I don't know where it's gone. I had it this morning. It was in connection with the boundary adjustments. I want to draw to your attention that the first amendment I am proposing is missing from the package that was handed out.

The Chair: It's missing?

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes.

The Chair: If you can wind up getting a copy of that for each one of the members --

Mrs Cunningham: We don't have any of those amendments.

The Chair: It says, "Ms Mathyssen." So there's one missing.

Mrs Mathyssen: The first is missing.

The Chair: And you'll get a copy for all the members on that. I believe, Mr Eddy, you've submitted 50 amendments?

Mr Eddy: Yes. Do you want me to speak to them briefly at this time?

The Chair: You've presented these here to --

Mr Eddy: Yes. We have many amendments and before presenting the amendments of our caucus, I just want to say that it is my sincere hope that the proposed amendments will receive the committee's very serious consideration. The amendments my caucus is presenting are very reasonable amendments which respond to the serious concerns of the many individuals who appeared before this committee.

The main concerns expressed, as members of the committee will know, surround the issue of the size of the annexation which is clearly too large, and that's well documented. Given the complex nature of this act, we have over 50 amendments that we wish to present and it is my hope that the government House leader sees fit to extend the clause-by-clause proceedings by one day. We realize that may not be possible, but that is our hope.

The Chair: Looking at the time, what we have done in this committee before is go through all the government motions first, then we'll go through the Liberal motions and then we'll go through Ms Mathyssen's motions. We'll take it in order like that because I think we might find a repeat of some of the Liberal motions already covered by the government and it could be vice versa. Then at the very end we'll go clause by clause with the already agreed-upon amendments to the bill, which progress a lot quicker than going clause by clause and trying to go through three at one time.

If it's agreed by the committee that we proceed that way, I'll hand over to Mr Mills, the PA, and he will read off the first amendment.

Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chair. We move to section 2.1 of Bill 75. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 2:

"Schedules

"2.1(1) Before the 1st day of January 1993, the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall:

"(a) prepare the schedules referred to in subsection 2(1);

"(b) cause the schedules to be published in the Ontario Gazette; and

"(c) cause copies of the schedules to be deposited with the clerk of each municipality affected by this act.

"Same

"(2) The minister may, at any time, cause the schedules referred to in subsection (1) to be recorded in the bylaw index under section 68 of the Registry Act in the land registry office for the registry division of Middlesex East (No 33).

"Application of Municipal Act

"(3) The copies of the schedules shall be deemed to be a document in the possession of the clerk of a municipality for the purposes of subsection 74(1) of the Municipal Act.

"Application of Registry Act

"(4) The schedules shall be deemed to be an instrument for the purposes of section 68 of the Registry Act.

"Non-application of Regulations Act

"(5) The schedules are not a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations Act."

The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment?

Mr Mills: Maybe I should say that schedules are not attached to this bill because legislative counsel have changed the rules since the bill was printed, so this is normal procedure.

The Chair: Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, are we ready to vote on the amendment?

All those agreed to the amendment? You've got to hold your hand up, how many agree, so I can count here. One, two, three, four, five. Okay, carried.

Mr Mills: Moving along to subsection 5(4) of the bill, I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Majority vote

"(4) Despite subsections 68(3), (6), (7) and (8) of the Municipal Act, the council of the city of London may exercise its powers under those subsections with a majority vote of the members of the council present at a meeting."

The Chair: Mr Mills, I'm going to have to stop you. We're going to have to take a recess. The clerk would like to put all of these in order, like the government, the Liberals and Ms Mathyssen, and we deal with them as we go through rather than going all the way through. Can we take a recess for 10 minutes and come back so that it's a little bit better to follow?

The committee recessed at 1044 and resumed at 1103.

The Chair: I call this committee to order again. We're going to have to backtrack a little bit, as we've got all the amendments in order now. I'll read out which ones they are. We'll go back to section 2, which is a Liberal motion. Mr Eddy, do you have that in front of you now?

Mr Eddy: Yes, sir.

I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Annexations

"2(1) On the 1st day of January, 1993,

"(a) the portions of the town of Westminster described in schedule 1 and of the township of London described in schedule 2 is annexed to the city of London and forms one ward of the city;

"(b) the portion of the township of London described in schedule 3 is annexed to the township of West Nissouri;

"(c) the portion of the township of North Dorchester described in schedule 4 is annexed to the village of Belmont.

"Interpretation re Belmont annexation

"(2) The lands annexed to the village of Belmont under clause (1)(c) form part of the county of Elgin.

"Same

"(3) Despite the Education Act, the lands annexed to the village of Belmont under clause (1)(c) form part of the school division of the Elgin County Board of Education."

This amendment is submitted to reflect the 1988 proposal. It is a very strong view I have that if the section is amended to reflect the 1988 proposal, you will indeed have signatories to an agreement effecting such and accepting such amendment, because it was one that was submitted by the city of London and other parties did look at it and agree to it. It's true that the town of Westminster council did not agree to it at the time, but in view of all that's transpired since that date, we fully expect that to be the case.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: Interestingly enough, this Liberal motion is very much like the motion I'm going to be putting. Basically, I'd like to expand on Mr Eddy's remarks quite briefly by saying, first,that I'm not only the representative from the county of Middlesex but I also represent a significant population in the east part of London. These people have established a quite vibrant community. They are, by and large, the people who work in the various factories and service sectors. They are by no means wealthy but they are most certainly very significant contributors to the life of the city of London.

My concerns are twofold around this proposed annexation and the problems created by Bill 75, for not just my rural constituents but my urban constituents, because I believe that the size of this annexation is profoundly too large. I understand that there are going to be significant costs attached to this for the city of London and hence the constituents I serve in the east part of London. Among those costs are the proposed $35 million in compensation, the cost of a new official plan, the cost for hard services, soft services, library services, fire protection, police protection, the harmonizing of London city employees, PUC employees, $1 million proposed for suburban roads in perpetuity each year, not to mention the costs of bringing in displaced Middlesex employees. And I believe this is just the surface of costs.

I am convinced by the presentation made by Professor Andrew Sancton and Councillor Joe Swan who, incidentally, mentioned in passing that not all of city council agreed with Bill 75 and in point of fact hadn't had the opportunity to fully debate or even been apprised of the presentation made by Controller Grant Hopcroft, Deputy Mayor Jack Burghardt and Mayor Tom Gosnell. The city did not fully support this proposed annexation and Councillor Swan indicated that he feared that the levy to the people living within the city of London, tax increases in the very short term, would be in the double-digit range, and I'm very concerned for my constituents in London East because of that.

I have concerns in the county because of the loss of tax base, a full 28%, and the profound impact it will have on the Middlesex board of education. The reality is that when you take that very lucrative tax base away from the county of Middlesex you are left with a less-than-wealthy, less-than-affluent county. Parts of the west are seriously disadvantaged.

There are other, non-monetary problems. I won't go on at length. I will simply say that the proposed alternative, the 1988 proposal, would significantly reduce the impact in terms of cost to both municipalities, both the city of London and the county of Middlesex. Yes, it would require a coservicing agreement. But I submit to you that I would be delighted to accept Bill 75, since the minister stated coservicing doesn't work, if he's willing to tell his own constituents in Windsor, St Clair Beach and Tecumseh that their 30-year coservicing agreement doesn't work and to cancel it. I assume that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, since he can disband and cause the town of Westminster to cease to exist, can also tell the town of Tecumseh, St Clair and the city of Windsor that their coservicing agreement is no longer valid and must be dispensed with.

I understand that there is concern around coservicing and that the minister is not particularly delighted with the 1988 proposal. In that case, there is a second alternative proposal that has been submitted by the townships of Delaware and North Dorchester. They propose to take lands, designated on maps provided, south of Highways 401 and 402 and divide those lands. They've also included the cost of this proposal.

My concern about this is that it would still require $35 million in compensation, and of course one of my concerns was with the $35 million in compensation. It would not cost more; it would cost the same.

1110

The advantage to plan B is that it would return agricultural land to a rural municipality where there are councillors who can better understand rural needs. And I believe, since regulations can be made, they can be unmade, that the regulations the Minister of Municipal Affairs plans to protect agricultural land in the city of London may not be as effective as he had wished.

Interestingly enough, while I recognize the fact that the county of Middlesex has not always been diligent in protecting agricultural land, I would point to the record of the city of London. It seems passing strange that you would award land --

The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, are you --

Mrs Mathyssen: I'm almost finished, Mr Chair -- to the custodial care and stewardship of a city that has not been particularly responsible and take it away from the county.

The Chair: I knew you were coming to the end.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your support.

Mr Mills: One of the key players in this annexation is the city of London, and there's absolutely no evidence of any support by it for any boundary change at this time. That is the ministry's position.

Mr Eddy: I didn't catch that. There is no evidence of support of this amendment?

Mr Mills: At this time. There's no evidence of support for any changes of this.

Mr Eddy: By the council of the city of London?

Mr Mills: City of London.

Mr Eddy: Well, that's not the information we have, but of course what's on record may be something different.

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? One, two, three, four, five.

All those against? That's five. We have a tie.

Mr Mills: The Chair votes in the case of a tie.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The first time the Chair voted, the second time the Chair voted. Is that how it works?

The Chair: Well, it wasn't the second time.

Mr Eddy: As long as the Chair doesn't have two votes.

The Chair: I couldn't vote the first time, all in favour. It was who was against, and I voted because it was -- or do I have to come back to another vote?

Mr Grandmaître: No, no; maybe you'll need to. My question is, is the parliamentary assistant a due member of this committee?

Mr Sutherland: Yes, he's been subbed in.

Mr Grandmaître: A voting member?

The Chair: Yes. He could be sitting down there, but he's sitting up here.

Mr Mills: I am here for the convenience of --

Mr Grandmaître: For the convenience of -- good work, Gord.

Mr Mills: So that you can all see me.

The Chair: The next one is a Liberal motion, subsection 2(4). I'll go to Mr Eddy, but if there's someone else, just step in.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Schedules

"(4) On or before the 1st day of January, 1993, the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall prepare the schedules referred to in subsection (1), ensuring that they reflect the boundary lines recommended in the annexation proposal of the city of London dated November, 1988, and shall cause the schedules to be published in the Ontario Gazette."

Of course, this amendment reflects the 1988 proposal.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: This amendment rolls back annexation to the 1988 proposal. The ministry doesn't support it. London doesn't support it. One municipality would not be responsible for growth management. It requires intermunicipal servicing and provincial infrastructure support. For that reason, it's not supported by the ministry.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? One, two, three, four, five.

Okay, all those opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six. Defeated.

Ms Mathyssen, subsection 2(4).

Mr Sutherland: Did we deal with Ms Mathyssen's 2.1?

The Chair: It's the same, so it's redundant.

Mr Sutherland: On 2.1?

The Chair: I'm coming up to 2.1. Okay, we've already passed 2.1, the government motion. We have a Liberal motion, section 2.1, Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 2:

"Watermain and sewage systems, hamlets of Arva and Ballymote

"2.1(1) The city of London shall provide for watermain and sanitary sewage system capacities for the hamlets of Arva and Ballymote located in the township of London as follows:

"1. 400 acres or 1,000 housing and commercial units in the hamlet of Arva.

"2. 200 acres or 500 housing and commercial units in the hamlet of Ballymote.

"Joint servicing agreements

"(2) The city of London shall enter into joint servicing agreements with the township of London to provide the watermain and sanitary sewage system connections for the purpose of subsection (1) and the agreements shall provide that the cost to connect the services shall be borne solely by the township.

"Imposed by regulation

"(3) If the city of London and township of London are unable to reach an agreement, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may, by regulation, authorize the watermain and sanitary sewage system connections for the purpose of subsection (1)."

These are joint servicing agreements between the city and the township of London and were previously part of a negotiated agreement between the city and the township of London. Of course there are already some services there. The township of London would have taken the water from the provincial pipeline from Lake Huron except that it's remote, and this is much less cost to do it in this manner. But it was the basis of a previously negotiated agreement.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: In so far as this amendment is concerned, the ministry wouldn't have any problem with this if it was done by negotiations, but what it does is it forces London to extend the services as it is.

Mrs Mathyssen: I was a little behind. I have an identical amendment, Mr Chair. The reason for including this amendment is because the township of London had profound concerns. When the city of London needed the township of London, it was quite willing to agree to extending the services the township needed in return for land. As soon as the township conceded the land, London became very, very unclear about how it would coservice, so the township has profound concerns that it will in fact not receive its services.

The Chair: We're ready for the vote. All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed? Defeated.

Ms Mathyssen, your amendment is identical to the other one, so it's redundant.

We go to government motion section 2.1, which has already been passed. Now we go to a Liberal motion, section 3.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out.

This removes the clause that dissolves the town of Westminster.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: This is fundamental to the bill. It dissolves Westminster. The boundary's related.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Defeated.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Could this be called ethnic cleansing?

Mr Sutherland: Please, Mr Murdoch.

The Chair: Okay, Ms Mathyssen, clause 5(1)(b).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (b).

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: This amendment removes the board of control, and we've never discussed that with the city, so it's not acceptable to the ministry.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Defeated.

A Liberal motion, clause 5(1)(b), Mr Eddy.

1120

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (b). Yes, the same as --

The Chair: The same. I'm sorry, but usually the order's changed. I didn't realize, because I thought it would be the Liberal first and then -- so it's redundant.

Mr Eddy: That's fine. Go ahead.

The Chair: We have a Liberal motion here, subsection 5(2).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "30th day of November 1994" in the third line and substituting "30th day of March 1993."

This provides for a by-election within three months of the annexation, so that an individual may be elected and not appointed by the government to represent the annexed area.

Now, it's not as large an area. It would include the town of Westminster plus the areas of the other municipalities being annexed to the city. There are two main reasons: One is to let the people elect the person they wish to represent them, but also to allow the people in the annexed portions of those other municipalities who had no part in electing the mayor of the town of Westminster, who will be appointed -- if it's not changed -- to represent them. They've never had the opportunity to vote. Those are the reasons. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: This motion is the same as my motion. I concur with it because I think the aspirations of the people annexed in the north part of the now city of London may be entirely different from those put forward by the current mayor of Westminster. To be truly democratic, I believe they should not be disfranchised in this way.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Grandmaître: Can I ask a question? Is this the first time we've done this in the province of Ontario?

The Chair: I'd have to ask the ministry.

Mr Mills: We don't know, but we could find out. We don't know, if it's pertinent.

Mr Eddy: I think perhaps it is, to my knowledge. In the case of the annexation by the city of Brantford of a large portion of the township of Brantford, they took a member of the township of Brantford council, as I recall, to sit on -- or was it tied in with the municipal election? Sorry, it was tied in with the municipal election.

Mr Mills: Just to show you how flexible we are, the ministry has no qualms with this amendment at all. We feel we could support it.

The Chair: Okay. All those in favour of this motion? Can I vote on that one too?

Mr Grandmaître: Now all you guys are on the right side.

The Chair: Okay, we come back to another Liberal motion, subsection 5(2.1).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"By-election to be held

"(2.1) A by-election under the Municipal Elections Act to elect one or more representatives of the ward described in clause 2(1)(a) shall be held on the 30th day of March, 1993, and the person elected in that by-election shall hold office until the 30th day of November 1994," which is the end of the present municipal term. It's a cleanup clause, housekeeping clause.

The Chair: Okay. Discussion?

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Just a question: What day is the 30th day of March?

Mr Mills: It's my birthday.

Mr Ferguson: What day of the week. Just provided it's not a Sunday.

Mr Eddy: The 30th is a Tuesday.

The Chair: Is that clarification, Mr Ferguson? Any other discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: Simply to say that I concur with this. It is identical to my motion, and in that I concur.

Mr Mills: I just would like to say that the ministry feels it should be amended to read "held on or before the 30th day of March." And bearing in mind that London has electronic balloting and counting and we look at it from the cost, we'd like to add, "The election shall be a manually counted election," to save costs. This is going to be an enormous expense if we do it the normal way. So those two amendments: "on or before" and "The election shall be a manually counted election." It doesn't really change anything.

Mrs Mathyssen: That's fine.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment and the amendment?

Mr Mills: And the amendment?

The Chair: Passed.

Okay, we come to subsection 5(3), Mr Eddy, Liberal motion.

Mr Eddy: I'm not sure about the motion on the board of control, 5(1)(b). That was put and lost?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Eddy: Then this would be removed.

Mr Mills: Removed?

Mr Eddy: Yes, sir, 5(3) is to be removed as well in view of the previous motion re the board of control.

The Chair: So section 5(3) is removed also.

Okay, we come up to a government motion, subsection 5(4).

Mr Mills: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Majority vote

"(4) Despite subsections 68(3), (6), (7) and (8) of the Municipal Act, the council of the city of London may exercise its powers under those subsections with a majority vote of the members of the council present at a meeting."

This was asked for by the city of London and it's in keeping with the current practice.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Grandmaître: Can we have a little deeper explanation on this one?

Mr Mills: Maybe I can shed some light on that. Council now may exercise its powers regarding the board of control with a majority of members, rather than two thirds as established in the Municipal Act. That clarifies, I hope.

The Chair: Any more discussion? All those in favour of the motion?

Mr Mills: Crumbs, you nearly got caught.

Mr Eddy: I'm following your lead.

The Chair: Okay, all those opposed? Carried.

We have a Liberal motion here, which is subsection 6(1.1).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(1.1) The minister may, despite this or any other act, by regulation redivide the town of Westminster into wards and provide for the number of members of council, up to a maximum of two members, to be elected from each ward."

This provides for the election of up to two individuals to be elected to serve the wards of the annexed areas.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: I think this was addressed in a previous motion, so it's really boundary-related and redundant, as far as the ministry is concerned.

Mr Ferguson: So the ministry is in support?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Grandmaître: We turned down the ward system, so --

Mr Mills: You turned down -- no, I stand corrected. It has to do with the previous motion of a boundary adjustment, so that's why it doesn't really follow.

Mr Eddy: Well, we submit it, and it's to provide for up to two rather than one individual for the annexed areas.

1130

The Chair: Okay, let's have a vote on it. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Mills: Lost.

The Chair: Sorry; lost.

Mr Mills: Crumbs, you got me going.

The Chair: Now we've got a Liberal motion here, subsection 6(3).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn in view of the previous vote.

The Chair: Okay. We come to a government motion, clause 8(3)(b).

Mr Mills: I move that clause 8(3)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) the 31st day of December, 1995."

If I can explain, the first reading bill required development charge bylaws to expire on December 31, 1994, and it is proposed now that this date be extended one year to December 31, 1995, for lands being annexed to the city of London. This will coincide with the extension being given the city for preparing a new official plan, which it had requested.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Government motion, subclause 9(2)(b)(ii).

Mr Mills: I move that subclause 9(2)(b)(ii) of the bill be amended by striking out "1994" in the fourth line and substituting "1995".

The explanation for this is that for annexing municipalities other than the city of London, the first reading bill, as I described previously, also required development charge bylaws to expire on December 31, 1994, and the extension to December 31, 1995, will also apply to the lands that they are annexing.

The Chair: Discussion? If none, all those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subclause 10(2)(a)(ii).

Mr Mills: I move that subclause 10(2)(a)(ii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(ii) the 31st day of December, 1995."

That again is similar. The extension of the date for development charge bylaws of the county of Middlesex for lands being annexed by the city of London will be December 31, 1995.

The Chair: Discussion? If none, ready to vote? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subclause 10(2)(b)(ii).

Mr Mills: I move that subclause 10(2)(b)(ii) of the bill be amended by striking out "1994" in the fourth line and substituting "1995".

Again, the date for development charge bylaws of the county of Middlesex for lands being annexed to the village of Belmont will be extended to December 31, 1995.

The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Carried.

We go to a Liberal motion here, subsection 12(4).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(4) Before an annexing municipality repeals an amendment to an official plan adopted by the council of a municipality from which land is annexed but not yet approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the council of the annexing municipality shall give notice and follow the procedures set out in part III of the Planning Act."

This deals of course with the official plan amendments adopted by council but not approved by the minister. Prior to any repeal of an OP amendment, in the above situation, London city council must serve notice and hold a public meeting.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: I would concur with this motion simply because it is important that the citizens affected by this annexation have that opportunity to fully understand changes in the official plan.

The Chair: Any more discussion?

Mr Mills: I've got to read the way it's got to be worded:

"(4) The procedures set out in part III of the Planning Act for adopting an official plan amendment apply with necessary modifications to an annexing municipality repealing an amendment to an official plan adopted by the council of a municipality from which land is annexed but which amendment has not yet been approved on the 31st day of December 1992."

I'll pass that to the clerk.

Ms Mary Neumann: You can pass it around.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Could we have that one stood down until we get it printed up?

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, fine.

Mr Mills: We have no problem with this.

Mr Eddy: I just wondered what the words "with modification" meant.

Ms Neumann: It's just the process in the Planning Act, as necessary to modify, because this doesn't quite fit in this situation.

The Chair: Okay, we'll stand this one down and come back to it. We'll go on to a Liberal motion, subsection 13(3).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exceptions

"(3) Despite subsection (1), the sandpit in the northeast corner of lot 6, concession 5, township of London, and the gravel pit in the township of Delaware shall remain in the ownership of the annexed municipality without compensation."

Declaring that certain assets would remain in the ownership of the annexed municipality lets the townships of London and Delaware retain their gravel pits, which are vital to future road maintenance. As you know, both Delaware and London townships are rural townships and the roads in the areas to be left are gravel roads to a great extent. Roads in the areas to be annexed are, for the most part, paved roads. So this allows them to keep those assets that are needed to continue to maintain local gravel roads.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: We concur with this -- it is identical to mine -- and would add that removing these gravel pits and sandpits from the rural municipalities would cause them unnecessary financial distress. So I would support, and ask the committee to support, this motion.

Mr Mills: The ministry feels it won't support the motion because it thinks the problem should be addressed through the transition process rather than an amendment.

Mr Eddy: Will it be addressed in the transition and to what extent? Does that mean there will be compensation to those municipalities for that? How do you mean, it will be dealt with?

Mr Mills: I think they'll have to sit down with the city and discuss this in due process.

1140

Mr Ferguson: Can I ask a quick question? The obvious question is that if this amendment isn't adopted, then this asset is turned over to the city.

Mr Eddy: Yes.

Mr Ferguson: If the asset is turned over to the city, what's there to discuss? I mean, the decision's been made, so what's there to discuss at that point? If I'm sitting as a member of council in the city and I just got this gift -- and I don't now what the value of these pits would be, but probably they're substantial -- what's the value in sitting down with one of these two townships or both of the townships? What kind of bargaining chip does either of the townships have?

Mrs Mathyssen: None.

Mr Mills: I'd just like to comment and say that the ministry does feel that this should be a gesture of a transition process, but nevertheless, if it seems to be a matter of contention and members so desire to pass this amendment, we are not going to oppose that.

Mr Sutherland: I was going to ask if there is anyone here from Municipal Affairs who's dealing with the transition team process who could comment on whether this item has been on the agenda.

Mr Mills: Anyone?

Mr Scott Gray: I could, perhaps.

The Chair: Okay, would you come forward.

Mr Gray: My name's Scott Gray. I work with the legal branch. I can assure you, as some of you clearly know right now, that certainly the issue of these gravel pits has come up a number of times and the townships are quite concerned about the future and how these will be dealt with. The bill as it's set up now doesn't say these gravel pits will go to the city; it doesn't say they will stay with the township. What it says is that those assets that pertain to an area annexed to the city will become city assets.

So when the committee of referee sets down, it's going to have to say, "What does this land pertain to?" In other adjustment processes they may well decide that that gravel pit operation pertains to not just the city but it pertains to the county and they may decide it pertains more to the county and their decision will be to leave it with the county. That is a possible outcome of that process. The act doesn't predetermine where that asset will go, that's all.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, you had your hand up first.

Mr Eddy: There's a misunderstanding. The county doesn't enter into it whatsoever. They are local assets purchased by the local municipalities for the sole purpose of maintaining the gravel roads, mainly. It wouldn't be as much the reconstruction or the paving of roads, because that would take so much out of them, but it's the continued maintenance.

The problem is, in the case of the township of West Nissouri, where 40% of the assessment is going but hardly any of the population and hardly any of the roads maintained by the municipality, it's absolutely necessary, I think, that they maintain title to those pits. Sorry, West Nissouri isn't mentioned; it's London township and Delaware. But they've been purchased for the entire townships. I agree that they were purchased with funds from the entire assessment at the time they were purchased, some time ago, before some development, but it's crucial and it's the local municipality that needs them.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would concur with Mr Eddy. I have grave concerns around this, because when this bill becomes law, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in effect walks away and further negotiations are left between the rural municipalities and the city of London. Just as with the servicing agreement regarding sewage treatment for London township, I haven't much faith in the integrity of the city of London to live up to agreements when it's already got what it wants.

Mr Sutherland: We have this amendment that refers to a specific sandpit in London township and a specific gravel pit in Delaware. Are there any other sandpits or gravel pits in any of the affected areas?

Mr Mills: None.

I'd just like to quickly make a point. Why we felt not to support the amendment originally is that we feel it might sort of undermine the process of transition. Having said that, I feel, on behalf of the ministry, that they would get the sandpit or gravel pit anyway under the transition process, but if you don't feel you want to go through that route, well, we're amenable to support the amendment.

Mr Eddy: I think it's preferable to deal with it now, realizing that if we do say and if it is passed that the townships retain them, certainly I think the transition team will still look at that as having been kept even though it's in the annexed area. So there will be some consideration given, but I'd like to see it dealt with now and then it's final.

The Chair: Okay. I call the question: How many in favour of the motion? Seven. Passed.

We go to government motion subsection 15(2).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 15(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Payment for special collector's rolls

"(2) On or before the 1st day of April, 1993, an annexing municipality provided with a special collector's roll under subsection (1) or (3) shall pay to the municipality that provided the roll an amount equal to the arrears of taxes, charges and rates contained on the special collector's roll, together with any accumulated interest or penalty, but excluding any amount struck off the roll by the treasurer of the annexing municipality under section 441 of the Municipal Act."

To explain that, this provision will ensure that Delaware and North Dorchester assume responsibility as annexing municipalities to annex municipalities for any taxes owing, including interest and penalties. Exceptions would be taxes considered uncollectible by the annexing municipality.

The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Do you have your hand up, Mr Ferguson? All those opposed? Carried.

We move on to a Liberal motion here, subsection 19(1).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 19(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Employees

"(1) Every person who is employed by the town of Westminster on the 1st day of November, 1992, and continues to be so employed until the 31st day of December, 1992, becomes an employee of the city of London on the 1st of January 1993."

Of course, that's the timing of the annexation, changing the section so that there is a transfer of employees from Westminster to the city of London instead of just the provision to offer them jobs. I think this is a usual clause that's been used before in annexations.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: I just think, in deference to Mr Eddy's amendment, we will do that better in an amendment that's to come forward in a minute. We're going to improve on your amendment, so perhaps we should just hold off.

Mr Grandmaître: Then can we deal with the government's amendment? Then we can go back to --

The Chair: Yes, I think that would be easier, because Ms Mathyssen's is the same.

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that subsections 19(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Employees

"19(1) The city of London or a local board thereof, as agreed upon by the city and its local boards, shall offer to employ every person who was employed by the town of Westminster or a local board thereof on the 31st day of December, 1992.

"Same

"(2) The city or a local board thereof, as agreed upon by the city and its local boards, shall offer to employ every person who,

"(a) was employed by the county of Middlesex, the township of Delaware, the township of London, the township of North Dorchester or the township of West Nissouri or a local board thereof on the 31st day of December, 1992; and

"(b) on or before the 30th day of June, 1994, had his or her position declared surplus by his or her employer, as a result of the annexations under this act."

1150

Very briefly, while I would have preferred it to say "shall employ," I think this does help the employees of the affected townships. Because once again, as witnessed by the kind of job offers that have been made by the city of London -- namely, jobs that have no job description, jobs that didn't previously exist -- I have profound concerns about the security of Westminster and other county employees who are displaced and affected by Bill 75.

I would also like to point out that clause (2)(b) extends that period to June 1994 in terms of declaration of an employee as surplus in order to protect employees who are not otherwise protected, by virtue of the fact that some county employees may continue to have jobs in the transition, only to find themselves without jobs at a later date.

Mr Grandmaître: I don't have a copy of Ms Mathyssen's --

The Chair: That's a government motion; she's moving it.

Mr Mills: She's moving it on behalf of the government.

Mr Murdoch: Does this mean they could hire people right now? Is that what you're saying? I'm going by the Liberals' one now; they'd have to already be working --

Mr Mills: Yes, that's what it means.

Mr Murdoch: So we're going to have a whole lot more people hired in the last month and then London's going to have to take them over. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Mills: It hasn't happened so far and it's not anticipated that it will.

Mr Murdoch: But there's nothing to say it won't.

Mr Mills: It might snow in a minute.

Mr Murdoch: So you load the union up. You can load all kinds of union employees who are unemployed right now, hire them all now and then London's going to have to take them over. Okay. That's what you want, is it?

Mr Sutherland: No, it's to protect the employees.

Mr Mills: It's done in good faith.

Mr Murdoch: But the Liberal motion says the cutoff date was November.

Mr Grandmaître: We haven't dealt with the Liberal motion yet, but what this motion says is "shall offer to employ every person." That's in section 2, "shall offer." I think our amendment is much better. I think we should deal with ours.

Mr Murdoch: I agree with you, as much as I hate to.

Mr Eddy: The main difference is that the government's amendment says "shall offer to employ every person." Our amendment says "continues to be so employed," and I think that's the difference. Does offering employment also mean the right for that person to be employed if they accept the offer? That's maybe the question. Maybe it does, but it's not as clear. We're saying they shall be employed and they shall become employees of the city. The government amendment says they shall be offered employment. It's a greater protection.

The Chair: Would you have a little clarification?

Mr Murdoch: Just explain it, Gord.

Mr Mills: To me, it's a matter of use of words: "shall" or "continue to be," whatever you want to pick. I think the intent is there and it's in very good faith that these folks will be offered employment, continue to be employed. I don't see any great problem with this.

Mr Ferguson: I don't want to debate semantics but I think the intent is that all the existing employees will be offered employment and will be employed by the city of London. Is that correct, Mr Mills?

Mr Mills: I beg your pardon, but I'd just like to say that this amendment is in agreement with the city and with all the unions involved too. So everyone's on side with this. The ones who don't seem to be on side -- the discussion is here. These are the key players and they're on side.

Mr Ferguson: There is a little bit of difference between offering somebody employment and saying they shall be employed. They could very well offer somebody employment, without having a job in existence for that individual, and fulfil their obligations.

Mr Mills: You can't force people to take it. You can force people to offer employment, but to force them to take it is another thing. This is really the wordage, what we're getting into here.

Mrs Mathyssen: My concern here again is the assumption of good faith. I do not believe that London has been particularly faithful, and it is not good faith that some of these job offers have been made. For example, a building inspector has been offered a job as an engineer. How long do you think he's going to last?

Mr Sutherland: I'd just like to reiterate that the parties directly affected -- the union, the Westminster employees' group that was here, the city -- are aware of this amendment being proposed and are in support of it and what it stands for. Those people directly involved were consulted and have said that this is what they're asking.

Mr Grandmaître: I realize everybody is on side, but the wording says "shall offer." I realize the parliamentary assistant's argument that you can't force people, so if everybody's on side, why don't you use the words "continues to be so employed"?

The Chair: Instead of "shall offer," put "continues to employ every person."

Mr Murdoch: We started out with an amendment to subsection 19(1) and then we somehow got into a government one and we never did vote on it.

Mr Sutherland: We agreed that we'd deal with the government motion first, before we deal with the Liberal motion.

The Chair: What we've done is that some of the Liberal motion is being incorporated into the government motion.

Mr Murdoch: Then that's fair too, but the Liberal motion also has a date on it of the 31st day of November, which means no one can be employed right now and then get a job out of London. Your motion is not really saying that. There's a fundamental difference.

Mr Grandmaître: Because this is November 1992.

Mr Murdoch: I know. I hear you. Your motion is totally different from theirs.

Mr Mills: If I can respond to your concerns, if we say "continues to be," then the people have got no option. What if they say, "We don't want to be employed."

Mr Grandmaître: Let them say no.

Mr Mills: I want to bring up another point about the government motion and the Liberal motion. The government says in subsection (2), "The city or a local board thereof," and you say every person employed by the town of Westminster. We're including local boards.

I emphasize again that this has been hammered out with the unions and the city. We've got to understand that this is done in good faith. We can all suppose this, that and the other, but the underlying fact is that the key players have agreed to this.

Mr Murdoch: Gord, the bill is not in good faith, so don't expect me to believe that.

Mr Mills: That's a matter of opinion. I believe it is.

Mr Murdoch: I know, but don't expect me to believe that. You can believe what you want.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, on a point of order: We're almost reaching 12 o'clock. We're going to have to adjourn very shortly. I just want to know if we're going to wrap up debate and have an actual vote on this motion before we go for lunch.

The Chair: Mr Eddy wanted to wind up. There's Mrs Mathyssen, and then back to you.

Mr Eddy: It's been mentioned that everybody knows about that. Without some evidence of that fact, I can't agree with it, because I understand that some of the groups haven't been.

In addition, we've got to recognize that we have non-union employees of the town of Westminster, but also it's the employees of the township of West Nissouri. West Nissouri is losing 40% of its assessment. That means a tremendous reduction in their staff. It's my understanding that those employees have not been offered anything by the city. I know the bill hasn't been passed etc, but there are other municipalities involved. Their employees should be informed about it and know about it. Recognizing what the parliamentary assistant said, that you can't force somebody to be employed, but you can employ them and they can resign, if they were continued employment. I just think there needs to be a bit more protection than that states and would ask your consideration of that, for all employees. Except for a by-election, I might be on the table myself.

Mrs Mathyssen: To add to what Mr Eddy has said, in addition to Westminster employees not being unionized employees, I have just conferred with them and they are not in agreement and fully comfortable with this. They wish to be transferred, because you get into this whole area of seniority and problems surrounding that. This isn't as simplistic as it may seen.

Mr Sutherland: Can we put it to a vote, Mr Chair?

Mr Mills: Can I just make a quick closing remark? The minister has said in Bill 75 "may by regulation define `employee' or `retired employee' and provide for the security of employment, the protection of benefits, including seniority and pensions, and early retirement options for employees and retired employees affected by this part."

I don't know know how much more -- and the minister has also made these promises to the unions that this will be right.

The Chair: Subsections 19(1) and (2): All those in favour of this government amendment? Those opposed? Carried.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, I would move that we adjourn for lunch now -- I think we've made significant progress on quite a few -- and that we reconvene this afternoon.

The Chair: This committee will recess until orders of the day.

The committee recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1603.

The Chair: We'll resume Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex, and we'll get on to the amendments, if we can go back and revisit subsection 5(2.1), a government motion. Mr Mills. That one was rewritten.

Mr Mills: Yes. This one was on hold, I believe, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Mills: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"By-election to be held

"(2.1) A manually conducted by-election under the Municipal Elections Act to elect one representative of the ward described in clause 2(1)(a) shall be held on or before the 30th day of March, 1993, and the person elected in that by-election shall hold office from the 1st day of April, 1993, until the 30th day of November, 1994."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills. Mr Eddy, are you satisfied with the changes? It's the Liberal motion originally and we've made some changes to it there.

Mr Eddy: I believe counsel has seen it, yes.

The Chair: So you agree to it. Can you withdraw the original motion that you had put forward there?

Mr Eddy: If that's necessary, yes.

Mr Sutherland: This is 5(2.1), correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Sutherland: Okay, I'm sorry. My question's answered. Thank you.

The Chair: All in favour of subsection 5(2.1)? Opposed? Carried.

To go back to another one we have to revisit -- it had to be rewritten -- that was subsection 12(4) and that was a Liberal motion presented by Mr Eddy. Would you agree with subsection 12(4) the way it stands now, Mr Eddy?

Mr Eddy: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: That means that any annexation that comes out of it will be resolved by the OMB.

Mr Mills: That would be the process, yes.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, could you withdraw the original subsection 12(4)?

Mr Eddy: Agreed.

The Chair: All in favour of the new subsection 12(4)? Could you read that out, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Repeal of annexed municipality's amendment

"(4) The procedures set out in part III of the Planning Act for adopting an official plan amendment apply with necessary modifications to an annexing municipality repealing an amendment to an official plan adopted by the council of a municipality from which land is annexed but which amendment has not yet been approved on the 31st day of December, 1992."

The Chair: Any discussion? Ready for the vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

We go on to Liberal motion subsection 19(2).

Mr Eddy: Clause 19(2)(a) withdrawn.

Mr Ferguson: Gee, I was going to support that one.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, if you can withdraw subsection 19(1), because it's already been passed in subsections 19(1) and 19(2) of a government motion.

Mr Eddy: Which one?

The Chair: Subsection 19(1). Remember we had the two subsections, 19(1) and 19(2)?

Mr Eddy: Yes.

The Chair: So you withdraw. Thanks, Mr Eddy. We go on to another Liberal motion, clause 19(2)(a).

Mr Eddy: I withdrew that just a few minutes ago.

The Chair: That one's withdrawn too?

Mr Eddy: Yes. That's gone.

The Chair: Subsection 19(3), Liberal motion.

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 19(3) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and whether or not an employee who became a city employee under subsection (1) or (2) was fairly placed."

I don't know how that fits in now with what we've done.

The Chair: Yes, with what we've done now. So you withdraw that motion?

Mr Eddy: Yes.

The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, do you withdraw your motion?

Mrs Mathyssen: Can I have some clarification so I can fully understand how it fits in terms of the motions passed? I think it's a concern that employees be fairly placed and that their needs be met.

The Chair: If I'm not mistaken, it was offering the job. We'll let the ministry answer on that.

Mr Mills: First of all, you can't define "fairly placed" anyway. We can't define it.

The Chair: We go on to subsection 19. Did you withdraw your motion there, Mrs Mathyssen? Okay, fine.

Subsection 19(5.1), a government motion.

1610

Mr Mills: I move that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (5):

"Volunteer firefighters

"(5.1) Every person who was a volunteer firefighter, as defined in the Fire Departments Act, of the town of Westminster on the 31st day of December, 1992, becomes a volunteer firefighter of the city of London on the 1st day of January, 1993."

This new provision allows Westminster's volunteer firefighters, as at December 31, 1992, to continue to provide volunteer firefighting services to the city of London. The Westminster volunteer firefighters sought this provision, and the city of London fire department has agreed to it.

The Chair: Any discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: I have just one question. I wonder how it will work when you have firefighters for the city of London who are paid and firefighters for the city of London who are not paid. Will that create problems?

Mr Mills: They've developed an integration program, and the union has agreed to it, the firefighters agreed to it. Everybody's happy.

Mr Grandmaître: Does that mean they will be paid?

Mr Mills: No. Only the original chief will be paid. He's the captain. The others are not, and it's all agreed to.

The Chair: There are a lot of cities in Ontario that have a full-time fire department plus volunteers.

We'll have the vote on it here. All in favour? Those opposed? None opposed? Carried.

We go on to Liberal motion, subsection 19(6).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 19(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Rights of employees

"(6) A person who becomes an employee of the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1), (2) or (4) shall,

"(a) receive a salary or wage at a rate no less than the person was receiving on the day this act receives royal assent;

"(b) be credited for all purposes with the same seniority that he or she had on the 31st day of December, 1992; and

"(c) be employed for the same number of hours a week as in the position he or she held on the 31st day of December, 1992."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: I'd like to speak to the amendment before offering the government motion. As far as (a) is concerned, the government motion is better than that one; as far as (b) is concerned, it's the same; as far as (c) is concerned, the ministry sees this as being problematic, 36 hours and 40 hours and things like that. Those are the problems.

The Chair: So we'll have a vote on subsection 19(6). All those in favour?

Mr Sutherland: Sorry. We're voting on Mr Eddy's 19(6)?

The Chair: Yes, Mr Eddy's. All those in favour? All those opposed? Defeated.

Ms Mathyssen's motion, which read the same, is defeated also.

Mr Mills, subsection 19(6), an amendment to the bill.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 19(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Salary or wage

"(6) A person who becomes an employee of the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1), (2) or (4) shall,

"(a) receive a salary or wage at a rate no less than the person was receiving on the day before the person began his or her employment with the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1), (2) or (4); and

"(b) be credited with the same seniority that he or she had on the day before the person began his or her employment with the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1), (2) or (4).

"Salary, etc, reduced for cause

"(6.1) Nothing in subsection (6) prevents the city or a local board thereof from reducing or eliminating the salary or wage rate or the seniority of an employee for cause."

That explains that salary and seniority rights for people who become employees of the city of London as a result of the annexation remain what they were prior to annexation. This provision applies regardless of when the people were declared surplus. The amendment does, however, allow an employer the normal right to make adjustments to salaries or seniorities for just cause. Finally, I let you know that this amendment was agreed to by CUPE and Westminster.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Ferguson: I would assume that a friendly amendment would be on the last line, "for just cause," rather than just "for cause."

Mrs Mathyssen: Again, I would like to put on the record that the representative for the employees of Westminster would like to say they have not agreed. They have some concerns that relate to who determines just cause and to the date and dates, because some employees have anniversary dates that go past April 1 and they are concerned that they will lose salary as a result of Bill 75 and the way it is currently written.

Mr Ferguson: I appreciate and understand the concern expressed, but I think the intent is fairly clear. You know, anybody can challenge any piece of legislation and try to put their own -- heaven forbid I say it -- spin on it or interpretation, but it's the intent that is being looked at.

I think the intent's fairly clear, that if somebody is transferred from Westminster to the city of London, he should be transferred at the same rate of pay and maintain his seniority. If they're going to be terminated, for whatever reason, there has to be just cause. I would view that just cause would not include the city of London making an arbitrary decision.

Mr Mills: No, not at all.

The Chair: Did we have an amendment there for "just cause?"

Mr Mills: We have no problem with that, to insert after the word "for" in the last paragraph of the motion the word "just."

The Chair: Everybody agrees? All those in favour of the motion with the amendment? Those opposed? Carried.

Liberal motion, subsection 19(7), Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 19(7) of the bill be amended (a) by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall" and (b) by striking out "employee or" in the second line.

This would make it mandatory for the minister to define "retired employee."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: The word "may" is the normal wording in legislation such as this. It gives us broad powers to do a whole lot of things. If you insert the word "shall," that's somewhat restrictive.

Clause (b), "by striking out `employee or' in the second line," this reduces our ability to protect employees, which reduces the ability to protect. If you say, "by striking out `employee or' in the second line," you've reduced that level of protection. We can't make the regulations that apply to employees if that's out. I mean, you're cutting off employees.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?

1620

Mr Mills: You want to cut off the employees? Okay. We want to keep them in.

The Chair: Opposed? Defeated. Ms Mathyssen's is the same; it's defeated.

We move on to a Liberal motion, subsections 19(9), (10) and (11).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Arbitrator appointed

"(9) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may, upon the application of the city or local board thereof or an employee, appoint an arbitrator to determine whether or not the city is meeting its obligations under subsection (6) in any particular case.

"Decision final

"(10) The decision of the arbitrator is final.

"Definition

"(11) In this section, `employee' means a full-time, part-time, permanent part-time or contract employee or a volunteer firefighter."

This is for employee protection.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: Subsections (9) and (10) have already been done in our government motion, and under "Definition" we find that there's less flexibility to define in regulations for special situations. You know, we don't really know what the situations are going to be, so if we define it here, there's less flexibility to do that in the regulations subsequent to this, and it's not recommended by the ministry to do that.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Sutherland: So what you're saying is that under this definition, not all categories of employee may be covered.

Ms Neumann: We're just not sure. We think they all are, but we're not sure. We think that under your definition, they probably all are, but we're not sure.

Mr Mills: So we need that flexibility.

Mr Ferguson: I agree. What you don't have in here -- I don't know specifically how London operates, but you don't have, for example, temporary full-time employees. I mean, municipalities have temporary full-time employment for 10 months of the year. Rather than getting caught up in a situation, it makes sense to delete that.

Mr Mills: This gives us flexibility, in special situations, in the regulations.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed? Defeated. Also, Ms Mathyssen's is defeated also; it's the same.

We're still on subsections 19(9), (10) and (11).

Mr Mills: I move that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Conflict with OLRB order

"(9) In the event of a conflict between subsection (6) or a regulation made under subsection (7) and an order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act, the subsection or regulation prevails.

"Arbitrator appointed

"(10) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may, upon the application of the city or a local board thereof, an employee or a bargaining agent, appoint an arbitrator to hear and determine whether or not subsection (6) or a regulation made under subsection (7) is being properly applied in any particular case.

"Decision final

"(11) The decision of the arbitrator is final."

I'd just like to make a comment. This motion adds subsections (9), (10) and (11) to section 19 of the bill and reflects discussions between the minister and employee organizations and has the concurrence of the Ministry of Labour. To maximize flexibility regarding security of benefits, the amendment ensures that regulations made under Bill 75 take precedence over an order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act. The amendment also provides for an arbitration process in the event of a concern with the application of the minister's regulation.

The Chair: Further discussion? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Carried.

We move on to the Liberal motion to section 20.

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn, thank you.

The Chair: Withdrawn? Section 21, Liberal motion.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 21 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"London PUC continued

"21(1) The public utilities commission for the city of London is continued and shall consist of five persons of whom the head of the council of the city shall be one by virtue of his or her office and, subject to the results of the referendum under subsection 21(5), the others shall be elected by general vote at the elections held under the Municipal Elections Act.

"Same

"(2) The public utilities commission for the city shall be deemed to be a commission established under part III of the Public Utilities Act and a municipal commission within the meaning of the Power Corporation Act."

This allows for the election of PUCs.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: The ministry doesn't support this amendment because it's going to be an appointed board and that is in common with many other municipalities.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Grandmaître: Can you give me examples?

Mr Mills: Yes. Do you want examples?

Interjections.

Mr Mills: Okay? Are you happy?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

The Chair: Do they --

Mr Mills: No. They don't want to. We can, but --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: You want to know?

Interjection: Yes, please.

Mr Mills: Okay. I call forward the appropriate staff person, if someone has got that on the tip of his tongue.

Mr Gray: I don't know if I have it on the tip of my tongue. I know there are a small number of private bills individual PUCs have got to make their commissions appointed. I don't know how many are there. I have seen them and they're generally small municipalities. I know in some of the regions, when the regions were created, their hydro-electric commissions did provide them with the option either to appoint or elect. They had to choose within a specified time which way they wanted to go and some of them no doubt did choose to go the appointed route. I can't tell you which ones they are at this moment.

Mr Eddy: Is the gentleman saying that in all cases it's been local option whether it's appointed or not?

The Chair: It sounds like it. The Chair hears it that way.

Mr Eddy: Is that what I hear?

Mr Sutherland: I know from the standing committee on private bills and regulations that we've had some before that have decided to switch.

Mr Eddy: Local option is the point I'm making.

The Chair: I think Burlington was one.

Mr Sutherland: But I think they have to come here and get approval to switch it.

Mr Eddy: But the point is it's the local elected council responsible to the people that has decided in some way that it wants to change the system.

The Chair: Correct.

Mr Grandmaître: So you need special legislation?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Sutherland: You need a private bill.

Mr Ferguson: I think it's part of the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act gives the council the local option.

Interjections.

Mr Eddy: The Power Corporation Act indeed covers the formation, I believe, of hydro-electric commissions and public utilities commissions. It's decided, as I understand, by the local council, and I feel strongly that is a local decision. In the case of some bills, appointed hydro-electric commissions are used where the commission does not serve the entire municipality, a portion of it, such as a former police village or something like that. I'm familiar with that system, but I think it's been in all cases local option. That's the point I'm trying to make.

The Chair: That's what I hear.

Mr Gray: In this situation, of course, the city is in that situation. They won't be serving the whole of the new city. I just want to point that out. They'll be serving basically the city and the areas in Westminster that have their PUC at the moment.

Mr Mills: I'd just say that this PUC is being dissolved.

Mr Grandmaître: We all know that.

Mr Mills: Yes. This is the difference. You know that?

The Chair: Okay, call the question. All those in favour of the motion will raise their hands. Those opposed? Defeated.

Liberal motion subsection 21(3), Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn in view of the previous vote.

1630

The Chair: Government motion, subsection 21(3).

Mr Mills: I move that subclauses 21(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(i) one of whom shall be the mayor of the city;

"(ii) four of whom shall be the persons who, on the 31st day of December, 1992, were the elected members of the public utilities commission of the city dissolved under section 20; and

"(iii) one of whom shall be the person who, on the 31st day of December, 1992, was the chair of the public utilities commission of the town of Westminster dissolved under section 20."

By way of comment, the first reading bill said that the five current members of the public utilities commission, including the mayor of the city of London, would sit on the commission until November 1994, but it didn't address the possibility that if there is a new mayor, that person should fill the vacant position on the PUC. This new provision makes for that adjustment.

The Chair: Any questions?

Mr Sutherland: Sorry. You said in your explanation "should fill a vacant position on the PUC." You meant the hydro-electric commission?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Sutherland: Not the PUC. I just want to make sure we're clear.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed? Carried.

Liberal motion, subsection 21(4).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 21(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "is appointed by the succeeding council" in the sixth and seventh lines and substituting "takes office."

It provides for the election of a PUC.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: It's already been addressed. It's going to be an appointed hydro commission.

The Chair: Do you want to withdraw that, Mr Eddy?

Mr Eddy: No. We're very strong on this one. It's the difference between appointed and elected.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Defeated.

Liberal motion, section 21.

Mr Mills: It's the same. It's been decided.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 21 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Referendum

"(5) A referendum shall be held during the November 1994 municipal election to determine whether the members of the hydro-electric commission of the city will for future terms be appointed by the succeeding council or directly elected."

Again it comes back to a local option. It's giving the people to determine whether they in fact want to continue with an appointed commission, members appointed by council, or indeed have the opportunity to elect the members to their hydro commission. It comes down to local choice by the three people of the city.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: The ministry will not support that amendment. We need and see it all to be under the control of the council and that's why it's appointed.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? We still have to vote on that one.

Mr Eddy: I wonder if we'll be proceeding then to eliminate all the elected hydro commissions and the PUCs in Ontario.

The Chair: It's been drawn to my attention Mr Tilson doesn't have a vote.

Mr Sutherland: He doesn't have a vote.

Mr Mills: He's not subbing.

Mr Eddy: Can we extend the privilege to him, as a member of the --

Mr Mills: No. He's got to be subbed in. We had a member here, but he didn't vote either.

The Chair: He wasn't sitting here.

Mr Mills: No, but he could have been.

The Chair: Okay. Liberal motion, section 22, withdrawn.

Liberal motion, section 23.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 23 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bylaws and resolutions

"23(1) A bylaw or resolution of the public utilities commission of the town of Westminster dissolved under section 20 pertaining to an area annexed to the city of London shall be deemed to be a bylaw or resolution of the public utilities commission of the city of London and shall remain in force in that area until the earlier of the date it is repealed and the 31st day of December, 1995."

I believe that should read, instead of PUC, "hydro-electric commission."

"Same

"(2) A bylaw or resolution of the public utilities commission of the city of London continued under section 21 shall remain in force in the area of the city, as it existed on the 31st day of December, 1992, until the earlier of the date it is repealed and the 31st day of December, 1995.

"Exception

"(3) Nothing in this section repeals or authorizes the repeal of bylaws or resolutions conferring rights, privileges, franchises, immunities or exemptions that could not have been lawfully repealed by the commission dissolved under section 20 or the commission continued under section 21."

Of course, that refers to a hydro-electric commission, not a PUC of London.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: The problem the ministry sees is that we see two rules for the new hydro commission. It may become a problem, as referred to the town of Westminster and London, so we're not prepared to support that. It's a problem, two sets of rules for a new hydro commission.

Mr Eddy: Well, it's covered by the point "until repealed." The new hydro commission will have the authority, I understand, to repeal any bylaw, resolution etc that has been passed by the former PUC of the town of Westminster. I think that's what it's all about, so it continues until it's repealed. I'm not sure whether, given the new hydro commission, you have absolute authority but it's normal to continue things until they are repealed. Is it covered perhaps in some other place?

Mr Mills: I guess to identify it. It's a problem, but we don't really understand or know what sort of problem it is at this moment. But we see it as a problem. It could be.

Mr Eddy: I could compare it then -- when a municipality's restructured and several municipalities are put together, usually the bylaws and resolutions in force in those particular areas remain in force until there's something changed overall. That's the purpose of it. Whether the wording is absolutely correct or not -- oh, it did come from legal counsel. Legal counsel could comment on that one, or do you want to leave it tabled?

Mr Mills: Until when?

The Chair: Until later.

Mr Eddy: We agree with the parliamentary assistant. It's based on the point of continuing a PUC in the city of London. However, I would ask that it be reviewed, what happens in the case of the hydro commission where there are rules and regulations etc in the town, how they'll be continued. I'll just leave it with you.

The Chair: So you're going to withdraw that motion.

Mr Eddy: Yes, sir.

1640

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr Eddy.

Government motion, section 23.1, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 23:

"Powers under special acts

"23.1 The provisions in any special act relating to the public utilities commissions of the town of Westminster and the city of London dissolved under section 20, in so far as the provisions of the special act are not in conflict with the provisions of this act, continue in force, and the powers conferred by the special act may be exercised,

"(a) by the hydro-electric power commission of the city established under subsection 21(1) if they relate to the distribution and supply of electrical power;

"(b) by the city or local board thereof if they relate to the production, treatment, distribution and supply of water or if they relate to parks and recreation."

This motion deals with the new London hydro-electric commission. It will add section 23.1 to the bill that is currently drafted.

As currently drafted, Bill 75 restricts the right of the new London hydro-electric commission to the rights which exist in general legislation, like the Power Corporation Act. Any rights which exist now under special legislation were not continued. The city has asked that any special powers the former public utilities commission may have had related to hydro, parks, and recreation and water be continued. This motion will continue these hydro-related rights for the new commission and any parks, recreation and water rights for the city. No new rights are being provided. The amendment only deals with existing rights.

The Chair: Discussion? I guess we're ready to vote. All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsections 24(1) and (2).

Mr Mills: I move that subsections 24(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Employees

"24(1) The city of London or a local board thereof, as agreed upon by the city and its local boards, shall offer to employ every person who was employed by the public utilities commission of the town of Westminster and the public utilities commission of the city on the 31st day of December, 1992.

"Salary or wage

"(2) A person who becomes an employee of the city or local board thereof under subsection (1) shall,

"(a) receive a salary or wage at a rate no less than the person was receiving on the day before the person began his or her employment with the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1); and

"(b) be credited with the same seniority that he or she had on the day before the person began his or her employment with the city or a local board thereof under subsection (1).

"Salary, etc, reduced for cause

"(2.1) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the city or a local board thereof from reducing or eliminating the salary or wage rate or the seniority of an employee for cause."

Perhaps we should amend that, as we did the other one, by inserting after "for" the word "just" cause.

This offers employment to be extended to all employees of the city of London's and the town of Westminster's public utilities commissions as at December 31, 1992.

The first reading bill required that London and Westminster PUC staff, as of April 1, 1992, all be provided with job offers from the city. The proposed amendment will require the city to offer jobs to employees of the PUCs as of year's end. Salaries and seniority rights for PUC employees who become employees of the city of London as a result of the annexation remain what they were prior to annexation. The amendment, however, does allow an employer the normal right to make adjustments to salaries or seniority for just cause.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Kimble Sutherland): Okay. Any discussion?

Mr Eddy: Could counsel comment on "just cause"? Does that include such things as positions being declared redundant, or a surplus of employees in a certain --

Ms Susan Klein: If you're looking at me, I'm not sure about the employment law, but I see the counsel for the ministry coming forward.

Mr Gray: "Just cause" is certainly a term that the courts have defined any number of times. What it means is that somebody is worthy of discipline. It doesn't mean your job is redundant or you decide to get out of a certain area of activity.

Mrs Mathyssen: Can I take it then that employees will be provided with counsel, legal help, in the case that the city of London did try to reduce their salary and seniority?

The Vice-Chair: Who would care to comment on that?

Mr Mills: It's probably the union that would provide that representation.

Mrs Mathyssen: That would include all the non-unionized employees brought in? Everyone would be safe and protected?

Mr Mills: But I think the union will only protect the membership, if I'm correct.

The Vice-Chair: I think the assumption would be that those who aren't necessarily protected now, who would have to get their own counsel, would still have to get their own counsel otherwise.

Mr Mills: I think you do that in the general workplace.

Mr Ferguson: Just in response to the member for London-Middlesex's concern --

Mrs Mathyssen: No, Middlesex. The London-Middlesex --

Mr Ferguson: I'm sorry, Middlesex. Maybe to her concern, the minister, by regulation, I think has the power under the act to provide for the security of employment and protection of employees. We have to assume certain things in this bill, and I think it's safe to assume that if the city -- there's been no indication at this point that it is going to act in an arbitrary fashion, but if it does, the minister will be able to exercise his powers.

The Vice-Chair: Seeing no other comments at this time, I'll put the question. All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Moving on, subsections 24(5), (6) and (7).

Mr Mills: I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Conflict with OLRB order

"(5) In the event of a conflict between subsection (2) or a regulation made under subsection (3) and an order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act, the subsection or regulation prevails.

"Arbitrator appointed

"(6) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may, upon the application of the city or a local board thereof, an employee or a bargaining agent, appoint an arbitrator to hear and determine whether or not subsection (2) or a regulation made under subsection (3) is being properly applied in any particular case.

"Decision final

"(7) The decision of the arbitrator is final."

These are the same provisions that apply to municipal employees in a previous --

The Chair: Motion.

Mr Mills: Motion, yes. I had a mind block there for a minute.

The Chair: Any discussion? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Eddy, Liberal motion, subsection 26(1).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, Liberal motion, subsection 26(2.1).

Mr Eddy: I move section 26 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"Same

"(2.1) The city shall pass a bylaw by the 31st day of December, 2002, adding all the lands described in clause 2(1)(a) to the area of the hydro-electric power commission of the city to distribute and supply power."

1650

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: This amendment won't be supported by the ministry. It just forces them to do what they're going to do earlier, that's all.

Mr Eddy: It's covered in the bill?

Mr Mills: It's going to be covered.

Mr Sutherland: To clarify, they already have to do that before that date; is that what you're saying?

Mr Mills: It forces them into a timetable -- that's what it does -- that might not be appropriate.

The Chair: All in favour of the motion? Opposed? Defeated.

Liberal motion, subsection 26(21).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Liberal motion, subsection 26(22).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Subsection 26(23).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Liberal motion, subsection 26(27).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Government motion, clause 26(27)(b).

Mr Mills: I move that clause 26(27)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "of the hydro-electric power commission of the city" in the eighth and ninth lines.

This is a technical amendment which deletes superfluous information related to the expansion of the service area.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Liberal motion, subsection 27(1).

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Liberal motion, section 29.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 29 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Official plan

"(1) The city of London, before the 1st day of January, 1996, or such later date as may be prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, shall prepare, adopt and forward to the minister for approval an official plan,

"(a) to cover all of the lands within the city; and

"(b) to include policies or land use designations to replace policies and land use designations in the official plan of the city prescribed by the minister.

"Regulations

"(2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation prescribe,

"(a) a later date by which the city of London shall prepare, adopt and forward to the minister for approval an official plan for the purpose of subsection (1); and

"(b) policies and land use designations for the purpose of clause (1)(b)."

It just adds additional criteria.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: Most of the amendment by Mr Eddy -- well, (2)(a) and (b) are already done in our government motion, but to change the other one would require a complete new official plan. Of course, once you do that, everything could be appealed to the OMB, including everything we've done here today. Anything that's currently before the OMB could be appealed. There would have to be a whole new official plan, and they've just done one and it's before Municipal Affairs at this moment.

Mrs Mathyssen: So you're saying that the agricultural land will be protected? You mentioned regulations. I have a question. When are the regulations that will accompany this bill going to be ready, the regulations that will protect land?

Mr Mills: As we sit here, it's being worked on right now.

Mrs Mathyssen: When will they be ready?

Mr Mills: I can't foretell that. I know they're being worked on at the moment. It all depends.

Ms Neumann: Hopefully very soon.

Mr Mills: Immediately, if not forthwith.

Mrs Mathyssen: Because I'm aware of legislation that was supposed to have regulations to accompany it which is currently on the books, and regulations have not been forthcoming. So I want to know that these are forthcoming as soon as possible, absolutely, no question.

Mr Mills: They are. Unequivocally.

Mrs Mathyssen: You guarantee it?

Mr Mills: Guaranteed. Cross my heart. Everything.

Mrs Mathyssen: Signed in blood -- and trust me, I draw blood.

The Chair: All in favour of this motion? All those opposed? Defeated, and also Ms Mathyssen's amendment, which is the same.

We go on to section 29, the government motion.

Mr Mills: I move that section 29 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Official plan required

"29(1) The city of London, before the 1st day of January, 1996, or such later date as may be prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, shall prepare, adopt and forward to the minister for approval an official plan that covers or includes,

"(a) all of the lands annexed to the city by this act;

"(b) all or part of the land that formed the city on the 31st day of December, 1992, as designated by the minister; and

"(c) policies and land use designations to replace certain policies and land use designations in the official plan of the city that is in effect on the 31st day of December, 1992, as designated by the minister.

"Idem

"(2) The minister may by regulation,

"(a) prescribe a date for the purpose of subsection (1);

"(b) designate lands for the purpose of clause (1)(b); and

"(c) designate policies and land use designations for the purpose of clause (1)(c)."

By way of explanation, the first reading bill stipulated that the new official plan for the total enlarged London area be prepared by January 1, 1995. The city has asked for more time to prepare a new official plan, so the deadline has been extended one year, to January 1, 1996.

Also, because the city of London has worked on a comprehensive official plan very recently, the coverage of the new official plan has been made clearer so that the city can keep some aspects of that official plan.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: I find this a bit confusing. It seems to me that you're creating two official plans, one for the current city and one for the annexed area. Is that what you are doing?

Mr Mills: Yes, that's true. Except for some amendments to the current plan, what you said is true.

Mrs Mathyssen: How will this be beneficial? I'm confused, because it was my understanding that all this land was to be annexed so that London could have room for massive planning and good planning. And two official plans are going to do this, they're going to effect this wonderful planning?

Mr Mills: It doesn't necessarily follow that we want everything in the old official plan to be changed. Some of the stuff is good.

Mrs Mathyssen: Have you been to London?

Mr Sutherland: I just want to clarify. First of all, we have a current official plan. The city has gone through a process to develop a new official plan. Has that new official plan been ratified?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Sutherland: But work has been done on that, and then you've got the official plan for the enlarged area?

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr Sutherland: So we're really talking three different elements: the current official plan, the one they've done the work on and then one for the enlarged.

Ms Neumann: The one that's had work done on it is currently at the OMB; the point is not to have that whole OMB process repeated.

Mrs Mathyssen: It will be the divine official plan when it's done. Is this what you're saying?

Ms Neumann: It can be amended as necessary, but we won't require them to amend the whole thing, which means it could all be back at the OMB for another year-long hearing.

1700

Mr Ferguson: My only question about the government motion is the option for the Minister of Municipal Affairs that it may be extended. I just wonder where the impetus is to have it completed by 1996 if in fact the minister can arbitrarily extend the deadline for an official plan. Under the current Planning Act -- I haven't memorized the Planning Act -- does that kind of discretionary power lie with the minister?

Ms Neumann: They can take as long as they like now.

Mr Ferguson: Under the Planning Act.

Ms Neumann: They can take 20 years to do one plan.

Mr Ferguson: What's being suggested here is that provided the minister says, "Yes, that's okay, we'll give you a couple of more years," they can take 20 years as well.

Ms Neumann: I think we're just worried about a couple of more months, if we got that. We've got no intention of extending it.

Mr Sutherland: You said about the one before the OMB now and about one for the enlarged area. In Ms Mathyssen's question it was implied that there are almost two plans. What can be amended out of the one before the OMB, of course, would be the protections we put in here. For example, the social plan: If they haven't developed any social planning in the current one, they have to go back and make accommodation for that, environmental planning etc, the protections here.

Ms Neumann: Yes.

Mr Sutherland: Okay.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment, put up their hands.

Mr Mills: Which amendment? What are we talking about?

The Chair: Section 29, on the government motion. What have we got? Those opposed? One? You're not opposed, or --

Mr Eddy: I see the advantage. It's a lot of work to do the city of London official plan. There are some good things, I hope, in it.

Mr Mills: Incredible as it may be --

The Chair: Okay, it's carried. Go ahead.

Mr Mills: I was going to say, the book is fat and it's 5 o'clock.

The Chair: I have a hard time counting votes by expressions on faces.

Government motion, subsection 30(2).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 30(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the official plan" in the first and second lines and substituting "an official plan."

It's a technical amendment reflecting the fact that under section 29 more than one official plan will cover the city.

The Chair: All those in favour of the government motion? Okay, carried.

Government motion, subsection 31(1).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 31(1) of the bill be amended (a) by striking out "section 29" in the second line and substituting "clause 29(1)(a)," and (b) by striking out "the lands annexed to the city" in the seventh line and substituting "the lands to which this subsection applies."

By way of explanation, the first reading bill specified that until the city's new official plan is approved no building permits can be issued for annexed land that is not fully serviced. This proposed amendment is technical, resulting from proposed changes to section 29 regarding official plan coverages in the city.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 31(2).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 31(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application

"(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following lands:

"1. The lands in the city of London, formerly in the town of Westminster, consisting of part of lots 14 to 20 in Concession IV and part of lots 13 to 18 in Concession III and designated `special commercial,' `commercial' or `industrial' in the city of London official plan in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993.

"2. The lands in the city of London, formerly in the town of Westminster, consisting of part of lots 19 to 26 in Concession III and part of lots 30 to 36 in Concession II and designated `special commercial,' `commercial,' `industrial' or `industrial special policy area' in the city of London official plan in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993.

"3. The lands in the city of London, formerly in the town of Westminster, consisting of part of lots 68 to 73 in Concession West of Talbot Road and part of lots 68 to 73 in Concession East of Talbot Road and designated `commercial' or `residential' in the city of London official plan in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993.

"4. The lands in the city of London, formerly in the township of London, consisting of part of lot 24 in Concession II, part of lots 24 to 26 in Concession III, part of lots 24 to 26 in Concession IV and part of lot 25 in Concession V and designated `hamlet,' `industrial' or `highway commercial' in the city of London official plan in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993.

"Regulations

"(2.1) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation prescribe,

"(a) additional lands to which subsection (1) applies;

"(b) any land included in subsection (2) to which subsection (1) shall no longer apply; and

"(c) any land uses to which subsection (1) shall apply."

By way of explanation, this proposed amendment specifies what lands are affected by the development restrictions mentioned in subsection 31(1). The restrictions apply only to land presently designated for urban types of development. This is to prevent sprawl-type, privately serviced development, which has led to health and environmental problems in the past. These areas were agreed upon as part of the transition exercise.

An additional clause has been added that allows the minister to prescribe other lands in the annexed area that would be subject to the same restrictions, land identified in subsection 31(2), where the restrictions would be lifted on any specific land uses to which subsection 31(2) applies.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Liberal motion, subsection 31(2.1), Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"Same

"(2.1) Despite subsection (1), building permits may be issued for the construction of accessory buildings, internal renovations, replacement of a structure damaged by fire, wind or similar causes beyond the owner's control and for any construction that does not add any additional loadings to existing septic operations."

This expands on the exceptions listed in the bill with respect to the issuing of building permits. I'm not sure whether it's covered or not already.

Mr Mills: I believe the member for Middlesex has an improved amendment of this, if she'd like to read it.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, with all due respect, I would like to move subsection 31(2.2). It's a renumbering.

I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"Same

"(2.2) Despite subsection (1), building permits may be issued for the construction of accessory buildings, internal renovations, replacement of a building damaged by fire, wind or similar causes beyond the owner's control and for any construction that can be adequately serviced by a sewage system existing on the 31st day of December, 1992."

Quite simply, it's to ensure that people in rural areas needing accessory buildings or who, through no fault of their own, have suffered damage by fire or wind or who are in fact renovating aren't penalized or prevented from doing what is necessary.

The Chair: Would you withdraw your motion?

Mr Eddy: Yes. This is better.

The Chair: Okay. Discussion on the amendment?

Mr Mills: The ministry can support this amendment.

The Chair: All those in favour of subsection 31(2.2), Ms Mathyssen's motion? Carried.

1710

Government motion, subsection 31(3).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 31(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 29" in the second line and substituting "clause 29(1)(a)."

By way of explanation, in the first reading of the bill, section 31(3) states: "Until the official plan...is approved, the city" of London "shall not extend its water or sanitary sewage systems or assume ownership and responsibility for the operation of a water or sanitary sewage system that will service any of the lands annexed to the city without the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs." The above provision remains, but there is a need for this consequential amendment to reflect a newly numbered subsection.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Ms Mathyssen, subsection 31(4).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(4) Despite subsection (3), the city may extend its water and sanitary sewage systems to provide the services as set out in section 2.1 without the approval of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs."

My concern here is that there are some areas in the newly annexed areas that are in need of sewage remediation and they must be remediated, specifically Southwinds and Canterbury Estates; also, of course, the area in Arva. So I need assurances that nothing within the bill would preclude the remediation necessary there.

The Chair: Ms Mathyssen, at the very end, it said, "without the approval of the Minister"? You said "Ministry." Do you mean "Minister"?

Mrs Mathyssen: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I said "Ministry."

The Chair: Okay, the "Minister of Municipal Affairs." Discussion?

Mr Mills: I'd like to comment that they can do this now with the permission of the minister, but if this amendment were to go ahead, it would provide, in the ministry's opinion, for substantial development in the annexed area prior to the new official plan coming into force and would conflict with the need to study appropriate land uses and densities in the annexed area. For that reason, we will not support it.

Mr Eddy: The very reason for the January 1, 1993, deadline and the fact that we're rushing to complete this bill so it can indeed be presented for third reading in the House is so that certain developments can proceed. I understood the rush is simply because the city has on hold certain developments it needs and wants. It's the whole reason for the hurried agenda and this would stifle that, it seems to me.

Mr Mills: That's not quite correct. This can happen now with the minister's approval.

Mr Eddy: Oh, with the minister's approval?

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, all those in favour of Ms Mathyssen's motion? Those opposed? Defeated. The Liberal motion, which was worded the same, is defeated also.

Government motion, clause 32(a).

Mr Mills: I move that clause 32(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 29" in the second and third lines and substituting "clause 29(1)(a)."

The reason? It's a consequential amendment to reflect the newly numbered subsection.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 32(2).

Mr Mills: I move that section 32 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation designate lands or uses to which this section does not apply."

By way of explanation, as in the first reading of the bill, section 32 doesn't allow for any redesignation of agricultural land to other uses for 10 years from the date of the approval of the new official plan of the city of London.

The proposed subsection 32(2) allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs by regulation to designate lands or land uses to which this provision does not apply in the agricultural area. This is intended to allow for minor amendments that would reflect land uses typical of an agricultural area, as well as for any specific economic renewal opportunities. This proposed amendment derives from suggestions made by local municipalities as part of the transition exercise.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Eddy: I had a question. I'm not quite clear. It had to do with the explanation from the parliamentary assistant and it was for buildings and agricultural land and renewal.

The Chair: Economic renewal?

Mr Eddy: There's a lot more than agricultural land. There are many hamlet areas etc.

Mrs Mathyssen: I understand this is to allow for agriculturally related practices, like a dryer or a repair shop. I have a question. Are these subject to regulations under the Planning Act?

Mr Mills: No, they're under this act.

Ms Neumann: What's the question?

Mrs Mathyssen: Are these subject to regulations under the Planning Act?

Mr Mills: Agriculture and things like that, you mean?

Ms Neumann: This is meant to allow for an official plan amendment that's unforeseen but would be a normal use in an agricultural area, such as a tractor dealership that hadn't been foreseen and that we would have the power to permit. Otherwise, the official plan prevails in the area. So most agricultural uses would be permitted as a right and don't require any ministerial approval.

Mrs Mathyssen: Usually these things are done by zoning?

Ms Neumann: Yes. Most things would be approved by the existing zoning, would be permitted under the existing rural and agricultural zoning. This is just to allow further minor changes.

Mrs Mathyssen: It just seems that in many of these there's a double-edged sword. There's a fear of abuses, and I guess I need to know that there won't be abuses.

The Chair: All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

We have a Liberal motion on section 33. I move that -- oh, go ahead, Mr Eddy.

Mr Mills: Don't get carried away.

Mr Eddy: I'd be pleased to have you do that.

I move that section 33 of the bill be struck out.

This section eliminates or disallows the townships of Delaware, Lobo, London, North Dorchester and West Nissouri from issuing building permits.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: We've got a better motion coming.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Defeated.

Also, Mrs Mathyssen's, which is the same, is defeated.

We'll go on to subsection 33(3).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 33(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Building permits withheld by township

"(3) The chief building official of a township shall not issue a building permit for the construction of a building on any of the lands in the township designated by the minister under subsection (2) unless,

"(a) the building is for the purpose of a land use that conforms with the official plan of the township in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993; or

"(b) the building is for the purpose of a land use that is prescribed by the minister.

"Regulation, land uses

"(3.1) The minister may by regulation prescribe land uses for the purpose of clause (3)(b)."

1720

By way of explanation, the proposed subsection 33(3) states:

"The chief building official of a township shall not issue a building permit for the construction of a building on any of the lands in the township designated by the minister" -- of Municipal Affairs -- "under subsection (2) unless,

"(a) the building is for the purpose of a land use that conforms with the official plan of the township in effect on the 1st day of January, 1993; or

"(b) the building is for the purpose of a land use...prescribed by the minister" of Municipal Affairs.

This proposed amendment also derives from discussions with local municipalities as part of the transition process. It reflects the up-to-date nature of the underlying official plan policies and designations in the affected townships.

The Chair: Discussion? Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I oppose the amendment because I think all property owners should have the right to apply to change designations under the planning process that's in use in the province of Ontario for all property owners.

The Chair: Further discussion? Vote on the motion: All those in favour of the government motion? Those against? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 33(4), Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 33(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Official plan deemed to conform

"(4) An official plan or an official plan amendment that affects any of the lands designated under subsection (2) and that is approved by the minister or the Ontario Municipal Board shall be deemed to be in conformity with any regulation made under subsection (3.1) that is in force on the day of the approval."

By way of explanation, this section confirms that a regulation made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs under clause 33(3)(b) conforms to any official plans approved after the regulation is made.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Mr Mills: Come on, Ron, this is your moment.

Mr Eddy: I had it a long time ago.

The Chair: Section 34 is out of order, the motions from the government, Mrs Mathyssen and the Liberals.

We go on to government motion, section 36.

Mr Sutherland: What do you mean, they're out of order?

The Chair: We just vote against the section when it comes up in the bill. We haven't voted on the sections yet. I'm just taking direction from the clerk on this one. We have to vote on all the sections, so when it comes through we'll vote at that time.

Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, I move that section 34 of the bill be struck out.

Mr Sutherland: That's what he just ruled out of order.

Mr Eddy: Oh, did he?

Mr Mills: We're going to come back to that one.

The Chair: I'm just taking direction from the clerk on that one, because we're doing it a little bit differently here going through this bill.

Government motion, section 36, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that section 36 of the bill be amended by striking out the definitions "weighted assessment" and "weighted equalized assessment."

Again, this is a technical amendment. As a result of the deletion of sections 37 and 38, this is no longer required. Technical stuff.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

We'll deal with sections 37 and 38 when we go to clause-by-clause.

We go on to government motion, subsection 39(1), Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 39(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "Despite section 38" in the first line and substituting "in 1993."

This is due to changes in sections 38 and 47. This section only applies in 1993, so it wouldn't make much sense to have "1992" there.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Ferguson: A lot of these are housekeeping items now. I'm wondering, in order to expedite the process, if we could deal with any further concerns that Mr Eddy has or Mrs Mathyssen has and then deem that all the other government motions that are before the committee are deemed to have been made.

The Chair: They have to be read, Mr Ferguson.

Liberal motion, subsection 40(1.1), Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that section 40 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (1):

"Limitation

"(1.1) For the merged areas, the education levy after 1993 shall not be raised greater than one half the average of the Board of Education for the City of London and the Middlesex County Board of Education levy for three subsequent years."

This provides some protection for the ratepayers in the annexed areas.

The Chair: Discussion. Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs cannot support this amendment, because the education levies and education taxes may be continued or changed in the Ministry of Education's apportionment regulations, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is not dictating to the Minister of Education or overriding the Education Act. That is why we can't -- are you happy with that explanation?

The Chair: Okay. Are we ready for the vote?

Mr Eddy: I was asked a question, so in response I would say I'd rather see this passed, and then if there's something further about education it could affect this.

Mr Mills: Yes, I see.

The Chair: All in favour of this motion? All those opposed? Defeated.

We go on to the government motion on subsection 41(1).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 41(1) of the bill be struck out. This is a technical amendment. The subsection is no longer required because of changes to section 47.

The Chair: All those in favour? No opposed. Carried.

Government motion, section 42, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that section 42 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Apportionment of conservation authority levies

"42. Where this act directly or indirectly affects the relative cost-sharing of conservation authority levies for any municipality outside the county of Middlesex or causes within the county substantial tax shifts between municipalities, property classes or individual properties, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may, in order to minimize such effects, make regulations prescribing an alternative basis of apportionment to that specified under the Conservation Authorities Act."

By way of explanation, the proposed amendment eliminates provisions contained in section 42 of the first reading bill, which dealt with the reassessment of the entire city of London under section 58 of the Assessment Act.

It also adds a section, which would allow the minister to regulate an alternative apportionment to the one specified in the Conservation Authorities Act, but only where relative cost-sharing is affected. This provision will resolve concerns expressed by many municipalities in southwestern Ontario that would have been adversely affected.

The Chair: Discussion? Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland: Could I just ask, in terms of where the status of reapportionment is right now in terms of the conservation authorities: Is that something being discussed through the transition process, or how is that resolved? Does the authority have to do that itself?

Mr Mills: We have just asked staff to make a comment on that.

Dr Kathleen Chinnery: I'm Dr Kathleen Chinnery. I'm from the municipal finance branch. I guess what I can say is that we have received submissions from all the conservation authorities in this area that will be affected by the annexation.

We are looking at the redistribution of the levies that will occur because of changes in the assessment bases of all the municipalities, particularly the contributions that the city of London will make in the future, given its new tax base.

At the moment, we are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources in order that its regulation will reflect the same basis of apportionment as is consistent at this time so that we will make sure there are not significant tax shifts just because of the annexation.

1730

Mr Sutherland: If I could just ask, though, implied with what you said is that the city, with its increased tax base, would therefore get a greater apportionment of that. That would imply some tax shifts downward for the other municipalities who apportion the share, or no?

Dr Chinnery: I guess the concern, for example, of the township of Lobo in the county of Middlesex has been that the basis on which the levies are apportioned is not only the assessment base of a municipality but also the land area of the municipality within that conservation authority. As a result of the shifts in the city of London boundary, the township of Lobo will have to contribute more towards the levy because the city of London's proportion declines. For example, it's a case where the township of Lobo has made it clear to the minister and to ministry staff that it feels it cannot afford additional levies.

Mr Eddy: I'm sorry, I'm at a loss on this one. I can't see why the township of Lobo would have to pay one more cent to the Upper Thames -- I think that's the only one in the case of Lobo -- because the town of Westminster and so much area is to be annexed into the city. I would have thought that was automatic. What's happening here? Are you saying the formulae have to be changed to recognize the increased assessment of the city, to pay more?

Dr Chinnery: That's right, and it's also the land area of the city, because it's not just based on the amount of assessment; it's based on the proportion of the total land area in the conservation authority, and because those are shifting, we have to alter the apportionment of the levies.

Mr Eddy: So the city will pay its share plus what had been the town of Westminster's share, perhaps?

Dr Chinnery: For example, yes.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Mr Murdoch: Mr Chairman, just a minute. You said the township of Lobo is going to have less land now, right?

Dr Chinnery: No, what I --

Mr Murdoch: They're going to pay more, though, because London's taking land from somewhere else? I can't understand how they could pay more. If nothing happened to them, they shouldn't --

Dr Chinnery: Because conservation authority areas do not coincide with municipal boundaries --

Mr Murdoch: Yes, I know that quite well.

Dr Chinnery: So for example, in the case of the Upper Thames, because of the change in the city of London boundaries, the township of Lobo will have to pay a higher proportion of the total cost because its land area in the conservation authority is more.

Mr Murdoch: In the watershed, you mean, not the conservation authority. The land the conservation authority owns has nothing to do with it.

Dr Chinnery: No, it's the watershed.

Mr Murdoch: That's right. But the township of Lobo hasn't changed in size.

Dr Chinnery: That's right, its tax base has not changed. It has to do with the other municipalities which are contributing to the levy --

Mr Murdoch: But other municipalities are going to have to pay more too then, not just the township of Lobo.

Dr Chinnery: That's right. I was just giving an example of the case of the township of Lobo.

Mr Murdoch: So everybody's going to have to pick up what they're losing from London.

Dr Chinnery: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: Then that's maybe a little better. I just couldn't think why one township would have to pay more.

Dr Chinnery: No, I was just giving that as an example of a township that had made it clear to the minister that it was definitely concerned.

Mr Mills: All this does is straighten it out to make it as it was before. There's no change in anything. It's exactly the same as it was before.

Mr Murdoch: If someone pays more money, there's a change.

Mr Sutherland: My apologies for opening up the issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland: There are a few municipalities in my riding that may be affected, so I just wanted it clarified.

The Chair: Okay. After all the discussion, are we ready to vote? All in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Mr Murdoch?

Mr Mills: You can't sit on the fence.

The Chair: Carried.

The Chair: Ms Mathyssen, subsection 43(1).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that subsection 43(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "Despite any other provision of this act."

Mr Mills: That amendment is not required. The government motions to strike out sections 37 and 38 have already occurred.

The Chair: All those in favour? All those opposed? Defeated, and also the Liberal motion is defeated; same wording.

Government motion, subsection 43(1.1).

Mr Mills: I move that section 43 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (1):

"Idem

"(1.1) In 1993, for the areas annexed under clauses 2(1)(b) to (e), inclusive, the annexing municipality shall, in the manner prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, levy on the whole of the assessment for real property and business assessment according to the last returned assessment roll pertaining to the area,

"(a) rates of taxation for general purposes which shall be the total of the 1992 rates of taxation in that area for general purposes, increased or decreased by the percentage change in the 1993 own purpose general mill rate of the annexing municipality as compared to the 1992 own general mill rate of the annexing municipality; and

"(b) rates of taxation for county of Middlesex or county of Elgin purposes, as the case may be, which shall be the total of the 1992 rates of taxation in that area for county purposes, increased or decreased by the percentage change in the 1993 county purposes mill rate of the annexing municipality as compared to the 1992 county purposes mill rate of the annexing municipality."

By way of explanation, this amendment extends tax protection measures beyond the city of London. It provides that anyone living in the municipality in Middlesex, directly or indirectly affected by the annexation, won't see their tax rate increase beyond what people in the annexing municipality pay. This applies to annexed municipalities in the county of Middlesex and properties annexed to the village of Belmont in the county of Elgin.

The Chair: Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 43(2), Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 43(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Regulations

"(2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation prescribe the manner in which an annexing municipal shall levy rates of taxation for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1.1).

"May be retroactive

"(3) A regulation under subsection (2) may be made retroactive to a date not earlier than the 1st day of January, 1993."

This amendment prescribes how annexing municipalities will levy rates of taxation for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, there seems to be -- that's why I had trouble pronouncing it. After the word "annexing" in subsection (2), "Regulations," it says "annexing municipal" and that's where I got fouled up. It should be "municipality," and I make that amendment. When I read it, it didn't sound right.

The Chair: Discussion? Okay.

All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

1740

Ms Mathyssen, subsection 44(1).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that subsection 44(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the second line and substituting "shall."

Quite simply, if any of you know the status of the rural community these days, you'll know that the life on the farm and the amount of money that people make is very limited, so increases in their taxes are going to perhaps preclude them from continuing in the occupation of farming. I believe that if "shall" is substituted for "may," there is a sense that they will indeed be given the kind of protection that they need so that they can continue and be viable and feed this province.

Mr Mills: Just to speak to that, the word "may," as we have discussed previously, is the usual legislative term. As well, the minister has stated publicly that he has every intention of extending tax-increase protections for a 10-year period.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Eddy: That matter has come up before, and I support the amendment. I recall in the Municipal Act that there's section after section stating "the council shall," "the council shall." It is very common to use the word "shall" in statutes. I support the amendment.

Mr Mills: There's a difference between municipal "shall" and legislative minister "shall."

Mr Ferguson: Given the minister's statement that he's going to put in the protection, then I assume the ministry wouldn't object to "shall."

The Chair: They object. It's the language.

Mr Mills: Yes, it's not legislative form. We don't use that language, believe it or not. We do not use the word "shall." The usual legislative term is "may."

Mr Sutherland: Because it's enabling. If it's enabling, the word "may" is used.

Mr Mills: That's right.

Mr Sutherland: The other provisions you talked about where "shall" was used are not enabling in that sense. That's something you have to follow. This is enabling.

Mr Eddy: All legislation is enabling; some is mandatory and some is permissive, but it's all enabling, in a sense.

Mr Murdoch: I would like to support Mr Ferguson. He said the minister has said that, so what's wrong with using it? I certainly could support him.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, this motion had come up in another clause, and it was already passed that they would use the word "may." I guess we have to put it to a vote here again.

Mr Murdoch: Well, that's fine.

The Chair: All those in favour of Miss Mathyssen's motion? Four. Those against? I guess I've got to vote on that one. Defeated.

We're on to government motion, section 44.

Mr Mills: I move that section 44 of the bill be amended as follows:

"1. In subsection (1), by striking out `the city of London' in the fourth line and substituting `an annexing municipality'.

"2. In subsection (2), by striking out `the city' in the second line and substituting `an annexing municipality'.

"3. In subsection (4), by striking out `the city of London' in the sixth and seventh lines and substituting `the annexing municipality'."

By way of explanation, the proposed amendment to section 44 provides that all municipalities in the county and county tax rates may be protected from 1994 to 2003, inclusive. It will permit the minister to make regulations to limit tax increases in areas annexed to the city of London, municipalities in the county of Middlesex and properties annexed to the village of Belmont in the county of Elgin.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, on a point of order at this time: As you recall, earlier this morning we talked about the time limits we are faced with in terms of dealing with all these amendments, given the fact that we originally were to have two days to do clause-by-clause, and we gave up one of those days so we could have another day of hearings because there were a great number of groups who wanted to.

I would like to suggest at this time that we go to the amendments, have them read in by each group -- Liberal, Ms Mathyssen and government -- and then vote on them as omnibus in each group to speed up the process. We still have to have section-by-section vote and it is getting on in the day. I would suggest that we do that, read them all in at once from each group, and then vote on them as one.

The Chair: I'll take direction from the committee, if the committee agrees.

Mr Mills: Agreed.

Mr Eddy: I absolutely disagree. This is a very important bill. So what if we have to go 10 minutes beyond? We're making good progress. We lost some time at the beginning through all of us wanting to do some other things probably.

The Chair: Carry on the way we are?

Mr Sutherland: Can we now put that to a vote? What are the rules?

Mr Eddy: It's up to the government. We're at the mercy of the government. It's as simple as that.

The Chair: The clerk figures that this is a better and quicker way.

Mr Eddy: The clerk doesn't have a vote.

The Chair: This is what we agreed upon when we started.

Mr Eddy: If you want to have a vote, we'll vote. This here is democracy.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Eddy, earlier today you agreed upon that that basic principle. I'm just trying to help facilitate that principle.

Mr Eddy: Mr Sutherland, it's far too important to cut it off at this stage. We lost time at the beginning. If we'd had that time -- and I was quite willing. If somebody wants to show a video and it will help us, I want to see what it's like. I try to get as much information on any and every issue that I can. You have to do that and sometimes you might do what's called wasting time, and we did lose some time. We were at fault on one occasion. We didn't have our amendments. I apologize to everyone. It should not have happened, it did happen and I apologize for that action. I'm sorry that we didn't have our amendments.

Mr Mills: Might I suggest a solution, if we can have agreement for extended time this evening, understanding that we do have to deal with this by tonight? If everyone is in agreement to extending the time, I think that would be the way to proceed.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): For how long?

The Chair: Until we're done.

Mr Mills: Until we're done. I mean, we have to get it done tonight.

Mr Sutherland: I would say that at the rate we're going, it's going to be close to 30 minutes we're looking at, at least -- to 6:30.

Mr Eddy: Is 30 minutes a crime?

Mr Sutherland: No, but some members do have to leave. They have commitments back in their riding.

Mr Eddy: I do too. I have to be in Dunnville at 7 o'clock.

Mr Murdoch: I'd have to agree with Kimble, because I don't think it's worth the time we're taking. If you notice, we didn't have any amendments. I didn't think they were worth bringing in. I had one amendment, and that was to scrap the bill because the whole bill is flawed. That's what I would have done, but obviously you can't do that. So I'd agree with Kimble Sutherland that there's no sense sitting here. I understand what Ron wants to do, because it's more dear to his heart; he was the clerk-administrator of the municipality that you're destroying. But I think that it is a waste of time being here. Sorry, Ron; I think after you've been here a lot longer, you'll find out that there's no democracy anyway.

Mr Sutherland: Let's be clear that I'm not moving it because I'm saying it's a waste of time. Amendments from oppositions have been --

Mr Murdoch: I didn't say that; I just agreed with you that it was a waste of time.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch and Mr Sutherland, we just wasted another five minutes. We should carry on. We could have got through three more amendments.

Mr Murdoch: Mr Sutherland asked for a vote. Do we not get a vote? Maybe we don't get votes around here any more.

The Chair: I don't believe I heard him asking for a vote.

Mr Murdoch: I mean, they don't mean a hell of a lot anyway when we do get them.

Mr Sutherland: Keep going, then.

The Chair: Liberal motion, subsection 44(1.1).

Mr Eddy: I move that section 44 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after section (1):

"Limitation

"1.1 Where existing special purpose charges are in effect, special area rates shall not increase by more than 5 per cent in any one year from 1994 to 2003."

This is limiting tax increases to no more than 5%.

Mr Mills: We cannot support this amendment, because the special area rates are supposed to reflect the true costs of providing the specific services to the area. If this cost increases faster than 5%, the rate should go up to reflect the true cost. In other words, this amendment sticks them at 5% for any one year, and we shouldn't do that.

1750

The Chair: Further discussion? All those in favour of the Liberal motion? Opposed? Defeated.

Mrs Mathyssen, subsection 45(2).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that section 45 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2) The minister may by order, on such conditions as the minister considers appropriate, make grants or loans for the purpose of offsetting undesirable increases in taxes caused by this act and such grants or loans may be designated to apply to the taxes from any one or any combination of merged areas."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: I'd just like to comment. This amendment is not required because under section 45, dealing with tax raising, we can do this thing already.

The Chair: Further discussion? All those in favour of Mrs Mathyssen's motion? Opposed? Defeated.

Also, Mr Eddy's Liberal one is defeated.

Liberal motion, subsection 46(2).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 46(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."

It makes it necessary that the city of London make bylaws re urban services.

The Chair: Discussion, again?

Mr Mills: We will not support this amendment because traditionally we don't bind the minister's regulation requirements in legislation, and that's what this would do.

The Chair: All those in favour? All those opposed? That's three and three.

Mr Mills: Well, I think --

The Chair: No, no. I have to vote and I'm against it. Defeated.

Liberal motion, subsection 46(4).

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 46(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."

This makes the minister make regulations re determination of rates for urban services.

The Chair: Shall the vote be the same? Agreed? Defeated.

Government motion, subsection 46(4).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 46(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "1993" in the third line and substituting "1994."

By way of explanation, this amendment is to provide the minister with authority to implement urban service areas by January 1, 1994, instead of January 1, 1993. Extending the implementation period for urban services permits the city of London additional time to prepare for providing new urban services to areas annexed to the city. In 1993, section 43 of this act limits tax increases in annexed areas. In 1994 and future years, ratepayers in the areas annexed to the city will not pay for urban services they're not receiving from the city.

The Chair: All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Ms Mathyssen, subsection 46(6).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that section 46 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Appeal

"(6) The appeal provisions in subsections 26(13) to (20) apply with necessary modifications to a bylaw made under this section."

The Chair: Questions or comments?

Mr Mills: I can't support this amendment because the regular OMB appeal service provisions should apply in this situation. There is no need for special provisions as were required to the hydro-electric situation.

The Chair: Further discussion? All those in favour of Ms Mathyssen's motion? All those against? Defeated.

Also, the Liberal motion which stated the same is defeated.

Government motion, section 47.

Mr Mills: I move that section 47 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Assessment roll for 1993, London

"47(1) For the purposes of the assessment roll to be prepared for the city of London under subsection 14(1) of the Assessment Act for the 1993 taxation year, the real property in an area annexed to the city shall be assessed in the same manner as similar real property in the municipality from which the real property was annexed.

"Same, other annexing municipalities

"(2) For the purposes of the assessment roll to be prepared for an annexing municipality other than the city of London under subsection 14(1) of the Assessment Act for the 1993 taxation year, the real property in the area annexed to the annexing municipality shall be assessed in accordance with the classes of real property and the factors prescribed for the annexing municipality by regulation under the Assessment Act or the Municipal Act, as the case may be.

"Assessment roll of 1994, London

"(3) For the purposes of the assessment roll to be prepared for the city of London under subsection 14(1) of the Assessment Act for the 1994 taxation year, the real property in the area annexed to the city shall be assessed in accordance with the classes of real property and the factors prescribed for the city by regulation under the Assessment Act."

This section sets out how properties will be assessed following annexation in London and other annexing municipalities. It's important to note that regardless of how annexed properties end up being assessed, there is no tax increase protection set out in sections 43 and 44.

The Chair: Discussion?

Interjection.

The Chair: Wait a minute; the mike didn't go on. Okay, Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: Does that mean market value assessment is --

Mr Mills: Oh, I'd just like to correct something. In my notes here, it says there is tax increase protection set out in sections 43 and 44. I think I said there is no tax increase. I apologize for that error.

Mr Eddy: I just wondered, though, if market value assessment city-wide -- that's not included in the bill as a requirement?

Mr Mills: No, we're not requiring that.

Mr Eddy: The council would decide?

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Ms Mathyssen, section 48.

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that section 48 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Compensation from London

"48(1) For 1993 to 2003, inclusive, the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall by regulation require that in the manner specified in the regulation, the city of London pay compensation to the county of Middlesex, the township of Delaware, the township of London, the township of North Dorchester, the township of West Nissouri, and a local board of any of them.

"Levy

"(2) The council of the city of London may by bylaw in the years 1993 to 2003, inclusive, before the adoption of the estimates for the year, levy rates, to raise the compensation the city is required to pay under a regulation made under subsection (1), against,

"(a) the land within the city on the 31st day of December, 1992; and

"(b) any property that changed in use or character after the 1st day of January, 1993.

"Same

"(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), "change in use or character" of a property has the meaning set out in subsection 44(3)."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Mills: Part of this amendment is done by the government's amendment. As far as sections (2) and (3), they're inappropriate because it limits those paying compensation to the county to those in the former city only.

Interjection.

Mr Mills: Oh, I'm sorry; wait a minute. It limits those paying compensation to the county to those in the former city. We'll get it right.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: This is a double-edged sword for me. I am still concerned about the ultimate cost of this bill to London taxpayers, but there has to be a recognition that the townships and towns in the county of Middlesex are going to be seriously hampered by the loss of the tax base of the town of Westminster. I want there to be a recognition of the problems that this bill creates financially for all my constituents.

The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Mathyssen's motion? All those opposed? Defeated. Also Liberal motion, which stated the same, defeated.

We go on to section 48, a government motion, Mr Mills.

1800

Mr Mills: I move that section 48 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Compensation from London

"48. During 1993 to 2003, inclusive, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation require that the city of London pay compensation, in the amount and manner specified in the regulation, to the county of Middlesex, the township of Delaware, the township of London, the township of North Dorchester, the township of West Nissouri, or a local board of any of them."

By way of explanation, subsections 48(1) and 48(2), as they appear in the first reading of the bill, are removed and they have been replaced with a provision enabling the minister to provide by regulation more flexibility to respond to local concerns about compensation. It allows payments by the city to be made directly to the county and local municipalities, whichever is appropriate.

Compensation paid to the county of Middlesex will be used by the county to pay the Middlesex county library board. The minister has stated that the county and affected local municipalities will receive sufficient funds to ensure that there will be no annexation-related tax increases for five years following annexation and an additional four years where increases will be phased in.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, call for the vote. All those in favour of the government motion? Carried.

The Liberal motion here, subsection 49(2), Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: I move that subsection 49(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Payments to county of Middlesex

"(2) The city of London shall, on or before the 1st day of March in each year in perpetuity, pay the county of Middlesex, as compensation for the reduction in income due to the dissolution of the London-Middlesex Suburban Roads Commission, the proceeds of a rate of one mill, applied to the value of the rateable property in the city in that year.

"Regulation

"(2.1) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation prescribe a mill rate that is greater than zero for the purpose of subsection (2)."

This keeps the suburban roads commission with funding from the city of London.

Interjection.

Mr Eddy: It shouldn't have been there? Sorry: Withdraw "Regulation," at the bottom; sorry about that.

Mr Mills: We've addressed these concerns in our amendments, coming up.

The Chair: All those in favour of the Liberal motion? Those opposed? Defeated.

Government motion, section 49, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I move that section 49 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Payments to the county of Middlesex

"49(1) The city of London shall pay the county of Middlesex $2,000,000 on or before the 1st day of March in each year from 1994 to 1996, inclusive.

"Idem

"(2) The city of London shall, on or before the 1st day of March in each year, pay the county of Middlesex, as compensation for the reduction in income due to the dissolution of the London-Middlesex Suburban Roads Commission, the proceeds of a rate of one mill or such other mill rate as the Minister of Municipal Affairs may prescribe, applied to the value of the rateable property in the city in that year.

"Regulation

"(3) The minister may by regulation prescribe a mill rate for the purpose of subsection (2).

"Special reserve fund

"(4) The county of Middlesex shall establish a special reserve fund designated for the capital costs of providing sewers and water lines and shall place all payments received under subsection (1) in the special reserve fund.

"Idem

"(5) The county shall not, without the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

"(a) make any payments out of the special reserve fund; or

"(b) change the designation of the special reserve fund."

By way of explanation, subsection 49(2) states that given that the county is expected to maintain suburban roads, payments to compensate for suburban roads commission payments will continue in perpetuity. This addresses a fundamental concern raised by the county. Payment is based on an actual local assessment of the city of London, and if a reassessment of the city of London occurs at a future date and the payment exceeds amounts required by the county of Middlesex for road expenditures, the minister has the authority to adjust the rate of one mill to be applied to the local assessment.

Subsection 49(4) provides for the county's use of a special reserve fund for water and sewer capital costs.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Eddy: I thank the parliamentary assistant for submitting this amendment. However, the one problem I have with it is under "Regulation." Realizing that the minister by regulation may prescribe a mill rate, which might be very, very low -- it couldn't be zero, but it could be very low -- I would rather see the requirements of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act kick in. That's the system used by all other counties and separated municipalities in the province where it's a stated amount.

Of course, it's not a wide-open thing if the assessment was to increase. It's on an assessment of the separated municipality as equalized by the Minister of Transportation. There is a limiting factor there and it seems to me that's a better way to go as to what's used by all other municipalities in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The Chair: Any comments, Mr Mills?

Mr Mills: Just the fact that I don't agree with that philosophy.

Mr Eddy: This way, it's a regulation that may have to be changed every year by the minister. The other way, it's handled in the same way as all other local municipalities. Every county every year gets the assessment of the separated municipality as equalized by the minister of highways for suburban road purposes. I don't know whether that's applicable or not. It's a good system.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr Mills: Just a minute, Mr Chair. Can we have a comment from staff on that?

The Chair: Oh, yes, we're pleased to have it.

Dr Chinnery: I guess the concern Mr Mills brought up was that if the city of London is reassessed at a future date, the rate of one mill on its local assessment would exceed what it's paying now, which is approximately $1 million a year. That's what that one-mill rate is to reflect, approximately $1 million a year, what they're getting now.

The reason we are not tying the payment to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act section is because for one thing we're dissolving the London-Middlesex Suburban Roads Commission. One of the provisions of section 68 of that act was that you had to have one of these suburban roads commissions.

Mr Eddy: No, that's not correct.

Dr Chinnery: I guess what I'm saying is that for the purpose of calculating this, we're looking at the total number of roads in the county and how much money it's going to cost to provide the services on those roads. So it isn't really as flexible as the section and the rate we are attempting to introduce in this section.

Mr Eddy: In response, I just point out that the speaker may want to refer to the Brantford system, where there is no suburban roads commission. There are no designated suburban roads, but the city of Brantford does, by agreement under the -- well, you know about that one.

Dr Chinnery: Yes.

Mr Eddy: It's a different situation.

Dr Chinnery: It's a different situation.

Mr Mills: We are satisfied this will satisfy the fund need.

Mr Eddy: And you will attempt to satisfy that?

Mr Mills: Yes. I hope I have.

The Chair: All those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Ms Mathyssen, subsection 50(2.1).

Mrs Mathyssen: I move that section 50 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection (2):

"Same

"(2.1) The minister shall appoint to each committee one person to represent the interests of the residents of the former town of Westminster."

This is in response to the concern that in an urban municipality the needs and wishes of a rural and smaller population may not be suitably heard.

1810

Mr Mills: Just to comment, we can't support that amendment because it will require Westminster, which will no longer exist, to have a representative on the committee of referees.

Mr Sutherland: Can I just ask for a point of clarification? I'm trying to follow it. If I look at what section (2) says in the act, it says, "Each committee shall consist of one or more treasurers of the municipalities directly affected by the adjustment of particular assets and liabilities." Does that not in itself include Westminster, or what am I missing here?

Mr Mills: Westminster won't exist. It won't have a treasurer, so why should it have --

Mr Sutherland: So this is only for the other areas?

Mr Mills: Yes; that's right.

Mr Sutherland: I guess what I would ask for Ms Mathyssen to comment on is, what areas or assets or liabilities will this committee be deciding upon that are currently with the town of Westminster?

Mrs Mathyssen: The point is representation.

Mr Sutherland: But is this committee dividing up assets and liabilities of the town of Westminster or is it doing what the other municipalities that have representation on it do? That's what I need clarified regarding your amendment.

Mrs Mathyssen: All the town assets --

Mr Mills: Maybe, just to clarify that, Doctor, would you like to come forward just for a minute? I hate to prolong it, but I think we need to know.

Dr Chinnery: Maybe I could just clarify that. Because the town of Westminster is in part going to the city of London, in part going to the townships of North Dorchester and Delaware, there should be a committee that will look at the transfer of all of those assets and liabilities. So there will have to be a part of the committee of referees that looks at all of that, including representatives from those municipalities.

There would be someone representing the town of Westminster because people from the town of Westminster are the only people available who know about the situation of the assets and liabilities of that municipality. Even though the town of Westminster won't exist on January 1, 1993, the city of London is not familiar with the assets and liabilities, so it's clear that we intend to appoint someone from the town of Westminster to be on the committee of referees.

Mr Sutherland: So that's implied by section (2) already, is what you're telling me?

Dr Chinnery: Yes.

Mr Sutherland: Because that's what my interpretation was, that they're an affected municipality, that they would already have someone on there. I just want to get this clear because that wasn't the same response I got from the parliamentary assistant. You're saying that someone will be there from the town?

Dr Chinnery: That is my interpretation of this section, that someone has to be there who can represent the interests of that former municipality.

Mr Mills: I'd just like to defend myself. What I said is that I had that information differently, but that is the ultimate decision.

Mr Sutherland: So they are going to be represented, then? That's the assurance given? Okay; thank you.

Mrs Mathyssen: The concern has been that that's not what's been communicated in transition.

Mr Mills: I see.

Mr Sutherland: And we've got it stated here on the record that someone from the town of Westminster will be there?

Interjection.

Mr Sutherland: Great. Thank you.

Mr Mills: Even though Westminster doesn't exist.

The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Mathyssen's motion? All those opposed? Defeated. Also, the Liberals had the same motion; it's defeated.

Now we go on to a government motion, subsection 50(6).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 50(6) of the bill be amended by inserting after "may" in the third line "within thirty days of receiving it".

The addition of an appeal time from a decision of the committee of referees ensures that the decision-making process to reach a conclusion has a realistic time frame. Thirty days represents ample time for a municipality or a board to decide whether to appeal or not.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Three?

Mr Mills: I hope people are not getting tired, you know.

The Chair: Opposed? Carried.

Government motion, section 52.

Mr Mills: I move that section 52 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Operation of Lambeth and Glanworth libraries

"52. The London Public Library Board shall continue to operate the existing libraries in Lambeth and Glanworth until at least the 31st day of December, 1997."

By way of explanation, this provision is to allow the city of London public library board to provide library services in Glanworth and Lambeth, instead of county board with city funding. Libraries will stay open at least till the end of 1997. The London and Middlesex library boards both asked for this arrangement in public hearings held in London in September.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Mathyssen: I'd like to say I support this. I think that it confirms that Mr Brant created problems, rather than solutions, very often in this bill and in his report.

The Chair: Okay. All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 56(1).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 56(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"School division boundaries

"(1) Despite any other act, the Minister of Education may, before the first day of December 1994, by order,

"(a) alter the boundaries of the school divisions of the Middlesex County Board of Education and the Board of Education for the City of London;

"(b) amalgamate the Middlesex County Board of Education and the Board of Education for the City of London; and

"(c) dissolve the Middlesex County Board of Education or the Board of Education for the City of London."

By way of explanation, this provision allows the Minister of Education greater flexibility in dealing with changes to two public school boards and, in addition to altering the boundaries, the minister now has the option to either amalgamate or dissolve the boards. The change was requested by the Minister of Education.

The Chair: Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, subsection 56(2).

Mr Mills: I move that subsection 56(2) of the bill be amended by adding after "employment contracts" in the seventh line "for the payment of money or transfer of real property between the Board of Education for the City of London and the Middlesex County Board of Education."

Explanation: An addition has been made to expand the regulation-making power of the Minister of Education to also permit the transfer of money or real property between the two affected boards.

The Chair: Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favour of the government motion? Those opposed? Carried.

Government motion, section 57.

Mr Mills: I move that section 57 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Social services plan

"(1) The city of London shall prepare, in association with the organizations and persons responsible for or concerned with the planning and delivery of social and community services, a plan for the delivery of those services within the city.

"Adoption of plan

"(2) The city shall adopt the plan before the 1st day of January, 1995.

"Public information

"(3) The city shall ensure that, in the course of the preparation of the plan, adequate information is made available to the public and before adopting the plan, the city shall afford members of the public an opportunity to submit comments in respect of the plan up to such time as is specified by the city.

"Content of plan

"(4) The plan shall include objectives and policies for the delivery within the city of social and community services including affordable housing, arts and cultural programs, child care and other children's services, community centres, general education programs, adult education and retraining, fire protection, police protection, health services, long-term care services, multicultural services, recreation, social assistance, transportation services for people with disabilities and other transportation services.

1820

"Advisory committee

"(5) The city shall establish a social planning advisory committee.

"Composition of committee

"(6) The social planning advisory committee shall include representatives from organizations and persons responsible or concerned with the planning and delivery of social and community services within the city.

"Reports of committee

"(7) The social planning advisory committee shall report on a regular basis to the council of the city and its standing committees to ensure the integration of the delivery of social and community services within the city with other municipal plans of the city, including the official plan."

I would just like to comment on that by way of explanation. One of the major issues discussed at the public hearings in London in September was the development of a social plan by the city and the general comment surrounding the need to provide some flesh to the very general direction that is currently contained in Bill 75.

This provision reflects the issues raised at those hearings as well as the work that is taking place with stakeholders since then. The proposed amendment will replace the current section 57 with the new clause, which requires the city to prepare a social plan in association with stakeholders; requires that the plan be adopted by January 1, 1995; ensures adequate public participation in the development of the plan; directs that the plan address such issues as affordable housing, child care, cultural programs, police and fire protection, recreation and health services among other matters, and provides for the creation, composition and the reporting of a social planning advisory committee. These provisions have been agreed to by the city and the various stakeholders involved in social issues.

The Chair: Discussion? All those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? Carried.

Mrs Mathyssen: Are you ready?

The Chair: Ms Mathyssen, section 57.1.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to move the government motion as it relates to section 57.1.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 57:

"Rural issues advisory committee, London

"57.1 The Minister of Municipal Affairs may by regulation,

"(a) establish, or require the council of the city of London to establish, a rural issues advisory committee in the city of London;

"(b) prescribe the size, composition and functions of the rural issues advisory committee;

"(c) require the city council to consult with the rural issues advisory committee before passing a bylaw pertaining to a rural issue; and

"(d) define rural issues for the purpose of this section."

I ask members to support this because it has become clearer and clearer as time has gone on and evidenced by a meeting as late as Monday evening that the city hasn't understood fully the need to protect the agricultural issues by giving those in the community a real voice and real power in the council of the city of London. I hope regulations coming from the minister will compel the city to give adequate protection to those rural people by virtue of this representation.

Mr Mills: I'm afraid this amendment cannot be supported in its entirety. Clause (b) of the amendment is being done in the government's amendment, clause (d) is being done in the government amendment and, as far as clause (a) is concerned, standing committees in London are all elected officials and therefore it does not seem appropriate to have an unelected body as a standing committee. Clause (c) doesn't seem appropriate, to have special committees of adjustment for rural areas only and, as I said, (d) is done by our amendment. The government will move an amendment but will not support this amendment.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to state for the record that certainly in the testimony we've heard there's concern about the way the city has responded so far in terms of whether this committee should be an advisory committee or a standing committee.

I think the sense of it being an advisory committee is that those issues may not get dealt with that need to be dealt with or taken seriously. I want to know, if we're opposed to it being a standing committee because they're elected officials, how do we ensure that an advisory committee gets a little more teeth in terms of how the council will respond to its advice?

Mr Mills: Maybe we can address those concerns in the government motion.

Mr Sutherland: I'm looking at the government motion and --

Mr Mills: I see. Let's go to clause (c): "require the city council to consult with the rural issues advisory committee before passing a bylaw pertaining to a rural issue."

The Chair: Which one did you read out, Ms Mathyssen?

Mrs Mathyssen: I read the government motion.

The Chair: Because I was looking at the Liberal one here and the one that was submitted by --

Mr Mills: Sorry.

The Chair: There are three of them here.

Mr Sutherland: Sorry. I didn't think you read out the government motion either.

Mrs Mathyssen: I did say I was reading the government motion.

The Chair: I didn't hear. I didn't even ask for the government motion.

Mr Eddy: That's why I got so mad. She said "advisory" and I didn't --

Mr Mills: Yes, that's what -- I'm sorry.

Mr Sutherland: My apologies. I thought you'd read out the other motion as well. Okay. Fair enough then.

Mrs Mathyssen: We think it's lovely.

Mr Ward: Great motion.

The Chair: They're pretty close. There are just a few word changes.

Mrs Mathyssen: I read it because I thought it had a better chance of passing. Fooled again.

Mr Eddy: I think I could fully support the motion moved by Ms Mathyssen.

Mr Mills: I beg your pardon.

The Chair: Would you withdraw your other motion there, Ms Mathyssen?

Mrs Mathyssen: I will.

Mr Mills: I beg your pardon to all.

Mrs Mathyssen: No, it's all right, Mr Mills. I guess I didn't emphasize "government" enough.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, any discussion on this?

Mr Eddy: Yes. I'm opposed.

The Chair: You're opposed.

Mr Mills: To your own motion?

Mr Eddy: Pardon.

Mr Mills: No, to this one.

The Chair: This is the government motion.

Mr Mills: Yes.

The Chair: All those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Mr Mills: I beg your pardon, Irene.

The Chair: It supersedes the other amendment, Mr Eddy.

Mr Sutherland: See, this is why we shouldn't have gone late.

The Chair: Liberal motion, section 57.2.

Mr Eddy: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 57:

"Agricultural committee

"57.2 The Minister of Municipal Affairs shall by regulation,

"(a) provide for the creation, size, composition and functions of an agricultural committee in the city of London;

"(b) require the council of the city of London before passing a bylaw pertaining to an agricultural issue to consult with the agricultural committee; and

"(c) define agricultural issues for the purpose of this section."

This establishes an agricultural committee as a standing committee of council.

Mr Mills: Can I make a comment? We won't support this amendment because we believe the rural committee should be constituted to cover agricultural issues and that two committees would be confusing since they'd deal with many of the same issues, if not exactly the same issues. I don't know why you would need two committees to deal with that.

The Chair: All those in favour of the Liberal motion? Those opposed? Defeated.

Government motion, section 57.2.

Mr Mills: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 57:

"Right to operate buses

"57.2 Despite any bylaw the city of London made under subparagraph i of paragraph 104 of section 210 of the Municipal Act and subsection 3(1) of the City of London Act, 1960-61, the right of any person to maintain and operate buses for the conveyance of passengers within the limits of the city of London in accordance with a valid operating licence issued to the person under the Public Vehicles Act on or before the 31st day of December, 1992, is not affected by this act."

The proposed amendment deals with another issue raised by private concerns at the public hearings in London: the existence of private bus operators in the area to be annexed in the city. The new section, 57.2, will be added to allow these bus operators to continue under licence after the annexation has taken place.

1830

Mr Sutherland: Can I just be clear? That's giving them access to all the city now?

Mr Mills: No, I don't think so.

Mr Sutherland: Okay, because that's my reading. It would say they'd have access to all the city. Could you clarify that?

Mr Gray: I think what this is saying is they can operate in accordance with their existing licences, and their existing licences only allow them to operate within the areas that are being annexed.

Mr Mills: We're not taking away their rights to operate.

Mr Gray: So that is what is being grandfathered, because otherwise the city, the London Transit Commission, has exclusive right to operate buses within the city.

Mr Sutherland: That's what I thought and that's why I wanted to have that clarified.

Since the LTC has that authority, though, are they mandated to extend that to the entire area? If not, then there's kind of this agreement that part of the new city is LTC and part of it is these other companies?

Mr Gray: They have private legislation at the moment that gives them exclusive right within the city. When the city boundaries are expanded, that right extends to the full city, and that includes the annexed areas where these people already have operating licences. This is grandfathering those licences. If you already have a licence, you can continue, but only in that same area.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of the government motion? All agreed. Carried.

Liberal motion, section 57.3.

Mr Eddy: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 57:

"Joint agreements

"57.3(1) The city of London, the township of London, the township of Delaware and the town of Westminster shall enter into agreements for joint services, including joint services for water supply, sewage treatment and financing of capital improvements related to sewer and water service.

"Joint implementation committees

"(2) The councils of the county of Middlesex, the city of London, the township of Delaware, township of London and town of Westminster shall establish joint implementation committees to make recommendations with respect to the joint agreements.

"Recommendations

"(3) The joint implementation committees shall submit their recommendations for the required services to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on or before the 1st day of April, 1993.

"Order

"(4) Subject to any other act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, within 30 days after receiving a recommendation of a joint implementation committee and upon the recommendation of the minister, by order give effect to the recommendation."

This provides for joint servicing agreements. Every municipality has them; every municipality will have them. They're essential to the operation of any municipality.

Mr Mills: We won't be supporting this amendment because it's redundant now, because Westminster is amalgamated with London, and it's not appropriate to force the city of London to extend services. We feel that they should be negotiated rather than forced.

Mr Eddy: I'll agree with the parliamentary assistant to delete "town of Westminster."

Mr Mills: We're still left with the problem about it being inappropriate to force London, rather than negotiate. I think they should be negotiating. This says we have to.

The Chair: All those in favour of the Liberal motion? All those opposed? Defeated.

Government motion, section 60.

Mr Mills: I move that section 60 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Commencement

"60(1) This act, except as provided in subsections (2), (3) and (4), comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

"Same

"(2) Sections 1, 2, 3 to 6, 8 to 45, 47 to 49 and 51 to 59 come into force on the 1st day of January, 1993.

"Same

"(3) Section" --

Mr Ward: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are there many remaining amendments? Mr Eddy's amendments are gone now, right?

Mr Mills: There's only one more.

"(3) Section 46 comes into force on the 1st day of January, 1994.

"(4) Section 7 comes into force on the 1st day of December, 1994."

These are technical amendments which change the section numbers for the coming into force.

The Chair: Any discussion? There being none, all in favour of the government motion? Carried.

We have a Liberal motion, we have Mrs Mathyssen and a government motion.

Mr Eddy: Mine's withdrawn.

The Chair: Yours is withdrawn, and they're out of order.

Mr Mills: I still need ours.

The Chair: Okay. They're out of order.

Mr Mills: Oh, I see. We're going to go through the bill.

The Chair: Okay. We have a Liberal motion here, schedules 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 --

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Withdrawn. Okay. Liberal motion, schedules 3, 8 and 9.

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Okay. Liberal motion, schedule 1.

Mr Eddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Okay. That's all the amendments.

Mrs Mathyssen: Before we end, I'd like to ask a few questions for the record. I'll be brief. I would like clarification. On October 29, 1992, the London Chamber of Commerce testified before this committee that in July of 1991 the London Chamber of Commerce provided John Brant, arbitrator, a position paper outlining the principles necessary in reaching a final boundary adjustment solution. I would like to ask why the chamber of commerce consulted with John Brant in July of 1991 when he wasn't appointed until January of 1992.

Second, there have been a number of petitions submitted to the Legislative Assembly. How many people have signed those petitions, in terms of the numbers from London and Middlesex?

Mr Mills: I'd just like to say to the first question that the ministry has absolutely no idea of why that is. In so far as the second question, we don't know that either.

Mrs Mathyssen: When can I expect that the ministry will investigate that and get back to me?

Mr Mills: It's kind of difficult to know if we don't know.

The Chair: Speak into the mike.

Mr Mills: The first question, if we have no idea of how it happened, I don't know how we can look at it and get back and find out how it happened if we don't know how it happened.

Mrs Mathyssen: Perhaps you could consult with the chamber of commerce.

The Chair: Do your best.

Mr Mills: Yes, we'll ask the chamber. We'll see what we can do.

Mrs Mathyssen: Or perhaps Mr Brant; I'm sure he hasn't left town yet.

The Chair: Okay. We're going to be going clause-by-clause.

Sections 1 through 4. Shall they carry? Carried.

Shall section 5, as amended in the bill, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 6 and 7 carry? Carried.

Shall sections 8, 9 and 10, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 11 carry? Carried.

Section 12, as amended? Carried.

Section 13, as amended? Carried.

Section 14? Carried.

Section 15, as amended? Carried.

Sections 16 through 18? Carried.

Section 19, as amended? Carried.

Section 20? Carried.

Section 21, as amended? Carried.

Section 22? Carried.

Section 23? Carried.

Section 24, as amended? Carried.

Section 25? Carried.

Section 26, as amended? Carried.

Section 27? Carried.

Section 28? Carried.

Sections 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, as amended? Carried.

Section 34 to be struck out? Agreed.

Section 35? Carried.

Section 36, as amended? Carried.

Section 37 to be struck out? Agreed.

Section 38 to be struck out? Agreed.

Section 39, as amended? Carried.

Section 40? Carried.

Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44, as amended? Carried.

Section 45? Carried.

Sections 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50, as amended? Carried.

Section 51? Carried.

Section 52, as amended? Carried.

Sections 53, 54 and 55? Carried.

Sections 56 and 57, as amended? Carried.

Sections 58 and 59? Carried.

Section 60, as amended? Carried.

Section 61? Carried.

Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to be struck out? Agreed.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

This committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1842.