CONTENTS
Thursday 22 July 1993
Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 7
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
*White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Arnott
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Daigeler
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Morrow
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Wessenger
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Dhar, Satish, senior policy adviser, local government policy branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Gray, Scott D., solicitor, corporate resources management, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 1.
MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS
Consideration of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.
The Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): The purpose of the committee is to do a clause-by-clause examination of Bill 7.
For the information of the committee, I understand that we have heard from every deputant who applied to the committee to be heard, and I congratulate the members on their foresight in allowing sufficient time to see that they all were heard. Members would also know that there have been some briefs presented to the committee extraneous from the actual public hearing for your examination. I'm sure that all members have carefully examined those.
Having said that, I'm happy to have the parliamentary assistant beside me. I think we will commence with the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 7. Do you wish to make any opening statements briefly?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Yes, very briefly. I too would like to thank all the members of the committee and the staff for all the hard work they've put in, trying to get this much-needed bill. I appreciate everyone's input.
I think we can go through this fairly quickly; we're all very close on some of our amendments. We'll just go from there, Mr Chair, and be very efficient and productive here this morning.
The Chair: I should hope so. Mr Johnson or Mr Grandmaître, do you wish to make any opening statements?
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Let's get on with it.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I won't be long. We were contemplating a general statement with regard to the whole funding issue. I don't know if there's going to be time to discuss that, but we'll limit our remarks considerably in that regard and just say that this is an issue that has come up through a number of the deputations: the overall funding issue for waste management in the future of the province of Ontario.
I would just like to go on record that we have raised this as a concern through these proceedings. A number of the deputants have raised this as a concern. A number of the deputants have indicated that they don't see a clear process or a clear mechanism in terms of the funding of waste management in the province, and I certainly concur with that. I think it was the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that indicated that there needs to be a clear funding mechanism in place before we proceed much further in terms of the whole issue of waste management, and I would heartily concur in those recommendations.
I only hope the government takes this to mind and realizes that waste management is a very broad and extensive service. Of course, we're talking about mixed garbage, we're talking about the blue box, we're talking about yard waste collection, we're talking about hazardous waste, we're talking about white goods, we're talking about material recovery facilities, we're talking about composting plants. We're talking about major investments and we're talking about major operating costs right across the province of Ontario to meet the 50% target that the government has set by the end of this decade. That's a target that I think everyone in this room would concur with and hope that we would not only meet but exceed.
But to do that, we're going to require a very clear road map in terms of where's the money going to come from. My concern, and I think a concern expressed by many of the deputants before us, has been that the user-pay system by itself will not suffice. There will have to be a broader component including the provincial government and including the private sector.
I think I'll leave my comments at that but just say that I think that needs to be said and looked into. It's not going to be a part of this bill, obviously, but I think in the near future that issue needs to be addressed very carefully.
Mr Grandmaître: I concur with my colleague that cost is a big issue, but I find it very strange that in the committee summary of Bill 7, it is reported on AMO, "General support expressed for the legislation and no specific amendments proposed." I can't understand AMO saying this: Most municipalities are very concerned about the cost, but it seems AMO is quite satisfied with Bill 7. I just want to make sure that I'm on record that AMO is not proposing any amendments.
Mr Hayes: Very briefly -- and when I say "briefly" I mean briefly, Mr Chair -- when you talk about the funding, it is a very complex situation. The Minister of Environment and Energy has indicated that they will be coming forward with proposals or a plan to deal with that particular issue of finances, so I would hope we could get on with the bill now, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Then I think we should commence dealing with the bill. To make the process work in an efficient fashion, I would hope that the government and the critics would notify the Chair if there are amendments. I have them here in front of me, but I have been known for the odd oversight, so it would be helpful if, when we get to a section where there might be an amendment being made, you could indicate that to me; it would be helpful to all the committee.
We will start with section 1. It's 208.1, but it's section 1 of this bill. I believe there are two amendments regarding "waste management."
Mr Hayes: I move that the definition of "waste management system" in section 208.1 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by inserting after "services" in the second line "owned, operated or controlled by a municipality."
This motion is intended to clarify that the term "waste management system" referred to in the legislation is a municipal waste management system and that this term does not include waste management systems or facilities owned by private waste management industry. This, as a matter of fact, was requested by the Ontario Waste Management Association and other private sector waste firms and waste generators.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Hayes's amendment? Carried.
Mr Johnson, you have an amendment.
Mr David Johnson: I have an amendment that would modify the definition of "waste." If you have my motion before you, it says "waste" and "waste management system," but I'm accepting the "waste management" definition, so if I can amend this:
I move that the definition of "waste" in section 208.1 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`Waste' includes ashes, garbage, refuse, domestic waste and municipal refuse."
The reason for that is that the industrial solid waste component should be deleted from the definition of "waste" so that it is understood by all stakeholders that existing private sector waste management programs will not and cannot be expropriated or dissolved by municipal government as a result of Bill 7.
Mr Grandmaître: We're only deleting "industrial solid waste." Am I right, Mr Johnson?
Mr David Johnson: That's right.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Johnson, according to your amendment, the last clause would also be deleted, which was "such other materials as may be designated by bylaw of the council of the local municipality or, in section 209, the council of the county," so that the definition of "waste" would be extremely limited. It would also mean that where there is an agreement between that municipality and any other entity, that their materials could not be included as waste or, frankly, be dealt with.
Mr David Johnson: We're responding to a concern put forward by the Ontario Restaurant Association that the private sector waste management programs could be expropriated or dissolved, to use their terminology. One of the problems one faces here is that it's difficult to get solid advice on these things. We're hearing from the Ontario Restaurant Association that has put forward this concern. I know they feel very strongly about it. Frankly, I'm unable to determine all the ramifications of this proposal; I have to admit that. But I know they're concerned and they feel the ramifications on their industry could be severe and that it certainly could impact on them. I'm putting forward their point of view; I guess that's the best I can say. In terms of all the impact, there may be some other negative impacts that, frankly, I haven't had the ability to get advice on.
1020
Mr Hayes: The main concern we have here is that when you take out the solid waste and other materials, for example, what would be happening with this amendment, you would be restricting the municipalities from collecting solid waste. If by chance the private industry chose not to do it, the municipality would not be able to take over, the way this is worded. That's the information we have on that. With this legislation existing, it's protection for the municipality in case it was put into a situation where private industry did not want to or could not pick up solid waste.
Mr David Johnson: I guess what that means is that it would be no worse than the situation today, that in fact municipalities would proceed and, where there's consensus, would cover and provide the services. I'm sure that's what would happen.
The best I can make out of this is that there's a concern through the private sector, particularly the restaurant associations, that they're going to be damaged by this on the one hand. On the other hand, there is some ambiguity, perhaps, if the definition is changed, about what happens if the private sector is unable to deal with it and the municipal sector needs to deal with it: Will the municipal sector feel it has the authority to do it? My guess is that they certainly will; they'll jump into the breach and fill that. My suspicion is that if the definition is changed, there really wouldn't be any negative impact, that this would work, but perhaps the government has a different interpretation.
Mr Hayes: The thing is, if the municipality doesn't have the authority then the situation would get worse; it would not stay the same. What we are doing in this piece of legislation is in fact giving the municipality that authority in case the need arises.
Mr David Johnson: At any rate, I don't think there's much more I can say. Maybe we should just have a vote. I realize not all the votes are going to win.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I think that most of the people who came before us expressed some concern with respect to the possibility that the definition of "waste management system" may include the private waste management industry, and I think that with the amendment to "waste management system" we've already passed, it really deals with those concerns without any further amendments to the definition of "waste." I think the concerns that were expressed by the private sector industry have really been satisfied to a great extent by that first amendment.
Mr David Johnson: On that, the only thing I'll say is that the private sector is not homogeneous. There are different aspects of the private sector. Specifically, there are private sector companies such as Laidlaw, WMI and perhaps OWMA as well, in a sense, that are looking at the disposal end of it. They're concerned about the waste management and particularly disposal.
Then you have the Ontario Restaurant Association, for example, and the Canadian Restaurant Association. They're not concerned so much about the disposal; they're concerned about the waste they put out, so they're concerned about the front end of it.
I wouldn't say we've got 100% of the story, but from what we've been able to ascertain, there's a certain group in the private sector that is concerned about the "waste management" definition, and there's another group in the private sector that's concerned about the definition of "waste." The Ontario Restaurant Association falls into that category. They're not so much concerned about waste management, it's the definition of "waste."
At any rate, I put it forward. I think we should just vote on it.
The Chair: Shall Mr Johnson's amendment to section 208.1 carry? Opposed? It's lost.
Shall section 208.1 carry as amended? Carried.
Section 208.2, an explanation, Mr Hayes. It's not an amendment, it's a section just standing.
Mr Hayes: No amendment.
The Chair: We still generally require an explanation.
Mr Hayes: It says the municipality may pass bylaws to establish, maintain and operate a waste management system and it's giving the municipality authority --
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It speaks for itself.
Mr Hayes: Thank you very much.
Mr Grandmaître: How come there are no amendments?
The Chair: Shall section 208.2 carry? Carried.
Section 208.3: I notice we have an amendment adding a section down at (j), but maybe we can deal with (a) through (i) initially.
Are there questions, comments or amendments to clauses 208.3(a) through (i)? Discussion?
Shall subsections 208.3(a) through (i) carry? Carried.
I have a government amendment adding a section (j). Mr Wiseman would like to move that.
Mr Wiseman (Durham West): I move that subsection 208.3(1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(j) establish a public liaison committee in accordance with the terms of the certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval issued under part V of the Environmental Protection Act to provide a forum for the exchange of information concerning the operation of landfill sites in the local municipality."
Essentially, this amendment arises out of concern that I've heard in my own local community with respect to the operation of landfill sites that may or may not adhere to the certificates of approval and the Environmental Protection Act. It arises out of a tradition that seems to be developing both in the Environmental Bill of Rights and within the certificates of approval that have been issued lately in that public liaison committees have been established.
When I asked both AMO and the OWMA about whether they would be in opposition to this type of an amendment, they both indicated that they would not be in opposition to it. In fact, I remember Nancy Porteous-Koehle saying it would be very difficult for any landfill sites anywhere to be established in the absence of a public liaison committee.
What this amendment does is allow the local municipality to establish one if a need arises or if the local residents establish that a need has arisen. I think this amendment will give some satisfaction to a local municipality that may have imposed on them a landfill site counter to the wishes of their council but imposed on them through the other parts of this bill, which is the Ontario Municipal Board.
I think that if they have some forum at the local level whereby they could be assured that they would have some input into the management, or some monitoring of the management of the landfill site, they would rest a little more comfortably than if this amendment had not been there.
That's why I've moved it and I would ask all members to support it.
1030
Mr Grandmaître: A very brief question. Will this read, "shall establish a public liaison committee" or "may"?
Mr Wiseman: It reads:
"208.3 (1) The power under section 208.2 includes the power to,...
"(j) establish a public liaison committee in accordance with the terms of the certificate of approval...."
In other words, the choice rests with the local council to do so.
Mr Grandmaître: Very good.
Mr White: I want to commend my colleague for bringing forth this amendment. It's a very substantive and important one that would enable local citizens to have a voice in these significant issues affecting their communities. I know he certainly has participated in and had a long involvement in the struggle over these issues in his community.
The concern I have here is the fact that it is permissive. I'm wondering if in the legislation that power would be assumed at the local level or at the upper-tier level. When it refers in section 208.2 to the municipality having those powers, does that mean, in the normal confluence of events, that this power would reside with the local municipality even while the upper-tier municipality had the site selection?
Mr Wiseman: Yes, it would. Clearly, the last line in the amendment reads "operation of landfill sites in the local municipality." I believe this amendment would allow the local council to establish a public liaison committee.
Mr Hayes: What this would actually do is allow the upper tier or lower tier, whoever has the authority -- whoever has the responsibility could set up the committee. So if it's the upper tier, it would be the upper tier that would do that.
Mr David Johnson: I guess I have a couple of views. I think municipalities have the authority to set up committees now at any rate. This is sort of indicating I guess, through this bill, that they can do things they can already do, which is not necessarily bad, but it's a little bit superfluous.
Secondly, I think we're talking about -- correct me if I'm wrong; maybe this is a question -- a certificate of approval, a provisional certificate. This would mean when the possibility of a landfill site to be located within a municipality is being contemplated. Is that what this is for? When a landfill site is being contemplated within a municipality, then there would be a citizens' committee that could be organized by the municipality?
Mr Wiseman: It could be then or it could be after the landfill site is up and running.
Mr David Johnson: Of course the reality is that all sorts of citizens' groups form by themselves and they don't necessarily want to be directed by government either. In many cases they want to be independent of government so that they feel that perhaps they're a little bit more objective in terms of reviewing either the operation of landfills or the siting of landfills. That's one thought that occurs to me.
Beyond that, I assume there's no mention of funding, so am I to assume that this committee would not have any access to funding except that the municipality could choose, I suppose, to fund it?
Mr Wiseman: Yes.
Mr David Johnson: But there's no mandatory funding of the committee if it's set up. There's no mention of what authority the committee has, so I presume the committee only provides a forum perhaps, as is stated here, but has no authority to do anything other than discuss issues, debate them perhaps and raise them with its local council.
Mr Wiseman: That would depend on what the certificate of approval would allow them to do. Also, their mandate would be determined by the council as to how far they would be able to go with their input. There are some certificates of approval that allow the committee to recommend changes to the way the landfill site is operating.
One of the things that this would allow is enough flexibility for the local residents to be able to participate and to respond to local and to what might be unique problems or circumstances, because not all landfill sites have the same problems and therefore you can't flesh it out to the extent that I think you're asking about.
Mr David Johnson: I'm just trying to make clear that (a) there's no mandatory funding and (b) the authority is not fully stated here, so I assume that this sort of committee would have no specific authority other than to make recommendations, but it has no veto power or it has no authority that would be assumed by municipal councils today, for example.
Mr Grandmaître: It's an advisory.
Mr David Johnson: Advisory, yes, that's the word.
Mr Wiseman: It's an advisory, yes. You can call it a whole scope of things, but what its real power would be would be either within the certificate of approval or within the mandate given to it by the municipalities.
Mr David Johnson: Could you explain further what you mean that it would have power within the certificate of approval?
Mr Wiseman: If the certificate of approval for the landfill site says that there will be a public liaison committee and it will have the following powers to do (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), then those are the powers that it will have.
Mr David Johnson: But that would be pertinent to each individual certificate of approval.
Mr Wiseman: That's right.
Mr David Johnson: So it would be up to the authorities to determine that.
Mr Wiseman: But what this allows a municipality to do is, if the landfill site is perhaps not operated properly or if there is residential questioning about the operation of the landfill site, it gives the municipality the power to create this public liaison committee after the landfill site is up and running.
Mr David Johnson: I think the only other question I had was, there is of course an environmental process that takes place now. What authority would this liaison committee have within the environmental process that takes place? Again, would that be as designated through the certificate of approval?
Mr Wiseman: If I understand this, you're asking me prior to the establishment of the landfill site and going through the environmental assessment process.
Mr David Johnson: That's right. There are public hearings, various groups, citizens' groups come forward, municipalities have various obligations under the Environmental Protection Act to hold public hearings and that sort of thing. What role, through this amendment that you're placing today, would this liaison committee play in that structure that's already set up?
Mr Wiseman: I don't think that it would hold any more special status than any other group that comes before the Environmental Assessment Board to put its presentation forward. The role that it could play outside of the environmental assessment process is to act as a vehicle for transferring information back and forth as a neutral third body, some kind of committee to try and smooth out the bumps that are in the process.
It doesn't have any special authority to say, "You're going to do this," or "You're going to do that." If the residents and the council want it, it becomes a vehicle by which people can have input into the management and the operation of a landfill site if they feel, for example, that it is not managed properly.
If there is no public liaison committee and nobody wants one, then that's fine, but should a problem arise -- the problem at Brock West is the example I use -- then the local residents can say to the council, "You have the power to establish a public liaison committee and we're asking you to do it," and if the council decides they want to do it and go that route, then that's fine, that's still their choice. It signals to them that they have the right and the power to do that.
Mr White: I'd like to go back to my earlier point. Mr Wiseman seemed to offer a different explanation than I understood from the parliamentary assistant, and that is in regard to who would hold the powers under 208.3. I understood from the parliamentary assistant that it would be the municipality that was in fact establishing the landfill site, the waste disposal system, so whether it was the upper-tier municipality or the local municipality.
I wonder, with the amendment, if we would not have the same level of government establishing a public liaison committee that had in fact established the dump site, which would make it rather unusual for that level of government to commission that committee.
1040
Mr Wiseman: I share Mr White's concern. I originally envisioned this amendment to allow the local council, whether it established the landfill site or not, to be able to respond to the needs of its local community and to establish this public liaison committee. It came as a little bit of a surprise to me at this point that this was not the case. I would be interested to hear from legal staff how we could amend this to allow the local municipality to do that.
Mr White: If I might, my question actually was for the parliamentary assistant and legal counsel, just as Mr Wiseman's presently is.
Mr Scott Gray: My name is Scott Gray. I work for Municipal Affairs, legal branch. The discussion that has taken place is correct. The way it's fitted into the section, this is a power of the level of government that is responsible for disposal at any point in time. If you wanted it to apply simply to lower-tier, you'd have to remove it from 208.3 and have kind of a standalone provision that said a local municipality has this power.
Because the general power is to assume any waste management power, you'd have to -- actually, the easiest way to deal with this -- I'm just thinking out loud now -- is maybe to put it in there and just say, subject to what Lucinda has to say in this, that an upper-tier, under its assumption power, can't assume that particular power. So just say that the power under clause (j) of this section cannot be assumed by the upper-tier by bylaw.
Mr White: I would wonder at this point if the other committee members would agree we could withdraw this particular amendment, bring it back perhaps this afternoon so that it can be appropriately applied at the right section, and if the other committee members would at least tentatively agree to reopen that section so that it could be addressed at that time.
The Chair: Mr White has asked for unanimous consent to stand down this amendment by Mr Wiseman. Do I have unanimous consent?
Mr White: Till this afternoon.
The Chair: Agreed.
We will now deal with subsection (2) of 208.3.
Mr Hayes: There are no amendments.
The Chair: Shall subsection 208.3(2) carry? Carried.
Shall subsection 208.3(3) carry? Carried.
Subsection 208.3(4)? Carried.
Subsection 208.3(5)? Carried.
Subsection 208.3(6)? Carried.
We have stood down the amendment to clause 208.3(1)(j), so we cannot carry the section until we deal with that.
Section 208.4? Carried.
Subsection 208.5(1): Mr Johnson?
Mr David Johnson: I guess we're there.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): No, yours is on subsection 208.5(9). You're adding a new subsection.
Mr David Johnson: Subsection 208.5(9)? It's adding a new one. So you're going to go clause --
The Chair: We'll go one by one.
Clerk of the Committee: It's subsections 208.5(1) through 208.5(8), and then it goes to 208.5(9).
The Chair: Shall subsection 208.5(1) carry? Carried.
Subsection 208.5(2): Questions, comments or amendments to subsection 208.5(2)?
Interjection.
The Chair: The parliamentary assistant has suggested that we go up to subsection 208.5(8). Are there questions, comments or amendments to subsections 208.5(1) through 208.5(8)? Shall those subsections carry? Carried.
Now, Mr Johnson, we have your amendment.
Mr David Johnson: The amendment I have is to add subsection (9).
I move that section 208.5 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limitation
"(9) This section applies only to land in respect of which waste management services are provided by the municipality."
The Chair: Would you offer an explanation of the need for this amendment, Mr Johnson?
Mr David Johnson: I would like to offer an explanation, but I don't have it here.
Mr Wiseman: Perhaps I could offer an explanation.
The Chair: Well --
Mr Wiseman: Why I will oppose it.
The Chair: Order. Mr Johnson has the floor.
Mr David Johnson: Can I stand it down for a minute?
The Chair: Maybe Mr Wiseman's explanation of why he opposes it will enlighten us as to why you're for it.
Mr Wiseman: The effect of this amendment would be to exempt land owned by private waste haulers from the process of being inspected and evaluated by municipalities for the use of landfill.
Interjection.
Mr Wiseman: This is not the section?
The Chair: If you're speaking to the incorrect section, then you're not helping Mr Johnson.
Mr Wiseman: That's right.
The Chair: Mr Johnson, do you know?
1050
Mr David Johnson: The information I have, and I'm trying to make it jibe with the exact amendment, is that it's a concern advanced by the Ontario Restaurant Association. Their concern is that municipalities would be able to impose a blanket property assessment based on property rather than usage.
I think the concern here is that the restaurant association, for example, and indeed I think other private individuals, would be concerned that the user-pay system could be extended not in terms of usage, but it could be assigned to properties. Certain businesses, such as restaurants in particular, don't want to be double charged. They don't want to, number one, pay for a private collector to cart away their garbage and then find out that the user-pay is applied against the property as opposed to the garbage that they actually put out.
So they think that if you want a user-pay system, that's fine, but don't charge double, and this amendment would address that situation. This amendment, as I understand it, would mean in a sense that the user-pay system could be assigned against those who use and those who put out garbage, but it couldn't be doubled up in the sense that it couldn't be assigned against a property, as opposed to the amount of garbage that you put out.
Mr Hayes: I can understand Mr Johnson's concerns, but the problem is that by having this amendment, it would restrict the municipalities from levying -- or to put it another way, restrict them from making a decision on how they will finance their waste management systems. In fact, what this would do would actually limit them to just doing it by user fees. That's what this amendment would do.
Mr David Johnson: Do you recognize the concern of the private sector that they could get double-billed? The staff might wish to offer some advice on this.
Mr Hayes: They might.
Mr David Johnson: They're prepared to go along with the user-pay system; they just don't want to get charged twice. They're concerned they'll get charged once against the property and once because they'll be paying through a private collection.
Mr Satish Dhar: I am Satish Dhar. I'm senior policy adviser with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
The way the system works today in the legislation is that municipalities can charge a general levy against all property for all services. The user-pay section of the bill which deals with waste management would only allow a municipality to charge user fees for the services it's providing. So these are two different things altogether.
Mr David Johnson: Can you point out where in the bill that it's that restrictive? Because that is the nub of the concern of the Ontario Restaurant Association. I think if we can be assured that is in fact the case -- and it's not the Ontario restaurants' interpretation that's the case, but if we can be assured --
Mr Dhar: Okay, 208.6 says, "For the purpose of section 208.2, a local municipality may pass bylaws to prohibit or regulate the use of any part of a waste management system." We've defined "waste management system" as a waste management system of the municipality, earlier. Then under (c) and (d) it says, the municipality can "establish incentives, including tax credits" etc. Then it says "establish...rules, fees and incentives." This only relates to the municipality's own waste management system and those who use that waste management system, which is basically the residential property.
Mr David Johnson: So it's your interpretation by redefining "waste management," as we did earlier this morning, that it no longer applies to the ICI sector.
Mr Dhar: The user fee part of it no longer applies to the ICI sector. In other words, municipalities cannot charge a user fee for the use of their waste management system on the ICI sector which is not using the system. That's what it means. Does that clarify?
Mr David Johnson: I think that halfway answers the question. If a restaurant were having its own garbage contracted out, it would not be using the municipal sector then, presumably.
Mr Dhar: They wouldn't be using it and the municipality would not be able to charge them user fees, because they have their own contractor.
Mr David Johnson: Okay. I'm satisfied with that answer.
The Chair: Does that mean, then, Mr Johnson, you will be withdrawing your amendment?
Mr David Johnson: I'll withdraw this amendment.
The Chair: Fine. Shall section 208.5 carry? Carried.
At this point, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. I think we have unanimous agreement to permit Mr Johnson to present his private member's bill in the House.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I move we adjourn.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mammoliti. The committee's adjourned. I would just informally ask the members if we could get here as quickly as possible after routine proceedings this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1057 to 1522.
The Chair: The standing committee will come back to order. This morning we dealt with sections up to 208.5 and we've carried all those sections. I'm at the instruction of the committee on whether we want to go back at this point and open up the section we stood down, clause (j) of 208.3. Is it the agreement of the committee that we complete that section at this point? Agreed.
We've had some discussion on that. Mr Wiseman, do you have any further discussion on that amendment?
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I'd like to add to that amendment.
The Chair: What do you mean, you would like to add to that amendment? We have to deal with (j) unless you're intending to amend (j). I understand you have an additional amendment to that section.
Mr Wiseman: Yes.
The Chair: We will deal with that after we deal with (j).
Shall clause 208.3(j) carry? Carried.
Mr Wiseman, you have an additional amendment to that section?
Mr Wiseman: I move that section 208.3 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Local power to remain
"(1.1) Despite this or any other act a local municipality may exercise the power under clause 208.3(1)(j) whether or not a county, metropolitan, regional or district municipality or the county of Oxford has assumed any waste management power."
This section allows the local municipality to create a public liaison committee under the Environmental Protection Act, part V, should it desire to do so and should it perhaps want to participate in or to be able to monitor what is happening with a landfill site that has been located in its municipality or, actually, any other.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What would prohibit them from doing that regardless?
Mr Wiseman: It's not a question of prohibiting them. It's a question of giving them the power to do so if they choose to do so.
Mr Stockwell: Then I'll rephrase the question. Why would this give them any more power than they already have?
Mr Wiseman: What it does is it allows them to be responsive to their community needs.
Mr Stockwell: I understand all that stuff, but having sat on council, they can strike committees as they see fit. It would seem to me that any council could strike a committee made up of citizens surrounding this kind of landfill issue and have it report to council or committee, regardless of whether this is in there or not. Would that not be a fair statement?
Mr Wiseman: If I understand this correctly, and I'm using Pickering as an example, because Pickering is the host to Metro's garbage dump and has had some problems with it that we don't need to get into at this point, the local residents have constantly been frustrated in terms of trying to create a committee or get access to the dump in order to make sure that the certificates of approval and the Environmental Protection Act have been carried out. And they also have been frustrated by a local council that would not do this and a regional council that flatly refused to do this.
Mr Stockwell: No, I understand the motives.
Mr Wiseman: What I'm trying to do here is clearly outline that this power is available to the local council for it to do so. It's very specific.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I'm not going to argue the point on the merits. I read this carefully. It says, "may exercise the power...whether or not a county, metropolitan, regional or district municipality or the county of Oxford has assumed any waste management power." I don't want to bog down legislation, because this seems like a rather obvious thing that any council can do regardless. If they're going to do it, they'll do it; if they're not going to do it, nothing is going to force them to do it with this amendment, because the word clearly is "may." If they're not going to strike this committee, they're not going to strike it.
My only point would be that cluttering up legislation -- it seems that this would be that kind of cluttering up that takes place, thereby selling somebody a bag of air. Really, if the local council doesn't want to strike a committee, there's nothing in here that says it is forced to strike a committee.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Chair, in the way of clarification, under legal challenge or appeal to OMB, if there's not specific authority for a municipality to do something, then it can't do it. Most municipalities are very, very concerned about having the specific authority to do whatever they want to do or decide to do.
1530
Mr Hayes: This amendment is really what it reads; it's permissive. You hear all kinds of arguments about the senior governments coming down on the local governments, and what this is saying to the municipality is, "You have the right to do this and we're encouraging you to do so." I think it's a very good amendment.
The Chair: Shall Mr Wiseman's amendment marked (1.1) carry? Carried.
Shall section 208.3, as amended, carry? Carried.
Next is subsection 208.6(1). Shall 208.6(1) carry? Carried.
Shall 208.6(2) carry? Carried.
Mr Mammoliti has an amendment.
Mr Mammoliti: I move that section 208.6 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) A by-law of a local municipality passed under this section applies only to a waste management system of the local municipality."
This motion clarifies that municipalities can only regulate the use of their own system and not the system owned by other levels of municipal government or the private waste management industry.
This change was requested by the OWMA. Some private sector waste firms and waste generators also expressed concerns that this section would give municipalities control over private waste. In addition, Metro Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton pointed out that this section could be construed to allow lower-tier municipalities to regulate an upper-tier system or vice versa.
If you remember, the mayor of North York was in front of us as well recently, and I believe this particular amendment would certainly address most of the concerns he and his colleagues at the North York level had mentioned that day.
The Chair: Shall Mr Mammoliti's amendment to section 208.6 carry? Carried.
Shall section 208.6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 208.7, subsections (1), (2) and (3) carry? Carried.
Section 208.8, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4): Is there an amendment? We'll deal with subsections (1) and (2) first. Shall 208.8(1) and (2) carry? Carried.
We have a Conservative amendment, I believe, to subsection (3).
Mr Stockwell: Let me find it.
Mr Mammoliti: Do you want me to read it for you?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, go ahead, George.
Mr Mammoliti: We withdraw that, Mr Chairman.
Mr Stockwell: Good one. I haven't got it. Okay. Withdrawn. I haven't got it.
The Chair: Questions or comments on subsection (3)? Shall subsection (3) carry? Carried.
Subsections 208.8(4), (5) and (6)? Carried.
Shall section 208.8 carry? Carried.
Section 208.9.
Mr Hayes: You have a Conservative amendment here.
Mr Stockwell: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Shall section 208.9 carry? Carried.
Section 208.10: Questions, comments or amendments?
Mr Stockwell: If we have any, we'll let you know.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stockwell.
Shall section 208.10 carry? Carried.
Section 208.11? Shall 208.11 carry? Carried.
Shall section 1 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 2.
Mr Stockwell: Section 1, as amended, carried?
The Chair: Yes.
Section 2: Shall 2(1), (2) and (3) carry? Carried.
We have a government amendment to subsection 2(4).
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 209(10) of the Municipal Act, as set out in subsection 2(4) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exclusive jurisdiction
"(10) If a county has assumed the power for providing services or facilities for any part of a waste management system, no municipality under a similar or equivalent power and no person shall, within the participating local municipalities, provide services or facilities of the type authorized by the powers assumed by the county without the consent of the council of the county, which consent may be given upon such terms including the payment of compensation, as may be agreed upon."
The Chair: I know you're looking forward to making an explanation of that amendment.
Mr Hayes: Why sure. This motion clarifies that if a county assumes a waste management service then anyone, private operator or another local or upper-tier municipality, wishing to establish a waste management service of the type the county has assumed must obtain the county's consent.
For instance, if a county has assumed landfill authority, then anyone wishing to establish a landfill site must obtain the county's consent. Similarly, if a county has assumed authority over 3Rs facilities, then anyone wishing to establish a 3Rs facility within the county must obtain the county's consent. This section, as drafted, could be interpreted to mean that county consent was only required for local municipal waste management facilities and not for private or upper-tier management facilities.
1540
Mr Stockwell: It's clear as mud, actually. What if there is presently one operating -- local.
Mr Hayes: You mean if there's already one --
Mr Stockwell: Operating.
Mr Hayes: -- whether it be private or --
Mr Stockwell: Yes.
Mr Hayes: If it's a private one, I don't believe that this would even affect that, would it?
Mr Gray: No, it's --
The Chair: If you wish to respond, introduce yourself for Hansard.
Mr Eddy: It's not only private, it's locally operated. Local municipal.
Mr Gray: My name is Scott Gray, legal services branch. It isn't in these amendments, but the next subsection grandfathers all existing facilities. You do not need consent to continue anything that's already in existence. This just applies to future facilities.
Mr Stockwell: Fine.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Then we have, I see, another amendment from Mr Hayes, to subsection 2(5).
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 209(10.1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in subsection 2(5) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exception
"(10.1) Despite subsection (10), a person may, without the consent of the council of the county, provide services and facilities for the collection or removal of waste from non-residential properties and residential properties containing more than five dwelling units."
This motion would provide that in addition to collection of waste, removal of waste would also not require county consent. The Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association indicated that its members are not in the waste collection business and they have agreements with companies to remove some of their recyclables. They feel that the addition of the word "removal" in the exemption clause would ensure that their activities would also be exempt from the consent provision of this bill.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Mr Hayes, you have another amendment.
Mr Hayes: I do. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(5.1) Subsection 209(11) of the act is amended by striking out `without interruption' at the end and substituting `to be used for that purpose."'
The Chair: Could we have an explanation?
Mr Hayes: This motion would enable a service or facility which was in operation when the county assumed responsibility for the service to operate without county consent as long as it continued to be used for this purpose. Bill 7, as worded, would only allow such a facility to be operated without county consent as long as it continued to function without interruption. The motion would bring the provision into line with the wording used for the continuation of a legal non-conforming use in land use planning. The words have been interpreted by the courts and are therefore better understood.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall subsections (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) carry? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Section 5: Questions, comments or amendments to section 5, I guess section 149?
Mr Stockwell: Section 5?
The Chair: Just in section 149.
Shall section 149 carry? Carried.
Section 150: I believe we have a government amendment. Mr Mammoliti will put it.
Mr Mammoliti: I move that section 150 of the Regional Municipalities Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"150(1) A regional council may pass a bylaw to assume any or all of the waste management powers for all of its area municipalities.
"(2) If the members of a regional council are directly elected, a bylaw shall not be passed or repealed under subsection (1) unless,
"(a) a majority of all votes on regional council are cast in its favour; and
"(b) a majority of the councils of all of the area municipalities have given their consent by resolution to the passing or repealing of the bylaw.
"(3) If the members of a regional council are not directly elected, a bylaw shall not be passed or repealed under subsection (1) unless,
"(a) a majority of all the votes on the regional council are cast in its favour; and
"(b) at least one regional council representative of each of a majority of the area municipalities, other than the chair, votes in its favour.
"(4) For the purposes of this section, the members of a regional council are directly elected if none of the members, other than the chair and heads of council of area municipalities, are also members of the council of an area municipality."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mammoliti. I'm sure you're looking forward to explaining your amendment.
Mr Mammoliti: Yes, whatever that meant.
This motion would require that when regional municipalities with direct elections -- Metropolitan Toronto and Niagara, for example -- wish to assume a waste management function from their local municipalities, they need a double majority, namely, a majority vote on the upper-tier council and a consent of a majority of the local municipalities. Bill 7 requires a majority vote on the upper-tier council to enable the upper tier to assume a waste management function from its local municipalities by requiring consent of the local councils. The proposed change would give added protection to local municipal interests.
This change was requested by the cities of Etobicoke and North York. More specifically, I think this tackles almost head on the issue that the mayor of North York and of course the city of Etobicoke had requested in terms of an amendment. I think most of their concerns have been dealt with through this amendment and it was pretty easy to understand.
1550
Mr Grandmaître: Why double votes?
Mr Mammoliti: The staff?
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want to answer the question?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm sorry, I'll take it back. I didn't mean it.
Mr Hayes: There was a lot of fear or whatever you want to call it from some of the municipalities that one upper tier could just automatically make decisions on their behalf. This really ensures that the majority of the members on Metro -- this really says here that four out of the six would have to vote in order to make the decisions on waste management. It's what was requested by the various municipalities, to protect, where one doesn't dominate over the smaller ones or gang up on one municipality.
Mr Grandmaître: I think Mr Stockwell's explanation was much better than yours, Mr Parliamentary Assistant.
Mr Mammoliti: If you remember and if you looked deep into Mr Lastman's suggestions, you would find that one major recommendation he was making, and one concern that North York had, was that it's afraid Metro would implement things that perhaps North York might not necessarily agree to, and it wanted something put in this piece of legislation that might help give area municipalities a little more say, and that's why you need the double vote.
Mr Stockwell: I don't want to be a dog in the manger on this, but I'm going to be. The problem I have with this issue is not so much the way its structures are stated here. I understand the rationale that Mel Lastman uses, as well as Bruce Sinclair and those other mayors of other municipalities, as well as the local councils. Their concern is whether Metro can make a decision that impacts them when it comes to landfill issues.
The difficulty we have is that this duly elected council of Metropolitan Toronto was done by the electorate. If we're going to start making these kinds of quasi-constitutional arguments, in essence, four out of six, with a member being from each local municipality etc etc, you're into a hornet's nest in my opinion. Where does this begin and where does this end? When does Metro get decision-making and when does Metro not get decision-making?
Let me make a point also, very clearly. As I read this, and George, you may correct me if I'm wrong, you suggest there's got to be a member from each local municipality who supports it who is not a mayor or not a head of council. Let me tell you something: It's going to put incredible powers on one person that should not be bestowed there, and the argument can be made.
At Metropolitan Toronto council, East York, besides the mayor, sends one representative, so in fact that member from East York council controls all decision-making on waste management, because he is the only member from East York council. York council is similar. It only sends two members. One of its members is the chairman, Alan Tonks, and the mayor. Both of them are excluded. So that person also carries all the decision-making when it comes to landfill issues for all of Metropolitan Toronto; one representative from East York and one representative from the city of York. To me, I don't think that's how it was designed. I'm not criticizing you, but upon implementation, that's what's going to happen.
Mr Mammoliti: Chris, I think you're still in your Metro mode, with all due respect.
Mr Stockwell: I may be.
Mr Mammoliti: I think you need to listen to what the local politicians are saying in terms of local representation. If you were to go back into your community and ask your constituents whether or not they would want their local representatives to have more of a say in what's determined, I think you'll find that they'll say yes, they're in favour of that. While I don't want to be seen as criticizing you, I think this would be an approach that local people might want, and for that reason, I would agree with it.
Mr Hayes: Just to try to clarify, what this amendment is doing is initially allowing Metro to assume the waste management. Once that is done, it gives Metro the power to be able to continue to operate waste management. After it assumes the power to do this, it doesn't have to go back to those municipalities for approvals. So that makes it a little different.
Mr Stockwell: I need some clarification. When they're making decisions on anything to do with waste management siting decisions, will these amendments be applied to the votes upon those decisions?
Mr Hayes: No. All this is doing is allowing Metro to assume control.
Mr Stockwell: Right.
Mr Hayes: After that, when they start making decisions, whether they build a recycling plant or open up a landfill, whatever the case may be, Metro will have that authority, once this is done.
Mr Stockwell: Will these apply if they want to divest?
Mr Hayes: You mean just get out of it?
Mr Stockwell: I mean, they assume powers; they can certainly divest those powers as well. Would these same voting patterns apply?
Mr Hayes: Yes, they would.
Mr Stockwell: I guess that's the crux of my argument here. The decision to get into the landfill issue for all of Metro, which is nearly three million people, is ultimately coming down to two elected officials representing the two smallest cities in the Metro area. That's really what it comes down to. You can have a 34-member council and you can have six mayors and you can have 90 local elected officials, but the bottom line is that when the decision gets made as to whether Metro Toronto divests or takes in decision-making on landfill issues, it comes down to those two people -- I'll tell you who they are: Mike Colle and Peter Oyler today -- deciding whether or not they agree or disagree. I really don't think that's what you meant to do, to give those two people -- no?
Mr Hayes: If I may, no, that's not what we're doing. If you look where it says:
"Double majority
"(2)(b) a majority of the councils of all of the area municipalities have given their consent by resolution to the passing or repealing of the bylaw."
It's not a case where you have the regional chair and a mayor, for example. What you're looking at here is the majority of the councils in order for them to pass a bylaw.
Mr Stockwell: So Metropolitan Toronto, when it votes, it's a simple majority, yes or no?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Interjection: No.
Mr Stockwell: I got a yes and a no.
Mr Hayes: Yes, it is.
Mr Stockwell: A simple majority in Metropolitan Toronto?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Interjection: Four of the six --
Mr Hayes: Of Metro, and then you have to have four --
Mr Stockwell: Of the six local municipalities.
Mr Hayes: -- of the six local municipalities. But I'm saying after that is done, once they assume the authority, then they don't have to keep going back for decisions. The purpose of this is to protect the individual municipality. It's also trying to make it work, where you have the upper tier or senior government being able to make decisions about this.
Mr Stockwell: Okay, I misunderstood.
Mr Hayes: That's all right.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Mr Hayes has a further amendment -- or it was Mr Mammoliti's amendment, I guess. I'm sorry.
Mr Stockwell: I have a PC amendment.
The Chair: Oh, fine. You have a PC amendment.
Mr Stockwell: Yes. The PC amendment is going to be renumbered, section 5 (section 150), and it'll be subsection (1.1) instead of subsection (3).
I move that section 150 of the Regional Municipalities Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Consent
"(1.1) A regional council may, with the consent of the council of an area municipality, by bylaw exempt that area municipality from a bylaw under subsection (1) but the consent is not required in respect of a repeal of the bylaw."
I think I've got agreement from the government caucus on this amendment.
1600
The Chair: Perhaps you might explain it.
Mr Grandmaître: May I be excused, then, if there's consent?
Mr Stockwell: No, I have consent from the Liberal staff.
Mr Hayes: Unanimous consent from all three parties.
The Chair: One at a time makes it a lot easier for Hansard.
Mr Stockwell: I'd like, actually, if my staff could explain it, but they're not allowed to come to the floor, so I'll ask Pat to explain it then.
This allows area municipalities --
The Chair: We have a small technical difficulty as we do this, that Mr Stockwell is not properly substituted --
Mr Stockwell: Oh, yes.
The Chair: -- but that is just cleared up because Mr Johnson's just made it.
Mr Hayes: Gee whiz. We were moving along quite well here. Now look.
Interjections.
Mr Mammoliti: We threw out your motion.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Mammoliti: Chris, you did a good job, by the way.
Mr Stockwell: George, you're the best.
The Chair: The Chair will deem that Mr Johnson has proposed the amendment that Mr Stockwell had.
Mr David Johnson: This is an amendment from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Let's see if I can just get my notes from this. I think what the regional municipality was saying is that there are all sorts of different situations in waste management. Some regional municipalities will have an excellent working relationship with some of the local municipalities. Are you with me?
The Chair: Questions or comments on Mr Johnson's --
Mr David Johnson: I'm sorry. I just wondered. You seem to be off course here.
The Chair: I'm always attentive, Mr Johnson.
Mr David Johnson: I think what they wanted here was the flexibility, where there is mutual agreement with the regional government and the local government, to be able to establish a different procedure. That's what this amendment permits. But the regional municipality would retain the control.
If the concern here is that this is going to violate somehow the regional municipality keeping control and it's going to be a dog's breakfast, then that wouldn't be true. The regional municipality would maintain control. I just wanted flexibility to deal with circumstances where a local municipality may have expertise that a regional municipality doesn't because of the history.
Mr Hayes: We would be pleased to support Mr Johnson's amendment.
The Chair: For members' clarification, I'm just trying to point out that the numbering probably should be (1.1) and it would fit into the previous amendment that Mr Hayes has made, between (1) and (2) of the previous amendment.
Mr David Johnson: I'll take your guidance.
The Chair: Shall Mr Johnson's amendment carry? Carried.
Clerk of the Committee: The section would be section 5. Section 150, as amended by Mr Hayes, is further subamended by Mr Johnson. That would be: the section, as amended, carried.
The Chair: Carried. You do that very well.
Mr Hayes, I believe you have a subamendment.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 151(1) of the Regional Municipalities Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out clauses (b), (d) and (e) and substituting the following:
"(b) subject to this section, no municipality under a similar equivalent power, and no person, shall, within a participating area municipality, provide services or facilities of the type authorized by the waste management powers assumed by the regional corporation;
"(d) despite clause (c), the regional council may give its consent to a participating area municipality to provide services or facilities for the reduction, reuse or recycling of waste, which consent may be given upon such terms as may be agreed upon, if,
"(i) the facility or service was being lawfully provided by the participating area municipality on the effective date of the bylaw, or
"(ii) the facility or service handles waste generated within the participating area municipality only and the regional corporation is not, other than for its own use, providing a similar facility or service for any waste generated within the participating area municipality;
"(e) a person may, without the consent of the regional council, provide services and facilities for the collection or removal of waste from non-residential properties and residential properties containing more than five dwelling units."
I think that was quite self-explanatory.
Mr Lessard: I'd like to hear an explanation.
Mr Hayes: Which part of it would you like an explanation on?
Mr Mammoliti: He's only joking.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
We'll have to go back. I unintentionally did not call (a). We'll have to deal with that and then I believe Mr Johnson has an amendment to (c).
Clause 1(a)? Carried.
Clerk of the Committee: Clause (b) has been amended by Mr Hayes?
The Chair: Yes, (b) has been amended by Mr Hayes as has (d) and (e). Mr Johnson, you have an amendment, I see, to (c).
Mr David Johnson: I'll withdraw that amendment.
The Chair: Shall clause (c) carry? Carried.
Shall 151(1), as amended, carry? Carried.
Subsection (2): We have a government amendment, I believe, at the top of page 12.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 151(2) of the Regional Municipalities Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out "without interruption" at the end and substituting "to be used for that purpose."
1610
This one just complements section 5 of the bill; it actually parallels the change made to the Municipal Act and it amends section 2 of the bill by adding the subsection.
The Chair: Shall subsection (2) carry? Carried.
Shall 151, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 152 carry? Carried.
Shall subsections 153(1) through (4) carry? Carried.
We have a government amendment. Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that section 153 of the Regional Municipalities Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Non-application
"(5) This section does not apply with respect to a facility or service under subclause 151(1)(d)(i),
"(a) in the case of a bylaw assuming power under section 150 to provide that facility or service, where regional council in the bylaw gives its consent to an area municipality to provide that facility or service; and
"(b) in the case of a deemed bylaw under section 160, where the regional council on or before January 1, 1997 gives its consent to an area municipality to provide that facility or service."
This motion would require that when a regional council gives consent to the local municipalities to continue to operate a 3Rs facility, the assets continue with the local municipality. Bill 7 would require that even though the regional council has given consent to a local municipality to continue to operate an existing 3Rs facility, the assets are vested in the upper tier.
Mr Grandmaître: Without any compensation?
Mr Hayes: What it's actually saying is that the municipality would continue to own the assets.
Mr Grandmaître: Oh, okay.
Mr David Johnson: That's what you're saying: that the local municipality owns the facility now and it stays operational at the local level and the local municipality will continue to own it after this?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 153, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 154?
Mr David Johnson: Here again, we'd like to withdraw this amendment.
The Chair: Shall 154 carry? Carried.
Shall 155 carry? Carried.
Shall 156 carry? Carried.
Shall section 157 carry? Carried.
Shall section 158 carry? Carried.
Shall section 159 carry? Carried.
Shall section 160 carry? Carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
We're now to section 6. I see we have a government amendment. This amendment of course is a technical amendment. We need unanimous consent, then we can just vote on it once and the legal people will look after ordering the language appropriately. Mr Hayes, would you like to make the motion, if I have the unanimous consent? I do.
Mr Hayes: I move that the following provisions of the named acts, as set out in the following provisions of the bill, be amended by adding after "Municipal Act" in each case "and section 155 of the Regional Municipalities Act" and that's for sections 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19.
This motion would enable regional municipalities to levy user charges on their local municipalities for waste disposal. The bill already provides regional municipalities authority to impose user charges for 3Rs facilities and collection if a regional municipality assumes collection. Existing legislation provides counties this authority at the present time. This was a request from Ottawa-Carleton to clarify this piece of legislation.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Mr David Johnson: Where did the amendment come in with regard to directly elected regional municipalities involving the local municipalities having a say in the waste management process? That was a government amendment. We had an amendment in that regard as well.
The Chair: And you succeeded.
Mr Hayes: Both were carried, yours and ours.
Mr David Johnson: So it's already been accommodated.
Mr Hayes: Unanimous decision, with support from the member from the Liberal government.
Mr David Johnson: He's a good man.
The Chair: Going back to section 8, shall section 8.1 carry? Carried.
We have a PC amendment.
1620
Mr David Johnson: That amendment was to grant the local municipalities a say in the waste disposal issue. If a majority of the councils of the area municipalities representing a majority of the population of Metropolitan Toronto agree, then this would go ahead. But I understand the government amendment has already passed and it deals with this same issue.
The Chair: So I believe your amendment would be out of order, but as you have not presented it --
Mr David Johnson: I'm just again looking for a second confirmation of that fact. If indeed it has been, then I'll withdraw this motion.
The Chair: I believe it has been.
Mr Eddy: George's amendment.
Mr David Johnson: George did it?
Mr Mammoliti: You did it in less words, though.
Mr David Johnson: There was one little question. Maybe I could ask --
The Chair: Really, it would be better if --
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Johnson, it is my belief this issue has been dealt with --
Mr David Johnson: Well, you asked me if I had a question.
The Chair: -- just as you came into the room, and actually you were successful in moving your amendment to the government's amendment that really dealt with this issue.
Mr David Johnson: I'm glad to hear that. I guess I'll leave it at that. I was just wondering how the Ottawa-Carleton situation would develop, but maybe somebody can advise me again. We addressed that earlier, but I still don't quite understand it. If they want to talk to me about that afterwards, that's fine, if you want to keep moving ahead.
The Chair: It's better procedurally.
Mr Mammoliti: You're lucky you came in when you did. Stockwell was going to withdraw it.
The Chair: So it hasn't been put. You don't intend then, Mr Johnson, to put this amendment.
Mr David Johnson: I'll withdraw.
The Chair: Fine. We'll deal with 8(2). Shall 8(2) carry? Carried.
Shall section 8, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall 10, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 17, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 18 carry? Carried.
Shall section 19, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 20 carry? Carried.
Section 20.1: Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following heading and section:
"COUNTY OF LANARK ACT
"20.1 Sections 13 and 14 of the County of Lanark Act, 1989, being chapter Pr12, are repealed and the following substituted:
"13. Sections 208.7 to 208.11 of the Municipal Act apply with necessary modifications to the county."
This motion would replace the entry powers provisions contained in the County of Lanark Act with those in Bill 7. This is a request for this change from the representatives that made the presentation from the county of Lanark.
The Chair: It has been suggested to me, Mr Hayes, that essentially this amendment is out of order.
Mr Wiseman: Why is it out of order?
Clerk of the Committee: Because the act is not in this bill.
The Chair: But if I can have unanimous consent of the committee to deal with this amendment, we shall do so. Do I have unanimous consent of the committee to deal with this section? Agreed.
Shall 20.1 carry? Carried.
Section 21: Do you have an amendment, Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: No, section 20.2.
The Chair: Shall subsection 21(1), or is it subsections (1) and (2)?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order.
Clerk of the Committee: There is a subamendment of the government on 20.2.
The Chair: Oh, we're ahead of ourselves.
Clerk of the Committee: This would be a new subsection called 20.2, and there is also another one, 20.3.
Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following heading and section:
"MISCELLANEOUS
"20.2 The definition of `waste' set out in each of the following provisions is amended by striking out `other wastes as may be designated' or `other waste as may be designated' as applicable and substituting in each case `other materials as may be designed."'
Mr Fletcher: "Designated."
Mr Hayes: "Designated." Sorry. We'll design it later.
Is it necessary that I read all these?
The Chair: It's necessary that you read them all in.
Mr Hayes: "Subsection 126(1) of the County of Oxford Act.
"Subsection 36(1) of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act.
"Subsection 41(1) of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act.
"Subsection 34(1) of the Regional Municipality of Halton Act.
"Subsection 50(1) of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.
"Subsection 53(1) of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.
"Subsection 32(1) of the Regional Municipality of Peel Act.
"Subsection 25(1) of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act.
`Subsection 40(1) of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act.
"Subsection 33(1) of the Regional Municipality of York Act.
"Subsection 48 of the Sarnia-Lambton Act, 1989.
"Section 1 of the County of Lanark Act, 1989, being chapter Pr12."
The Chair: It's been suggested to me, Mr Hayes, that this is also out of order, for the same reasons as the last one, but we can deal with it with unanimous consent of the committee.
Mr Hayes: If I may just explain then.
The Chair: We have agreement. Now you can explain.
Mr Hayes: This motion amends the definition of "waste" in the regional acts. Bill 7 includes in the definition of "waste" "other materials as may be designated by bylaw." The regional acts, however, include in the definition of "waste" "other waste as may be designated by bylaw." This motion would remove this discrepancy by amending the definition in the regional act, and the change of course was requested by Ottawa-Carleton.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment to 20.2 carry? Carried.
We're now dealing with subsections 21(1) and (2). Shall those sections carry? Carried.
Mr Hayes, you have an amendment?
Mr Hayes: I move that section 21 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Transition
"(3) Despite subsection (2), the assessment rolls to be prepared for the 1994 taxation year shall be prepared as if section 20 was in force."
The Chair: Again, I think we're in a unanimous consent situation here. Do I see unanimous consent of the committee so that we can deal with this? Agreed.
Mr Hayes: Subsection 21(2) of Bill 7 provides that waste management facilities are to be assessed for purposes of payment in lieu of taxes as of the January 1 following the year that the bill receives royal assent. The proposed provision will allow assessment rolls to be prepared on royal assent. That's of assistance to the municipalities.
Mr David Johnson: That's not much assistance to those who are paying.
The Chair: Shall Mr Hayes's amendment to 20(3) carry? Carried.
Shall section 21, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 22 carry? Carried.
I need to ask the committee for consent to have the French version made similar to the English version of this bill, now that all the amendments have been placed. Agreed.
Should the bill, as amended, be reported to the Legislature? Carried.
Thank you very much. I think we have managed to get through the clause-by-clause in an expeditious manner. We have managed over this period to hear all deputants who wished to be heard. The committee should be commended. I would especially like to thank the clerk and the research staff for compiling the information for us under rather unusual circumstances, I would think: the fact that we are now sitting in July. We managed to order the business of this committee in a way such that everything happened. I think that's somewhat astounding under the circumstances and I would thank the subcommittee for their assistance in making sure that happened.
The committee is therefore adjourned. The committee will sit at the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1635.