Wednesday 23 November 1994

Ontario Professional Planners Institute Act, 1994, Bill Pr129, Mr Martin, T-393

Tony Martin, MPP

Philip Wong, president, Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Tony Usher, past president, Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Mark Dorfman, member, private bill working group, Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Durham Regional Police Association Inc. Act, 1994, Bill Pr135, Mr O'Connor

Larry O'Connor, MPP

Barrie Chercover, solicitor, Durham Regional Police Association

Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley Act, 1994, Bill Pr132, Mr Tilson

David Tilson, MPP

William Church, solicitor, township of East Luther and village of Grand Valley

City of Windsor Act (re Cleary Estate), 1993, Bill Pr51, Mr Lessard

Wayne Lessard, MPP

Al Kellerman, city solicitor, city of Windsor

J. G. Taylor Community Centre Inc. Act, 1994, Bill Pr117, Mr Hope

Randy Hope, MPP

Brian Knott, solicitor-clerk, city of Chatham and legal counsel, J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.


*Chair / Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

*Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton PC)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

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

*O'Neil, Hugh P. (Quinte L)

*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Ms Haeck

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Municipal Affairs:

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the minister

Murray, Paul, legal counsel

Riley, Mike, legal counsel, Ministry of Education and Training

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1010 in committee room 1.


Consideration of Bill Pr129, An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Ellen MacKinnon): The first bill we'll deal with is Bill Pr129. The MPP who is sponsoring this bill is Tony Martin. Would you please bring your people to the table, Tony, and introduce them.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'd like to introduce the people in a general way, and then perhaps ask them to give you their names themselves and their positions so that you're more clear exactly who they are.

This group, the professional planners of Ontario, have been meeting around this piece of legislation for quite some time now, have done a considerable amount of work trying to put together the package that you have in front of you, have consulted widely back and forth over a number of years with the ministries concerned and with other organizations and individuals in the province.

I think we have a package here that reflects that consultation and reflects a sensitivity to some of the issues that were raised and I think as well has in it the essence of what this group needs to both do its work in a professional way and recognize the need out there in our community for some confidence in this organization and its members to do a job that will not be in any way a danger to the public.

Having said that, I would ask the two members to introduce themselves and their positions.

Mr Philip Wong: My name is Philip Wong. I'm president of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, OPPI for short. Mr Tony Usher is the past president of OPPI. In fact he has been quite instrumental in bringing the private bill before you today. I would like to make a brief couple of comments laying out the background on this bill, and then we're prepared to answer questions you may have.

The OPPI is a non-profit Ontario corporation granted letters patent in 1986. We have about 2,100 active practising planners in the province, of which about 58%, about two thirds, work in the public sector, such as the different provincial ministries, municipal governments and public bodies, school boards, and even police departments; 36% are in the private sector either as consultants or in the development industry, and the rest of them work in academia in the recognized universities in Ontario. There are seven of them offering recognized planning programs.

OPPI is the Ontario affiliate of the Canadian Institute of Planners and, therefore, OPPI members are the Ontario members of CIP. From the national perspective, other provincial pieces of legislation which recognize the planning profession exist in four other provinces: Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. So there are other provinces going back to 1963, when Saskatchewan was the first province which provided legislation similar to what we are seeking here that recognizes the planning profession.

To give you some background, the roots of planning in Canada go back all the way to the 18th century with surveyors and military engineers, and planning really began to emerge as a recognizable, distinct profession in 1910. CIP was founded in 1919, but it fell victim to the Great Depression. It was revived in the early 1950s, and in 1970 four affiliates, chapters of CIP, were set up in Ontario, and in 1989 the four chapters decided to merge into what we have today, OPPI.

The professional planning community is one of the oldest and largest professions in Ontario, in our opinion, without statutory recognition. Our research indicates that since 1946 there have been 29 private acts passed in Ontario which recognize various professional groups, such as, in the last couple of years, building officials in 1992, property standards officers in 1992 again, and also landscape architects.

Planning, as defined in subsection 3(2) of the bill, is an activity explicitly or implicitly required by many Ontario statutes, of which the most notable obviously would be the Planning Act, and understandably the major reform proposed under Bill 163 expands the scope of planners' responsibility. Other acts include the Municipal Act, the Community Economic Development Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Heritage Act, just to name a few.

The purposes of our bill are twofold: One is to grant exclusive use of the title "Registered Professional Planner" and the initials RPP to full and retired members of OPPI. There would be around 1,200 full members and about 50 retired members; in other words, if the bill were passed, about 1,250 members of our institute would be given this "Registered Professional Planner" title and also using the initials RPP in their daily profession. The second purpose of this act would be to enable OPPI to govern and also to discipline its members as a self-governing body.

The enactment of a self-governing association of professional planners with explicit membership requirements and standards can only enhance the public interest, given the considerable public stake in planning as evidenced by this extensive statutory recognition. The government's commitment to planning reform and its introduction of Bill 163 speaks clearly to the importance of the practice of planning.

All planners, whether in the private sector or in the public, are obliged by OPPI's professional code of conduct to recognize the primacy of public interest. By requiring OPPI to prescribe membership requirements to maintain a code of conduct and discipline its members for infringement of the code, while maintaining an open and inclusive professional association, the bill will help to guarantee the following to all the participants and the beneficiaries of planning: municipalities, other planning authorities, developers and the public at large, and practising planners. It's open to all who meet the requirements without regard to the province or country which they come from or are educated.

In the preparation of this bill, we have consulted, as Mr Martin said, extensively with our members. In total, over the past three or four years we have sent six direct letters to our members and also we published up to eight times in our journal, which is our publication, about the ongoing progress of the bill. In other words, our members have been extensively consulted.

As well, we have consulted with the affected ministries, notably the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In a letter to the legislative counsel on our act, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute Act, 1994, the deputy minister stated:

"The OPPI as an organization has been sought out by the ministry for advice on planning policy matters and has contributed to our consultative efforts on planning reform. Our experience with the organization has been very positive. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no objection to the proposed OPPI Act, 1994."

That concludes my remarks, Madam Chairman, and we are prepared to answer questions the committee will have.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir. Has your colleague some remarks?

Mr Tony Usher: No, I don't have any further remarks. We'll deal with questions, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Fine. Thank you. Questions? We'll start with --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Ask if there's anybody here opposed to the bill.

The Vice-Chair: Oh. Is there anyone here who is -- I'm sorry. You'll have to excuse me. The Chair has got herself out in the traffic there someplace and I'm trying to do her job.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): You're doing a great job.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Is there anybody present --

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Put the hammer down.

The Vice-Chair: Well, come up here and I'll show you where I'll put it down. I told you I was feeling better.

Are there any parties in the room who are objecting to this bill? I understand that there are letters of objection. The people who are responsible for them have not been able to make it in. If you'll just give us a moment, please, I think the clerk is busy.


Mr O'Neil: Madam Chair, I wonder if in the meantime, while we're waiting for that, if we could have any remarks that the parliamentary assistant might have to make about whether or not they're in favour of or against the bill.

The Vice-Chair: Would you like to make any remarks, Tony? I'm sorry. Oh, you're the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hayes. It's time I got back to work.

Mr Hayes: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no objections to the proposed piece of legislation.

Mr O'Neil: Madam Chair, I wonder, since there are no objections and you've dealt with these letters that have come in and the issues they raised and you still find no objection to the bill --

The Vice-Chair: I'll have to wait till the clerk comes back about these particular letters.

Mr O'Neil: I would ask that of the parliamentary assistant, if he would deal with it.

Mr Hayes: I was just informed that there were some people who were coming here and they did have objections. What the objections are, I do not know, because I have not seen them. Possibly these are them coming now.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm just wondering, since our colleague had a major problem in getting here this morning and the government has not put the sanders out on the highway --

Interjection: On one highway.

Mr Ruprecht: On one highway at least. Sorry about that.

The Vice-Chair: I don't think this committee has anything to do with that.

Mr Ruprecht: I'll get around to it in a minute. I'm just wondering if what we might want to consider is to stand this item down for a few minutes.

The Vice-Chair: I'll wait for the clerk to give me some guidance on this, please.

Mr Ruprecht: I thought you take guidance from this committee. What happened to the Chair?

The Vice-Chair: It's road conditions. It's called ice.

Have the members had an opportunity to read the letters that have been given to you?

Mr O'Neil: For the people who are here, I know it would likely be a disappointment, but if there are some people who because of the weather were not able to be here, I wonder too, as was suggested by Mr Ruprecht, whether this bill should be set down.

Mr Ruprecht: For a few minutes.

The Vice-Chair: They're just not going to make it, period, because of weather. There'll have to be a motion if you wish to -- go ahead, Mr Hodgson.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd make a motion that we stand this down to the next meeting. If I could find a seconder for that, I'd appreciate it.

The Vice-Chair: You don't need a seconder for that.

Mr Hodgson: Good.

The Vice-Chair: Is there any debate on that motion?

Mr Martin: I think that would be unfortunate in that we've come a long way down the road on this to arrive here today, and to put it off any further just denies the province all the benefits of this act. I believe very sincerely, because I've worked with this group over the last couple of years on this bill, that we have done everything within our power to respond to and answer any of the concerns that have been raised. We've met with these people, the institute itself has met with the folks and there really isn't, we feel, anything further we can do to respond to or answer any of the issues that will be raised at this point.

We think we have a package here that is a good package and will stand the test of time. I would suggest very strongly to the members of the committee that we move on this today and get it done, as opposed to putting it off to another time and, by that, bumping something else and we go on and on. That's my suggestion.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I believe that the presenters here have probably come some distance to make this presentation and it would probably be a huge inconvenience for them to continue to come back every week until we have an opportunity to hear from further objectors.

I think that the objections as presented don't seem to present any huge problems but would look to the parliamentary assistant for some guidance on this. I think the representatives of the association here may want to directly respond to the objections as presented in the correspondence before the committee, but I don't think we should really be standing it down at this point.

Maybe we should ask the presenters to take a look at the correspondence that was presented to the committee and maybe respond to it.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I suppose there's always the chance that the weather could be even worse in one week's time than it is today. I don't get into forecasting the weather, of course. I've learned not to do that, and many other things.

The letter of objection and the motion of course is to stand this down. But in speaking to that, and further to the objection, because that's why do have the motion, I'd like an opinion, if counsel would be prepared to give me an opinion, on the third paragraph. I think that's the crux of the item. It says, "This bill will unjustly demote all practising planners who are not full members of OPPI to a non-professional status."

I disagree with that statement completely, because I don't think it will. If you're a professional planner, you're a professional planner and you can substantiate that with documentation. The fact that you are or are not a member of the association really wouldn't affect your being a profession and would not affect, in my opinion, your participation in OMB hearings and other things.

I wonder if we could have, I would think it's almost a legal opinion, on that particular matter. I can see where people should have the option of being a member or not being a member of the association, and indeed have the letters, as set out, following their name if they are a member and qualify to have the said letters. But I really can't see that it will affect their professional status in any way. Is there someone who could respond to that, please? Because I think that's the crux of the matter.

Mr Hayes: There is a section in there, and it's on page 3, subsection 9(5), and the heading of it is "Right to practise unaffected." It states in there that:

"This act does not affect or interfere with the right of any person who is not a full member or a retired member of the institute to describe himself or herself as a planner or professional planner or to practise as a planner or professional planner or to work in the field of planning."

I think what you are saying, Mr Eddy, is correct.

Mr Eddy: Yes. I would expect the presenters agree with that completely, do they? Thank you. In view of that, because that is the objection and because of the subsection 9(5), I would be prepared to proceed with it. I don't believe the request from the writer of the letter is that it be stood down.


Mr Eddy: Oh, "be deferred to your next meeting." It is a request, sorry.


Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I appreciate that Mr Martin is eager to proceed with it and I appreciate some of the comments that have been made by some of the other committee members, but I have to tell you, in reading this -- and I haven't finished reading it because it was just distributed -- there are a number of other issues that are of considerable substance, not just the third paragraph here which Mr Eddy wants to speak to.

My only reservation is that I think this committee, and we are an arm of the Legislature, above all else needs to proceed in a way that speaks to a process of fairness. I don't think you can do that without clearly giving the other people an opportunity, whether they're stuck or not stuck today in not being able to be here. That's second nature, and I think that any judicial body would at least on a one-time basis say, "Let's give these people an opportunity to show up before we deal with an issue that obviously is of major concern to them."

I recognize that in our haste we'd be inclined to proceed as a committee. But I think we're slightly more than a committee. We're in many ways very much a judicial body, and when we make a decision, it's a judicial decision. In this case, quite obviously, it would be and we would be seen to be proceeding in a way that didn't give all parties at least an opportunity to address the committee. I would have very strong reservations in doing that.

The least that we could do, Madam Chair and all of us, in coming to understand some of the subtle issues in both these communications, is stand this particular item down at least to the end of today's agenda, which gives people an opportunity to reflect on some of these things a little more closely. At that time we can make a determination whether or not we should proceed today or perhaps put it off to another week and give the other folks an opportunity to appear before the committee. I would move that we at least stand this down to the end of the agenda.

The Vice-Chair: We already have a motion on the floor. I can't take another motion just now.

Mr Perruzza: This is different. I would move an amendment that this issue be stood down at least to the end of today's agenda before we proceed with its disposition one way or the other.

The Vice-Chair: Are you making an amendment to the original motion? Okay.

Mr Hansen: I know the weather's bad out there, but if the case is that the weather's bad, then the ones from Windsor are here and other presenters. Being the Chair of other committees, when presenters were coming forward and weren't able to make it, sometimes we would delay from going on on that particular morning. I'd have to say that most likely with two more weeks of us sitting, we've got a long list of Pr bills, and it's unfair to wind up putting somebody out later on to bring this group back when we can deal with it, because the letters are here.

I've read the letters, I see what the objectors are saying, and it's not that they didn't have a voice at this committee. They are here in black and white. If it was to the point it was going to be a verbal presentation, an oral presentation and they were to be here, that would be a disadvantage to these people because they weren't able to. But since we do have it in front of us, I think we should make decisions on what the objectors have written.

I've sat on many bills on stable funding -- Mr Eddy also was on that bill -- and there were objectors, but there were some people that didn't want to join. When for religious reasons they did not have to join, they would be able to get exempt but still had to wind up paying the fee and refunding it. What I'm taking a look at here, I see this as a very important bill because we are giving the power to the people who are the planners to look after themselves rather than have -- we hear all the time -- Big Brother coming down to say, "Hey, you're doing it wrong." Within themselves, they were governing their own bodies. I say that we move ahead with this -- I will not support the motion that's on the floor -- and wind up going ahead and getting this bill passed.

The Vice-Chair: The next people I had on the list to speak were the sponsors. Would they mind if I let Mr Cooper go and then I'll give you time at the end? All right. Go ahead, Mike.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I was contacted by some of the people in Kitchener on this bill. I noticed that the letters that came in today don't come from the individuals I was talking to, but I think they have some concerns and I think if we proceed with this bill that I might be able to ask the questions and find out from the presenters here exactly what the answers are that may settle down some of the grievances that they have against this bill. If we get the answers today, it might be fine.

There was no indication that they were going to come and present here or object to that. They just wanted some questions answered. Some of the questions are in the body of the text, as Mr Perruzza said earlier, but I think if we could ask the questions from the presenters that it might settle down some of the concerns that are out there.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have the questions to ask yourself? Would the sponsors like to speak to these objections, please.

Mr Usher: Procedurally, we don't have any problem with Mr Perruzza's amendment. If the committee ends up simply deferring this matter to the end of today's agenda, then far be it from us to comment on that. If that loses and the motion on the floor is to defer the matter until next week, then obviously we have some comments on that.

Mr Eddy: I'm pleased to support the amendment simply because we are dealing with the bill out of order. It's the last on the list and we're dealing with it first. On that basis, I think the amendment is very much in order. I'm pleased to support the amendment. I think that's good procedure personally -- to the end of the meeting.

The Vice-Chair: Are we ready to vote on Mr Perruzza's amendment to the original motion? Are you all ready to vote?

Mr Ruprecht: What was it again?

The Vice-Chair: The amended motion reads that Bill 129 be stood down to the end of the day. All those in favour? Object? The motion, as amended, carried.

We'll likely see you in a little while. Thank you very much for your patience.



Consideration of Bill Pr135, An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association Inc.

The Vice-Chair: We'll now deal with Bill Pr135. Mr O'Connor, you are the sponsoring member; if you have some comments, and introduce the party with you, please.

Mr O'Connor: It's a pleasure to be here before this committee today and to be here in support of Pr135, An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association. It would probably be in order to recognize Brian Curtis, who isn't here today but sends his regrets as the chair of the new police association, as it's about to be revived, from his recent election.

The person that you have on your agenda isn't in fact the person beside me. Barrie Chercover is beside me and has graciously been able to help fill in for the solicitor whose name you have before you, who unfortunately couldn't make it due to the weather, so we do have somebody here representing the legal counsel for Durham police association. This is one of the more common, I guess, types of bills that you have come before you, in a sense, to revive a corporation and that's what we have before us. So the person we have before us as legal counsel is Barry Chercover.

The Vice-Chair: Would you please go ahead with your presentation, Mr Chercover.

Mr Barrie Chercover: There's not really very much to say. The Durham police association, like many of the other police association corporations, is a union recognized under the Police Services Act. Unlike the unions that come under the Labour Relations Act, they carry on through a corporate facility, but like many other unions, they're not as businesslike as they ought to be in the way they carry on their affairs and apparently, I guess it's seven years ago now through the automatic termination of their corporation, the corporation officially ceased to exist. They didn't even realize that. They've been carrying on. They're a very active organization.

The original applicant was Terry Ryan, who wasn't the president when the affairs were out of order and, as you've learned, Brian Curtis is the new president. Their counsel, Mr Bolotenko, has certainly been alerted to their negligence, which is all this was, and I suspect it will encourage them to keep their affairs in order and up to date in the future. This is simply a request to revitalize an organization which has continued but without proper form. Unless there are some questions, I think that simply explains what this is about.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Are there questions from the members?

Mr Hansen: The government will support this. We don't see any reason that we shouldn't, and I'd say that my brother's a member of the Niagara Regional Police Association and it's more than just what you were explaining here. They have family events and everything for the police officers and their wives and children, so it's a worthwhile organization to support, and I will support this.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Anybody else? Are there any members of the audience who have any questions about this? Are the members ready to vote? Does the government have anything to say or the parliamentary assistant have any comments, please?

Mr Hayes: No, we have no comments to make on this and no objections on this bill.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Are the members ready to vote?

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be reported to the House? Agreed.


Consideration of Bill Pr132, An Act respecting the Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley.

The Vice-Chair: The next order of business is Bill Pr132. The sponsoring member is Mr David Tilson.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to introduce the delegation. As the name of the bill expresses, the purpose of this bill is to amalgamate two municipalities. I have with me Jane Wilson, who's the administrator of both municipalities, I guess, the current municipalities, East Luther and the village of Grand Valley. Pat Kalapaca is the current reeve of the village of Grand Valley, and William Church is the solicitor involved in this matter. I don't know whether anyone has any questions. It's self-explanatory. Mr Church will have a few comments to make.

Mr William Church: This is a bill which is to amalgamate the Hydro Electric Commission of Grand Valley. What'll happen is that the hydro-electric commission of the corporation of the village of Grand Valley will become a separate hydro-electric commission. It'll continue in the amalgamated municipalities of East Luther and Grand Valley.

There is one amendment, I understand, that legislative counsel wanted in section 6 and that was simply to use the same wording as appears in section 3. Instead of referring to the corporation of the village of Grand Valley, she wanted to refer to the amalgamated municipality, so there is that one minor housekeeping change.

The purpose is simply to make sure that there's a continuation of the village of Grand Valley hydro-electric commission within the limits of the village of Grand Valley and that in the rural parts of the new municipality Ontario Hydro will continue. That's the sole purpose of the act.

I should add one thing, and that is that Mrs Kalapaca is also the warden of the county of Dufferin, in addition to being the reeve of the village of Grand Valley.

The Vice-Chair: Very good. I've got that situation at home in Lambton county. Do members have any questions?

Mr Church: I guess someone's going to have to move an amendment in keeping --

The Vice-Chair: We'll do that in due time. Anybody over here? Are there any comments?

Mr Eddy: I'll defer to the parliamentary assistant, if you wish to have him first.

Mr Hayes: We will support this with the condition that this amendment be put in place and be carried. Outside of that, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object; however, that amendment is very important to deal with section 6.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I was interested in hearing Mr Hayes's remarks, and obviously he has clarified the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' position. I believe we all have a copy of the motion in front of us for amending section 6, so I would suggest we move forward.

Mr Hansen: I was just going to say most likely Mr Tilson has worked with them and knows the situation and if there were any objections to what's actually going on here, he most likely would have made some comments or told his colleagues, so I support it.

Mr Tilson: A commonsense bill.

Mr Cooper: Now you've lost us.

Mr Eddy: I appreciate the comment of Mr Tilson and certainly agree that it does make good sense, this matter, but I have a question. First of all, the village of Grand Valley presently has an elected PUC, is that correct, responsible for hydro and what other services?

Mr Church: Just hydro.

Mr Eddy: Oh, just hydro, but it's called a PUC. Is that correct, or what is the official name?

Mr Church: I think they're a hydro-electric commission, but I'm not certain of that.

Mr Eddy: Maybe I'll ask someone on staff to clarify that. I see the advantage of the action, of course.


Mr Eddy: It is a hydro commission. I see, okay. An elected hydro commission and it's going to be continue to be a hydro-electric commission for the same urban area, Grand Valley.

You had asked whether there were any other comments, and there are no other letters or comments so --

The Vice-Chair: Are there any other comments?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I was just wanting some clarification; I'm sure Mr Tilson will have it there. With the amendment coming to the Power Corporation Act, how will that affect this private bill, in that we're amending the Power Corporation Act to allow extension of municipalities in the rural areas? It hasn't been put forward in the House, but it will be, I understand.


Mr Jordan: Yes. Will that affect it?

Mr Tilson: I don't think it will affect it. It's essentially doing the same thing, I believe. You're talking about the government bill that's currently before the House.

Mr Jordan: Yes.

Mr Tilson: I don't know that Mr Hayes could correct me or not, but I believe it's doing the same thing.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have any remarks on that?

Mr Hayes: No.

Mr Eddy: One further thing then: If it indeed is a hydro-electric commission presently, and it's going to continue to be for the same area, why in section 3 does it say "the electrical power service area of the public utilities commission of the amalgamated municipality"? I think that's incorrect. It's a technical thing. I agree, it would state that, but why does it use that terminology in section 3 if it's a hydro-electric commission?

The Vice-Chair: Could the sponsor speak to that, please?

Mr Eddy: I think the staff who helped draft the bill should speak to that.

The Vice-Chair: Would you like to speak to that?

Mr Paul Murray: Paul Murray, counsel with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. A hydro-electric commission is a public utilities commission for the purposes of the Public Utilities Act, so that's why the phrase is used.

Mr Eddy: Thank you. That clears it up.

The Vice-Chair: Are there no more questions? Are the members ready to vote? Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have an amendment for section 6.

The Vice-Chair: Would you please read your amendment.

Mr Mills: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out "the Hydro Electric Commission of Grand Valley" in the second and third lines and substituting "the public utilities commission of the amalgamated municipality." The explanation has already been given.

The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Anybody against?

Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 7 carry? Carried.

Shall section 8 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill be reported to the House? Agreed.

Mr Church: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: You're welcome. Thank you very much.

Mr Hansen: Can I just call for a five-minute recess?

The Vice-Chair: Is everybody in agreement? Five minutes; that's it. They need a smoke.

The committee recessed from 1055 to 1059.


Consideration of Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary.

The Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Our next order of business will be to deal with Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary. We're going to deviate slightly from procedure. What that will entail, just to inform everyone of what the situation is, Mr Lessard, as usual will introduce the applicants, the applicants will then be able to make their opening remarks, but at that point the clerk has to read a report relating to the will of Mr Cleary from the Commissioners of Estate Bills. The report will be read into the record, so that will be the deviation from our normal procedure.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to see that you did make it into the chair, notwithstanding the adverse weather conditions.

With me this morning is Mr Al Kellerman, the solicitor from the city of Windsor. Tom Lynd is the clerk from the city of Windsor, and Sergio Grando is the general manager of the Cleary International Centre in Windsor, which is one of the matters that's being dealt with by this bill. The other is the Cleary Guest House, which is located in Dieppe Gardens. Both of these facilities were established at the bequest of Edmund Cleary in the 1950s, but because of changing circumstances the city has now found itself in a position where it wants to pass bylaws to deal with both of these facilities.

I should bring to your attention there is going to be one minor amendment to subsection 1(1) that I will ask Mr Kellerman to address in his remarks. I have a pamphlet with respect to the Cleary International Centre that I will send around, and I also have a picture of the guest house in Dieppe Gardens for people to see because I know that the image you might have of a guest house in the gardens is a bit different than what this picture might illustrate. Those are my remarks.

The Chair: Do the applicants have any opening remarks at this point?

Mr Al Kellerman: I think briefly, Madam Chairman, it might assist the committee to review the background of this bill which is before you.

The testator, Edmund Anderson Cleary, died June 10, 1955, and he left a bequest of $20,000 for the construction of what is now known as the Cleary Guest House in Dieppe park, which is the major riverfront park in the city of Windsor. He also left, by way of a codicil, the balance of his estate, which amounted to approximately $1.5 million, for the construction of the Cleary Auditorium. The city at the time also contributed the same amount of money, and so the Cleary Auditorium was opened in 1959.

Mr Cleary, in his will, left desires for "a committee of trustees appointed by city council consisting of representative business and professional persons of the city of Windsor who have shown a keen interest in the city and one of whom shall be an executive officer of the Canada Trust Co." His wishes were incorporated in the City of Windsor Act, 1957, section 7, which provided that, "Notwithstanding any other act, the council of the corporation is authorized to pass bylaws placing the construction and management of the civic auditorium in the city of Windsor in the hands of a committee of trustees appointed by council and constituted in accordance with" the will of Mr Cleary, and that was necessary at the time in order to carry out the intent of the testator.

You have in your bill before you that this section will no longer be necessary, and section 2 of the bill provides for the repealing of that section 7 of the 1957 act.

What subsequently happened was that the Cleary was greatly expanded by city council at the beginning of 1990 by the expenditure of some $33 million, and the committee of trustees, who had carried on as the board of management in essence for that building, felt by November 1991 they were no longer capable of dealing with a vastly expanded auditorium and they requested by resolution that the city of Windsor "assume Cleary board responsibilities and direct management and control of the Cleary International Centre for an interim period of 12 months and conduct a re-evaluation and review of the governance of the Cleary during this time period."

Subsequently, a year later, the Cleary board trustees, again by resolution, requested a permanent management committee, which the city has introduced, and that legal steps be taken to relieve the board of trustees of their responsibility under the will. That is why we are here today.


What council has done is, of course, directed the application before the Legislature, and by resolution the council has provided for a permanent management committee -- Mr Grando, on my right, is the general manager of that -- and by council resolution it had agreed to indemnify the trustees of the former board of management. Council also asked that the bill be amended to permit the leasing of the Cleary Guest House. Council is awaiting the enactment of this legislation, if that is the wish of the Legislature, in order to provide for a committee, call it an advisory committee, to assist the general manager in the operation of the Cleary to carry out in some way the intent of the original testator.

There is also an amendment, which motion is before you, and it would seem that for the benefit of legislative draftsmanship that the proposal for leasing in whole or part the Cleary auditorium ought to consist of a separate clause in subsection 1(1) of the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kellerman. At this point I would ask if there are any additional remarks from the other applicants before us.

Mr Lessard: I just want to indicate that there was a substantial contribution by the province as well in the expansion of the Cleary International Centre.

The Chair: It's quite a handsome facility, I must admit, and I think we're all probably envious of the kind of facility that you have at your disposal. At this point I will turn to the clerk and ask her to read the report of the commissioners.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): In the matter of Bill Pr51, 1993, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary:


"The Commissioners of Estate Bills are pleased to report that inquiries were duly made by them of the solicitor for the city of Windsor, of the Canada Trust Co, sole executor of the estate of Edmund Anderson Cleary and of Mrs Bianca Deluca, chairperson of the committee of trustees appointed by counsel of the city of Windsor under the terms of the Edmund Anderson Cleary will; that responses and representations were received from all of them; and that it now appears that the concerns of the committee of trustees as to indemnification and continuance in an advisory capacity have been satisfied by undertakings of the city of Windsor and its solicitor; and that based upon the foregoing, and presuming the allegations contained in the preamble be proven to the satisfaction of the House, it is reasonable for the bill to pass.

"In the course of consideration, the city of Windsor by resolution authorized its solicitor to seek an amendment to Bill Pr51 to permit the leasing, in whole or in part, of the Cleary Guest House referred to in Bill Pr51. The Commissioners of Estate Bills are further pleased to report that if Bill Pr51 should be amended to add the words `the leasing in whole or in part' between the words `directing' and `demolition' in paragraph 1(1)(a) of said Bill Pr51, it is reasonable for the bill, as so amended, to pass.

"Dated this third day of October, 1994.

"Signed, Mr Justice R.J. Flinn, Commissioner, and Mr Justice J.H. Brockenshire, Commissioner."

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Grannum. At this point I would request if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward to speak to this matter. Seeing none, I would turn to the parliamentary assistant to provide the input from any other ministries.

Mr Hayes: No, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not object to this. However, it would be necessary to put that amendment in in 1(1)(a).

The Chair: I have Mr Hansen as someone who has a question or comment.

Mr Hansen: Maybe more of a comment. Mr Lessard had sent me a memo to my office yesterday. I was very concerned at that time about a guest house in a park that the city was going to destroy. He said, "It's not exactly what you think is a guest house," and I said, "Do you think you can bring a picture of it?" After taking a look at the picture, I don't have any problem supporting this bill.

I understand also that Madam Chair is one for heritage, which a lot of cities have lost, and it looked like in the memo that this was a heritage building that was coming down. But after taking a look at it, I don't have a problem supporting this bill, and I have the amendment, Madam Chair, when you're ready for subsection 1(1).

The Chair: Are there any additional questions or comments on behalf of the members? Seeing none, I would ask if members are ready to vote? Agreed?

Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(c) for leasing, in whole or in part, the Cleary Guest House."

The Chair: All members have heard the motion. All those in favour, please signify. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion carries.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 2 through 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Gentlemen, I hope it was a productive morning for you. Thank you very much. Apparently they don't have snow. The rest of us weren't quite so lucky. I want to thank Mrs MacKinnon for having acted as Chair this morning. It was a rather interesting drive in and I appreciate the fact that other members pitched in to make sure that things moved forward.


Consideration of Bill Pr117, An Act respecting The J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr117, and I would ask Mr Hope as sponsor to come forward with the applicant. This is relating to an act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc. Mr Hope, perhaps you would like to make some opening remarks and introduce your applicant.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure to be here this morning once again to bring forward Bill Pr117 dealing with the J.G. Taylor Community Centre. Accompanying me is Brian Knott, who is the solicitor-clerk for the city of Chatham. Unfortunately, I can't compliment as much as what Windsor can about all the money they got and how they bumped the roster in making sure Windsor comes before Chatham, but we get accustomed to it after a while. Windsor seems to get quite a bit.

We're here today to try to get the committee to agree in bringing forward this legislation and supporting a community group which is establishing a centre that is very important to a significant amount of people in our community, and we're asking your support through this legislation. But I do understand there are concerns from the Ministry of Education and Training's position, as I have had an opportunity to review Hansard. So I will now turn it over to the solicitor-clerk for the city of Chatham for comments also.

Mr Brian Knott: I am Brian Knott, solicitor-clerk for the city of Chatham. I am also acting on behalf of J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc. We have received this morning an objection from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I understand there may be also some objections from the Ministry of Education, and it is our hope that this matter could be put over for a one-week time. We would then hopefully be able to resolve some of the issues and bring the matter back before the committee.


Mr Hope: Madam Chair, before I get into that, I believe it's very important for us, once again, to hear from the ministries' perspective about their actual opposition, because as I review Hansard of June 22, 1994, Municipal Affairs had no problem, but the Ministry of Education and Training had expressed the view that the school board should have the right to consent to tax exemption as it affects school taxes.

Reading the Hansard and understanding what has been said to me today, in particular dealing with this bill, I think it's important for us. They're saying it's now a policy of the Ministry of Education and Training. There are probably other communities that wish to bring forward a similar bill of this nature. I think for the public record, it's important that it be on the public docket and that we're able to address from the public docket exactly what changes need to be incorporated in this bill so that we can make this project a reality.

I must say that even though we're not Windsor, there was adequate funding given by the province to this project, for which the province showed its clear support by -- I believe it was $2.4 million that was allocated to this project. It's very important. It does allow a significant black history which will be incorporated in it. It also does allow training. It's not only recreation; it also deals with underprivileged children and adults, making sure their life standards and life skills improve.

I would really appreciate hearing from the parliamentary assistant who has direction from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and direction from Education on their particular concerns dealing with this bill.

The Chair: Before I turn to the parliamentary assistant, I have two pieces of business to take care of. All members I believe have received copies of a letter from the Kent County Board of Education. As well, I know the clerk has just circulated a document from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs which will address some of the comments that Mr Hope has just made.

Mr Hope: Madam Chair, before you continue, the letter that you were making reference to from the school board, we do not have a copy and we would appreciate a copy of that letter.

Mr Hayes: We have a copy here.

Mr Hope: I heard it was being distributed.

The Chair: I believe it's in the package for the members, but the clerk will see about getting a copy.

Mr Hope: That letter is dated November 21, and we didn't have the privilege of getting that letter.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr Hansen: I don't have the letter either.

The Chair: The clerk is going to make sure that a copy gets to you, Mr Hope, and to the solicitor.

The other thing I must ask is if there are any other interested parties who wish to come forward on this matter at this time. Seeing none, I would now turn to Mr Hayes to give the ministry perspective.

Mr Hayes: Actually, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at this present time does not support it. However, if the request is to defer it and come back with a different view from one of the ministries, we would go along with the deferral, but from what we have in front of us now, we would not support it.

Mr O'Neil: This is a Jobs Ontario grant that has gone to the community centre?

Mr Hope: No. The money that was allocated to this project was twofold, one through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. When AgriCorp was not established in the city of Chatham, there was a $100-million fund set aside that was also put in place for those affected communities. This was topped up by that fund to put it to $2.4 million. It was a combination of two grants that were brought in to support the two community groups that have established this project, but not under Jobs Ontario Community Action.

Mr O'Neil: I don't know what similarities there would be in the problem we dealt with last week on the child care centre, where we had to turn down that legislation because of the tax-free position that organization asked for. Are there similarities in this particular application; in other words, where we are asking these people to do something today to correct that problem, yet last week we did or didn't?

The Chair: I think in fact there are some similarities, but if you look at particularly the criteria the ministry has sent down, you will see that the last paragraph as well provides some edification in that regard, but I will also ask Mr Hayes to give you some additional clarification.

Mr Hayes: There are -- and the members are quite aware -- certain criteria that have to be met and this particular application does not meet all the criteria. The school board is objecting to the bill, and of course 46% of the property tax is for education purposes there. And also the Ministry of Finance does not support the bill in its present form because it feels that inequities arise from exemptions granted through private bills which place an additional burden on the remaining taxpayers and the permanent erosion of the assessment base.

I think some of these bills that come forward were -- and I know other members of the committee have discussed this in the past -- that, I think when a city decides that they want any kind of a charitable organization or recreation facility to have tax exemptions, one of the easiest ways would be to have the municipality actually write the tax off or give them grants. That's the feeling that I have and of course then they wouldn't have to go through all of this procedure that we're having here today.

However, if they want to defer this and meet the criteria that are laid out -- and at that point I guess we might not have any objections to it. It would be up to the committee.

Mr Mills: I spoke at length about a similar issue last week. I think the school board of trustees are elected to represent the people that elected them, and in keeping with that decision that we made last week, and in keeping with the comments that I made last week, I would make a motion that we defer this for one week to allow these people to make an opportunity to get the necessary endorsement that's required.

Mr Hansen: Can we just defer it?

Mr Mills: Or just defer it. Yes.

Mr Hansen: You want to go one week?

Mr Mills: One week. That's the motion.

The Chair: The motion is that we defer consideration of Bill Pr117 for one week. All members in favour, please --


The Chair: I'm sorry. You want to speak on the motion? Okay. Mr Eddy.

Mr Hansen: He's most likely going to say the same thing I am.

Mr Eddy: Well, it's the one week. I'd rather leave it till the applicant is prepared to come back, but is one week fine? That's what's being asked for. Fine. That answers my question.

The Chair: The clerk just advised me you will be last on the agenda because in fact we have a full docket for next week. Okay? That's to your satisfaction, Mr Hansen?

Mr Hansen: Maybe just a question. If it comes next week or they're not prepared to come forward next week, they do not have the answer, what happens? Does the bill die?

The Chair: I think Mr Hope has some comments to make here. Maybe that will give you some clarification and otherwise we'll turn to the clerk. Mr Hope, do you have some answers for Mr Hansen?

Mr Hope: It's our intent to have an answer on this whole issue of dealing with allowing school boards to have this type of control on municipal tax. We're hoping that through the consultations we're able to create, we'll have an answer for June. The only question I have is deferring without a definite period of time. As you remember, back on June 22 we made a motion to defer and it's taken this long to get back on the docket one more time. So I don't want it deferred longer than one week. We will make the wheels of progress turn on this issue.

Mr Hansen: Good luck.

The Chair: Mr Hansen, does that answer --

Mr Hansen: I just said good luck.

The Chair: Good luck, okay. Mrs MacKinnon.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I don't have any problem with deferring this at all. What I have a problem with, having worked on municipal government, is that one of the criteria laid down here is that the exemption should be granted through a municipal bylaw as opposed to being exempted by the direct bill.

My knowledge of municipal government is, it'll take more than a week to get a municipal bylaw through, and I can see Mr Eddy smiling, and I know why he's smiling because he understands too. I would like to know, is that possible?

The Chair: Mr Knott, did you want to address that?

Mr Knott: The intent of the deferral is not to have the bylaw passed -- we of course need the legislation in place that would allow us the authority to pass such a bylaw; the request for the deferral is for us to have an opportunity to speak with the school board and also the respective ministries to come to some agreement on either modification to the bill or to have the school board consent to the bill as it's presently framed. But certainly the intent is not to have a bylaw actually passed. We really don't have that authority right now.


Mrs MacKinnon: Excuse me. I must be reading this letter wrong. I thought this letter lays out these four criteria to be done before this could happen. Do I misunderstand that in this letter?

Mr Hayes: I think, just to clarify, that they do meet all the criteria except the part about getting support from the school board. That's where it's at.

Mrs MacKinnon: Oh, all right.

The Chair: We have Mr Hodgson on the list.

Mr Hodgson: I'm not going to speak directly to the motion because, if the motion passes, then it's the end of discussion.

The Chair: The order of business is you have to speak on the motion.

Mr Hodgson: I realize that. Could I have a piece of information delivered after we vote on the motion, depending on how it goes?

The Chair: Yes. You'll be on the list if it doesn't pass. At this point all members have heard the motion. Are members prepared to vote? Agreed.

Mrs MacKinnon: Read the motion, please.

The Chair: The motion is to defer consideration of Bill Pr117 for one week, and that's at the request of the applicant.

All those in favour, please signify. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.

If there's any information that you need from the ministry staff --

Mr Hodgson: That's right, and before next week's meeting, how will this affect the education grants if this is taken off the assessment?

The Chair: Is there someone here who can respond to that quickly? Just a quick comment.

Mr Mike Riley: My name's Mike Riley. I'm counsel with the Ministry of Education and Training. Our ministry does have some concerns about this, more from the point of view of the possibility of exporting the tax burden from one municipality to another within the school board jurisdiction and also from one school board to the rest of the school boards in the province.

There is, I think, a potential grant impact in that at the end of the year this type of exemption is picked up in the same way as supplementary taxes and a portion of that may be recognized within our grant structure in the subsequent year. So there is a possibility that that may occur. We have staff from the ministry who might want to add to that today, but if that's substantially correct, then, yes, that would be the case.

Mr Hodgson: So this burden may not get to the school board if every building in the municipality is taken off the assessment.

Mr Riley: Yes, and also to the other municipalities within the school board jurisdiction. So there's a double exporting.

Mr O'Neil: If that's the case, why would the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be agreeable with just an okay from the school board? In other words, the school board says, "Okay, we agree to it," therefore, that burden of taxation is shifted. Is there not a conflict between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

Mr Hayes: No, I don't think there's any conflict. I think what we have to understand here is that if you have other ministries like the Ministry of Education, or if you have school boards or if you have the Ministry of Finance or other ministries that object, we have to take all those objections into consideration and --

Mr O'Neil: Make a decision.

Mr Hayes: -- make a decision, yes. We have made a decision because there are some objections or one objection to this, and that was the idea of the deferral, to clear up that or get the support from the objector to reverse their stand on the issue.

Mr O'Neil: Let me ask this.

The Chair: We've got several other people and we still have another bill to take care of.

Mr O'Neil: I understand, but I also have a question to ask which I'd like to have answered, if I may.

The Chair: Mr Eddy and Mr Hodgson also wanted to get in and, as I say, we also have the deferred consideration of Bill Pr129.

Mr O'Neil: Time should be of no essence when we are dealing with questions that must be answered.

The Chair: I'm just making members aware of what's on the docket.

Mr O'Neil: I appreciate that. If I may proceed, so we don't use up too much of the time, again what you're saying to the group is, go back and get the approval from the board of education. Is that right? To get them to approve of this, give the okay.

But then we have the Ministry of Education saying the board maybe shouldn't do this because if the board gives up this taxation, the taxation is going to be shifted over to a neighbouring municipality. I see there is a conflict between the two and I know the problem you have, you want to get it approved, but I think we should have some sort of coordination or agreement between the ministries.

Mr Hayes: I think what has already been agreed on -- of course, maybe not openly in the committee -- but they will be getting together, I believe with Mr Knott, and talking to the ministry, to people from the ministries and try to work it out so everybody will be satisfied. So there will be certain things that the ministry would have to and will be very --

Mr O'Neil: So the project can go ahead.

Mr Hayes: So they can work these things out, come back to the committee and hopefully it goes through.

Mr O'Neil: Great.

Mr Hodgson: The question I'm trying to get at here is along the same lines as what Mr O'Neil is talking about. If they want to give a grant or exempt them from taxation for their local area, they can have the municipality do it or the school board. They hand that money back to them or they exempt them. But it doesn't count against the ability to pay. The education grants are based on a per student per diem and then they take into account the ability to pay with different school boards across the province to give a level playing field.

I can go back to the school boards in my area and have a number of buildings taken off their ability to pay to increase their provincial grant for that area. That's a totally different question than what's laid out by Municipal Affairs in this requirement.

The Chair: Mr Hodgson, I want to interrupt at this point just for the fact that what you're saying, in fact, is obviously a very personal --

Mr Hodgson: I need an answer for next week.

The Chair: No. I would say that at this point I am going to cut you off --

Mr Hodgson: That's fine.

The Chair: -- because you realized beforehand it was a straight informational thing. You're obviously getting into a debate when we've already voted on the deferral and we should be moving to another matter.

If there is some part of this that you wish to discuss with any of the technical staff that's here with the Ministry of Education to clarify your point, and when you come back for next week, you're free to do so. But at this point I am going to stand this issue down, it will occur then for further debate next week, and I'm going to call Bill 129 to come forward because we're getting into a debate on an issue that we're going to discuss --

Mr Hodgson: No, I just need the information, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We started off that way but that's not how your conversation was going.

Mr Hodgson: It was an information question.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Hodgson, but at this point, the Chair has ruled and we're calling our next item of business and any --


The Chair: I'm not getting into the debate because that's in fact how we were going. The ministry people are here. You can ask them a question and you can build your case for the debate that will further occur next week. So we will now in fact --

Mr O'Neil: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr O'Neil, I am moving forward on Bill 129.

Mr O'Neil: You don't want us to question your ruling.

The Chair: You don't have that opportunity.

Mr O'Neil: But I have a simple question.

The Chair: No. Mr O'Neil, at this point I think that the people who have come all of the way from the Sault, who have been deferred once already, and we have to continue their discussion, I think they have some priority in this.


The kind of debate that was ensuing, and we are now continuing, I think is inappropriate at this time. These gentlemen can give you some additional information should you wish to have it. If you want to be already listed for next week, we can do that as far as your discussion, but at this point I am going to welcome --

Mr O'Neil: Can I do this on a point a privilege?

The Chair: You may, but you may be surprised at the ruling.

Mr O'Neil: You're prolonging with what you're saying; you're taking up time. All I'm saying is that I think what was asked for here is it would be nice, before we meet next week, if the ministry staff could supply to the members of the committee some background on this so that we can come in here and discuss it from a more --

The Chair: That is a valid request and I indicated they're here --

Mr O'Neil: That's all I want.

The Chair: -- they've already been identified and they can do so. I just don't think we need to take more time here at this time.

Mr O'Neil: That's all we're asking for. It's understood then that they will supply that for us at the members' request.

The Chair: I think Mr Riley has probably made note of that and he will make sure that that gets to the members.

Mr Eddy: I agree with the request.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Eddy.


Continuing consideration of Bill Pr129, An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

The Chair: My apologies to the folks from the Sault that it has taken just a little longer to get back to your bill, Bill Pr129, and I'm going to ask the clerk at this point, since I was not here, I'm given to understand we have heard from a number of the presenters. Is that correct, Ms Grannum?

Clerk of the Committee: Yes, Mr Wong --

The Chair: We've heard from Mr Wong.

Clerk of the Committee: -- and Mr Mark Dorfman is now here.

The Chair: Mr Dorfman is now here. All right. Mr Dorfman, did you have some comments to make?

Mr Mark Dorfman: No, I don't. I'm here to respond to questions from members of the committee.

The Chair: All members, if we could have some order please, there's a buzz in the room and it does affect the Chair's hearing and I know some other people have hearing problems as well, so I would ask people to be quiet.

At this point I would like to advise members that we have several letters that have been received over the morning expressing concerns about this bill, so I hope you will avail yourselves of some time to review their comments. Are you aware of the concerns that have been raised about this, Mr Wong?

Mr Wong: Yes, Madam Chairman. I would like to ask Mr Usher, our past president, to address the concerns raised in those letters to the committee.

The Chair: And you are again, sir?

Mr Usher: Tony Usher. I'm the past president of the institute.

The Chair: Did you have any comments to make at this time?

Mr Usher: Yes. If it's your wish, Madam Chair, I'd like to try to respond to some of the more significant of the concerns that are raised in the letters that you have before you.

The Chair: I think this is the appropriate time.

Mr Usher: Okay. I'd just like to reiterate, first of all, as Mr Wong indicated in his opening remarks, that we consulted very extensively with our members. There is an insinuation, I think, in at least one of the letters that you have before you that we did not. We have about 2,100 practising members. They have received numerous communications over the five years in which we have been developing this bill, six letters which we would be happy to place before the committee that were sent to all of our practising members, numerous references in our Ontario Planning Journal that comes out every two months.

At the end of the day, we have, to the best of our calculation, four members of our institute who are on record with the committee as objecting to the bill. We have probably a couple of hundred members who, when we were in difficulties with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs about a year and a half ago, wrote letters to members of this Legislature advocating that our difficulties be resolved, which they subsequently were, with the government.

I'm not dismissing the concerns, we want to address them, but I want to put it in that perspective. You have in addition the same order of magnitude of letters from non-members and they are equally worthy of being responded to.

The objective of this bill is to elevate the planning profession for the benefit of everybody: full members of our institute, provisional members of our institute and non-member planners, of whom there are many and all of whom are equally welcome to belong to our institute and equally welcome and encouraged to proceed along the path to full membership. But nobody is expected, nobody is required, nobody is intended to be required to become a member of our institute. We still see a benefit of this bill as being to elevate our profession and its practice for the benefit of everybody. We are the only house there is for all the planners in Ontario.

There are three particular issues that seem to us that come out of these letters. The first is the question of our membership requirements. There are insinuations in some of the letters about the exclusivity of our institute. We have doubled our membership since 1986. We have put a tremendous amount of effort into making our membership requirements as inclusive and as open and as equivalent to people from all backgrounds as possible, and I'm going to come back to that more specifically.

In our opinion, and some of this relates to the particular nature of our profession, we probably have about the most open membership requirements of any of the 29, I believe it was, professions which have had private acts passed by this Legislature. All of the people who have raised concerns have the same opportunity to either proceed to full membership if they are provisional members of our institute or to become members of our institute if they are not members at the present time.

Mr Code, in his letter, suggests, "One would not even remotely aspire" -- this is on page 2, paragraph 3 of Mr Code's letter -- "to the profession, short of having earned a degree in planning which, with an appropriate apprenticeship, should automatically lead to full institute membership."

I particularly took note of this, because I do not have a degree in planning, like hundreds of members of our institute, and I've served as president for the last two years, until last month. Close to half of our incoming provisional members do not have planning degrees. This really relates to the uniqueness of our profession.

Most of the professions which have obtained private acts, as well as the professions that have public acts, such as engineers, architects, the health disciplines and so on, have a situation where you go to university, you go to a professional school, you get a degree in architecture or forestry or landscape architecture or what have you, and that is the sine qua non, you have to have that to become a member of the professional institute and to practise in that field.

Planning is unique. There are, as Mr Wong indicated, seven very good planning programs in this province, but there are many, many people who always have and always will practise in the planning field who do not get planning degrees. They may get geography degrees, they may get urban studies degrees, they may get environmental studies degrees etc. There is no such thing as a single educational route to membership, so the whole objective of our membership requirements is to provide one consistent standard that is as fair as possible to all people from all backgrounds.

Mr Bensason, also in his letter, indicates on page 2, paragraph 2, "The ability for many provisional members of OPPI to obtain full membership status has become more difficult in recent years." Mr Bensason has identified himself in the past as being concerned about this bill. He wrote a letter in July 1993 to Mr Ferguson, his MPP, expressing some concerns. Although he is a provisional member of our institute, he never communicated directly with us, but he copied the letter to OPPI.

I wrote a letter back to Mr Ferguson with a copy to Mr Bensason, attempting to address all of the concerns raised in his letter, one of which was this -- and I clearly laid out in the letter and I'm not going to bore the committee with it -- that in fact this is not true. It depends who you are. If you have a planning degree the requirements are tighter than they were 10 years ago. If you have a non-planning degree, the requirements are more open and flexible than they were 10 years ago.

What we have tried to do is to redress historic imbalances between these two types of educational backgrounds to make our institute as open as possible on the same terms, a level playing field for everybody coming in, and we have very close to a level playing field at the present time.

So it depends who you are. It has become more difficult for some and easier for others.

Mr Bensason also refers in the same paragraph to the difficulties of our written examination and the failure rate of the written examination. We have a total of five different options to meet the requirement that Mr Bensason refers to, and I should point out that the pass rate in our written examination in 1994 was 77%.

That's the issue of our membership requirements. The second general issue that is raised in these letters is the question of infringement. Now, members of the committee, you have, as you're well aware, in subsection 9(5) of the bill the clause says, "This act does not affect or interfere with the right of any person who is not a full member or a retired member of the institute to describe himself or herself as a planner or a professional planner or to practise as a planner or a professional planner or to work in the field of planning."


Mr Bensason in his letter provides a précis of subsection 9(5) on page 1 of his letter, paragraph 3, and he says this is grossly misleading. I personally, I guess, feel this is almost an affront to the committee to suggest that if this is put into the law it would become misleading. This is, always has been and always will be the intent of this legislation, that it does not infringe and should not infringe on the right to practise or the right to earn a livelihood of any person who is either a provisional member of our institute or a non-member of our institute.

Mr Bensason indicates in his letter in the next paragraph that through our lobbying efforts, increasingly employers are requiring that candidates for planning positions be full members of the institute. This is completely untrue. The institute does not lobby and does not advocate in this regard.

To provide a little explanation for the committee, the requirements of employers are employers' business and they are all over the map. The province, which, as I think members of the committee are very well aware, is trying to have a very open and inclusive public service, does not have any requirements of this nature for employment at the provincial level. Some municipalities have chosen to use various criteria, like that they would like people to be a full member of the institute or to be a provisional member of the institute and progressing towards full membership. That's their decision. We don't go around and ask anybody to do that. We don't go around and ask anybody not to have those requirements. We don't believe that's our business to do so.

The final point that we'd like to address is the matter of grandparenting, which is alluded to in some of the letters. Particularly what people are referring to is the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects. The OALA bill has a unique provision in it which allowed for people who were practising as landscape architects in the previous 12 months to become members of that institute. This bill was passed in 1984.

There are two things that are totally different about the OALA situation. The first one was that the OALA was seeking and obtained the protection of the term "landscape architect," which is normally associated with getting a landscape architecture degree and then you become a landscape architect. In other words, there were all kinds of people out there who called themselves landscape architects because they had a landscape architecture degree and who were not members of the OALA. So there was an understandable concern that these people, who had just as much right to call themselves landscape architects, could possibly be infringed if there wasn't some grandparenting. But that's because there's only one type of degree to become a landscape architect. You've got it or you don't.

The second thing that happened with the OALA was a situation that has no relevance to us. There were a lot of people at that time who were out there, landscape gardeners, landscape contractors, the kind of people who will fix up your garden but don't have any particular professional qualifications. Some of these people had styled themselves or felt they should style themselves as landscape architects. They instituted a major lobbying effort to get included in a grandparenting clause in this bill. It was imposed by the Legislature on the OALA against the OALA's wishes. The OALA chose to accept it; many, many, many of their members are very sorry that this ever happened. But it bears no resemblance. We don't have any planning contractors out there who make plans in the back seat of a truck.

We aren't asking for a title that comes with a degree, that you either get the degree or you don't have that degree, and if you have that degree, people in the public style you by that title. We're asking for the title "Registered Professional Planner." There's nobody in creation right now in Ontario who styles themselves by that title. People style themselves as planners, urban planners, community planners, what have you. Nobody calls themselves a "Registered Professional Planner" because it doesn't exist. We're asking for the creation of a new title which in no way infringes on all the existing titles that people call themselves by.

I have probably said enough. We'd be happy to answer more specific questions. I don't know whether my colleagues wish to add anything.

The Chair: I believe, Mr Perruzza, you want to move a motion. Is that correct?

Mr Perruzza: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Before you do that, since I was not here for the first round, would members object if I put a question on the record and, Mr Perruzza, then your motion would come next? Or is there some --


The Chair: No. He's already raised his hand.

Mr Eddy: There is in fact a motion before us from the previous meeting.

The Chair: Which is? I'm sorry.

Mr Eddy: Mr Hodgson moved that this bill be deferred to --

Interjection: We voted on it.

Mr Eddy: We voted on the amendment. Did we vote on the motion, as amended?

Mr Hodgson: We voted on that.

Mr Eddy: Okay. It was yours, sorry.


The Chair: It's been moved to the end of the meeting so in fact that part of the motion has been complied with. Before we have an additional motion, are members in agreement that I can ask a question?

Mr Hodgson: Time is of the essence.

The Chair: Yes, I know. I will ask it quickly. I want to, on behalf of a number of constituents in my area, express some concerns, and it's about planning in general and how they feel, shall we say, recommendations get muddied and what the community may in fact wish doesn't seem to get before council and then there are some changes made.

How are you setting up your standards for education? You're basically looking at trying to establish some standardization, to establish yourself as the registered professional planner. How are you coming up to the standardization of education across the province?

Mr Wong: We have a process of recognizing various planning degrees in the province. They go through a rigorous, pretty comprehensive recognition process. In other words, if you were belonging to a planning program at Ryerson or U of T or in Waterloo, the students there are part of a recognized planning program. But having said that, if you have a general BA degree in geography, you are also welcomed into the membership through another route. As Mr Usher said earlier on, there are various ways and means -- or even someone without a planning degree, through work experience --

The Chair: Excuse me. Gentlemen, your voices are carrying and I can't fully understand Mr Wong.

Mr Wong: -- could also become a member of our OPPI. What we have attempted to do since 1986 is really try to come up with a comprehensive and fair way to deal with every kind of applicant to come through our institute. We have a provisional membership requirement which people would have to go through, through an interview to become a provisional member and then they have to sit through a routine exam that we call examination B, followed by a verbal interview before they are admitted to become full members.

That process is an ongoing process. As I said, many of our current full members since 1986 have chosen, out of their own choice, to come through that process. They have become our successful members.

The Chair: I appreciate what you're trying to do and I should put the fact I'm a librarian and a member of the Ontario Library Association. It took a number of years for the accreditation of a process of looking at courses and programs to work and to provide a standardization of education for librarians across North America.

It seems to me that in some respects that is what you are trying to establish. But so far the inclusive nature of your process leads me to believe that possibly some of the educational institutions have not necessarily fully embraced what you are attempting to do. Or am I misunderstanding the fact that when you say someone who has a BA who may be working in planning somewhere within a municipality can join your organization but may not in fact have achieved the same scale of educational criteria as someone who has gone through a planning program in another institution? How are you working to bring that to a standardization?


Mr Dorfman: Perhaps very briefly, Madam Chair, I can address that particular question. All of the universities in Ontario that have courses and degrees with regard to planning or environmental planning are recognized by the institute. The students in those particular programs, many of them become student members, and once they graduate and gain their experience, then they become full members of the institute, which is their choice.

However, notwithstanding all of that, experience, as in practising planning, be it in the public sector or the private sector, counts for a lot in terms of recognition and in terms of qualifying to become a member of the institute.

So it's not just the education base, but certainly experience and the quality of that experience gained, either in municipalities or provincial government or in private sector, becomes extremely important and probably, in many respects, is just as important as any degree. So if someone has a BA in geography from the University of Guelph or Brock University or wherever, they certainly -- and there are many cases where people have worked in the process as planners, gained the experience, that experience is recognized, and that is the base upon which they become members of the institute.

A lot of our members, probably 50% of our members, come through the experience process. So work is important and practice is extremely important. Obviously, you learn through your experience as well, and that's important and we encourage that.

The Chair: I won't take up any more time. I have a range of questions, but at this point I will defer to others, I believe Mr Eddy and then Mr Hayes.

Mr Eddy: It's just a very short point. The concern that was expressed to me by one person was a concern about the relationship between municipal councils and municipal planners, and that this act could affect that relationship in that the term "professional planner" would mean that the opinion of the planner, which at the present time I believe councils could take or leave, so to speak, would be changed. Would you comment on that? I don't see the possibility of change because of that, but I'd like just a viewpoint on that, if you would.

Mr Dorfman: Those planners who are members of our institute who practise in municipalities are retained by municipalities. They have a working relationship. The interesting thing is that many other municipal employees have their own private acts, for example, the clerks and treasurers, the building officials, the tax collectors, the property standards officers. They all have private acts, but the difference there is that they are all municipal employees.

In our profession, our members and provisional members practise in all levels of government as well. So the relationships are the same, and it's not going to change. This piece of legislation will not change that relationship between employer and employee.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, your motion will be read into the record when we get to section 7. Did you have any other comments at this point before we --

Mr Perruzza: Yes. Before I do that, I just want to take a minute of the committee's time and reflect on this out loud.

It started off this morning as being a situation where, "This doesn't change anything; this doesn't create a second class of planners, no, no, no, it'll all be fine." Well, I say to you, wrong, wrong, wrong. Because quite obviously, what's been explained -- I'm so glad that the applicant took a rather long time to explain it -- is that the boom is being lowered and a second class of planners is being created if you approve the bill as is.

If I can borrow a word from my colleague to the left, when he said that this is not a situation of Big Brother coming down and creating a second class of planners -- this is a situation of creating an organization which is going to be able to create rules for itself and govern itself, and I say to you that that is essentially wrong as well, because Big Brother is coming in and saying to a whole bunch of people -- and I can think of one person quite vividly in my mind, my Grade 10 geography teacher, who in retrospect knew more about geography and planning than most planners whom I've encountered in my professional life. I happened to sit as a municipal councillor in Canada's fourth-largest city and I had dealings with a great many planners from a great many backgrounds, and I can tell you that my Grade 10 geography teacher in retrospect I would have handed her the keys to the planning department, because she had a vision of planning that was unparalleled and second to none.

That person, quite frankly, through this bill and the passage of this bill, would be relegated to a second-class planner by not being able to use the title "registered" before their professional standing and before their professional designation, and I say that that's wrong.

So the amendment which I propose to make here this morning is one which would simply say, "Let's allow for a grandfathering clause in the bill," which says that if you've been out there and you've been working in the field -- and quite frankly it's motherhood; it's nothing more than that -- and you've developed the accreditation for yourself, then you will be given a 12-month period within which to join, and we have precedent in that regard. Legislative counsel advises me that six or seven years ago a similar case was dealt with by this Legislative Assembly where landscape architects were treated in quite the same way, and that's all I ask the committee to consider.

If that amendment should happen to fail, then what I would suggest, Madam Speaker, is that a motion of deferral for a week come forward, as Mr Hodgson proposed earlier, so that the other side be given an opportunity to make representation before this committee, because quite frankly we've heard a one-sided, lopsided story before us here today.

I think the other side should be given at least the same weight before the committee. So I would take a two-pronged approach in dealing with this matter.

Mr Hodgson: I just want to express my support for the motion by Mr Perruzza. We don't always agree on our grandfathering clauses, but in this one we do and for the reasons that he stated, I just want to put on record my support.

Mr Hansen: I will not support Mr Perruzza's amendment. Maybe Mr Perruzza at the time that the answers were given to the letters of objection that were being read out and answers given by the gentleman there -- he had already explained about landscapers. It's a totally different area and you can't call a landscaper the same as a planner --

Mr Perruzza: Why's that?

Mr Hansen: They're not the same. They're different identities, so you can't wind up wrapping it all together and say, "Well, do it the same for them as we did for them," because it's totally different. And you know, Mr Perruzza, your geography teacher would be able to become a member of this group if you take a look at her portfolio whether it came up to standards to get those initials after, so she isn't excluded to become a member or could become an associate member until she received and brought her total package up to say, "Hey, I've done that and that," in her portfolio. No one's excluded. So I speak against this motion or the amendment.


The Chair: We have a couple of other people who wish to speak, Mr Hayes and Mr Eddy, and I would like to get a comment from Mr Wong before we turn to the vote. So Mr Hayes?

Mr Hayes: In the essence of saving time, Madam Chair, I will just say that we do not support this amendment, and that's it.

Mr O'Neil: Will you tell us why?

Mr Hayes: Tell you why? First of all, I think Mr Hansen explained it quite thoroughly there. The other thing is, what this is really saying is, whether you're qualified or not, you should automatically become a member of this organization. To me, that's really not the thing.


The Chair: No, no, Mr Perruzza. No, no, no. Order, please.


The Chair: No, no, Mr Perruzza. Mr Eddy.

Mr Hayes: Let me just finish, please, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had finished.

Mr Hayes: One of the things is that the ministry did have a problem with this right at the beginning and that issue was addressed. The concerns were that it was confirmed now that being a member of the OPPI does not provide credentials that exclude recognition of other practising planners in Ontario. That was the concern we had, and that concern has been addressed.

Mr Eddy: I am pleased that Mr Hayes has spoken on this matter because I was going to ask him, being as a member of the NDP caucus proposed the amendment, did the government support it?

Mr Hayes: An individual on the committee has brought an amendment.

Mr Eddy: Yes. But I wanted your viewpoint of the government to see whether or not you did. I agree that subsection 9(5) is a very important clause and very, very broad. It certainly meets, I think, a lot of the concern that would have been there, great concern if that clause had not been there.

The other point I was going to make, I did want the applicant to respond to it as well.

The Chair: I would at this point turn to the applicant, and specifically Mr Wong as president, if you wish to put some other comments relating to the concept that Mr Perruzza has put forward.

Mr Wong: The OPPI in fact has already talked about this situation, both the counsel and also our membership, and there were specific instructions that this clause cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, if this clause were to be included, our instruction is to withdraw the entire bill.

The Chair: I'm sorry, sir?

Mr Wong: Our instruction is to withdraw the entire bill.

The Chair: Okay. So members understand that --

Mr Wong: Can I also explain why we're doing that? We have, since 1986, come up with a very comprehensive commitment to our membership standards. By allowing this grandfather clause, it would be grossly unfair to those members in our institute right now to have gone through the process and be accepted members and now allow people who of their own choice chose not to enter and get involved with us, to become grandfathered. I think we have to answer to them and I cannot answer to them if that were the case.

Secondly, in the name of public interest, the purpose of the bill is to raise the public profile of planning by ourselves being self-governing and the membership requirements. By allowing the grandfather clause, with all due respect, it will simply dilute the standard of membership because we don't know who they are, how they practise and we'll be going into a lot of wrangling regarding their substantial experience. I think we'll go into that. So on those remarks, our comment is it's not acceptable.

The Chair: Mr Mills is our final speaker and then I will move to the vote.

Mr Mills: I've sat here patiently for quite a long time listening to all the comments and what everybody said, including the presentation that was made. I found it also basically easy to understand. I haven't commented on it until this, and I'm sure that if I can understand the thrust of it, everyone else can here. I'm quite prepared to not vote in favour of the motion and maybe we can call the question and deal with this immediately.

Mr Hodgson: We're going there anyway.

Mr Eddy: Mr Mills has been very patient.

Mr Mills: Yes, very patient. Very, very patient.

The Chair: And Mr Mills is hoping for lunch. Anyway, at this point, I would ask members to indicate if they are prepared to vote. Yes? At this point, I would call --

Mr Hodgson: Could we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: You wish a recorded vote? I'm going to call sections 1 through 6. All those in favour, please indicate.

Mr O'Neil: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr Hodgson asked for a recorded vote?

Mr Hayes: No. He just wanted it on that one departure.

Mr Hodgson: I want it on the final section.

The Chair: On that section, okay.


The Chair: Just a moment, please. So sections 1 through 6 have been carried.

Section 7. Section 7.1, as Mr Perruzza proposes, is a new clause. So we are going to go first to section 7. All those members who are in favour of section 7, please indicate.

Mr Mills: The way it is.

The Chair: Yes, section 7; 7.1 is the new section. All those in favour of section 7? Agreed.

Mrs MacKinnon: Excuse me, has this been debated?

The Chair: Yes. We're now going to move to the motion by Mr -- it's not section 7. We're moving to the new section now, which is 7.1, the new section which is Mr Perruzza's amendment as he proposes it. Mr Perruzza, would you please read it into the record?

Mr Perruzza: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Other planners

"7.1 Despite section 7, the institute shall admit as a full member any person who applies to become a full member and who on the date this act was passed or, within the 12-month period preceding that date," -- and this is the key, Madam Chair -- "substantially earned his or her living as a professional planner."

The Chair: We have had the motion read. I would ask all those in favour, please signify.

Mr Hansen: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Recorded vote.


Hodgson, Perruzza.

The Chair: All those opposed, please indicate.


Eddy, Fletcher, Hansen, Hayes, MacKinnon, Mills, O'Neil (Quinte).

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

I will now move on to sections 8 through 12. All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Seeing none, shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Mr Hodgson: Madam Chair, a recorded vote.

The Chair: I'm sorry. You had indicated that, and my apologies for moving too quickly.

All those in favour of the bill, please signify and the clerk will read out the names.


Eddy, Fletcher, Hansen, Hayes, MacKinnon, Mills, O'Neil (Quinte)

The Chair: All those opposed, please signify.


Hodgson, Perruzza.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House? Any opposed? Seeing none, that is carried.

I want to thank you for some interesting discussion, and I hope you're pleased with the turnout.

We have a bit of discussion relating to Mr Cooper's bill which he sponsored, which is relating to Bill Pr120.


The Chair: Excuse me. We are still in session for just one additional piece of business. The city of Kitchener has indicated that, "Because of the terrible weather conditions this day here in Kitchener and to Toronto, we were unable this morning to get out of Kitchener as" --

Clerk of the Committee: That's a different bill.

Mrs MacKinnon: We had that.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's my mistake. I'm actually human. They couldn't make it because of the weather, and we will make every accommodation to slot them at the first available time. Is that to your satisfaction, Mr Cooper?

Mr Cooper: Agreed.

Mr Eddy: Madam Chairman, I disagree that it's the weather. It's the preparation for the weather, and these roads could have been in much better shape if the people who are responsible were out there. They've had a month to get ready, and that's why it's --

Mr Mills: Get a life.

Mr Eddy: Well, I --

The Chair: I call the meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1220.