Legislative Assembly of Ontario

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

"AMENDMENTS TO THE "REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ACT "AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT

CONTENTS

Monday 28 April 1997

Development Charges Act, 1997, Bill 98, Mr Leach /

Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d'aménagement, projet de loi 98, M. Leach

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente: Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: (vacant)

Mr DominicAgostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)

Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)

Mr TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew N / -Nord L)

Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)

Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC)

Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)

Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Mr JosephSpina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)

Mr BillGrimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay PC)

Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)

Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre PC)

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Ms JoanneDavies

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce

Staff / Personnel: Mr Mark Spakowski, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1546 in committee room 1.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

Consideration of Bill 98, An Act to promote job creation and increased municipal accountability while providing for the recovery of development costs related to new growth / Projet de loi 98, Loi visant à promouvoir la création d'emplois et à accroître la responsabilité des municipalités tout en prévoyant le recouvrement des coûts d'aménagement liés à la croissance.

The Chair (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Colleagues, welcome to clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 98.

Without further ado, we'll get right down to work. There's lots before us. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to the bill and, if so, to what sections? We'll begin with section 1.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Madam Chair, I move that the definitions of "municipality" and "upper-tier municipality" in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`municipality' means a locality the inhabitants of which are incorporated;

"`upper-tier municipality' means a county, a regional, metropolitan or district municipality or the county of Oxford."

The Chair: Any questions, comments or discussion on this amendment? If not, I'll put the question. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Any further amendments to section 1? Seeing none, shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Moving now to section 2.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clause (a) of subsection 2(3) of the bill be amended by adding "or" at the end and that clauses 2(3)(b) and (c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) permit the creation of up to two additional dwelling units as prescribed, subject to the prescribed restrictions, in prescribed clauses of existing residential buildings."

The Chair: Any discussion or questions? I'll put the question, then. All those in favour of the amendment, as read? Opposed? Carried.

Is there a Liberal amendment?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I move that subsection 2(3) of the bill be struck out.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Madam Chair, if I could, I ask whoever is moving motions if they could briefly give an explanation of what they're doing. I would find that helpful. I say this because we've had two other members of my caucus as part of the team that was doing the out-of-town stuff, so some of us may not be as familiar as we would like. If we could have the parliamentary assistant do a brief explanation of the amendments, I'd appreciate it.

The Chair: Okay. Mr Sergio, did you want to say anything about this?

Mr Sergio: I have a long explanation. I don't know if you want to do that --

Mr Marchese: Oh, please, yes. I want to hear it.

Mr Sergio: What it does in a nutshell is mandate the reduction of capital works. The long explanation is that this motion would delete the provision that makes certain growths related to investment ineligible. We feel it is not appropriate that the provincial government decides what is or is not appropriate for a community to build, or to place restrictions on how investment is financed. Mainly it deals with the autonomy of the local municipalities, how they finance certain projects and so forth. That's mainly what the clause does. That's the short version.

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the amendment. Obviously the intent of the bill is to define what are services that should be fully funded by development charges and those areas where services should not be covered by development charges. This would take us back to where everything was eligible, and we don't think that's appropriate.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? In my opinion, it is lost.

The next amendment is also a Liberal amendment.

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

"Limit on industrial expansion exemption

"(3.1) Clause (3)(c) and section 4 do not apply with respect to the enlargement of a building if the building has been enlarged before and no development charge was payable in respect of that previous enlargement because clause (3)(c) applied or the development charge that was payable was reduced under section 4."

I think the clause is self-explanatory. I don't know if you wish me to expand further on that.

Mr Marchese: If you have some explanatory notes, yes.

Mr Sergio: This again limits most of the limits on industrial expansion with respect to the partial exemption. If motion 2(3) to delete this exemption fails and the exemption remains in the bill, this motion would limit the exemption to allow only on 50% of the industrial property. Some witnesses were worried that this particular exemption would relate to incremental industrial expansion over 49% of the additions over one time and cause cumulative infrastructure planning problems for a community of a certain age or fiscal capacity. That's broadly the meaning of the amendment.

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting this amendment. I think our intent is to encourage industrial development. It should not be discouraged simply by adding development charges for services that the industry already had available to them. We think this would be an inappropriate way to limit it to some but not to all. We think it should be left open that 50% expansion for an industrial property should be exempt from development charges.

Mr Marchese: The Liberal motion says "and section 4 do not apply with respect to the enlargement of a building if the building has been enlarged before." It doesn't give a time, but we assume before the bill. Mr Hardeman, you didn't comment on that. Your explanation's rather different. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't comment on this particular part, which appears to me, on the face of it, to make sense.

Mr Hardeman: My interpretation of the resolution is that where it says "no development charge was payable in respect of that previous enlargement because" it doesn't necessarily imply that the expansion took place prior to this development charge bylaw. It just says if expansion had taken place before, it would not apply to have an exemption the second time for an expansion. I believe all expansions should be encouraged and, particularly if it does not require further servicing, they should not be obligated to pay further servicing for that expansion.

Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, does the ministry person have the same explanation? Is it the same?

Ms Joanne Davies: The same, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Okay.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

Moving to the next amendment, a government amendment.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 2(4) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"4.1 The provision of waste management services."

This is to add waste management services to the ineligible list of services for development charges.

Mr Marchese: I personally am one of those who believes that waste management should be part of the services that should be covered under development charges. I think that affects everyone in the community. Clearly that's the argument Mr Hardeman wants to make as to why they should be out, but I believe they should be part of those development charges. Mr Hardeman, you're making an argument that they shouldn't. They shouldn't because?

Mr Hardeman: I think the main reason for waste management being exempt is that the general direction in the province is to have waste management pay for waste management through direct cost. Landfill sites are paid through a collection of user fees at the landfill site. The collection in a lot of cases is going to the direction where the user is paying. It's inappropriate to have the new development pay for the waste management capacity and then turn around and pay for filling that capacity for future users, for the next site, through development charges. In fairness, if there is a way for everyone to pay their fair share as it's being consumed, it should not be put on the backs of new homeowners to create the facilities.

Mr Marchese: So you don't believe that when there's new development, that should be part of the cost, to reflect the fact that that's going to cause a particular problem for the larger community around there?

Mr Hardeman: As it relates particularly to the landfilling issue of waste management, if you looked at the majority of the sites presently, the cost, the tipping fee to fill that landfill site is being put into reserves to find the next landfill site, so in fact the users are paying for the future capacity. We don't think it's appropriate that new homeowners should also pay for that new capacity in a development charge and then turn around and, for the next five or 10 years, pay for their square footage in that landfill site through user fees too. I think that would be considered, in my opinion, a double taxation.

Mr Marchese: The tipping fees are already covering the future cost of this, is what you're saying?

Mr Hardeman: Yes, they are. Many of the tipping fees presently are being reserved in order to find future methods of waste disposal.

Mr Marchese: And those tipping fees are sufficient enough for the new development, for the community, the general and the new community, not to worry about it?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not here to debate the issue of whether municipalities have sufficient capacity in their reserves to find a new landfill site or whether they have chosen to set their user fees at a sufficient level to do that, but the possibility of doing that definitely exists and there are communities that would be doing that through a user fee.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Marchese: A recorded vote on this one, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Fisher, Grimmett, Hardeman, Maves, Munro.

Nays

Hoy, Marchese, Sergio.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): I believe the motion was carried.

The Chair: Oh, sorry. My apologies. It was carried.

The next one is a Liberal motion, I believe.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 2(4) of the bill be struck out.

This again deals with the authority conveyed upon the municipality and restricts the local municipality to use their power for certain services that they now enjoy. The clause in the bill, as it is proposed, does not allow the municipality to use the development charges for such things such as community centres, cultural centres, theatres and stuff like that. So that's the intent of the amendment.

1600

Mr Hardeman: Again, I would oppose the resolution, as it does take the act back to the existing act where all services would be eligible. The section that's being referred to in this motion is the section that declares certain services ineligible for development charges. I think it's one of the major intents of the act, and this would definitely detract from the act as the government has put it forward. I would not support the motion.

Mr Marchese: I want to support this motion and support the current way in which we raise money for these facilities. I've never been supportive of the current government's position to make some of these services ineligible. I really believe the government is making a mistake in this regard. We should leave the municipalities the power and the right to include what I find to be important facilities or infrastructure elements of a community. I believe that museums, theatres, art galleries, public libraries especially, land for parks and other tourism facilities are things that should be part of what we charge in terms of development charges. I think it makes for a healthier community. When you take these elements out, it's going to complicate the lives of many municipalities, no doubt. It will make it very difficult for municipalities to raise the money to do what they used to do through those development charges.

You know, parliamentary assistant, that your government has been chopping support for municipalities. I know you like to deny it as best you can. You haven't been chopping. No one in your government is doing that. I understand that, but the municipalities know it. They have been getting less and less support from you in the last two years, where 40% cuts have made it impossible for municipal governments to deal with their own communities and service their own communities. So when you do something like this, Mr Hardeman --

Mr Hardeman: Oh, I'm listening.

Mr Marchese: I know you are -- you're going to be helping the developers who have convinced M. Leach and M. Harris, your buddies, that this is a good thing. We know that municipalities don't believe this to be a good thing. We know that now they're going to have to find money somewhere -- I don't know where they're going to find it -- to build these facilities into their communities.

I know that when you do this, the price of the new housing will not go down. You and your friends are going to make that argument, your developer friends certainly make that argument, but we know the price of housing will not go down as a result. So not only are the new people buying not going to be helped by this measure, but the municipalities will find themselves with a shortfall, and they won't know what to do. They're certainly going to have to do what you've been doing for the last two years, and that is to chop all over the place. That's what they're going to do. They're not going to have the kind of infrastructure that makes for a good community.

That's what your motion does, and this motion presented by Mr Sergio tries to undo it. I wanted to speak clearly on the record in this regard, and I want a recorded vote after Mr Hardeman responds.

Mr Hardeman: I just want to clarify one of the issues that was raised by Mr Marchese and the fact that the list of excluded services does not include libraries. As you were referring to libraries, the excluded services do not include libraries. They are still included in the list of services eligible for development charges. That was just to clarify for the record.

Mr Marchese: The reference you made to that is in paragraph 1, is that it? Libraries are excluded. Is that in subsection 2(4), paragraph 1? Is that where you're making your reference?

Mr Hardeman: Yes. In the first paragraph it says, "not including public libraries," so libraries are still an eligible service.

Mr Marchese: And with regard to everything else that's mentioned in 4, all the other services, do you have any response to that?

Mr Hardeman: No. I think they're all quite self-explanatory.

Mr Marchese: Of course they are. A recorded vote, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr Sergio first, though, please.

Mr Sergio: Just to finish commenting on that, I think the entire clause in itself, let alone the amendment, deals with the heart of the bill in itself. Again, in one way, we are telling the local municipality, "Here, you have more power; you do whatever you want," and then we have the government saying: "Uh, uh. You cannot do some of the very most necessary things that municipalities have to provide to their local communities."

We are not dealing with the amount of development charges here; we are dealing with the responsibility, the freedom of how that local municipality is going to use those funds. If the roads are built for the new development, if the water provision is made, if the municipality decides that they need those moneys to provide other amenities important to that community, why shouldn't the local municipality use those funds?

This is the problem we see with this government and that many people see with this government. They are telling the local municipalities, "We want to give you more power," and then they say, "Well, no, you cannot use certain funds that you're going to come into to use for certain things." Well, either you give the local municipality the freedom to do that or you don't.

It's got nothing to do with increasing or bringing the prices of houses down. It is tying the hands of the local municipalities in terms of how they are going to use the funds that come into their pot. I mean, fine, build the roads, bring the world to build a new subdivision or whatever, but don't tell the local municipalities, "No, you cannot use certain specific funds in the way you want." I think that's where Mrs McCallion has a problem with this and every other mayor, including the AMO chair. I feel that the government doesn't recognize this.

We are not dealing with some municipalities that are charging too much or too little for development charges; we are dealing here with how the municipalities are going to use that particular freedom, to use that pot of money they get from development charges. I believe we should leave that flexibility to the local municipalities since we recognize that they are the better ones to decide what's good for the local communities.

I find it quite disturbing that the government does not understand this particular situation. How can you tell the local municipality, "We want to give you more freedom, but we're going to dump on you everything else," and then you pick and choose as to what and where they can spend the money? You're going to hear a lot more from Mrs McCallion and others. I hope the government will come to understand this.

Mr Marchese: Just to make a point, for clarity, when Mr Hardeman responded to my comment by saying public libraries are eligible services, we understand that. The real point still is that communities can charge up to 70% of the growth-related capital costs, which includes libraries, and the residual 30% of the growth-related capital costs must be funded from other revenue sources. So there isn't fully recoverable money for libraries; 30% still has to be funded by municipalities.

I argue that's a serious problem. You may not think so, but the municipalities -- I briefly had an opportunity before coming to the committee to glance at what deputants have said. They're going to have an incredible problem dealing with that. You will admit that's true and that they might have a problem. I'm not quite sure.

Mr Hardeman: For clarification, the amendment we were dealing with is the Liberal amendment that wishes to strike out subsection 2(4), which is the list of the ineligible services. I'm just clarifying that libraries do not fall on that list.

1610

I would also point out, as we get further in our deliberations to further amendments, we do have some proposals to change the 30% that libraries have to pay, to somewhat address the concerns that you've raised and that a number of other deputants to our committee have brought forward during the committee hearings.

Mr Sergio: Are you referring to the release of April 25, or are there still more amendments to come on that?

Mr Hardeman: I'm referring to the list of amendments that we will be dealing with today, hopefully. I'm not sure what you have there that you're referring to.

Mr Sergio: This one here deals with libraries and stuff like that. Do you have some new amendments further to this one here?

Mr Hardeman: No. I think the one you're referring to, if it's the same press release I have, is the 10% that would be required as a discounting for library services. Mr Marchese was talking about that being 30%, and I said there will be amendments coming forward to change that 30%.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Hoy, Marchese, Sergio.

Nays

Chudleigh, Danford, Fisher, Grimmett, Hardeman, Maves, Munro.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Are there any further amendments to section 2? Shall section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 3, no amendments. Shall section 3 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 4.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exemption for industrial development

"4(1) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect to the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section.

"Enlargement 50% or less

"(2) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50% or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.

"Enlargement more than 50%

"(3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50% the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows:

"1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50% of the gross floor area before the enlargement.

"2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement."

This is to clarify that if an enlargement exceeds the 50% gross floor area, the development charge would be based on that amount exceeding the 50% as opposed to the whole enlargement because it was more than 50%.

Mr Marchese: Just for the record, I want to say that I am in disagreement with this. I think the intent is not a bad one, that is, if it does create jobs, it's good for everybody and it's good for the economy generally speaking. That's why you want to do it. I understand the general purpose of it and I am not entirely in complete disagreement with it if it had that intended effect.

I am worried, however, in terms of what it does to communities, because normally a lot of communities relied or would rely on this type of support that comes from development charges. I am not sure the reduction of this will be equivalent to what might be produced and I am not sure what gains there would be for those communities that would lose that support that would come from development charges.

I am not as optimistic about what you hope will come out of this. I know you Tories like this stuff because it supports a lot of developers and their developments, so I appreciate where all of you are coming from, but I think a lot of communities will be perhaps unduly hurt by the absence of what normally would flow through to them.

Mr Sergio: Briefly on this one, it's again leaving that flexibility with the local municipality. When times are tough, there is no municipality that doesn't recognize that and make amends for that. I could cite a number of cases where local municipalities eliminated development charges, period. They didn't charge anything. They just said: "Come and build. We beg you. We need the assessment, we need the jobs, so we won't charge you."

This is our position with this one: Sure, it would help create some jobs or help create some development or whatever, but what it does to the local municipality again ties their hands and says, "Go ahead and raise taxes on everybody else, because we won't charge this particular developer on the 50% or just on the portion above the 50% there."

I think that's an injustice to the local municipality as well and to the rest of the taxpayers, because now if you were to do that on a grand scale, then it would be penalizing other taxpayers in that particular municipality. So the municipality would be left with the choice of either instigating new user fees or raising taxes throughout the local municipality. I think that would be unfair.

I know what the intent of the government and the amendment is, but I think it would backfire and I think it would cause more instability within the local municipality. I think we should leave it up to the local municipality and say, "Hey, if you want to charge, it's up to you." But if times are tough, most municipalities recognize that.

We have seen, for example, in the Niagara-St Catharines area, where they practically eliminated all the development charges because times were tough and they wanted to attract development. So again, this will negate that flexibility.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Marchese: A recorded vote, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Shall the motion carry?

Ayes

Chudleigh, Danford, Fisher, Grimmett, Hardeman, Maves, Munro.

Nays

Hoy, Marchese, Sergio.

The Chair: Carried.

The next item in your package is not a motion, but for your information only.

Are there any further amendments to section 4, please? Shall section 4, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 4 is carried as amended.

Section 5.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"2.1 The estimate under paragraph 2 may include an increase in need only if the council of the municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need will be met. The determination as to whether a council has indicated such an intention may be government by the regulations."

This new paragraph requires municipalities to show that they intend to actually provide the increased level of service.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

A Liberal motion.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the first two sentences and substituting:

"The estimate under paragraph 2 must not include an increase that would result in the level of service exceeding the maximum level of service under subsection (1.1). How the level of service is determined may be governed by the regulations."

The Chair: Any discussion?

Mr Sergio: I have nothing to add to that.

The Chair: I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

1620

A Liberal motion.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "unless the service is set out in subsection (6)" at the end.

The Chair: Discussion? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

A government motion.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"4. The increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development must be reduced by the part of that increase that can be met using the municipality's excess capacity, other than excess capacity that the council of the municipality has indicated an intention would be paid for by new development. How excess capacity is determined and how to determine whether a council has indicated an intention that excess capacity would be paid for by new development may be governed by the regulations."

This change clarifies the meaning of excess capacity. It is an extra capacity in the system that was not intended to be paid for by new development.

Mr Marchese: I have a question of Mr Hardeman or somebody else. "How excess capacity is determined and how to determine whether a council has indicated an intention that excess capacity would be paid for by new development may be governed by the regulations." It probably will be, I suspect. What kind of thinking is behind that sentence? Do we have a sense of what we're looking at?

Mr Hardeman: I think the minister would have the ability to have regulation to define how a municipality was to indicate its intention as to the use of the capacity. If the capacity was created to serve new development and paid for that way, they would be able to do that. If it was just a large trunk sewer and it had always been there because that was the size they put in the ground, even though it had excess capacity, they would not be allowed to charge that to new home buyers just for the sake that they were using it.

Mr Marchese: I understand.

Mr Sergio: Again this one deals with a very important planning matter or planning issue. Municipalities, on purpose -- we call this good planning at the local level and I'm sure developers would agree with that -- tend to provide excess capacity for future consideration. It's less costly. It is available when developers are ready to move in or the municipality's ready to expand, and without delay. So this is good planning on behalf of the local municipality. To say, "No, you cannot do that," curtails the ability of the municipality to act and plan well for future expansion.

Mr Hardeman: Just for the record and clarification, if the municipality has planned for that future development and planned the future development to pay for that increased infrastructure, they will continue to be allowed to charge for that in development charges. This section would only delete the ability to charge for things that they had not planned to leave to the cost of new development but were part of their local infrastructure paid for through taxation in the past.

Mr Sergio: We'll let it go at that, but AMO doesn't think so. We don't see it the same way and neither does the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

A Liberal motion.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Sergio: Same argument.

The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 6 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "The capital costs must be reduced by the reductions set out in subsection (2)" in the third, fourth and fifth lines.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 7 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"7. The capital costs must be reduced by 10%. This paragraph does not apply to services set out in subsection (6)."

This reduces the amount of the discount for services that were 30% down to 10%.

Mr Marchese: Does Mr Hardeman believe that municipalities are now happy with this?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that it would be appropriate or that I could answer that question. My job is not to gauge the happiness or the unhappiness of individuals in this province. It is the government's direction, and this committee's direction, hopefully, to come up with policy that will suit the majority of the residents of the province. We do believe that this will do that.

Mr Marchese: So you think the communities in the 905 region and the rural areas were sufficiently angry and now sufficiently satisfied because you're responding to them?

Mr Hardeman: I wouldn't suggest that the legislation is being prepared to deal with people who are angry or not angry. It is prepared to provide the best possible governance for these people, and we believe this is going to do that.

Mr Marchese: Good policy. Good for you.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?

Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Danford, Fisher, Grimmett, Hardeman, Maves, Munro.

Nays

Hoy, Marchese, Sergio.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 7 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion? I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 8 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "in particular cases" in the second and third lines and substituting "in any particular case."

This is a technical motion to ensure clarity and consistency in terms used in the bill.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Marchese: Just a further explanation of that. Consistency, clarity -- you obviously changed it from "in particular cases" to "in any particular case." There's something involved in that, right? What do you mean by "consistency and clarity" as it relates to other aspects of the bill?

Mr Hardeman: It was at the request of municipalities as they reviewed the legislation they put forward that it would require or it would be better served if we put in "in any particular case" as opposed to "in particular cases."

Mr Marchese: So municipalities requested that?

Mr Hardeman: Yes. If you wish, I could have the legal branch speak to that.

Mr Marchese: Sure, if they have another explanation or additional.

Mr Hardeman: Not another; a clearer explanation of the same answer.

Mr Marchese: For sure.

Ms Davies: The theory of the bill is that in the bylaw, you must be able to look at a development charges bylaw and know whether a development charge is payable in any particular situation on any particular development, and it was thought that it would clearer to say in any particular case that reflects the application of a bylaw.

Mr Marchese: Same clarity. It's wonderful, really.

The Chair: Further discussion? I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

1630

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 9 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the last sentence and substituting "The rules may also provide for the indexing of development charges based on the prescribed index."

Again, this is a technical motion to enable the regulations to provide for a single index as opposed to multiple indexes.

Mr Marchese: For clarity that means what again?

Mr Hardeman: It's just to take the plural and take it to singular and allow the singular.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad it's clear to you, Mr Hardeman. Could I have another explanation so as to understand it clearly?

Ms Davies: Yes. The existing act, as well as the existing bill, provides for multiple indexes, and the sectors, both municipal and development, have found that one of the three indexes is particularly accurate and appropriate, which is a construction index. So they have said that they would like a single index to be prescribed, which is the most accurate index.

Mr Marchese: Thank you.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 9 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "may also" in the fourth line and substituting "shall."

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the motion. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

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

"Maximum level of service

"(1.1) The maximum level of service, for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection (1), is the higher of the following levels:

"1. The average level of that service provided in the municipality over the 10-year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study required under section 10. How the average level of service is determined may be governed by the regulations.

"2. The level of that service provided in the municipality when the background study required under section 10 is prepared.

"3. The level of service required by law."

I think that's self-explanatory, Madam Chair. I will add nothing else to it.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Capital costs, deductions

"(2) The capital costs, determined under paragraph 6 of subsection (1), must be reduced, in accordance with the regulations, to adjust for capital grants, subsidies and other contributions made to a municipality or that the council of the municipality anticipates will be made in respect of the capital costs."

This motion is to make sure that the grants and subsidies that would be allocated would be allocated appropriately between the existing growth and the new growth, so it would not all be attributed to one or the other.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that the part of subsection 5(3) of the bill preceding paragraph 1 be struck out and the following substituted:

"(3) The following are capital costs for the purposes of paragraph 6 of subsection (1) if they are incurred or proposed to be incurred by a municipality or a local board directly or by others on behalf of, and as authorized by, a municipality or local board."

This is a technical motion to ensure that costs incurred by others on behalf of the municipality are included as capital costs.

The Chair: Further discussion? I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subparagraph i of paragraph 4 of subsection 5(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"i. rolling stock with an estimated useful life of seven years or more,

"i.1 furniture and equipment, other than computer equipment, and"

As an explanation, capital costs will no longer include rolling stock with a short lifespan of less than seven years, or computer equipment.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 5(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"6.1 Costs of any study to determine the amount, type or location of future development and the services that will be needed as a result."

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 5(5) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion? I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion carries.

Mr Hardeman: I moved that the part of subsection 5(6) of the bill preceding paragraph 1 be struck out and the following substituted:

"(6) The services referred to in paragraph 7 of subsection (1) for which there is no percentage reduction, are the following."

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraphs 5 and 7 of subsection 5(6) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion? I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 5(6) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Did we not just do that amendment?

Mr Sergio: No, you did the government's. This is the Liberal amendment.

The Chair: Right. This is an amendment to the entire section. Shall I put the question? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 5(7) of the bill be amended by striking out "in a particular case" in the third line and substituting "in any particular case."

Again this is a technical amendment to deal with the consistency of the terms used in the bill.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Any further amendments to section 5? I put the question. Shall section 5, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 6.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 1 of section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out "in a particular case" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "in any particular case."

Again it's the same amendment as we've had previously for clarity and consistency in the bill.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Any further amendments to section 6? Shall section 6, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 6, as amended, shall carry.

1640

Section 7.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 7(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Categories of services

"(1) A development charge bylaw may provide for services to be grouped into a category of services. However, services for which there is a 10% reduction under paragraph 7 of subsection 5(1) may not be grouped with services for which there is no such reduction."

Mr Marchese: Can I have an explanation on that?

Mr Hardeman: This change is to implement the removal of the discount for the old 10% services and to reduce the 30% discount on all eligible services to 10%.

Mr Marchese: It "may not be grouped with services for which there is no such reduction." Is that the answer to this point? Whatever Mr Hardeman said relates to that?

Ms Davies: Yes, Mr Marchese.

Mr Sergio: Can I ask a question of staff, please? What's the intent of the existing legislation where it says now subsection 5(1) is being amended, where it says "may not be grouped" while the existing legislation is "to be grouped into a category of service"? Why such a departure from that?

Ms Davies: The language is different because in Bill 98 to which you refer there were two types of percentage categories, so the language was, "A development charge bylaw may provide for services, each of which is subject to the same percentage...to be grouped into a category of services," meaning you have to group the 10s together and the 30s together. We've now made a change from 30 and 10 to 10 and zero, so we don't have two percentage reductions. That is the grammatical change to reflect that.

Mr Sergio: Since we don't have that, would you say the change is useless? It doesn't do anything?

Ms Davies: I think it's still an important change because what it means that services may be grouped where they are 10% and services may be grouped where they are 0%. It's the same intent as the original subsection, simply reflecting the changes in the percentage reductions.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 7, as amended, shall carry.

Is there any discussion or amendments on sections 8 through to 11, please? Seeing none, shall sections 8 through 11 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 8 through 11 shall carry.

Section 12.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 12(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) give at least 20 days' notice of the meeting or meetings in accordance with the regulations; and"

This is a technical motion to clarify the scope of the regulation-making authority in the bill and to ensure that the types of notice anticipated are provided for; strictly to set the time lines for the notices required for certain activities.

Mr Marchese: I'm not quite sure why you're making this change. It says in the original amendment there, "give at least 20 days' notice of the meeting or meetings in the manner." I'm just going to go through it for a second.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Marchese, we're just removing "to the persons and organizations prescribed," so the notice would not be prescribed as to where the notice has to go through this section, only the time.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure whether I prefer it the way it was or the way you're about to be changing it. The way it was, it says "in the manner and to the persons and organizations prescribed." I had a problem with the word "prescribed," because I'm not sure whether you can prescribe people, which is rather odd, almost dumb too, because I don't know how you do that. But then you change it with something which is, for me, not necessarily obscure, but to leave it to regulation I'm not quite sure what you intend to do with that.

Mr Hardeman: I'm just informed that the draft regulations actually say that the notice could be by newspaper, so that would not then include it to be to persons. So we need to remove "the persons" --

Mr Marchese: I don't mind that. Because it's not that complicated, why could we not have said that in the amendment as opposed to leaving it to regulation? There aren't too many other ways of doing some of these things, or do you think there are?

Mr Hardeman: With the amendment the legislation will now be giving it notice in different manners as it's prescribed by regulation. The only thing that will be required by legislation is that we must give 20 days' notice of the meetings.

Mr Marchese: I understand that. I'm worried about what regulations might or might not do. We've always been worried, you in opposition and we in opposition, because we're not quite sure what regulations are likely to do. That's why we worry about that language. If we have a number of ways in which this can be done in terms of public meetings -- the way we do it in subcommittee is to decide if we go through newspapers or we attach notice on the parliamentary channel and so on. There aren't too many ways of doing this. Why wouldn't we say that in this language as opposed to leaving it to regulation?

Mr Hardeman: I'm just informed that in fact the giving of notice and how that can be done is in other legislation, including the Planning Act. Again this section is only to make sure that you must give 20 days' notice of such meetings. As it is presently in the legislation before this amendment, it is more prescriptive as to how it must be done.

Mr Marchese: I understand that. It doesn't answer my question, though.

Mr Hardeman: We are maintaining the fact that it must be done, but giving the local direction as to how they could do it.

Mr Marchese: That's okay. That wasn't what I asked, but we should move on, I think.

The Chair: In that case, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Shall section 12 then, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Moving to section 13.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 13(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Requirements of notice

"(2) Notices required under this section must meet the requirements prescribed in the regulations and shall be given in accordance with the regulations."

Again this is a technical motion to clarify the scope of the regulation-making authority in the bill and to ensure that the types of notice anticipated are provided for.

Mr Marchese: So this one means that whatever you describe in regulation, which we don't know about, whatever is described in regulations, notices must fit into that? Correct, more or less?

Mr Hardeman: Yes.

Mr Marchese: My ongoing worry is what regulations might do, and that's what you weren't answering, what this might say.

Mr Hardeman: I can't put your mind at rest totally on what future regulations may or may not say. For the purpose of this act, we have put forward draft regulations that deal with that as we see this should be done, but we cannot guarantee that forever and ever no one would change those regulations as to the requirements.

1650

Mr Sergio: You have put forth draft regulations, so they are in draft form. We have no idea what those regulations entail. I would like to know if there is anything within the existing regulations or the Planning Act which gives the local municipality, planning boards and planning departments, especially with the changes now, the megacity and so forth, the flexibility that yes, there's 20 days' notice. Are those 20 days clear? Can they choose to have their own planning department staff send out the notices? Small municipalities may not have other means of advertising or it may be expensive. Do they have the flexibility that the local municipality may direct their own planning department to notify?

Also, I believe there is some legislation or within the present Planning Act that the local municipality must notify within a particular radius. So if it is 20 days, is it within 400 feet, 400 metres, half a mile of the particular application or now are we eliminating that particular section?

Also, 20 days may seem to be a lot to a developer who wants to move expeditiously. With what your government is creating now, these local boards or commissions and ratepayers' group and whatever, you name it, sometimes 20 days is not a heck of a lot when you're now going to have another group of elected politicians who will have to meet with the local commission. Maybe that local commission will have to meet with another ratepayers' group and 20 days to do all of that is not a heck of a lot.

I understand the direction of the government and I won't dwell too much on it, but I would like to have some clarification from staff if there is any particular place where the local municipalities still have the flexibility and the power to send out notices themselves and if they are combined within a particular radius.

Mr Hardeman: I think the regulations are quite clear: The notices for the application of the development charge bylaw must be sent out to the area that it covers. If the bylaw is for a certain geographic area, that's the area that must be notified and in the draft regulation, they must be notified by either direct mailing or through newspaper advertising.

Incidentally, in the draft regulations, there was clear accounting for what constitutes 20 days, whether it's 20 working days or 20 calendar days. I think they're clarified. The amendments in the legislation are based on the need to make sure that the minimum requirements, even beyond regulations, are in the legislation. That would not be changed. All would always be entitled to that type of notification.

Mr Sergio: I don't want to dwell on it, but just for clarification, unless it's in some other parts of the legislation or regulation here, in 13 there is nothing that says to whom and where. It doesn't say at all in here. There is nothing at all.

Mr Hardeman: I think the prescription of who it must go to is in the regulations so that can be identified.

Mr Sergio: In the draft regulation, that's the way it's going to be.

Mr Hardeman: Yes, it would be in the drafted regulations.

Mr Sergio: So actually, you're tell us, you're telling the public: "Trust us. We're going to have something in there for you." You're going to tell those local people, "We're going to give you the voice that you want, and you can rest assured that the local municipality will be obliged, forced, to send out notices within a half-mile radius, and we are approving this legislation, and there is absolutely nothing in this"?

Mr Hardeman: I think I would point out to your earlier comment that one has to leave the flexibility for our local municipalities to give an appropriate notification.

Mr Sergio: But it's not in here. That's my point.

Mr Hardeman: The degree of openness of that notification would be in regulations. Without the regulation as it relates to the legislation, it would be totally open. I would agree with you that it would be inappropriate to say there are no stipulations how notifications must be given and that's why the draft regulations had been introduced. So it will direct that notification process.

Mr Sergio: I'll be watching for that.

The Chair: I've put the question. Seeing no further discussion, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Seeing no further amendment, shall section 13, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Are there any further amendments or discussion to sections 14, 15, 16 or 17?

Seeing none, shall sections 14 through 17 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 14 through 17 carry.

Section 18.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 18(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "at the prescribed rate" in the second line and substituting "at a rate not less than the prescribed minimum interest rate."

Again, this is a motion to clarify the scope of the regulation-making authority of allowing minimum interest rates to be prescribed, but the municipalities could change the rate provided they did not go below the minimum rate.

The Chair: Discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Any further amendments or comments on section 18? Shall section 18, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 18, as amended, shall carry.

Any further amendments or comments on sections 19 or 20?

Seeing none, shall sections 19 and 20 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 21: This is a note of information only. Any further discussion or amendments in section 21? Shall section 21 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 22.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 22(1) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Marchese: That subsection 22(1) be struck out?

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Marchese: Subsection 22(1) says, "A complainant may appeal the decision of the council of the municipality to the Ontario Municipal Board."

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Marchese: You want that struck out.

Mr Sergio: The only time a complainant should be brought to the OMB is where a council fails to decide within 90 days of filing a complaint. That is the --

Mr Marchese: Yes, but this says a complainant may appeal the decision of the council, which is a good thing.

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Marchese: But you want that struck out.

Mr Hardeman: Pending further clarification, I will be voting against the resolution because I think we should allow these to go to the board for an appeal.

Mr Marchese: That's very good, Mr Hardeman.

Mr Hardeman: There are times when that's required.

Mr Sergio: Hold on a second.

Mr Hardeman: It's the time limit you're concerned with?

Mr Sergio: No. I understand what you're saying and I understand what the amendment here is. I think the only time that a complainant should go to the OMB is where a council fails to decide within 90 days. Yes, of course, they should have the right to the OMB, but if a council doesn't want to deal with an issue and they want to procrastinate for whatever, let's say, political reasons and within 90 days the council has not made a decision, then I think they should have the right to go to the OMB within the 90 days.

Mr Marchese: You might want to withdraw it, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I'll let it go. You can vote against it.

The Chair: Then I shall put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 22(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "also" in the first line and by striking out "60 days" in the fourth line and substituting "90 days."

See, now you get the real meaning. We want to give you a better chance here.

1700

Mr Marchese: The previous argument has been made to this motion, is that it?

Mr Sergio: No further explanations.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

Any further amendments or comments on section 22? Shall section 22 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 22 is carried.

Section 23.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 23(1) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Marchese: Is there an explanation? Is this self-explanatory?

Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, I can use the same argument as last time. I will be voting against the amendment, partly because I don't understand why the process outlined in the appeal process would be inappropriate.

Mr Marchese: Is there an issue why you want to move that? You still want to move it?

Mr Sergio: Yes.

The Chair: Do you wish to respond, Mr Sergio?

Mr Sergio: No, I move it. No withdrawal.

The Chair: All right, then I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Shall section 23 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Are there any amendments or comments on section 24? Shall section 24 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 25.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 25(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "at the prescribed rate" in the second line and substituting "at a rate not less than the prescribed minimum interest rate."

Again, that's a clarification to make sure that only the minimum interest rate is defined and beyond that it is a municipal decision.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Further comments or amendments on section 25? Shall section 25, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Section 26.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 26(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Special case, approval of plan of subdivision

"(2) A municipality may, in a development charge bylaw, provide that a development charge for services set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 of subsection 5(6) for development that requires approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act or a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act and for which a subdivision agreement or consent agreement is entered into, be payable immediately upon the parties entering into the agreement."

This change will mean that the development charges for transit, fire and police cannot be required at the subdivision stage; only charges for water, sewer, roads and hydro services can be required at the time of subdivision approval.

The Chair: Any discussion or comment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further comment or amendments to section 26? Shall section 26, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.

Section 27.

Mr Hardeman: I move that the part of subsection 27(2) of the bill preceding clause (a) be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) The total amount of development charge payable under an agreement under this section is the amount of the development charge that would be determined under the bylaw on the day specified in the agreement or, if no such day is specified, at the earlier of."

This is a technical change to clarify that a municipality may only agree to calculating charges at an earlier or later date.

The Chair: I put the question: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Mr Sergio: I move that section 27 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Security for late payments

"(4) An agreement under this section may provide for the giving of security to secure the payment of the parts of development charges that are payable after they would otherwise be payable together with any interest that may be payable."

That, in our view, would add the authority of the municipality to obtain security forms for no payment or late payment. That's all.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Marchese: Is there an explanation from the government member? Agreement or disagreement?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that I can give you the total direction from the committee as I've obviously just received the amendment as we speak. It would appear to me that the direction of the amendment is to put the municipalities into the brokering business, that they can accept other securities rather than payments. I'm sure this would not be an appropriate way of dealing with the development charges.

Mr Sergio: Can we have the views of staff, Madam Chair, please, how they view this amendment as it's written.

Ms Davies: The context is early and late payment agreements, and they may provide for appropriate provisions, and this doesn't add anything to the early or late payment provisions that's not already available. Certainly Mr Hardeman's concerns may be an inappropriate application of that in any specific early or late payment agreement.

Mr Sergio: My problem with that is that the parliamentary assistant says municipalities shouldn't take anything other than cash. Municipalities don't take cash; they take credit, they take bonds, and they resort to this type of action, if you will, only when they cannot collect and payments are late. I think we should give the local municipality that freedom, that flexibility. If they can't collect, they've got to do something.

Mr Hardeman: But in the present act, as it's being proposed, it allows for the agreement of when charges can or should be paid.

Mr Sergio: It can ensure it, but we are talking about late payments.

Mr Hardeman: Giving up securities, if it's in the appropriate form of securities that municipalities are authorized to deal in, that could be dealt with in the early and late payment as the legislation presently exists.

If we're looking at adding to that, we get to the other part, that they would then be dealing in areas legislation does not presently allow them to be involved in, such as buying into the subdivision as opposed to having a subdivision agreement. All of a sudden they could turn in and become the developer as opposed to being the governance over that development. I think this resolution would be inappropriate.

Mr Marchese: Just so I understand, there is already enabling language somewhere else that permits municipalities to do whatever with respect to early or late payments. It's somewhere in the act that it says this or does this, thereby making this unnecessary?

Ms Davies: Just a slight clarification: There's general ability to enter into agreements providing for early and late payment. There are many appropriate terms and conditions that, under normal contract, could be dealt with, and there's permissive legislation elsewhere about the scope of municipalities.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Sergio: A recorded vote.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Sergio.

Nays

Chudleigh, Danford, Fisher, Grimmett, Hardeman, Marchese, Maves, Munro.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

Any further amendments or comments on section 27? Shall section 27, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Any further amendments or comments on sections 28, 29, 30 or 31? Seeing none, I put the question: Shall sections 28 to 31 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 32.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 32(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "shall be collected in the same manner as taxes" at the end and substituting "shall be deemed to be taxes."

1710

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Sergio: If the local municipality can collect development charges, just to treat them as a tax; in many cases in municipalities they put an encumbrance on their property or whatever and it would become part of the taxes to be collected.

Mr Hardeman: The government has consistently been changing legislation, as has been proposed, to "shall be collected in the same manner as taxes" rather than being "deemed" as taxes. I think it's inappropriate to pass legislation that deems something to be something that it isn't. Though you may want to be able to collect them in a similar manner as taxes, I think it's inappropriate to legislate to say that they shall be taxes; they are not, and so they shouldn't be. I think the impact of doing it would be similar, if you can collect them as taxes, and I don't believe it's appropriate to also deem them taxes.

Mr Sergio: Just a question of staff, Madam Chair. Doesn't the Municipal Act refer to that as taxes? When municipalities are faced with a situation like this, the Municipal Act addresses that as taxes.

Mr Hardeman: My understanding -- and we're not debating the Municipal Act today -- is that other acts allow municipalities to collect other charges in a similar manner as taxes, but that does not make them or deem them to be taxes.

Mr Sergio: Okay, that's fine.

Mr Hardeman: Ontario Hydro has the ability to ask the municipality to collect their arrears on the tax roll, but that does not make them taxes or deem them to be taxes.

Mr Marchese: Here we're dealing with, if a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid, how you collect it. The point is that you collect it in the same manner as taxes; you don't collect it in the same manner as "shall be deemed to be taxes." It doesn't fit. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr Sergio: I believe we have different views, but that's all right. That's part of the process.

Mr Hardeman: To further the concern the government would have with supporting this motion would be the fact that if they were deemed to be taxes, they would be attached to the new house. If they are collected in a like manner as taxes, they would be collected from the individual who owed them, which could very well be the developer, not the new homeowner. I think it's important that they be collectable as taxes but not deemed to be taxes.

Mr Sergio: You don't want to, but you're moving into the Municipal Act, but that's okay.

The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I put the question: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Any further amendments or comments to section 32? Shall the section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.

Any comments or amendments to section 33 or 34? Seeing none, shall section 33 and section 34 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 35.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 35 of the bill be amended by striking out "paragraphs 2 to 6" in the last two lines and substituting "paragraphs 2 to 7."

This is a technical motion to ensure proper cross-referencing in the bill.

The Chair: Further comment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Any further amendments or comment on section 35? Shall section 35, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 36. I see no amendments; these are notes.

Mr Hardeman: I don't know about the other members of the government side, but I will be voting against this section as it becomes redundant because of the changing in the percentages.

Mr Marchese: Why would they do that?

The Chair: Any further comments?

Mr Marchese: I just want to agree with Mr Hardeman. Clearly, they've been listening, presumably as they did during the tour outside of Toronto. There must have been complaining about what this section would have done in terms of their ability to use reserve funds. Presumably, Mr Hardeman and the others who were there must have come to this enlightened conclusion that this would have been a mistake had they done this. So they've been listening. Mr Hardeman, is that more or less what happened?

Mr Hardeman: I have come up with a good reason why I am going to vote against this section, not to dictate or to suggest that I would dictate what the other members of the government side would do.

Mr Marchese: Let's ask them.

Mr Hardeman: I'm sure they too have heard what has been said. They will vote their conscience.

Mr Marchese: I want to hear from them.

Mr Hardeman: We'll see that when we vote.

Mr Marchese: Do we have any folks there who want to speak to this?

The Chair: I'll put the question. Shall section 36 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section is lost.

Section 37; Mr Hardeman.

Mr Sergio: With all due respect, we have an amendment here. For some reason we think the same way. I don't know why they are voting with us on this one here.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by striking out "at the prescribed rate" at the end and substituting "at a rate not less than the prescribed minimum interest rate."

Again, this clarifies that the interest rate would be at least minimum as opposed to being dictated to be the minimum.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further comments or amendments to section 37? Shall section 37, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 38.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 38 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Municipal Act, exclusions

"38. The following provisions of the Municipal Act do not apply to development charges collected by a municipality:

"1. Subsection 163(2.1), paragraph 2 of subsection 163(2.2) and subsections 163(3), (4) and (5).

"2. Clause 167(2)(b) and subsections 167(4) and (5)."

This change will bring Bill 98 into conformity with the investment provisions of Bill 86.

Mr Marchese: What is that?

Mr Hardeman: Bill 86 is the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Mr Marchese: I remember the bill. The investment provisions are, again? Does anybody remember?

Mr Hardeman: I'll have to ask the staff to answer that one. It's how money can be invested or needs to be invested. In this bill, it will have its own authority as to how the money is to be invested; in the other one, it's directed how they can do it.

Ms Davies: Just to clarify, the point is that there are certain provisions dealing with the use of money and reserves in the Municipal Act that were amended by Bill 86.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I remember.

Ms Davies: This provision provides that those do not apply, because the reserve provisions are self-contained in the Development Charges Act. We're simply changing the cross-referencing to the reserve provisions in the Municipal Act, which do not apply.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further comments or amendments to section 38? Shall section 38, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 38 carries.

Section 39.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 39(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"When credits given

"(1) If a municipality agrees to allow a person to perform work that relates to a service to which a development charge bylaw relates, the municipality shall give the person a credit towards the development charge in accordance with the agreement."

This motion clarifies the requirements that municipalities must give credits for work provided in lieu. This is a technical change.

1720

Mr Marchese: I don't see how that clarifies technically. It says, "the municipality shall give the person a credit." Isn't that already clear probably somewhere else?

Mr Hardeman: The request from the consultation was that they wanted it in this section.

Mr Marchese: By "they," you mean the developers?

Mr Hardeman: Yes. It is a clarification. It already existed, but it was felt appropriate that it should be written in this section so it applied to this section.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad we're listening to the developers, Mr Hardeman, it's important.

Mr Hardeman: I'd just like to point out for all the committee members that we listened to everyone who made a presentation.

Mr Marchese: Everyone? That's good.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further comments or amendments to section 39? Shall section 39, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 39, as amended, carries.

Sections 40 and 41: Are there any comments or amendments? Shall sections 40 and 41 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 42.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 42(4), (5) and (6) of the bill be struck out.

Mr Marchese: What is the effect of that?

Mr Hardeman: This change is to remove the requirement for a municipal contribution where a credit is used. It follows from the removal of the municipal copayments.

Mr Marchese: What does that mean?

Mr Hardeman: The act presently requires the contribution of the municipality to development charges. Since it has been changed to remove the original 10% and change the 30% to 10%, the 10% can be just a reduced charge as opposed to a municipal contribution. This is required to accommodate that.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.

Any further comments or amendments for section 42? Shall section 42, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 42 carries.

Any comments or amendments to section 43? Shall section 43 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 43 carries.

Section 44.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 44(2) of the bill be struck out.

Just briefly, because of the number of regulations that provide direction on how the act is to be implemented, we believe that an annual reporting would be sufficient instead of reporting on a line-by-line basis.

Mr Hardeman: The government would see it as quite appropriate to include the requirement that they prepare and have open for public scrutiny how the funds are being collected, how they're being distributed and how they're being looked after in reserves. We think it's appropriate that this section remain in the bill.

Mr Sergio: I don't want to imply that we don't require that it be open, that they don't report. It's only saying that once a year would be enough.

The Chair: I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Any further amendments or comments on section 44? Shall section 44 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 44 carries.

Section 45.

Mr Hardeman: I move that the part of subsection 45(1) of the bill preceding clause (b) be struck out and the following substituted:

"Front-ending agreement

"45(1) A municipality in which a development charge bylaw is in force may enter into an agreement, called a front-ending agreement, that,

"(a) applies with respect to work, done before or after the agreement is entered into,

"(i) that relates to the provision of services for which there will be an increased need as a result of development, and

"(ii) that will benefit an area of the municipality, defined in the agreement, to which the development charge bylaw applies."

Mr Marchese: What is the effect of your change with respect to what you previously had there?

Mr Hardeman: The front-end provisions are to be amended in light of the other changes proposed in the bill. This change will require a development charge bylaw to be enforced on the relevant lands. Also the amendment allows the charge for work that was done prior to and subsequent to the agreement, although the work that is being charged for must be in a development charge bylaw. So they cannot come up with special deals that would put more charges towards the development as they saw fit.

The Chair: Further comment? I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 45(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Restrictions on services covered

"(2) The services to which the work relates must be services to which the development charge bylaw relates and that are set out in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 of subsection 5(6)."

I would just note that only water, sewer, roads and hydro are services which may be front-ended, and these services must be in the bylaw if they are to be front-ended.

Mr Marchese: So you're adding to this?

Mr Hardeman: It limits the scope of a development front-end agreement to apply only to water, sewer, roads and hydro as they relate to servicing a development, the immediate services required for that development to be put in place. In fact, some of those services may be required beyond the site, and they can front-end that type of agreement; the others must be paid in development charges directly.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 45 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exemption for industrial development

"(3.1) Section 4 applies, with necessary modifications, to amounts a person who is not a party to a front-ending agreement must pay under the agreement."

This is a note in explanation: A front-ending agreement could not be used to impose charges on industrial expansions of less than 50%.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 45(6) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"3. The municipality's costs of dealing with an objection to the front-ending agreement including the municipality's legal costs relating to any hearing held by the Ontario Municipal Board."

It says that the municipality's costs, including legal costs at the OMB, will be recovered and paid. That's mainly what it's saying, that those costs be included as well.

Mr Hardeman: Not having done a great lot of research on the issue, it seems somewhat inappropriate to me to suggest that in this case appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board would be paid for by an applicant, when in all other cases when you go to the Ontario Municipal Board the costs are shared by everyone involved. The Ontario Municipal Board does have the power to award cost. If it's a frivolous application, they would have that ability to do it in this. I would think it inappropriate to automatically assume that in these cases it was always the applicant who was wrong and they should always bear the cost of the OMB hearing.

Mr Sergio: But it's okay if the municipality now pays and pays in that event, as front-end facilitators? That's what you're saying, it's okay?

Mr Hardeman: In all fairness to the Ontario Municipal Board, if it's a frivolous application or if it shouldn't have been there, they have the power to award cost to the developer or to anyone else who inappropriately brings an application to the OMB. But it's fair to suggest that in all cases at the OMB, costs are borne by all parties, and I think it would be inappropriate to suggest in development charges that any application that went to the OMB was borne by one party. It may very well be because of a municipality's actions that took it to the OMB.

Mr Sergio: The problem with that, the way I see it, and I know we want to move expeditiously on this, is that this can drag on, and this becomes a burden on the rest of the taxpayers. I don't think it's proper if the municipality spends money. It may not be the municipality that is going to the OMB; it may be the municipality that may go to the OMB in support sometime of that particular applicant as well, but the municipality is fronting that applicant, if you will. They should be recovering those costs as well. We don't see a problem that municipalities, on behalf of all the taxpayers there, should be recovering those costs.

1730

Mr Hardeman: I think it would be inappropriate to have this instance where costs are being awarded to one party as opposed to the other. If a municipality passes a money bylaw and anyone in the municipality wants to object to that and take it to the Ontario Municipal Board, everyone covers the cost of that, both the appellant and the defendant, so I think that would be appropriate in this case too. If they happen to be or prove to be a frivolous case, the OMB does have the power to award costs to either side if the issue should not have been before it.

The Chair: Further discussion? I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.

Any further amendments to this section? Shall section 45, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 45, as amended, carries.

Section 46.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 46 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Other provisions allowed

"(2) A front-ending agreement may contain other provisions in addition to those required under subsection (1)."

As an explanation, this motion makes clear that the mandatory provisions in the bill do not exclude other negotiated terms of an agreement.

The Chair: Further comment? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.

Any further comments or amendments to section 46? Shall the section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 46, as amended, carries.

Sections 47, 48 and 49: Are there any amendments or comments? Shall sections 47, 48 and 49 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 47, 48 and 49 carry.

Section 50.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 50 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2.1) If the Ontario Municipal Board terminates the agreement or makes an order under clause (2)(c), the board may order the municipality to refund any amount paid under the agreement in excess of,

"(a) if the agreement is terminated, what would have been payable under the development charge bylaw, or

"(b) if the agreement is amended, what would have been payable under the amended agreement."

In explanation, this motion gives the OMB the express power to refund overpayments made under the front-ending agreement.

The Chair: Any comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 50(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "Unless the Ontario Municipal Board orders otherwise" at the beginning.

In explanation, the OMB will not have the power to impose a different effective date of the agreement. The agreement will take effect on the day it was signed, not the day the OMB decides.

The Chair: Further comment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: On subsection 50(5) of the bill, I move that section 50 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(5) Despite subsection (1), the Ontario Municipal Board may, where it is of the opinion that the objection to the agreement relates to a matter that was, or more properly should have been, raised as an objection in the appeal of a development charge bylaw, dismiss the objection without holding a full hearing after notifying the person filing the objection and giving that person an opportunity to make representations as to whether or not there should be a full hearing."

The Chair: Questions or comments?

Mr Hardeman: I'd just point out that section 4 already deals with a similar situation and that's why I will be voting against this motion.

Mr Sergio: Are you saying it's redundant?

Mr Hardeman: Yes.

Mr Sergio: Then why don't you support it?

Mr Hardeman: We don't want to make the book any bigger than it needs to be.

The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

Any further amendments or comments on section 50? Shall section 50, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 50 carries.

Are there any comments or questions or amendments on section 51? Shall section 51 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 51 carries.

Section 52.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsections 52(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Comments or questions? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 52, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 52 carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 53(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"When amounts payable

"(2) An amount that is payable under subsection (1) is payable upon a building permit being issued for the development unless the front-ending agreement provides for the amount to be payable on a later day or on an earlier day as allowed under subsection (2.1).

"Same

"(2.1) A front-ending agreement may provide that an amount payable under subsection (1) for development that requires approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act or a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act and for which a subdivision agreement or consent agreement is entered into, be payable immediately upon the parties entering into the subdivision or consent agreement."

As an explanation, this motion clarifies that the front-ending agreement can provide that the amount is payable at subdivision or a later date.

The Chair: Further comments or questions? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 53(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "on a later day" at the end and substituting "on a different day."

That is to specifically collect it any other day so we have some flexibility there between the applicant and the municipality.

The Chair: Further comment or question? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

Any further comments or questions on section 53? Shall section 53, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 53 carries.

Are there amendments or comments on section 54? Shall section 54 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 54 carries.

Section 55.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 55(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "the other parties" in the second line and substituting "parties."

As an explanation, this was a request of municipalities to make sure that it could also include municipalities as opposed to other parties, that it could include any party.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 55 be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Money held until objections disposed of

"(4) If an objection to a front-ending agreement is made, the municipality shall retain any money received from persons who are not parties to the agreement until all the objections to the agreement are disposed of by the Ontario Municipal Board. If the board makes an order that the agreement be terminated unless the parties amend it in accordance with the board's order the municipality shall retain the money until the agreement is either terminated or amended.

"Application to amendments

"(5) Subsection (4) applies, with necessary modifications, with respect to amendments to front-ending agreements."

This just clarifies that the municipality holds the money until there is a hearing.

1740

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further comments or amendments to section 55? Shall section 55, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 55 carries.

Section 56.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 56 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Credits

"56. (1) A person is entitled to be given a credit towards a development charge for the amount of their non-reimbursable share of the costs of work under a front-ending agreement.

"Restriction on the amount

"(2) If the work would result in a level of service that exceeds the average level of service in the 10-year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study for the development charge bylaw, the amount of the credit must be reduced in the same proportion that the costs of the work that relate to a level of service that exceeds that average level of service bear to the costs of the work. Any regulations relating to the level of service and average level of service for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1) also apply, with necessary modifications, for the purposes of this subsection.

"Credits are treated like section 39 credits

"(3) Credits under this section shall be treated, for the purposes of this act, as though they were credits under section 39."

In explanation, since a bylaw is required in order to enter into a front-ending agreement, the 10-year average service level calculation is now the same as that which was used in the development charge background study. This change also clearly indicates that credits given under section 56 are to be used as any other credits given in this bill.

Mr Sergio: If there is an agreement that it's a portion that is non-refundable, it's gone, forget it, you won't see it any more. Why is this applicant now expected to get a portion of this refund when it is non-refundable and this was already agreed when the agreement was signed?

Mr Hardeman: I don't think anything that is non-refundable is being indicated that it would be refunded.

Mr Sergio: That's the way I read it. "56(1) A person is entitled to be given a credit towards a development charge for the amount of their non-reimbursable share of the costs.... " If that's non-reimbursable, what do they expect to get back?

Mr Hardeman: I think this is an issue where they had contributed to a development charge to build a road going to the development. It's non-reimbursable, but they have a credit for it. This issue deals with those credits. If they invested $100,000 to build a road leading to the development, they would now have a credit for that and this is the issue dealing with that credit.

Mr Sergio: Are you talking about a refundable deposit?

Mr Hardeman: No. Part of what they contributed to the building of that road may have been, in a front-ending agreement, to serve their development, but part is that they are supposed to get a credit for future development when someone else utilizes that capacity.

Mr Sergio: It doesn't say that.

Mr Hardeman: That's what we're working on.

Mr Sergio: It doesn't say that, but I'll take the majority's views here.

The Chair: Further comments? I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further amendments or comments on section 56? Shall section 56, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.

Any comments or questions on sections 57, 58 or 59? Shall sections 57, 58 and 59 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 60.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 60(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exception for local services

"(2) A condition or agreement referred to in subsection (1) may provide for:

"(a) local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under section 51 of the Planning Act;

"(b) local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under section 53 of the Planning Act.

"Limitation

"(2.1) This section does not prevent a condition or agreement under section 51 or 53 of the Planning Act from requiring that services be in place before development begins.

"Notice of development charges at transfer

"(2.2) In giving approval to a draft plan of subdivision under subsection 51(31) of the Planning Act, the approval authority shall use its power to impose conditions under clause 51(25)(d) of the Planning Act to ensure that the persons who first purchase the subdivided land after the final approval of the plan of subdivision are informed, at the time the land is transferred, of all the development charges related to the development."

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further amendments or comments on section 60? Shall section 60 as amended carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 60 carries.

Section 61.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 61(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) for the purposes of clause 2(3)(b), prescribing classes of residential buildings, prescribing the maximum number of additional dwelling units, not exceeding two, for buildings in such classes, prescribing restrictions and governing what constitutes a separate building."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clauses 61(1)(e) and (f) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(d.1) governing the determination as to whether the council of a municipality has indicated, for the purposes of paragraph 2.1 of subsection 5(1), an intention to ensure that an increase in need for services will be met;

"(e) governing the determination of the level of service and the average level of service for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1);

"(f) for the purposes of paragraph 4 of subsection 5(1), governing the determination of excess capacity and whether a council has indicated an intention that excess capacity would be paid for by new development."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clause 61(1)(i) be amended by striking out "or indices" in the first line.

The Chair: Comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 61(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(i.1) governing reductions, under subsection 5(2), to adjust for capital grants, subsidies and other contributions, including governing what are capital grants, subsidies and other contributions for the purposes of that subsection and how much the reduction shall be for such grants, subsidies and other contributions."

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? Opposed? Carried.

1750

Mr Hardeman: I move that clauses 61(l), (k), (n), (o) and (p) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(k) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 10 of subsection 5(6), services for which there is no percentage reduction;

"(n) for the purposes of clause 12(1)(b), governing notice of meetings;

"(o) for the purposes of subsection 13(2), governing notices of the passing of development charge bylaws;

"(o.1) requiring municipalities to keep records in respect of reserve funds and governing such records;

"(p) prescribing the minimum interest rate or a method for determining the minimum interest rate that municipalities shall pay under subsections 18(3) and 25(2) and section 37."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 61(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(r.1) requiring municipalities to prepare and distribute pamphlets to explain their development charge bylaws and governing the preparation of such pamphlets and their distribution by municipalities and others."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: I move that section 61 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation for prescribing ineligible services

"(1.1) Regulations made under clause 61(1)(d) prescribing services for which development charges may not be imposed and regulations amending or repealing such regulations are effective only if they are filed under the Regulations Act before January 1, 1999."

That is to insert a sunset clause, if you will. There's nothing more to it than that.

The Chair: Questions or comments? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

Any further questions or comments on section 61? Shall section 61, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 62, any questions or comments? Shall section 62 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 62 carries.

Section 63.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 63 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Application of old act

"(2.1) A municipality may, under the old act, amend or repeal a development charge bylaw with respect to which the old act applies under subsection (2) but the municipality may not pass a new development charge bylaw under that act."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Any further questions or comments to section 63? Shall section 63, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 63 carries.

Section 64.

Mr Sergio: I move that section 64 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Reserve funds under the old act

"64. The old act continues to apply with respect to a reserve fund under a development charge bylaw under the old act that expires or is repealed during the transition period or expires, under section 63, at the end of the transition period."

It just deals with the transitional period for reserve funds, nothing more than that.

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

Mr Sergio:I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 64(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "Five years" at the beginning and substituting "Ten years."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

Any further questions or comments to section 64? Shall section 64 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 64 carries.

Section 65.

Mr Hardeman: I move that paragraph 2 of subsection 65(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"2. Notices required under paragraph 1 must meet the requirements prescribed in the regulations and shall be given in accordance with the regulations."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 65(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "90 days" in the first line and substituting "365 days."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

Further questions or comments to section 65? Shall section 65, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 66, any questions or further amendments? Shall section 66 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 66 carries.

Section 67; a note for your information. Any further amendments or comments on section 67?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure about other members of the committee, but I will be voting against section 67.

Mr Marchese: Could we have an explanation of the effect of voting against that?

Mr Hardeman: That's my right as a committee member.

Mr Marchese: I just want to know why you're voting against that section.

Mr Hardeman: I believe it's no longer required because of other changes. We will be proposing to put it in regulations as opposed to legislated in the bill.

Mr Marchese: What is the effect of that? You're going to be putting what in the regulation?

Mr Hardeman: The requirements that are in section 67.

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall the section carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 67 is lost.

Section 68.

Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 68(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Can be included as capital cost

"(2) For the purposes of developing a development charge bylaw, the debt may be included as a capital cost subject to any limitations or reductions in this act or the regulations."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Further questions or comments on section 68? Shall section 68, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Further amendments or comments on section 69? Shall section 69 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 69 carries.

Section 70.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clauses 70(a) and (b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) governing notices for the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection 65(1);

"(b) for the purposes of section 68, limiting the circumstances in which a debt may be included as a capital cost and prescribing reductions that shall be made if a debt is to be included as a capital cost;

"(b.1) setting out transitional rules relating to credits given under section 14 of the old act;"

The Chair: Further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 70 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2) Regulations under clause (1)(b.1) may provide for procedures to apply in relation to credits given under section 14 of the old act and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such regulations may provide for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Further amendments or comments to section 70? Shall section 70, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 70 carries.

Section 71, any comments or amendments? Shall section 71 carry? All those in favour? Carried. None opposed.

1800

Section 72, any comments or amendments? Shall section 72 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 72 carries.

Mr Marchese: I want to point out that the time has run out, but if people want to stay and finish this, I'm willing to do that.

The Chair: We're very close. Is there unanimous consent to finish our day's work? I do believe our colleagues appreciate this. We'll continue then. Thank you.

Mr Hardeman, we'll let you start on this one. The clerk indicates to me that this amendment is out of order.

Mr Hardeman: I believe we have unanimous consent to include it in this bill.

Mr Marchese: How do you know that?

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Marchese: Okay.

The Chair: We have unanimous consent.

Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following heading and sections:

"AMENDMENTS TO THE "REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ACT "AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT

"72.1(1) Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1996, chapter 32, section 94, is repealed and the following substituted:

"Composition of councils

"3(1) The council of each area municipality shall be composed of a mayor, who shall be elected by a general vote of the electors of the area municipality and shall be the head of council, and the following number of other members of council:

"1. The city of Cambridge -- Nine members, three of whom shall be elected by general vote of the electors of the city as a member of the council of the city and of the regional council and six of whom shall be elected by the wards as members of the council of the city.

"2. The city of Kitchener -- In respect of the 1997 regular municipal election, 10 members elected by wards. In respect of subsequent regular municipal elections, the number of members determined by bylaw of the city, six of whom shall be elected by the electors of the city as members of the council of the city and of the regional council.

"3. The city of Waterloo -- Ten members, three of whom shall be elected by general vote of the electors of the city as members of council" --

Interjection: You've got an old version.

Mr Sergio: I don't think you have to read all the six or seven pages.

Mr Hardeman: We don't have to read them all?

Mr Sergio: I don't think so.

Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, if I could go back to starting with the city of Waterloo, it's "eight members, three of whom shall be elected by general vote of the electors of the city as members of the council of the city and of the regional council and five of whom shall be elected by wards" --

Mr Marchese: We can probably move to dispense with reading it all. We could, but there is a slight problem with this. I didn't know as of today where we were likely to introduce this amendment. You did say that we have unanimous consent, but I'm not sure whether you've checked this out with our House leaders. Are you saying you've done that?

Mr Hardeman: Which?

Mr Marchese: This particular motion you're reading for the record, you indicated there was unanimous consent. Now I personally don't have any problems with that, but as of today when I was checking this out, we weren't aware of where you or your government were going to bring these changes. You're now saying, "Here it is," and you said there's unanimous consent. You didn't mean us, you probably meant by the House leaders. Is that correct? Are you aware of that?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not aware of whether the House leaders have actually made that decision. My understanding was that if we were to bring it forward, there would be unanimous consent to approve this amendment.

Mr Marchese: I just want to state that this is a particular problem for me. Personally, I don't disagree, except I had no knowledge of when you were going to introduce it and to what bill you were going to attach it. Now I realize you're attaching it to this particular bill. My problem is that I'm not sure our House leaders are aware of what you're doing. That presents a problem for me. If you're telling me that you either don't know or you know that the House leaders agreed, then I'm comfortable with it, otherwise we have a slight problem.

Mr Hardeman: If you'll just give me a minute, I'll try and find out about that. I'm not aware. I just put forward what I know to you, which was that if we put forward unanimous consent, we would receive that.

Mr Marchese: I don't mind waiting a moment if you can check that out.

The Chair: Would it be helpful, colleagues, to seek unanimous consent to stand down this particular section, since we're very close to finishing, and going on and then coming back?

Mr Marchese: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will do just that and we will move then to section 73. But we'll need Mr Hardeman.

Mr Marchese: Another member could read it for the record, Madam Chair. That'll be fine.

The Chair: All right. Section 73, there are no amendments that I am aware of. Are there any amendments or comments on section 73? Seeing none, shall section 73 carry?

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Is it part of 73 or is it still part of 72.1?

The Chair: This is 73. We're standing down 72.1.

Mr Marchese: All in favour?

The Chair: They tell me that these will be renumbered as this one is introduced, and that's quite normal.

Section 73 and section 74, are there any amendments or comments? Seeing none, shall sections 73 and 74 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 73 and 74 carry. Mrs Fisher, please, section 75.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I move that section 75 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(6) Sections 72.1 and 72.2 come into force on the day this act receives royal assent."

The Chair: I'm sorry. I've just been informed that this amendment apparently is consequential and has to be held until the one that's stood down is cleared up.

Interjections.

The Chair: Why don't we recess for five minutes?

Mr Marchese: No, I wouldn't do that.

The Chair: No? Stay where we are?

Mr Marchese: Yes. My sense is we'll know rather quickly whether there's agreement or disagreement. If there's no agreement by the House leader, we'll just have to come back.

The Chair: I understand.

Mr Sergio: Evidently, though, there is no agreement, otherwise we would have known.

The Chair: We can't go any farther until we have an answer for this one because the others are consequential to this one.

Mr Hardeman: I just checked with staff, and in answer to the explicit question, have all three House leaders agreed to this, no, they have not. The amendments or the request for the amendments came forward from the region with unanimous support from all the --

Mr Marchese: I understand all of that. I'm aware of the issue.

Mr Hardeman: It was suggested that in order to accommodate this provision to be included with this bill they would contact the individual parties to the agreement to see whether there would be unanimous consent, and that's where the unanimous consent came from. So with that, I would hope that we could proceed, but if not --

Mr Marchese: We have a problem. I'm dealing with this as well as the critic for municipal affairs. I was aware of the issue and I have personally no difficulties because I think it's a reasonable thing. The only problem is our House leader was dealing with this and so if there is no agreement by them, that means there's a problem of sorts and that needs to be sorted out. I'd rather not deal with this because that complicates it.

Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, if I could, I would then request that if we do have a problem with it we stand it down until the first item on the agenda Wednesday, as opposed to finishing it today, so we could deal with this matter first thing and then finish the bill.

The Chair: Is there agreement by all members of the committee for that?

Mrs Fisher: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We did a great job today. This committee stands adjourned. We'll meet on Wednesday following routine proceedings.

The committee adjourned at 1810.