HURONIA AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 1996
WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT, 1996
CONTENTS
Wednesday 11 December 1996
Huronia Airport Commission Act, 1996, Bill Pr68, Mr Grimmett
Mr Bill Grimmett
Mr Gary French
Windsor Utilities Commission Act, 1996, Bill Pr76, Mrs Pupatello
Mrs Sandra Pupatello
Mr Kent Edwards
Mr Ray Penfold
City of Brampton Act, 1996, Bill Pr31, Mr Clement
Mr John Hastings
Ms Janice Atwood-Petkovski
Mr Sal Haqqi
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
*Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
*Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mr E. J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)
Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)
*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr BillGrimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
for Mr Sheehan
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel: Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
HURONIA AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Huronia Airport Commission.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. You have an agenda before you. With your permission, rather than leading off with the first bill listed on the agenda -- there is, I think, some photocopying being done -- I would ask that we go forward with Bill Pr68 as our first order of business. Bill Pr68 is An Act respecting the Huronia Airport Commission. The sponsor is Bill Grimmett, MPP. I would ask MPP Grimmett to say a few words of introduction and introduce the applicants for our committee.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to sponsor Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Huronia Airport Commission. This act had first reading on November 28. I'd like to introduce Gary French, who is the solicitor for the commission. He'll provide any explanation required and deal with any questions.
Mr Gary French: The Huronia Airport Commission is a small but vital local airport operated by three municipalities. This legislation is intended to deal with a rather technical but significant problem that we've actually had for some time but only identified several years ago. I wish to point out in beginning that there are at least two other airports that found they had the same problem and have already addressed this by private legislation. Those are the Wellington-Port Colborne Airport, where legislation was passed in 1976, and the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport, with 1986 legislation.
I'll try to be very brief about the problem, because it is a technical one. If there are any questions, they can perhaps address that.
The legislation under which the Huronia Airport was commenced before 1965 had a specific clause in it that granted corporate status to a commission set up for this purpose. Based on that, the airport acquired the land in the name of the commission, quite properly at that time; they had the right to do that. They've continued to acquire land since then, and it's now quite a significant operation. There were amendments made to the act in 1965 which left out the section giving corporate status to such airport commissions. I haven't been able to determine why that was done. I suppose it was considered to be appropriate at the time. It was done without very much fanfare. But the effect was to leave some question as to the right and ability of a commission to own land and carry on as a body corporate.
The answer to that question isn't terribly clear. It's the sort of thing that lawyers see as a good question but no one wants to give a confident answer to. But I'm suggesting that the public interest isn't in leaving questions like that outstanding where a lot of land and property is involved. The essential purpose of this legislation is to confirm that this commission does have body corporate status and that therefore its ownership of land is proper and legitimate.
This comes up, as you'll notice in the previous two bills that have been passed, typically with airports that are operated by two municipalities. In the more common case, where there is a single municipality and a single airport, the land seems to be commonly owned by the municipality itself, and therefore the question doesn't arise.
It may have been an oversight in the amendments in 1965 or perhaps there was good reason for that. The problem is that it has left my client, the Huronia Airport Commission, with an uncertainty. On consideration, it was felt best to address this by the private bill which is before you in the same way as has been done in two instances in the past.
The Chair: We appreciate that brief presentation. Are there any interested parties? Seeing none, and before we go to questions from the committee, I would ask our parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Derwyn Shea, for comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): This is a very straightforward application. The proposed bill gives corporate status to the Huronia Airport Commission, which was established under the Municipal Act in the first instance and which then went through changes. That's the reason there was some time-warping in what's before us now. Appropriately, they've come forward asking for its own incorporation. This act gives that to them. In fact, it gives it the power to acquire and hold lands since it was established in 1965, just to ensure there's no slippage in the interim years. There are no objections from any ministry.
The Chair: Turning to the committee, are there any questions from members of the committee or concerns with respect to this private bill? Seeing no questions, I would now ask our members of this committee, are you ready to vote on this bill? Yes?
We are now voting on Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Huronia Airport Commission, sponsored by MPP Grimmett.
Following accepted procedure, if we could collapse several sections, I would ask: Should section 1 right through to section 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank our applicants and declare this order of business closed.
Mr Shea: Mr Grimmett did a great job on that one.
The Chair: Excellent. We should have videotaped that one.
1010
WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr76, An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission and the supply of heat energy within The Corporation of the City of Windsor.
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr76, which is listed at the top of our agenda, An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission and the supply of heat energy within The Corporation of the City of Windsor. The sponsor for this bill is Sandra Pupatello, MPP. I would ask Mrs Pupatello to say a few words by way of introduction.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to sponsor the bill that's before the committee today. I'm going to introduce to you Kent Edwards, who is a community leader from Windsor and is also general manager of the Windsor Utilities Commission. Kent is well known in the Windsor area for taking on new and innovative projects, and this is certainly one more example of that. To his right is Ray Penfold, legal counsel for Windsor Utilities Commission, and I understand that after meetings late into the evening by Ray and staff with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, that there will be additional amendments that will be on our table shortly. I'll introduce Kent to begin a description of the bill.
Mr Kent Edwards: Let me briefly describe the project for you and then perhaps we can get into some detail. The Windsor District Energy Project is basically a venture in public-private partnership. The objective of the project is improved energy efficiency, application of green technology, and of course economic development within the community.
The project consists of a district heating and cooling plant, which will be constructed in the new Windsor casino now under construction. It will be designed, operated and financed by the private sector, for which we called proposals in order to attract that investment into the project. The Windsor Utilities Commission will purchase the heat from that central plant and distribute it in the form of hot and cold water under the roads of Windsor's downtown to provide environmental control within core buildings of Windsor.
The purpose of the act of course is that it is a first project of this type, and the current legislation appears to be silent on the issue of chilled water. Therefore, the definition of "heat energy" has been expanded here to include chilled water. Why we need that is that the private partners in the project, in order to attain financing, must be assured not only that there is not a law that prevents us doing this project, but also that the law is specific that we can proceed. Therefore, we proceeded, as I say, with an abundance of caution in order to put this bill before you, and I recommend it to you. I'll ask Mr Penfold to give a few comments on the content of the bill.
Mr Ray Penfold: As Mr Edwards said, the purpose of this bill, from our point of view, is for certainty and clarity. The Public Utilities Act has not been amended for quite some time and our project is unique in the sense that it provides for cooling. The Public Utilities Act, by way of specific example, does not take into account cooling of buildings on a large scale, probably since the last time amendments were made it was not a practical thing to do.
We can supply hot water under the present legislation, but again there's the argument by some who would say, "Well, is hot water hot water you get out of a tap by a water heater, or is hot water something a customer can use and take energy from?" which our project intends to do. For the purpose of clarity I think it's important to have this legislation passed.
What we've done is in section 1 we've taken "heat energy" and specifically defined it so it technically meets the project. It's going to be energy conveyed by hot water, chilled water, hot air or cooled air. The reason we've included the four aspects is that really in a district energy system you are supplying hot water, chilled water through pipes to a building, but when it gets to the building, the water itself is not consumed; there are actually heat exchangers so that the energy is taken out of the hot water, cooled air, chilled water by the heat exchanger.
The next critical section of the bill is that the corporation of the City of Windsor has previously passed a bylaw, as you'll see in subsection 2(3), under section 38 of the Public Utilities Act, which entrusts the Windsor Utilities Commission to do what it intends to do with steam, water or hot water. This act now deems that bylaw of the city of Windsor to include heat energy, as now defined in this act.
Subsection (5) authorizes the council of the Corporation of the City of Windsor to designate areas for District Energy outside of the bylaw, at the request of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. They've asked that that particular section be delayed so that there would be an amendment put on the table today, which we're certainly agreeable to, that says that the act, other than subsection 2(5), will come into force on royal assent and that subsection (5), allowing District Energy to expand outside the bylaw area, will come into effect at a later date to be proclaimed.
Section 3 might seem curious to you, that subsection 40(2) of the Public Utilities Act does not apply to the commission. The Public Utilities Act specifically says that once you're entrusted with certain powers the name of the commission should then be the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Windsor, for example. The Windsor Utilities Commission -- obviously, its name doesn't quite fit that. We're proud of our name -- we've had it for a long time -- and we'd like to keep it. That section simply says that we can continue as the Windsor Utilities Commission.
Section 4: Very briefly, the Municipal Franchises Act requires municipal approval when a corporation or an individual sells a public utility within the city limits. However, it does not differentiate when that person is selling to its own commission, which it's doing in this case. Clause 4(a) has been amended to heat energy only, but section 4 is merely saying, if a corporation enters into a contract directly with the Windsor Utilities Commission and does not go under public streets and does not sell to anyone other than the Public Utilities Commission, that it be exempt from the franchises act. That is something the city of Windsor wanted and we're certainly agreeable to that. That streamlines the process.
Other than that, five amendments are going to be tabled and we're certainly agreeable to all of them. We've had lengthy discussion with all the ministries involved, we've spoken with Ontario Hydro, we've gotten all the comments. We think we've put together a bill with amendments that everyone's pleased with and we hope you will see fit to recommend it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Penfold. Are there any interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? Seeing none, I would now ask our parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs for comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Shea: Chairman, now, with the amendments on the table, there are no objections by any ministry; there is no difficulty with the passage of the bill. As Mr Penfold and Mr Edwards rightly point out, this really is a bill to provide, in their words, a certainty and a clarity to what seems to have been an understanding in the past, but it now dots the i's and crosses the t's. It allows for the advance of such things as hot water and steam, in a joint venturing capacity that may not have been anticipated in the past. History has now proven this to be worthwhile. The government does not, nor do any ministries, have any objections to the passage of this bill.
The Chair: I now call for questions from committee members to either the applicants or the parliamentary assistant.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Clause 4(b) says "the person does not occupy or install any works in, under or over any highway or lane." What does that mean and why is it in there? I understand that you're producing it at the new casino centre and you're going to convey it somehow to some other building.
Mr Penfold: The Windsor Utilities Commission, with the city of Windsor, has the right to install pipes and conduits anywhere in the city of Windsor and under its streets. The city of Windsor has basically said that Northwind is going to be located on a piece of property; the Windsor Utilities Commission is bringing their pipes up to that property. So the city of Windsor is saying: "In cases where the Windsor Utilities Commission buys heat energy from an individual who does not try to put their own pipes under the city, we exempt them. But if Northwind or the individual tries to install pipes of their own under our streets, we want it to come back before city council." That's the purpose of 4(b).
1020
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Are there any environmental concerns with this that anybody has raised?
Mr Edwards: No, we haven't received any environmental concerns. In fact, the project is seen as relatively green technology compared to a conventional heating system for independent buildings, in the sense that there are fewer stacks, fewer cooling towers and also we're using off-peak ice-making technology so that we can make ice at night for cooling the buildings in the daytime, which uses a more environmentally friendly energy at that time of the day.
Mr Martin: Have you had discussions with Ontario Hydro about this and how this interferes with their ability to sell energy?
Mr Edwards: Interestingly, Ontario Hydro is one of the private partners in this project. I believe they had to get an order in council to participate as a private partner, and they did get that permission. Ontario Hydro has reviewed the bill, we have looked at any concerns they have, and I believe they're satisfied with the content now.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): That's a curious phrase you used to describe Ontario Hydro: a private partner. They're a public corporation, really a monopoly. Aren't they just a public partner, as you are a public partner? No one holds shares per se in Ontario Hydro, except if you go way back to 1905, 1906, 1908.
Mr Edwards: I guess municipal utilities might believe they hold shares in Ontario Hydro, but I won't get into that debate.
Yes, it is a curious venture. We called for proposals for private parties to participate, and in fact they bring in some $15 million in investment into the community. Originally Ontario Hydro proposed independently, and then partnered with a firm called Unicom Thermal Technologies out of Chicago, which is definitely a private utility.
As I mentioned, in order for Ontario Hydro to proceed on this basis, understanding that it was a venture project, it was necessary for them to get special permission to participate, and I've been assured by Hydro that they have that permission, and as such we refer to them as a private partner in this instance.
Mr Hastings: Does Ontario Hydro object to the presence of your other partner?
Mr Edwards: Ontario Hydro and Unicom Thermal Technologies are a joint venture, which has become known as Northwind Windsor. That is in fact who is building the plant, the joint venture, so they have elected to become partners.
Mr Hastings: Do you have any idea what this joint partnership is going to project in terms of cash flow over the next few years?
Mr Edwards: The entire project has a pricetag in the order of $15 million to $25 million, depending on the amount of distribution piping needed. That will generate a cash flow to pay for that initial capital and whatever energy is consumed over approximately a 20-year period. I don't have the numbers per se, but that is the principle.
Mr Hastings: Do you float bonds on it? Is that part of the financing?
Mr Edwards: It's part of the reason for the bill. Unicom Thermal Technologies is a subsidiary of Commonwealth Edison. What they have is kind of a revolving credit arrangement with the parent company, several hundred million dollars that they put out for new business development. They've developed the project with those funds and then, once it is up and a working concern, they will put the project to non-recourse funding to restore their credit level and proceed to other projects. It will go to non-recourse funding through the private institutions eventually.
Mr Hastings: Do you see a lot more of the utilities in Ontario going this route? Some of the others have already.
Mr Edwards: Certainly Cornwall has proceeded in that way, and we've taken some lead from the work that has been done in Cornwall. It was heating only. We've expanded that to heating and cooling. There's been a lot of interest from other communities. I believe it's something that will be looked at hard in future.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Are there customers who are thinking of coming on stream with this down the line, that you know of, or is it just the one customer who's going to be using that heating and cooling?
Mr Edwards: No. We're actively marketing the project. We have express letters of interest from several other property owners to heat and cool their buildings, including some of the provincial buildings in the immediate area. Yes, we believe the plant will be near capacity very quickly.
The Chair: Any further questions? Are the members of this committee ready to vote? Are there any comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which sections?
Mrs Pupatello: I have several amendments to present, Chair.
The Chair: Could you list the numbers of the sections?
Mrs Pupatello: Sure, subsection 2(3), clause (4)(a), clause (4)(b), section 6, and we have a change in the preamble and the long title.
The Chair: Thank you for that advice. We are voting on Bill Pr76, An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission and the supply of heat energy within The Corporation of the City of Windsor, sponsored by Mrs Pupatello, MPP.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
You've indicated an amendment to section 2. Could you read that amendment, please.
Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 2(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "works" in the sixth line and substituting "the works described in that section."
The Chair: Does everyone understand that amendment? Are there any questions? All in favour of this amendment? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
There is an amendment to section 4, as I recall.
Mrs Pupatello: Yes. I move that clause 4(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) the contract is to supply heat energy to the commission; and"
The Chair: Any comments on that amendment? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Mrs Pupatello: I move that clause 4(b) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "in the city of Windsor, other than the portion of Chatham Street East lying between Glengarry Avenue and McDougall Street."
The Chair: Any questions about that amendment? Shall that amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 4, with the two amendments, carry? Carried.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
I understand there's an amendment to section 6.
Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"6(1) Subject to subsection (2), this act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.
"Same
"(2) Subsection 2(5) comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
1030
The Chair: Any questions about this amendment? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Are there any further amendments to section 6? Hearing no further amendments to section 6, shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Mrs Pupatello: I have an amendment to the preamble, Chair.
The Chair: Okay. I'll just pose the question on section 7 first. Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Mrs Pupatello: I move that the preamble of the bill be amended by striking out "works" in the fifth line and substituting "the works described in that section."
The Chair: Any queries on this amendment? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry? Carried.
Any changes to the title?
Mrs Pupatello: I have an amendment concerning the long title. I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"An Act respecting the Windsor Utilities Commission and the supply of heat energy within The City of Windsor."
The Chair: Any comments on that amendment?
Mr Shea: Was there a reason for dropping the words "within the corporation"?
Mr Michael Wood: Mr Chair, I wonder if I could answer the question. Yes, there is. Strictly speaking, what is required here is a reference to the geographic area, which is the city of Windsor, not the legal entity, which is the Corporation of the City of Windsor.
Mr Shea: That's fair enough.
The Chair: Any further comments on this amendment to the title? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the title, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried. Will do.
I wish to thank the applicants and the sponsor and declare this order of business closed.
Mr Shea: Well presented by Mrs Pupatello. That was well done.
CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1996
Consideration of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.
The Chair: For our next order of business, we're considering Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Brampton. The sponsor is John Hastings. I wish to apologize on behalf of MPP Tony Clement, who had a previous engagement, a long-term commitment. I would ask MPP Hastings to say a few words of introduction and to introduce our applicant.
Mr Hastings: I'm subbing for Tony Clement. I don't look like Tony, and I don't have a law degree. Anyway, we have a bill here today respecting the city of Brampton, and to explain the technical parts of it we have Janice Atwood-Petkovski, who is a solicitor for the city of Brampton.
Ms Janice Atwood-Petkovski: Thank you very much. The purpose of this legislation is to enable the city of Brampton to pass a bylaw to deal primarily with two concerns which have arisen in the city. One is a lack of maintenance, from time to time, on the grassy boulevard areas throughout the city, primarily in the industrial areas but also on vacant lands in areas already designated and zoned residential and commercial. It's primarily aimed at trying to keep the vacant yet undeveloped lands looking nice and not all at the taxpayers' expense.
The second area that is of concern is primarily in older commercial uses which were not caught by the site plan process. Occasionally the commercial uses will not maintain the driveway apron portion of their entrance to, say, a strip plaza or what have you in an older commercial area and potholes develop, and yet that property in fact belongs to the municipality. There isn't much the municipality can do other than actually go in at its own cost and maintain the entrance to an older strip mall plaza or whatever the case may be in some of the older commercial areas.
This legislation would enable the city of Brampton to pass a bylaw which would require those owners, upon receiving due notice, to repair that area. If they failed to do so upon having been duly notified, the city would have the public works staff go in, do the repair, and the expense would be at the commercial uses' pocketbook and not the taxpayers' pocketbook. That's really the essence of it.
The amendments which are being introduced are to address concerns raised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and reflect primarily an assurance that, in keeping with the common law, the legislation does not attempt to shift legal liability for mishaps on to the abutting owner, who may have failed to maintain. The legal liability will still rest with the municipality.
The other amendment reflects a concern that we are not trying to require abutting owners to maintain our sidewalks or our curbs or gutters; it's really only that entrance-driveway apron, if you will, that happens to cross the municipal property but is really an entrance to, say, a plaza or a commercial use or what have you, as the case may be.
Both of those amendments are fine, because they reflect the intent of what city council wanted to achieve through the legislation.
I believe you will hear from a concerned constituent. I don't want to steal his thunder, but I've spoken with Mr Haqqi, who will address you, and have discussed his concerns, and he is content that the amendments, as proposed, go some distance to addressing his concerns with respect to responsibility for the sidewalk. He has a further concern with respect to whether or not this should apply to residential properties. As I indicated to Mr Haqqi, I have no direction from council that it should not address generally all properties in the city of Brampton.
Certainly I have made a note that when city council sits down to look at drafting a bylaw to reflect this legislation, we will include Mr Haqqi in those discussions to determine whether it's appropriate to exempt some residential areas, perhaps the residential areas that are already built out. In that regard, I would urge upon you to allow city council to exercise its discretion and have due regard to the concerns and needs of the constituents of Brampton in passage of that bylaw.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Atwood-Petkovski. Are there any interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? I would ask you to approach the witness table.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a question to the applicant first.
The Chair: Go ahead, briefly.
Mr Sergio: Did council have any public hearing of this issue?
1040
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: No, we haven't had public meetings at this point, primarily because the process of obtaining private legislation runs a little in advance of -- it would be a little bit premature, I think, to have had any public meetings in advance of actually achieving the private legislation. But certainly we will. I sense that we should have at least one public consultation on this subject, and particularly as we have already undertaken at this point to involve Mr Haqqi, we will be doing that.
Mr Grimmett: Is this the time for questions?
The Chair: No, this is not the time for questions. Before questions, I would ask the committee to bear with me, if we could hear from interested parties and also the parliamentary assistant. Mr Haqqi?
Mr Sal Haqqi: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. To you and members of the committee here, good morning. I'm just a stranger here, but I have a few very small concerns. First of all, before I start, I want to thank Ms Janice Atwood for her time in clarifying the situation to me, which gives me a little comfort factor that things will be done properly.
Before starting, I want to register my disappointment that our MPP, whom we voted for, unfortunately is not here, no offense to Mr Hastings, MPP. You are kind enough to fill in the spot. But I didn't vote for Mr Hastings, I voted for Mr Clement, and I expect our MPP to be here when our bills are introduced. That's my first objection.
The second thing is that I would like you to read my response. I have given a copy to Ms Atwood, and I will be happy to give a copy to the council for their meeting also.
I'm opposing the recommendation of the bill on three very simple, basic points, and I'll read them to you.
First, when we purchase our property we sign a document with the city, especially the city of Brampton, to give them the right of access and easement, which allows them to install sidewalks and have full access for services, utilities etc.
Second, since the sidewalk and the area below is considered city property, the city should maintain it and clean it. Already bylaws have been passed which require property owners to maintain these areas. Even though we don't have full use of the space, we are liable to maintain it.
Third, the new request, to my understanding -- unless it's amended the way Ms Janice Atwood said that she will consider taking to the council -- will put even more burden on the property owners, whereas the fact remains that the property owners are already paying for the services and not receiving them. We pay full property taxes to the city for these services, and we deserve full service. If anything, the city should be ordered to provide the services for which the taxes are collected, to maintain and clean the driveways, the aprons, the sidewalks etc to fulfil the commitment.
I will have no objection if this amendment is modified to restrict the impact of this request to unoccupied, weakened, abandoned buildings, lots or properties only and also if the city is ordered to clean and maintain the driveway apron portions as well as the sidewalks etc around any property in the city.
I want to thank you all for listening to a humble taxpayer, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Before I end, I did have a discussion with Ms Janice Atwood and she has agreed that she explained the intent of this law, which will basically authorize the city to pass a bylaw, but before the drafting or the passing of the bylaw, I request this committee to advise the city that they should hold public meetings and get input from the residents before drafting and putting the laws in place, which was not done in this situation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Haqqi. Before we go to questions, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, for comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Shea: First of all, let me set the record very clear on behalf of Mr Clement. I understand what Mr Haqqi has said, but let me make it very clear that Mr Clement has in fact been drawn to another important meeting of a standing committee, the standing committee on administration of justice, which is dealing with a very urgent matter this morning; difficult for him to be here, as much as he wanted to. In fact, it was for that reason that he asked his colleague to fill in on his behalf. He was not able to leave the other standing committee on that pressing matter. That happens to us all from time to time. As much as he would prefer to be here, Mr Clement had to be at the other place on behalf of the Legislature.
In terms of the bill before us, we are all aware of what's being requested by the city of Brampton. It is not unique. Other municipalities have sought and been granted the same rights. I think of Ottawa-Nepean as a case in point. The ministries have been asked to review this request and as in the past have no objections. While the act itself will go through, as we have said on a number of occasions, some major overhaul over the next year or so, in the meantime, as municipalities come forward, provided what they are asking stays within the general thrust of this bill, there is no objection.
Essentially the municipality may pass bylaws which require property owners to maintain the boulevard portion of any highway, or a driveway apron, and it provides for notice to be given to the owners or occupants. There is provision for the municipality to undertake the work if the owner or occupant has not complied, for the expenses to be recovered, in like manner, as municipal taxes.
It does not, I emphasize, with the amendments that are placed before us today, transfer the liability from the corporation to the property owner, so the deep pockets continue to be those of the corporation. There are no objections to the passage of this bill.
Mrs Pupatello: I understand that amendments are going to be forwarded. To the legal counsel for the city: Does the amendment you're going to ask for today take care of the concern of the gentleman from the city?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: No. The amendments go some distance to addressing Mr Haqqi's concern that this doesn't include responsibility for the sidewalk or the curb, so the sidewalk and curb are specifically exempted through those amendments, but Mr Haqqi has a further concern with respect to the application of a bylaw to all residential property. The intent of council was to have private legislation that would apply throughout the city and not simply be targeted to industrial or commercial areas. It may well be that the actual bylaw that goes into place will carve out an exemption for fully built-out residential areas, but there are a number of undeveloped areas.
Mrs Pupatello: That would be determined by your city council once you have the authority, with the passage of this bill, to go forward and create the bylaw you'd like to bring forward in the city.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Exactly.
Mrs Pupatello: Just for an explanation: I'm cutting my grass, and about three feet up my lawn is where the city property begins. I would continue to cut my grass the whole way. Some people don't cut their grass at all, including the city portion. So the problem is that you have people not taking care of their property. The majority, the lion's share of people cut the grass and maintain it appropriately. Your city councillors feel they need a way to get at those who just aren't, and it's interfering with neighbouring properties.
What drove this bill? I see some articles. Is it the naturalists versus the parkette style, or what?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: This bill would not address the problem of the naturalists, if that is perceived as a problem by council. There was a problem some years ago with not so much naturalists as a neglectful approach to property maintenance with respect to grass growing. It occurs particularly in a place like Brampton. We have a number of undeveloped or only partially developed areas, and they become a problem.
We already have private legislation to deal with that requiring owners to maintain their grass once it gets to I believe 20 centimetres. Then there's a notice the municipality has to give those owners that they're required to cut it or the city will come in and cut it. This doesn't deal with, as you described your property, that three-foot portion down beside the roadway, which actually belongs to the municipality. That's the problem, not particularly in the residential areas, although it may come up from time to time. This is primarily aimed at those vast stretches of undeveloped land that already may be designated as residential and zoned under the planning process but simply aren't built out.
What happens is that you get developers who, as they know and once they receive notice that they're required to go in and cut their property, cut the middle portion and won't cut the abutting portion that belongs to the municipality. It's sort of a thumbing-their-nose approach.
1050
Mrs Pupatello: It just becomes difficult to make it look lucrative to future development, really.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: It's to try to keep it attractive for those who have already gone in as well. Many businesses establish in areas just on the cusp of a boom, for example, and the area is not fully built out, but those already in there are paying their taxes and have a right to an appropriately maintained area.
Mrs Pupatello: I think Brampton is trying to rival the town of LaSalle, where I come from, for fastest housing starts. Brampton is certainly growing at fast pace.
I have a question for the assistant to the minister. This committee has precedence on this issue. Tell me, in brief, the outcome. We've had this discussion before, probably eight months ago.
Mr Shea: They've all been approved, every application that's come forward, unless there's been some peculiarity with the request. Because there have been a number of them over the last few years, and many of us who have served on municipal councils know we've probably been authors of one or another, this is going to be part of the municipal reform that's taking place, since we would expect that as the new act comes forward they'll be embraced in it, which will preclude individual applications that have to come forward as they come forward now. This is the only way a municipality can advance this cause.
Mr O'Toole: I think we're all suffering from the same thing. Having served on local council for a few years, I'm quite familiar with the problems attendant in this, but the current language in clause 1(a) is very inclusive. It says that "any designated class of building," including property, and it's broad-reaching. I know this is not the bylaw, but it could be interpreted as doing the cement and paving work -- very inclusive. I suspect that gives you more flexibility as you draft your own bylaw. Is that the intent for the general nature of this? I can understand why Mr Haqqi is kind of -- maybe he's going to have to maintain the concrete sidewalk to certain specifications and standards. If those amendments address that, it's important.
I think it's very poorly written, personally. I'm not trying to be smart or deliberate. If this has been done many times before, I have not been part of it. I have also been part of the public meeting process of trying to draft a bylaw: vacant properties, who does it, who pays, whether it's weeds or whether it's snow or whether it's deterioration of the surface, especially in commercial areas where there's a multiple use of property, where there's one owner and several hundred tenants, and "Good luck," because it's city property and there's road maintenance work, road works that are required.
The Chair: Did you wish a comment from the applicant?
Mr O'Toole: A comment. The general nature of the wording is very permissive. Perhaps you could respond to that.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: I would have to agree with you that Mr Haqqi's concern was well founded, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs shared that concern. The amendment, as proposed in section 1.1 goes, I believe, quite a distance to rectifying that.
Mr O'Toole: Actually, it's no good either, in my view. If you look at section 1.1, the bylaw does not apply to sidewalks, curbs, gutters. The whole issue is that the property owner should be cleaning the sidewalk. That's the way it's going, and to exempt it now I think is rather restrictive. It's gone too far. The property owner should clean the sidewalk. That's the way it's going across the province.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: There already is a Municipal Act provision that enables the municipality to pass a bylaw requiring snow removal, so that's not an issue. In terms of other maintenance, there is no attempt, at least in Brampton, to thrust off that responsibility for the actual maintenance of the concrete. I think it's a valid point that it was a little too far-reaching the way it was, but I believe that the amendment answers that concern.
Mr O'Toole: So this amendment of section 1.1 deals specifically with the concrete work? It's not the cleaning of the sidewalk?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Right. The section 1.1 amendment is to clarify and in a sense restrict the municipality if it wanted to require abutting owners to maintain the municipality's curb and sidewalk, which is the municipality's sidewalk. There's no intention to do that. Probably one of the difficulties with drafting, and I certainly don't have the expertise of your legislative counsel in drafting, is that you know the target you want to hit and you may forget that you're going to hit a few other things on the way. I think it's a learned skill, that sometimes we just don't have the experience that your own legislative staff have.
Mr O'Toole: Without going into great detail, the preamble of the parliamentary assistant led me to believe this was rather routine, rather formal. If it's been done successfully, criticized and resulted in a tight form for a private member's bill, why don't we just copy it and change it from "Nepean" to "Brampton"? Where the wording says "including any paved portions," that's very specific, permissive language. If you wanted to exclude it, why did you include it? Anyway, we're not drafting it here and I'm certainly not the one to do it.
The Chair: I might mention we will have an opportunity to debate the amendments if they are presented.
Mr O'Toole: I wasn't addressing them. You brought them up, I think, or the parliamentary assistant brought them up.
The Chair: Is there a comment from our parliamentary assistant?
Mr Shea: Absolutely. Mrs Pupatello refers to one of the concerns that municipalities are dealing with, whether it's noxious weeds or the visual of grass and so forth on the property line. This bill also allows the municipality to take action where an owner is not maintaining their driveway apron. That would seem to be reasonable if they are required to cut down the grass and do everything else, but if they leave the apron -- that is their responsibility -- in a state of complete disrepair.
The bill before us now is probably defining it in a more precise fashion. Perhaps other bills have done it, but Brampton may very well have some unique circumstances that drive the wording in a special way. You'll note that the amendment does not allow the municipality to load on the cost that rightfully should be borne by the municipality. That includes sidewalks, curbs and so forth. That is the municipal responsibility to maintain, and the amendment is placed before us now to make sure that's very clear. But in terms of the driveway portion, which is subject to the owner's responsibility not only to construct but maintain, it is still part of Brampton's intention to include that in the bill.
Other than that we have, as a committee here during this Parliament, passed a bill or two along the same line.
The Chair: Mr Haqqi, did you have a comment to Mr O'Toole?
Mr Haqqi: I have a comment to both the parliamentary assistant and Mr O'Toole. I want to thank both of you, but one of the issues that people like me are trying to bring forward, and we need your help -- it's all very nice to put wording giving wide power -- is that the apron portion of my driveway has been damaged more than once by various subcontractors on behalf of the city. They don't finish the work and they disappear and I'm left holding the bag. I can't find anybody in the city to do it. I have the same problem at the back of my house. I've written a letter, the inspectors have come, agreed with it, then the file just disappears. We are saying, give us a break, please. Make somebody responsible. We are paying taxes. Make them do the work for it.
1100
Mr Sergio: I'm just trying to clarify exactly what the clause and the request really say in here, and I can appreciate the concern of Mr Haqqi.
First of all, to have any agency carry out any work on the boulevard portion, they would have to seek the municipality's approval, if it's cable, hydro, gas, whatever, and if they leave the site messy or unfinished, the municipality usually goes after those agencies. If it's the public works themselves or whatever, just call your local councillor and I'm sure they will take care of those things. Well, whether or not they do is another story, but that's the avenue you would have.
With respect to the language of the clause, and I'm seeking the assistance of the solicitor for clarification, I think when we say "including any paved portion which may form part of a driveway," this excludes the balance of the boulevard left or right or north or south of a particular driveway. It is the norm that the boulevard portion, which may be interlocking or any other form, would have been done by the home owner himself or herself. That is strictly that portion. Sometimes you have a sidewalk and sometimes you don't.
It's the portion between the sidewalk and the curb that is the skirt or part of the boulevard that is to be maintained by the home owner or tenant. It's their responsibility. That's their driveway. It is city property, but you have to maintain it. I don't think there is anything wrong with the wording as it is in here. I don't think this includes any portion of the boulevard other than the portion flowing from the rest of the driveway.
I think it's clear enough but it's a bit confusing, but I don't have a problem with it, really.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): How do you define what "proper" maintenance is? In other words, how long can you let the grass grow before it's improper? On top of that, if you've got a city or regional truck, say, cleaning snow and they're throwing salt and this and that, who pays for resodding or any additional seeding come the spring? Is that all going to be the responsibility of the home owner? Or does it have to be grass? Can you put in tomato plants if you want? What's proper maintenance?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Let me address those questions.
Mr Pettit: By the way, there are environmentalists who would probably suggest that a garden is far better than grass. I don't see that defined in there whatsoever.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: "Maintenance" is defined to some extent in the property standards bylaw, not in this legislation.
Mr Pettit: Does it not need to be defined in this legislation?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: It's not my opinion that it needs to be defined in this legislation.
Mr Pettit: What happens when you get into a situation where one family decides to put down interlocking stone and the next one says sod and the next one has tomato plants? Does there not have to be some consistency there? Does it not have to be further defined as to what's adequate or proper maintenance here, what's allowed and what's not allowed? Are we going to be bickering over the height of the grass?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: The height of the grass is already defined elsewhere. What constitutes maintenance in terms of the height of the grass is already determined in private legislation that the city of Brampton obtained with respect to grass cutting, and that's 20 centimetres. Otherwise maintenance generally of properties in the city of Brampton is identified as defined in the property standards bylaw. Here again, the fault is in knowing what the target is that we want to deal with. It didn't appear necessary, and looking at some other similar legislation, although there isn't anything with respect specifically to driveway aprons that I've seen, the language does follow along the lines of similar legislation.
With respect to whether the municipality requires the home owner to resod if there's salt damage certainly is a practice. The city of Brampton does spend some resources cleaning up where there are problems with inadvertent accidents or haphazards or whatever that occur as a result of snowplowing -- for example, in the more rural areas sometimes the mailboxes get dinged by the snowplow -- and we do deal with those situations as a matter of practice. It's just a matter of good business practice to take care of the situations we've given rise to.
With respect to requiring home owners to resod because of salt damage, there aren't any of those situations that have come to my attention, but it would be generally the property owners' responsibility to maintain their property.
Mr Pettit: Can I put interlocking stone? Can I put hot pepper plants? Or does it have to be grass?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: This private legislation really doesn't attempt to identify the nature of what the pavement consists of, and I don't think it's necessary in this private legislation to identify that. This is just talking about maintaining what exists. In other words, if I can turn that around, if you already have a paved driveway -- if, for example, you have a commercial property in downtown Brampton and there are a number of complaints arising as a result of potholes, I don't think there would be any attempt to require you to do anything other than fill the potholes. That's the gist of the legislation.
Mr Pettit: But I'm talking about the boulevard section. You come down, there's your grass, there's the sidewalk, now you have the boulevard running along. Can I put tomato plants in there or do I have to leave it as grass? There's nothing that says how I properly maintain that.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: That's right, and you could put tomato plants in if you want to have tomato plants at the front of your property. There are certainly people who put plantings at the front of their property on the driveway apron.
Mr Sergio: Not on the boulevard, not to that extent.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: There are certainly people who put plantings on their boulevard. They put their hedges right down on the boulevard or they put little junipers right on the boulevard. The only big concern we have in that area is when people put those huge boulders on the boulevard and it blocks somebody's view. Then we have to step in and say: "That's our property and it's blocking the traffic sight line. You'll have to move it." We don't legislate good taste.
The Chair: I have a final question from Mr Grimmett.
Mr Grimmett: Most of my questions have been answered. I'd like to make a comment to the parliamentary assistant. It's great that we're going to change the Municipal Act and the other legislation. I don't think these kinds of discussions should be taking place in a committee of the Legislature because most of the issues we're discussing today are very local.
I did want to ask counsel for the city, are you including the handwritten portions of the amendments in what you intend to move?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Yes.
Mr Grimmett: In my copy, I can't even read it.
The Chair: When we have a motion, I will ask the person making the motion to read out the amendment if it's unclear.
Seeing no further questions, are members of the committee ready to vote? We're voting on Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Brampton sponsored by MPP John Hastings.
1110
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I move that clauses 1(a) and (b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) requiring the owners or occupants of any designated class of building or property in the municipality or any designated area in it to maintain the grassy boulevard portion of any highway or part of a highway abutting the building or property;
"(b) requiring the owners or occupants of any designated class of building or property in the municipality or any designated area in it to maintain the paved portion that may form part of a driveway apron in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building or property;
"(c) providing for the maintenance of the grassy boulevard portion described in clause (a), at the expense of the owners, and for collecting or recovering the expenses incurred in so doing in any manner including in like manner as municipal taxes."
The Chair: Is everyone clear on the wording as read out? The motion deletes several clauses, with the addition of two sections, is that correct?
Mr Smith: It effectively strikes out clause (a) and (b) and replaces it with the three clauses that I've just read into the record.
The Chair: Are there any comments on this motion? Shall this motion carry? Carried.
We can now vote on section 1. Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Now I would entertain further motions.
Mr Smith: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Bylaw does not apply to sidewalks, curbs, gutters
"1.1 A bylaw passed under section 1 does not apply to,
"(a) a sidewalk; or
"(b) a curb or gutter, made of paving, stone, concrete or brick, that is not part of a driveway apron described in clause 1(b)."
Mr O'Toole: I just have a question, perhaps to the solicitor. What do you intend to achieve by this section 1.1?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Section 1.1 clarifies that even though the sidewalk or curb portion of the road would otherwise potentially fall into that definition of driveway apron, this clarifies that it is not the case.
Mr O'Toole: If we were talking about snow removal, would the owner, occupant or taxpayer on that property be required to clean the sidewalks and/or the apron, or have they now been exempted?
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: The bylaw which requires snow removal is a separate bylaw under the authority in the Municipal Act which already exists.
Mr O'Toole: So it's really talking about the maintenance.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: Very good. It's just not clear, really, in this thing here.
The Chair: Thank you for that discussion.
We have a motion to add section 1.1 to the bill. Shall that motion carry? Carried.
Are there any further motions for amendment?
Mr Smith: Yes, Chair. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Liability
"1.2 No person other than the corporation shall be liable for damages sustained by any person because of the failure of an owner or occupant to maintain the grassy boulevard portion or driveway apron portion of a highway or part of a highway as required by a bylaw passed under section 1."
The Chair: Shall this motion to amend the bill by adding section 1.2 carry? Carried.
Any further amendments?
Mr O'Toole: I just want to make one more comment. I'm not trying to be critical, but for the sake of me learning -- this is the reason for extending this; we could be gone to lunch. In the preamble it says "maintaining the boulevard portion of any highway." For my simple mind, I'd like to define the word "maintaining." "Maintaining" is to make reference to property standards that exist and may not be in conformance with other municipal things; it makes reference to snow removal, a bylaw that exists. To me, maintaining means all of the above, but this to me is very permissive.
The preamble says "maintaining." We've tried to amend it, but you don't draft definitions so that you have to amend them. We've spent an unnecessary amount of time because there wasn't enough time spent before it came here. That's the point I'm making. I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything. I would ask perhaps other members, Mr Martin, for example, what does "maintain" mean? We've spent a lot of committee time that we could have avoided. I read this stuff and I say, this is a law, it's a provincial thing we're doing here. You know what I'm saying? You're thinking of all you know about Brampton and its specific little idiosyncracies: bylaws, local standards and stuff. That's the only reason I'm making any fuss about it at all. Otherwise it doesn't even need to come here.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: May I just respond to that -- or should I respond to that? Would I be better not to respond?
The Chair: You don't need to, but please go ahead if you wish.
Ms Atwood-Petkovski: I think that you express a valid concern, not with respect to defining "maintain" in this private legislation, because I don't think that's appropriate in this private legislation, if I may be so bold. But I think the concern you express results from the fact that the legislative authority for municipalities to do things has been so piecemeal. Anyone who is familiar with the Municipal Act will recognize that the amendments through that legislation have been piecemeal, ad hoc, and not really coherent in the sense that there's one area where you can look and say, "Here's our authority to do this." There are bits in the Planning Act, there are bits in the Municipal Act, and there are lots of pieces of legislation that are private legislation like this one that are little Band-Aids holding things together at the municipal level. Hopefully, the new legislation will be an answer to a lot of that.
Mr O'Toole: The parliamentary assistant has assured us that the Municipal Act will be amended, and I have no doubt about his abilities.
The Chair: I wish to continue with the clause-by-clause.
Following tradition, barring any motions, shall sections 2, 3 and 4 carry? Carried.
With respect to the preamble, I understand there is a motion being prepared. Oh, here it is now; it has arrived. I would ask that some of Mr O'Toole's advice would perhaps go to our clerk and that future applicants to this committee could be forewarned.
Mr Smith, you wish to move the amendment?
Mr Smith: Certainly, and I trust that counsel for the applicants has had an opportunity to review it.
I move that the preamble of the bill be amended by striking out "the boulevard portion of any highway" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "the grassy boulevard portion of any highway and the paved portion of a driveway apron."
I would defer to the parliamentary assistant or others if there are any questions for clarification. I think it's reflective of the discussion we've had thus far with respect to the bill.
The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry? Carried.
Does this affect the title? I'm thinking of the last bill. No?
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Mr O'Toole: Except for one thing: Perhaps rather than Mr Clement's it should be Mr Hastings's.
The Chair: I've just consulted with both the clerk and legal counsel and Mr Clement remains the sponsor of this bill.
Mr Hastings: That's the way I would have wanted it.
Mr Shea: Chairman, before you adjourn, could I just ensure that we understand that Mr Clement wanted to be here but could not be here. I must say that I personally appreciate Mr Hastings assuming that responsibility on his behalf.
Mr Sergio: He did a good job.
Mr Shea: He was well briefed by Mr Clement before he came in.
The Chair: I wish to go back to the agenda.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? The bill will be reported.
I wish to thank the applicants and interested parties and declare this order of business closed and declare this committee adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1122.