REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH
ONTARIO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOCIETY
NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE CONSERVANCY
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK
PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY
NIAGARA RATEPAYERS FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
CONTENTS
Tuesday 30 August 1994
Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 163, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l'aménagement du territoire et les municipalités, projet de loi 163, M. Philip
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
Guy Paparella, head, plans administration division
Rob Copeland
Robert Forbes
Ontario Cattlemen's Association
Jim Magee, board member
Peter Doris, special projects manager
Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society
John Bacher, president
David Siegel
Steven Balz
Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy
Laura Dodson, president
Six Nations Council
John Peters, councillor
John McNaughton, policy analyst
Phil Monture, director, land claims
Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk
Keith Richardson, chair
Lee Kennaley, commissioner of planning and economic development
David Roe, manager, development and policy
Preserve Established Neighbourhoods Society
Olga Pawluk, founder and past president
Niagara Ratepayers for a Healthy Environment
Jim Perry, co-chair
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary, (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Malkowski
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Bisson
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Winninger
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Halen, Curt, senior planner, municipal planning policy branch
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister
Perron, Linda, legal counsel
Sidebottom, Peter-John, senior policy adviser, local government policy branch
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Stobo, Carolyn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in the Ramada Suites hotel, Niagara Falls.
PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DES MUNICIPALITÉS
Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret Harrington): Welcome to this wonderful city of Niagara Falls. Today we will have half-hour presentations by groups and 15-minute presentations by individuals.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH
The Vice-Chair: I call upon Mr Guy Paparella, who is the division head with the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. You have half an hour, and we would appreciate if you would leave part of that time for the three parties to ask questions. You may go ahead.
Mr Guy Paparella: Thank you, Madam Chairman. On behalf of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, I would like to extend my appreciation to members of the standing committee on administration of justice for the opportunity to address the provincial government's proposed revisions to the Planning Act and other related acts.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth supports many of the changes proposed under Bill 163; however, it is the region's view that certain provisions require revision prior to the amending of the acts.
Changes under the Planning Act, which we are going to be commenting on, are essentially focused on six different areas of concern:
(1) time frames for planning processes;
(2) subdelegation of authority;
(3) public participation in the subdivision approvals process;
(4) limitation of municipal liability in relation to the prohibition of development on contaminated, environmentally significant and archaeological sites;
(5) Ontario Hydro and provincial policy statements; and
(6) a joint process under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act.
There are a number of other changes which are being proposed, and I'll address one proposed change under the Municipal Act, the protection of vegetation.
Changes under the Planning Act: While the new time frames are intended to streamline and provide for a more efficient planning process, a less timely process may result from having the same requirements for simple applications as complex applications. The region's comments pertain primarily to the new processes for official plans and amendments and subdivisions.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends the addition of a new section which would require that the 180-day time frame for holding a public meeting on an official plan amendment begin only when full information is received.
A proper evaluation of any proposal cannot be conducted until full information, often in the form of specialized studies, is received. To do otherwise might compromise the goal of good planning.
Secondly, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends deletion of the proposed 30-day requirement between a public meeting and council's adoption of an official plan amendment.
Currently it is usual for the region to adopt an official plan amendment six days after the public meeting and planning committee recommendation to adopt, and notifications are only given after such adoption by council. If the resolution of some issues remains outstanding, the matter can always be deferred by the approval authority. The region's recommendation supports the goal of providing more timely planning processes.
Thirdly, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends deleting the provision delaying requests for referral of official plans and amendments to the OMB until after the approval authority gives notice of a proposed decision, and reinstating the section allowing referral requests to be made any time after adoption.
Bill 163 would result in a duplication of process since similar notification would have to be sent out before a proposed decision and following the decision. The approval authority's proposed decision should only require notification when there are proposed modifications, refusals or a referral. Referral requests submitted after adoption could be dealt with either through mediation or referral. This would also enable the applicant to have a final decision earlier and would make use of mediation which is encouraged in Bill 163.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends changing the time for dealing with referral requests from a 30-day maximum time limit to a 90-day maximum time limit.
A major theme in Bill 163 is the encouragement of mediation, which would be compromised with the imposition of a 30-day time limit because it would provide insufficient amount of time for preparation and mediation. Where mediation does not work, referral must often be dealt with by a committee and council, which usually cannot be done in 30 days, but could be done before the 90-day term elapses. Where mediation does work, there would be no need to refer the matter to the OMB, thus saving time and money in the long run.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth also recommends the deletion of the 30-day requirement between the public meeting and approval of draft plan of subdivision.
As with the time requirement before adopting official plan amendments, there seems to be little purpose for the delay, especially given that principles related to type and form of development will be determined at other stages of the planning process.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that the current certificate of approval be retained for official plans and amendments, instead of the proposed employee statement.
The current certificate of approval clearly indicates approval, modifications, deferrals and referrals. An employee statement dealing with notification processes and the absence of appeals cannot deal with these matters if the approval authority is a regional council. Council resolutions etc would have to be attached to indicate the actual decision.
Further, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends changing the direct appeal process for plans of subdivision to a referral request process.
Council should retain the ability to screen out objections which are frivolous, vexatious or not in good faith or for purposes of delay, as this may avoid an OMB hearing, thereby saving time and money. Such a provision also gives the opportunity for mediating settlements, a goal cited throughout Bill 163. The referral system has the potential to reduce hearings through screening of objections and mediation.
Subdelegation of authority is our second area of concern. We have one recommendation in this area. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends the addition of a new section allowing council to delegate approval authority to an official for official plan amendments and subdivisions, where there is no conflict.
Currently the region has subdelegated approval authority for official plans and amendments and subdivisions where there are no objections. This means an official signs the document and the matter is not forwarded to committee or council. This streamlining measure usually saves an applicant two to four weeks. Public participation in the subdivision approval process is another area of concern. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that notification be required, and appeals of conditions of draft approval of plans of subdivision by the general public should be permitted only when major changes are proposed, and that major changes should be defined by regulation.
The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that secondary plans, adopted as official plan amendments, can contain policies obviating the need for public input in the subdivision approval process.
In other words, detailed secondary plans prepared for official plan amendments are already subject to full public notification and the dispute resolution process. Duplication can be avoided and streamlining achieved by not subjecting plans of subdivision to further public review. Criteria to qualify secondary plans for obviating the need for a public subdivision process should be prescribed by regulation.
1010
Another area of concern is the limitation of municipal liability. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that Bill 163 clarify that there is no municipal liability for prohibition of development on contaminated, environmentally significant or archaeological sites.
Bill 163, under proposed section 34.1, allows zoning bylaws to prohibit development on contaminated land, in sensitive groundwater recharge areas or in areas with significant natural features and archaeological sites. It should be made clear in the legislation that such prohibitions do not incur municipal liability for compensation.
Another area of concern is Ontario Hydro and provincial policy statements. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that Ontario Hydro be required to ensure that its decisions "are consistent with" provincial policy statements similar to other municipal jurisdictions.
Environmental Assessment Act-Planning Act joint process is another area of concern we have. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that Bill 163 include a more detailed definition of the procedure that would allow the requirements of both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act to be met concurrently.
Bill 163, under section 9 of the bill, proposed section 16.1 of the Planning Act, permits municipalities to develop processes that simultaneously meet the requirements of both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act. However, it does not specify how this should be done or make references to regulations that would guide such a dual process. Given the complexities generally associated with undertaking these two very different processes, it would be useful to have more direction as to which specific parts of the process could be combined. This type of direction is now particularly important because large subdivisions have been made the subject of EA procedures.
Changes under the Municipal Act: We have one area of concern, the protection of vegetation. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth recommends that a new section be included in the Municipal Act to permit the passing of municipal bylaws to protect vegetation.
The new proposed provincial policy statements would severely restrict development in environmentally significant areas that contain extensive amounts of natural vegetation and wildlife. Many land owners/developers could try to circumvent these restrictions by destroying vegetation before they applied for Planning Act approvals such as zoning bylaw amendments, subdivision approvals, site plan control approval.
Under the current tree protection enabling legislation, maximum fines are so low that municipal tree cutting bylaws are incapable of deterring land owners who want to destroy significant woodlots to facilitate development. It should be noted that the proposed tree protection legislation has been shelved, largely as a result of rural concerns. However, the changes proposed here should be directed at largely urban municipalities.
That is the end of my presentation, Madam Chairman. I have attached the region of Hamilton-Wentworth report that was endorsed by regional council; it further details what I have presented here today. I once again thank you from Hamilton-Wentworth for the opportunity to present our views.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you for your presentation. You've certainly given us a lot of things to consider, there's no doubt about that. There are some things, and to start with, I'd say I agree with completely on the vegetation control. That's been proposed several times in the province, to let those municipalities that wish to control the elimination of vegetation in fact to do so. That's an easy one, I think, to endorse. The other one, number 5, Ontario Hydro and provincial policy statements, they'll be asking the ministry what their view on that particular thing is, another very important thing.
But I guess there is one item of contention that I'd like you to comment on and that has to do with the delegation of authority. In view of the fact that you're asking for the delegation of authority for some things to an official, in what way do the members of council become familiar with and know about the changes that would be approved? Is there a process or would you propose a process of some kind so that members, especially I suppose if it's in their -- I shouldn't use "ward" I guess, in the case of the region; it would be municipality or whatever area they represent -- would know and be familiar with the changes?
Mr Paparella: That's a very good question, and I think it's something that we've grappled with over the years. Presently we do have a subdelegation to our commissioner of planning and development, and in his absence, it would be myself. In that situation, what we do is, if there are no conflicts that have been raised by an amendment put forward to us, we would approve it in a matter of days or a week or so, and that information would be forwarded prior to the commissioner signing off on that approval.
There would be an information report circulated to all members of regional council so that they would be informed of a potential decision coming forward. If there are any conflicts or any issues of controversy in that amendment, the commissioner's bylaw requires that he report to council prior to making that decision. So there would be discussion in time for input formally through a committee or council at that point prior to him making the decision, but the decision would be his. He takes advice obviously from his council and his committee before he makes that decision, but the decision according to this bylaw would be his.
It has really received a lot of positive comment from our development community, from the public, from any applicants who have wished for their application to move forward quickly. In some cases two or three days have elapsed from the receipt of a document from the municipality to the time when it is actually approved. So for non-controversial issues, it's really critical for our area that that be included in the bill and the amendments.
Mr Eddy: With that explanation, I'm relieved and I can support it. So thank you.
The other thing just quickly, there'll be some opposition to your proposals I expect to lengthen the time period, the time frames in some cases, but you're doing that in order to shorten the time actually.
Mr Paparella: That's correct.
Mr Eddy: This is what I got from your --
Mr Paparella: That's correct.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too, Mr Paparella, would like to commend you for your presentation. I had mentioned to my colleague here about the vegetation policy you placed here. My concern all the time too, whenever there are developments happening and the depletion of that vegetation, even if some of those developers could put back some of those trees, it would be something that is contributing.
Just one aspect of it I want your clarification on for my purpose. Number one, you talked about the official plan amendment beginning only when full information is received. Who would determine when there's full information, or do we just say "all required information"? What would be regarded as full information?
Mr Paparella: I think that relates more to the good work that Mr Dale Martin is doing at this time in trying to complete a manual or a guideline for what, he coined a phrase, the complete application. I think what we're looking for is some guidance in a regulatory form that would indicate in any particular issue what exactly constitutes a complete application and make that part of a regulation that we could use as a guide for anyone coming forward with an application.
With time lines, nowadays we receive applications. They're officially received and there may be all kinds of information missing, yet near the end of that process when things are looking to be approved by the applicant, there are always comments like, "This has taken me four years," or "This has taken me three years," and "There's got to be some way to shorten this."
We may not have received the complete application or the full information, as we've indicated here, until the third year and we've only processed that information over a six- or eight-month time frame, but it's lost because the official date on the application presently reads four years ago or three years ago. We may have been waiting for all kinds of studies and things that agencies required, that the region required, to have regard for before we make a final decision.
1020
I think it's a point of contention with the public and with the applicant. They need to know what we should expect of them, and we need to know that we can ask for it through some regulatory means. I think that's the whole purpose of that before we officially receive the application and declare that it is now in process.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Grandmaître, do you have a very short question, please?
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Yes, a very short question, Madam Chair. Your number 3, public participation in the subdivision approvals process, you say that you encourage public participation, except that plans of subdivision by the general public should be permitted only when major changes are proposed and that major changes be defined by regulations or by regulation. Can you help me define what a major change would be?
Mr Paparella: I can't stress enough how important that is to the region. Right now, when we give a draft approval, it is just that, a draft approval. Prior to registration of a document, of a plan of subdivision, there are a number of minor changes that occur. What I mean by minor is, there may end up being a lot line shift or a tangent of a road might change from 40% to 50%, so some alignments change.
Based on the present proposed legislation, those require further notice again, and we don't feel that is important. A major change to me would be something like a street is deleted, or a street configuration is totally different, or the lot pattern is totally different from what was draft-approved, or now from lots it's gone to blocks in the plan. That is a major change.
The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately, the time has expired for the Liberal Party. I would like to move on to Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning. Obviously, from looking at your brief, you've thoroughly looked at this Bill 163 in great depth. If I have 50 acres in Grimsby and tomorrow I decided maybe I should put a plan of subdivision on that, how long do you think it would be before I would have approval?
Mr Paparella: That's a difficult question. I mean, it depends on a lot of things. If that 50 acres is presently designated for urban development, if it is properly zoned for urban development, there are a number of processes that obviously would have to be in place.
If those were there and we had received a plan of subdivision for an area that was completely zoned and designated for that form of development in our area, if there are no complications in terms of the process, you could conceivably go through that process in three to six months. If there are some complications, it would take longer. But generally for non-complicated issues that are straightforward, if everything else is in place in terms of the planning process, it would take about that long.
Mr McLean: Did you ever see a subdivision that wasn't complicated?
Mr Paparella: Yes, actually, in our area our municipalities are quite good at getting their secondary planning in quite detailed order, and the subdivisions are really quite straightforward.
Mr McLean: The reason I asked you that question was, the fact is, a lot of things in this bill -- it talks about the 30 days, the 90 days, the 180 days -- but before you get to dealing with these specific time limits, there's a lot that's got to be done. I'm wondering how much shorter the process is going to be than what it is today, other than having these specific time limits after the fact that a lot of things have been met, then you put in your 180 days or -- the 30 that you want to change to 90, to me, appears to be acceptable.
But I want to ask you, do you think that there's enough public participation allowed in this bill for people to be able to have their say?
Mr Paparella: With some of the changes we've proposed I think there is. In our process it's very important that the public participation happen and occur at a very early stage in the pre-consultation. It should happen at the official plan stage, at the secondary plan stage. If they are detailed enough, everyone's views are known at that time.
By the time you get to a subdivision, you're really dealing with technicalities, not a form and type of development, because you already know what's going to happen if you've got detailed secondary planning. Therefore, you end up in a situation where you can basically move that subdivision through a lot quicker and you don't need the kind of participation you would want and expect at an earlier stage.
In our area we'd like to see that come out as early as possible, and with these kind of time frames, I think it helps us to give everybody a perspective of when that should happen and we try and encourage it to happen as early as possible. The earlier it happens, the quicker the processes at the end are going to be and that includes site plans and subdivisions.
Mr McLean: The question was already asked with regard to duplication being avoided and streamlining achieved by not subjecting plans of subdivision to further public review. I hope that you're saying it has been approved subject to certain little modifications.
Mr Paparella: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Is that the area you're zeroing in on?
Mr Paparella: That's correct.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to follow up on Mr McLean's point regarding number 3 in your presentation. I guess my concern arises out of some things that have happened locally. You talk about subdivisions, but the fact of the matter is that from my dealing with constituents, they really and truly want as much participation as they possibly can have. Even when you're talking about a secondary plan, I think that really neighbours change, the nature of the neighbourhoods change. The nature of planning over time has changed. We're not approaching it as we did in the 1950s any more, we are definitely trying to be, I think, a lot more holistic in the approach.
My concern would be that in limiting public participation only to major changes, you're really not getting a full sense of how that neighbourhood thinks at that moment in time. I'd be happy for your reaction to that.
Mr Paparella: I think as I explained before, the minor changes I'm talking about are literally small line changes of a foot or small amendments to the tangent in a road. If you are making a significant change to that subdivision, clearly it's not our intent to avoid any public participation. We just see that it could really complicate and delay the formulation of that plan and the approval of that plan for no significant reason.
I think that's the point we want clarified, that if there are a number of things that we can clarify and identify in a regulatory sense as to what's minor and what's major, then we're much better equipped to deal with it at the local level, and keeping in mind, we're at an approval level -- where we are, we have a two-tier system -- so the local municipality generally has a plan of subdivision and a zoning bylaw before the public at the same time.
In our municipality that happens virtually 100% of the time. They're not separate processes, even though when we receive the official plan or the zoning bylaw or subdivision we deal with them separately. At the local level in our region, they deal with them concurrently. If the zoning and the subdivision are there at the same time, that public participation you're concerned about is occurring and the views are expressed at that point because it's fairly close to the end of the process when physical building is going to occur, so a lot of the changes, surprises, are already out in view and the public have had an opportunity to present their opinions.
I think the local municipality has done a lot of the work that it needs to to get all the public input. At our level we're looking basically to streamline it to a point where we can approve the subdivision quickly, based on that input that was already received at the local level.
Ms Haeck: I'd love to pursue this point, but I know there are other colleagues that want to raise some very good questions, so I'll defer to them at this time.
1030
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Thank you for your presentation. You've raised some interesting points, and I do have a question where you could perhaps help us. In your number 6, where you talk about the Environmental Assessment Act-Planning Act joint process, you say that this bill doesn't give you a specific way of how this dual process is going to work and you ask that you be given more direction as to which specific parts of the process could be combined and so on. Well, here's your opportunity. Why don't you give us some of your ideas about how you think that this might be able to work and then we'll have something that we can work from?
Mr Paparella: I think in this situation there are a number of things I have in mind, one specifically that I think would help all processes. With the EA process presently, there is a requirement for notification of the public. Those notification provisions can be combined with the planning provisions for notice for an official plan or for a zoning bylaw or for a plan of subdivision.
If we are advertising at a local level or at a regional level for a particular planning document to be approved or for public participation, at the same time right in that same statement in the paper you could say this is also a meeting for the EA act for a particular facility, whether it be a major road or a major sewer, and it also meets the requirements of the EA act.
Rather than having to go back and have another meeting and have another notice put in, that's one process that could be combined and all the same players could be at the same place at the same time discussing not only the approval of the official plan or a zoning but also the EA process.
I think that's one step that I know I've been discussing with all our member municipalities and they are quite interested and excited in pursuing that. Once again, we have to identify those projects that are subject to EA very early on in the planning process so that the two processes can dovetail and we reduce duplication in the whole matter.
I think there are a number of other things we could do as well. Giving the applicant the choice of pursuing his own independent EA approval, which means that he's on his own or combining it with us, early on in the process he has to make a choice. If he chooses to have a joint process, then it's jointly provided for in regulation with an OP process or with the subdivision process or with the zoning process.
I think if that option is there for us, a lot of municipalities would take that because it not only helps us improve public participation, it also helps us be more involved as a public agency in ensuring that those aspects of the EA are identified early on and are incorporated into an official plan policy or a secondary plan policy or a subdivision condition or a zoning even.
So having it left the way it is now, basically it requires the applicant to go ahead and do his own process independent of ours, if he wishes, and I think if he had the option to join in with us, it would streamline things for both of us and provide better public participation for all concerned.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Thank you, Mr Wiseman. We're running out of time. Mr Hayes would like to comment on some comment that was made earlier by way of clarification.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Yes, thank you, Chair. On Mr Curling's question dealing with the time frame, and of course you've made that one of the proposals here, just for the benefit of the committee and yourself, Mr Paparella, the legislation does provide for the preparation of a regulation that will set out what constitutes a complete application. So we will be certainly addressing that concern with regulation and it'll be favourable to your recommendation.
Mr Curling: You're saying it will be in the regulations?
Mr Hayes: That's what they're requesting, yes.
The Chair: Mr Paparella, thank you for taking the time to make your submission and to appear before this committee.
Mr McLean: Mr Chair, could I just ask the parliamentary assistant a question of clarification?
The Chair: If it's quick because otherwise we'll run way out of time.
Mr McLean: Yes, just very quick. Are volunteer firefighters covered under your conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Hayes: I don't think they are.
Mr McLean: I was reading this last night as my bedtime reading and that's when I came up and found that they were.
Mr Hayes: No, they're not.
Mr McLean: Page 12 of appendix C.
Mr Hayes: Volunteer firemen are not employees where they would fall under conflict-of-interest.
Mr McLean: You're saying they're not?
Mr Hayes: If you want, I will let Mr Sidebottom address that, if I may, real quick.
Mr Peter-John Sidebottom: There is a specific exemption in the legislation for members of council who also serve on the volunteer fire department. There is a specific exemption in section 3 of the act which says that if your interest solely arises as a member of a volunteer fire department, that interest does not in itself cause you to have to declare an interest and then not participate in the decision-making. So a specific exemption is provided and I can give you the section number later, if that's your wish.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
ROB COPELAND
The Chair: Mr Rob Copeland, you have 15 minutes for your submission. If you would like members to ask you questions, leave plenty of time for that. Otherwise feel free to do what you like.
Mr Rob Copeland: I was kind of interested in that because I'm a volunteer firefighter myself and I'm glad you raised that point.
My name is Rob Copeland and I'm a resident of the village of Queenston, which is part of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. I've asked to address the standing committee on Bill 163 because in the last couple of years I've developed an interest in the municipal planning and development processes.
To put it into perspective, until moving to the village of Queenston about eight years ago, I was like most average citizens. You're either intimidated or overawed by the planning processes, the boards, the guidelines and so on and so forth. Either that or you don't care enough about it and you're content to leave it to the local levels of government or the politicians, or even if you have a concern, you know, you suffer from that syndrome -- you can't fight city hall, you can't fight Queen's Park and so on and so forth. That's kind of where I was.
Then I moved down into the village of Queenston, a small, little village, historically significant. It's got a great deal of character, a great deal of ambience to it. Even though it's changed over the years, it's kind of been allowed to evolve, as a village should, instead of being radically transformed overnight by improper or oversized development.
There was something about getting down in that village and getting involved in village life that does make you want to get involved. I joined the volunteer fire department. I've become active on the Queenston community association, which is basically the unofficial town council of the village. I got roped into being president of it for three years there, and that's where I got involved in certain things that got me to where I am here today before you.
Without going into details, basically in 1988 there were two things that happened down in the village which eventually presented a threat to the village of Queenston. First off, a sewage system was installed. It was to service the existing houses and any infilling within the community improvement area boundary, or so we were told, and we had no problem with that.
Secondly, the first draft of the town's new official plan was presented to us. We had a look at it, and there were no problems with that. It satisfied it with regard to densities, with designations and the location of the urban boundary.
However, by early 1990, we discovered that the council of the day suddenly found out that that sewage system could handle quite a larger capacity than originally intended and, with this as their criterion, they changed the official plan. They moved the urban boundary to include a further 60 acres. They gave it a residential designation and a density of five houses per acre. That would have more than doubled the size of the village overnight.
Mr Wiseman: How many houses per acre?
Mr Copeland: Five houses per acre, so with 60 acres, you're looking at approximately 300 houses. That was done without any direct consultation, like coming down to the village of Queenston and talking this over. That isn't a minor change; that's a very major change.
Through the association the village began to fight. It took us four years to try and stave this off. Eventually, this past spring, we were able to convince the council of the day to alter or modify the final version of the official plan to see to our demands. That official plan is now before the minister for approval. The only thing is, we know as well as everybody else the fight's not over yet. The developer who purchased 30 of those acres in question has asked for an OMB referral, and we know what we're up against in that respect.
1040
After going over some of the revisions and amendments to the various planning acts that this Bill 163 recommends, I find as a regular citizen I've got some concerns and I've got some comments I'd like to make.
The first concern I have has to do with proposed changes to the Planning and Development Act, specifically the revision that says it would eliminate municipal advisory committees. I'm asking you because I can't really find any clarification: Does this include committees such as the local architectural conservation advisory committee?
Interjection.
Mr Copeland: It doesn't? Okay. Anyway, I feel that a committee like that is extremely valuable and important to a town such as Niagara-on-the-Lake. What you have there is a committee made up of professional volunteer people with expertise in an area that your ordinary or your regular town council person is not going to have the background to be able to pronounce upon decisions effectively without some kind of advice from people such as them.
Then along with that, I'm asking you, why not have municipal advisory committees made up of concerned and informed citizens to help with areas such as planning which are contentious in any towns? Prior to regional government, my understanding is that the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake put together an official plan in 1970 and they had input from local citizens on it. There was a committee made up.
Now during the life of that official plan they didn't have a lot of problems with it. But if you look at what's happened in the last six years with the troubles that the two councils had in trying to get through this official plan and the various versions of it that've come along, you can see that there's something wrong with the process. I think that something like that could help to alleviate it.
The revision goes on to say, "The minister is required to give the public an opportunity to participate in the preparation of proposed development plans." Public meetings are good and, if there's the sentiment that you're going to give more public participation, that's fine. But still for the average citizen the whole process is too confusing, too intimidating, and I speak from personal experience on this. It's not a lot of fun trying to go before council and try to figure out what's going on.
An established committee of citizens working with the council could be charged with communicating to the average citizen in layman's terms what's going on, explaining the process to them, explaining the recourses they have. This could avoid a lot of potential problems and a lot of bickering at the council level between residents and the council and where it carries on from there. Again, if you knew what has been going on down in Niagara-on-the-Lake over the past six years, you'd be aware there's a problem down there.
A second area of concern I have is that the various planning acts, even with the proposed revisions, don't seem to adequately address the issue of heritage conservation, and this is a big-ticket item down in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Heritage is one of our main assets. When I say "heritage," I don't mean just our old buildings and historical sites. I'm talking abut the natural areas, the open spaces as well as the large traditional agricultural base which is the foundation of the area's character.
All these elements together combine to constitute what is essentially the heritage of the town of Niagara-on-the Lake. I'm afraid that even though there are references to the protection of natural features and agricultural reserves and items of architectural and historical interest are mentioned, it's not going to be enough to adequately protect the unique situation we have down in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and I'm certain there are other areas, towns across the province as well.
The reason is that, to me, it looks like the act is set up to be too generic. Everything is applied the same way, all across the province the same way. Rules and policies are applied in such a way that a ruling based on an issue in the old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake could be the same thing as downtown Hamilton. There appears to be no allowances for recognition of unique areas of the province which should require special consideration.
The acts appear to paint the province with the same brush all the way across the line, and therein lies the problem, because what I see, the developers will walk in, they know all the rules, they know all the regulations and they consistently force their will upon the residents and on councils without regard to how their projects will affect the distinctive qualities of the situations. They know how to play the game.
The Chair: Mr Copeland, sorry to interrupt you, but there would be time to have the members ask you one question for each caucus. Otherwise, if you continue we won't have time for questions. I wanted to leave that option available to you.
Mr Copeland: I've got a couple of minutes left and that's it, okay?
The Chair: Very well. Go ahead.
Mr Copeland: I and many others in our town feel the act should reflect the needs for such areas and contain a section to deal with them. Further guidelines and restrictions should be set up to give these localities more protection from people who want to cash in on the qualities of the town which give them their value in the first place.
Our local MPP, Christel Haeck, has recently presented a resolution to the Legislature asking for a special planning area to be created which would include the old town and the village of Queenston. I feel that zone should be expanded to include the entire municipality of Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Some of the local powers that be feel threatened by this resolution; they feel it is a threat to their control over local planning affairs. As I see it, they don't have very much power at the end of it when it comes right down to it anyway over planning. Many residents don't feel threatened by this resolution because they kind of view it for what it is; it's an invitation to dialogue to discuss a situation where there are a lot of problems.
If this resolution were handled properly and if a bill were drawn up to support it, I feel it could actually give more control to the local towns and the citizens over the planning, the parameters that have to be set up naturally in the guidelines by Queen's Park. But if its administration were left to the local council and a citizens' advisory committee, then it could conceivably give us more direct control over planning, which is a very important matter.
Basically, that's all I'd like to say. Thank you for allowing me the chance to present my brief.
The Chair: Mr Copeland, we would have liked very much to have the members ask you questions. I know Ms Haeck was first on the list. But in order to keep to the tight schedule we just won't be able to do that. We regret that but our schedule is very tight.
Mr McLean: Can I ask for clarification from the parliamentary assistant, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: All right. Mr Copeland, thank you very much for taking the time to appear before this committee. I'd like to call Mr Robert Forbes. As he comes up, Mr McLean, if there are quick questions and quick answers we can do that. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for our schedule.
Mr McLean: My questions are always very quick. The problem is, the answers are sometimes not so fast.
The Chair: There you go. So perhaps we shouldn't ask them.
Mr McLean: But I'd like clarification on this bill.
The Chair: Okay, hold on. Mr Hayes, I beg your pardon but there's a quick question for you.
Mr McLean: Mr Hayes, the question that I have for you as parliamentary assistant is, could you clarify why one of your colleagues would present a thing in the Legislature? Is it not covered under this bill that the people could have the say and have these additional supplementary plans put on? Why would a member present a separate bill if it's going to be -- is it not covered under this?
Mr Hayes: I'm not familiar with the bill.
Mr McLean: Is it covered under the bill, what we're dealing with, what she wants to do?
Mr Hayes: Do you want to ask her what she wants to do or ask me what she wants to do?
Mr McLean: I just want clarification on the bill.
The Chair: All right. You've asked a question. I'm not sure there is an answer. We'll have to move on.
ROBERT FORBES
Mr Robert Forbes: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I have delivered to you my formal submission, which contains my credentials in appearing before you today, the limitation on my presentation to you and as well a number of concerns of mine respecting the detail of the bill before you. In that regard I'm specifically referring to the amendments as they relate to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, as it's now called.
My concerns are limited to the future interpretation of the bill before you. I raise them at this time as my attempt to reduce the incidence of inadvertent breach of the act you ultimately pass and the occurrences of errors of judgement. It's clear from the history of the amendment process in this matter that there is a great deal of concern respecting the manner that these excuses, inadvertent breach and bona fide error, have been allowed by the courts. However, I would suggest to you that there have also been a number of cases where aldermen, school trustees and the like have come before the courts and that indeed the excuses are excuses that many, if not all, of us would have accepted in the circumstances and deserving of some compassion.
It should also be noted that the courts have recently begun to take a somewhat stronger stand in this regard. I'd also like to note, and I think it is missed an awful lot of times, that often the true penalty in these matters is the court cost incurred by the official who's "charged," and I put that in quotes because of course it's not a criminal provision.
I would note that while in one reported case the alderman indeed lost his seat and was barred from holding office until after the election to follow, perhaps the true test of his penalty could be seen in the subsequent taxation of his costs, where he was ordered to pay to the applicant an amount of approximately $30,000 for the applicant's costs in the matter, not including the costs of appeal. These costs appear to have been on a party-and-party basis, so you can expect that his own solicitor's fees and disbursements would have been substantially more, and he still faced the appeal costs.
1050
I cite the above example not of out of sympathy for the official involved, because on the facts of the case it was particularly a bad circumstance, but to establish the upper range of what a local official can face in these matters. My own estimate of the lower end is $10,000 without costs being ordered against him or her.
Nor do I make these points as argument to encourage the return of the former excuses, but to suggest that care be taken to ensure that the act resulting from your deliberations be as clear as possible and to suggest that there are ways in which the effect of the deletion of these excuses may be moderated for the truly deserving litigants.
As such, perhaps I might simply skim the comments which I have formally presented to you. My background as set out in the formal paper before you to the limited extent that they're there relate to my history as an alderman, a councillor in the city of Burlington and the regional municipality of Halton. In fact I'm an author of one of the two books that have general distribution with respect to municipal conflict of interest and I'm now in the process of rewriting it. Accordingly, I'm partway through, but only partway through the preparation of the writing. My interest is confined to the detail and not to the policy decisions which you're making.
The first of the items I'd like to draw your attention to, but very briefly, is the definition of "committee." I suggest to you, and you might have your people look at it, that the way that it's drafted may result in Christmas gifts, personal gifts becoming within the realm of it once it gets in front of a court. The matter could be quickly dealt with simply by separating it off in commas.
My apologies. I've gotten ahead of myself. I was dealing with another. The definition of "committee" deals with the question of whether or not you're bringing into the realm committees that are consisting wholly of members of boards or whether or not you're dealing with committees such as local architectural conservation authority committees where you have both members and the public in place. If it's your intention of bringing in the mixed committees, then I think you should be adding to the clause a provision that clearly states that mixed committees are to be brought in and, if not, then I think you should be putting in the word "wholly" in order to deal with it.
Imputed interests, subsection 2(3): The section imputes a pecuniary interest in a member in certain circumstances where the member has a relationship. In some cases the member has to know that the body that he's imputed into has a pecuniary interest, but in others, particularly clauses (a) and (d), either the knowledge is not necessary or, in case of (d), it's not clear whether the knowledge is necessary.
Clause (d) requires that the member know that the relationship exists, but once he knows that the relationship exists, it's not clear if the knowledge must extend to the existence of the pecuniary interest that the corporate entity has that the family member has an interest in.
This is particularly significant when you realize that the excuse of inadvertence or bona fide error have been removed, and the matter may be clarified by an amendment along the lines of (b) and (c) if it's intended that knowledge is required.
Deletion of inadvertence or bona fide error of judgement: I understand the purpose of the deletion and I'm not arguing with the purpose of deletion, but I would point out that there have been a number of cases where most, if not all, would agree that the member was not deserving of punishment and the provision has been helpful in the interests of justice. Some consideration should be given to dealing with the fact that it is being removed.
One area is perhaps in the commissioner's discretion. The commissioner clearly has a discretion not to proceed. If in fact it's your intention that the commissioner bring into his consideration the question of whether or not the alderman or the school trustee or the like has in fact done it accidentally or as a result of not understanding the act clearly, then that would be one way in which the deletion could be somewhat smooth.
However, I would point out that even if the commissioner has that authority, the individual complainant still has the ability to proceed in the prosecution under the provisions of the bill as it's presently drafted. Accordingly, an alderman or school trustee who's breached the act, but in a relatively innocent manner, may be required to be punished, even though in a nominal fashion such as a one-day suspension. But once he's in that position, the real punishment will be the question of cost that the alderman or the school trustee has to bear.
Gift provision, subsection 5(1): This section raises the concern of simply where the commas are. You'll see that I've set out the provisions of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which is better drafted. If that section stands the way it does in the bill as I've read it, I believe as a practising lawyer that it has the possibility of being misinterpreted by the courts as applying to Christmas gifts and the like. It's a very simple reference, but perhaps you'd take it under consideration.
Commissioner's discretion, subsection 8(8): Under this section the commissioner clearly has the discretion not to prosecute an action. However, the factors affecting that discretion have not been set out in the bill. Given this omission and the history of the deletion of the inadvertent and bona fide error provisions of the present act, it may be that the commissioner will feel compelled to prosecute in such circumstances.
I again note that the answer that the member may now face only a nominal penalty of a one-day suspension does not address the real penalty in such circumstances: the costs of the action and the inability to insure against such costs.
Appeal section, subsection 10(1): The section as drafted would not appear to allow an appeal as to sentence. I suggest to you that it would be in the interests of all concerned that the appeal courts have an opportunity to set up over a period of time a standardized reaction to the kinds of sentencing that can occur.
Disclosure of information, sections 16 and 17: I merely point out -- with no criticism, but since I was looking for it -- there was no penalty set out that would, to my mind, lead to the Provincial Offences Act and lead to a fine of not more than $5,000. Needless to say, the courts would not be allowing the maximum fine, but I simply ask if that's what is intended.
Insurance, section 17: The insurance provisions of the act have essentially not been changed. However, the omission of the inadvertence or bona fide error provision has effectively altered the insurance provisions. It's my understanding that the insurance industry has interpreted the provisions of the present act as permitting insurance against all cases, except those where a penalty has actually been imposed.
To those who would suggest that the reduced penalties provided by the bill act as a replacement for the removal of these two exemptions, I'd point out again that the real penalty is the high cost of litigation. A member would, in my opinion, be well advised to set aside a substantial sum of money to defend himself or herself against such an action. While it is impossible to predetermine the costs, which will vary due to the vigour with which the action is prosecuted or defended, a sum of $10,000 or more could well be expected.
1100
The member who finds himself or herself in contravention due to true inadvertence, such as a simple failure to know that his partner has an interest in a matter before council, would be devastating to most members. The same can be said for the members who made a decision to participate which turned out later to be ill founded but which was an honestly held view of the particular member.
Financial disclosure statement, clause 6(1)(a): If you disregard that, that was an inability on my part with the computer resources I had to find 210.1. I've had an opportunity to find that from P-J. Thank you.
Definition of "board," subsection 2(1): The drafters of the bill have chosen to abandon the definition of the present act in favour of a reference to the definition contained in the Municipal Affairs Act -- section 1, "local board." This definition is more restrictive in its detailed listing of the boards included. It does not include such boards as children's aid societies, committees of adjustment, conservation authorities, courts of revision, land division committees and many more that were under the old act. It does, however, then provide a general description under which some of such boards may be included or may not be. This leaves the individual to make a decision about the applicability of the legislation to himself or herself. I suggest it creates more uncertainty which will then lead to the question of whether or not the person inadvertently or by a bona fide error simply breached the act.
I'd suggest that the list of boards be set out in the bill in a similar manner to that of the present legislation, with the deletion of the general description set out at the end of the definition. In this manner, certainty is added to the legislation which will provide that bona fide errors are not as readily available under that section. At the same time, the provisions of clause (b) permit you flexibility by way of inclusion of certain boards by regulation.
Mr Chairman, those are my comments and I thank you for the opportunity to make them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Forbes, for taking the time to present this brief to this committee.
ONTARIO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, Mr Jim Magee and Mr Peter Doris. Welcome to you both.
Mr Jim Magee: Thank you. Good morning, Mr Chairman, honourable committee members, ladies and gentlemen. We thank you for the opportunity to come here today to speak for the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.
My name is Jim Magee and I am here today on behalf of the OCA to bring comments forward on Bill 163. I am a beef and cash crop farmer near the village of Drumbo, east of Woodstock in Oxford county, and I am a member of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association board of directors and a past president of the OCA.
For your information, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association is the representative organization for Ontario's 40,000 beef farmers. OCA has 49 county and district organizations affiliated with it, spanning the entire province from Kenora and Cochrane in the north to Prescott and Glengarry in the east, to Kent and Essex in the west. Farm-gate receipts from the sale of cattle and calves accounted for a little more than $1 billion to Ontario farmers in 1993. We have a particular interest in land use planning because many of our members farm on environmentally sensitive areas.
Let me preface my comments on Bill 163 by stating that Ontario cattlemen support the concept of municipal planning and a process that is open, accountable and fair to everyone, including the land owner. As you are probably aware, many Ontario cattlemen, along with many other people in Ontario, have become concerned about rural land use issues. The concern with land use issues is manifested through the designation of land as wetlands, areas of natural and scientific interest -- or ANSIs -- endangered species habitat, landfill site selection and other restrictive designations. Often the common denominator is the frustration of the land owner and the realization that his or her land has been redesignated without their prior knowledge or consent. These designations often reduce the value of the property and restrict the ability of the land owner to wisely use their land.
I'd like to talk for a moment about my own situation which has personally happened to me, and this is typical of many other people around the province. I only very recently found out that my land, which we have grazed for over a century, has been declared to be a class 1 wetland and an ANSI. This was very quietly going into the planning office in our county, and if it had gone through the official plan, I would have been out of business. I would no longer have been able to use that land. There was no consultation with me; this simply happened very quietly behind my back. We have woken up to what is happening now. We don't have so much of a problem with the policy statement but rather with the way it is being carried out.
Specific comments related to Bill 163: There are three principles which Bill 163 is based on according to a May 1994 press release from the minister:
(1) Municipalities will be given a greater role in land use planning and development approvals.
(2) The streamlining of the planning process will permit environmentally sound development proposals to proceed more quickly, creating jobs in the construction industry.
(3) The environment will be better protected through a comprehensive set of policy statements.
It is the view of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association that if Bill 163 is passed in its current format none of the principles will be realized. The following outlines our logic for this statement.
The proposed change in the Planning Act would require all councils and boards responsible for planning to make decisions under the act that are consistent with provincial policy statements. The previous version of the Planning Act required that municipalities and boards "shall" have regard to provincial policy statements.
OCA does not support the proposed change for a number of reasons. It takes away the flexibility of local elected councils and boards related to planning issues and places it in a centralized bureaucratic structure. This point is evidenced in the proposed purpose section to be added to the act where it states, in clause 1.1(b), "to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy."
What is not stated is that local councils and boards will have their hands tied by central bureaucrats using policy statements. We view this change as a coup d'état for the central bureaucrats over the authority and autonomy of locally elected councils. As a result, principle 1, empowering municipalities, cannot happen with their hands tied by the "shall be consistent with" clause. If this change goes ahead, it threatens to widen the rural-urban split on land use issues. The split is evident now as many urban municipalities are looking towards their rural neighbours as sites for landfills.
With respect to protective designations such as wetland or ANSI, many rural land owners see these designations as the method by which the urban public is expressing their increased interest in wildlife habitat and other natural areas. If their lands are placed in protective designation, rural land owners view this as expropriation without compensation. The problem is compounded when the process for designating these protected areas has not involved the affected land owner. These designations can have a negative value on the property values and some financial institutions are becoming wary about accepting these lands as collateral for mortgages or for loans, which endangers the economic survival of many farms.
I'm aware of a situation that has occurred in the state of Texas where in one county, where they have identified two endangered songbirds, it has resulted in the loss of property values in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't want to see a similar situation start to occur in this province.
An alternative is a process where a land owner can enter into an easement with a conservation-oriented group such as Ducks Unlimited as a method to protect and enhance the sensitive areas. The land owner is a voluntary and willing contributor to the protection of the environment. I personally have done this in my own farming operation. I've been willing to sign a long-term agreement with Ducks Unlimited to protect a particular wetland. I think this is a far better approach than doing it through a bureaucratic process.
Another change is that municipal decisions regarding minor variances cannot be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board if the proposed amendment is passed. While the goal of reducing red tape is applaudable, we view this change as an attempt to appease the municipal boards and councils over their loss of power from the above change requiring their decisions to be consistent with provincial policy statements. Land owners will not have an appeal process for minor variances with respect to land use issues. In addition, there is a provision in the amended Planning Act that allows the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to collect fees from municipalities for processing planning applications. We believe this is another method to offload provincial government costs to the municipalities.
1110
It has been our experience that centralizing the decision-making process does not tend to streamline the paperwork; it usually adds to it. With a list of the various natural features under protection, it appears that any feature could be categorized as an ANSI and therefore subject to protection. As a result, virtually any development proposal could require an environmental impact study. In the increasingly competitive world we are living in, agriculture considering expansion will find these restrictions stifling and lose the initiative to compete in a global market.
I will comment on the government's attempt to protect the environment through a comprehensive set of policy statements. OCA reminds you that these natural features are still on the landscape today because the previous and present land owners were wiling to manage the land in a manner that maintained or even improved the natural features. However, with restrictive designations to be applied through the official planning process, current and future land owners will not view these natural features as liabilities or assets. This change will not protect the natural features of the land.
To make a comment, one of our members said, rather tongue in cheek, "If someone found an endangered plant on your property, the best thing to do is to get out the Roundup." Now, it's regrettable to take that attitude. She said it tongue in cheek, but at the same time there is some merit in making that statement, if it's going to result in a whole lot of restrictions coming down on you as a land owner.
To go on, while the linking of environmental and planning issues is designed "To protect the quality and integrity of ecosystems, including air, water, land, and biota; and, where quality and integrity have been diminished, to encourage restoration or remediation to healthy conditions," as stated in section A, goal 1, in the comprehensive set of policy statements, it possesses some problems in reality. For example, "Development that will negatively impact on groundwater recharge areas, headwaters and aquifers which have been identified as sensitive areas will not be permitted." "Groundwater" is defined as "subsurface water, or water...stored in the ground...." In addition, "sensitive" is not defined in the glossary of terms. I would remind you that this is the first point of section A, goal 1, in the comprehensive set of policy statements.
A better method to deal with groundwater quality issues is the approach being spearheaded by Ontario agricultural groups, university researchers and government officials. Originally, groundwater was one of the many issues dealt with through the environmental farm plan, led by the farm organizations. Realizing that groundwater quality is a concern in some areas of the province, the coalition decided that specific action was needed in this area. I would say that yes, we do have a problem with groundwater, but this is also something that we've recognized in the agricultural community and we are moving to deal with these problems.
The group has been meeting to discuss issues related to groundwater and formulate a course of action that addresses the issues. With the involvement of farm organizations, we believe that we can achieve a higher level of cooperation with landowners through voluntary programs and appropriate government initiatives. I believe this approach is more proactive and realistic than the approach outlined in Bill 163, which could greatly limit economic activity in many areas of the province.
Goal 2 of section A of the policy statements sets out a process "To ensure that wetlands are identified and adequately protected through the land use planning process and to achieve no loss of provincially significant wetlands." This is a very rigid requirement and does not recognize that the needs of many Ontario citizens may change over time and that the level of wetlands will evolve and change with time as well and may result in the need for human intervention in order to maintain function of these areas, such as water control structures.
I might comment that we find very odd that at the present time conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited that want to go in and enhance and improve wetlands are actually being prevented from doing so because of the present policies of MNR. As we alluded to earlier, land owners were not often contacted through the process of identifying wetlands and therefore feel alienated towards the process. These people are truly in the best position to protect and manage the environment.
A related problem with wetland designations is the wetland complexes and the adjacent areas. Wetland complexes are wetlands that are separated by up to 750 metres. An adjoining area can be classified bas part of the wetland complex, bringing with it all the restrictions associated with a wetland designation. Adjacent areas are to the 120-metre buffer which borders the wetland. While agricultural activity is permitted in the adjacent areas, any municipal permits will likely require an environmental impact study. With these difficulties associated with wetland designations and the wide, sweeping protective measures in Bill 163, it threatens to sour the attitude of the affected land owners. If land owners view these areas as liabilities, it would be very difficult to protect these areas with any amount of legislation. As a result, Bill 163 may endanger the environment and threaten the third principle that this bill is supposed to protect.
With the shortcomings that we have just outlined, we believe the three principles cannot be achieved with the passage of Bill 163. There needs to be a recognition of the role of the land owner in land use decisions and the role the land owner plays in protecting the environment while fully utilizing and managing his or her land. While OCA is supportive of an open and accountable planning process, it is our belief that this process is best served through the responsible local governments, which have the flexibility to meet the needs of their constituents. These local governments should not be unduly restrained by rigid provincial governments policies. In addition, the restrictive designations placed on land without the knowledge or consent of the land owner amount to expropriation without compensation. If it is in the public good to protect and designate these sensitive areas, then the public should pay for these areas.
Our recommendations are:
(1) Maintain the provision in the Planning Act that municipalities shall have regarding to provincial policy statements. It reflects the balance between protecting the environment and local autonomy.
(2) All protective designations such as "wetlands" and ANSI should be reviewed and removed unless the land owner initiates the request to have one or more of these designations placed on his or her property. All existing designations should be reviewed and the affected land owners contacted to ensure that they understand the implications of these designations. In addition, appealing these designations to the Ontario Municipal Board is often a lengthy and expensive process. A local appeal process is needed for environmental designations.
Third and lastly, a process needs to be established that recognizes the role and achievements of Ontario citizens in protecting and enhancing the environment. Easements between the land owner with conservation groups are a good model to protect the sensitive areas and ensure the willing cooperation of the land owners. This process is not fostered through restrictive designations appearing on an official plan. Protection is best achieved with the cooperation of the land owner, and this needs to be recognized.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation and we welcome any questions at this time.
Mr McLean: You indicated that you found on your farm a wetlands designation. Who put that on? Was it the county or the municipality?
Mr Magee: Neither, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and it in turn forwarded this to our local county planning office.
Mr McLean: Yours wasn't the only farm then that was designated as wetlands by the Ministry of Natural Resources, was it?
Mr Magee: No. In fact, in our township we called a meeting. We had over 100 land owners come out extremely concerned about what was happening, and most of these people, like myself, did not know that designations had been made.
Mr McLean: Are you aware of the set of policy statements that has been approved by cabinet and that, when this bill has third reading, will be part of the bill? You have the policy statements.
Mr Magee: Yes.
Mr McLean: What is your reaction to the one-lot-per-farm operation for a full-time farmer of retirement age? In your area, maybe you don't like severances or don't want severances, but I would like your views on that.
Mr Magee: First of all, I know that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is going to be coming before your committee. This is an issue that I think they will more properly deal with. Our organization as such has not taken an official stand on it. I can only give you my personal opinion and I'm not sure how much weight that would carry.
Mr McLean: Yesterday I asked some questions. I kind of forget really how they came about, but the bottom line was that I thought there should've been something in this legislation that would protect a beef farmer such as you from urban growth encroaching upon and putting you out of business. I don't think there's anything in the legislation that I know of. Is there anything in there that you know of that would allow you to stay in business with encroachment coming upon your operation?
Mr Magee: Exactly. We obviously do need that, the right-to-farm legislation, the protection to carry on normal farming activities. We very much need that.
Mr McLean: Somebody said to me they thought it was under the Food Land Guidelines, that it was all still covered under that. I'm not sure whether it is or not. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could clarify that for me.
Mr Wiseman: That's under the farm protection act. It's the right to farm.
Mr McLean: There's nothing in this bill that protects the farmer's right to farm upon encroachment from subdivisions being built beside the farm.
Mr Hayes: There are sections in the bill that certainly protect class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land. There's nothing in the bill that suggests that the urban sprawl is going to go out on to the farm and put the farmer out of business. There's nothing to that. If someone wants to think that way, that is certainly not the intent of this legislation at all.
Mr Wiseman: Just on that last point, I thought the farm protection act was the act that sets up the best farm practices, that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was involved in working out what those best farm practices are and that as long as they are being adhered to, complaints cannot be taken forward by abutting house owners, because they would be frivolous or vexatious in that they knew the farming operation was there prior to them moving into those subdivisions. I'm not sure that it necessarily should be in this bill, but if it's necessary then I think it's necessary to look at putting it into the farm protection act and not necessarily in this bill.
1120
My question has to do with another aspect of this. In my area, a lot of subdivisions are being built, and they just strip the land and completely destroy the groundwater, a large community which was basically on wells and all the wells just dried up. The groundwater was gone. I think it's important that we protect, that we understand that this can happen. The flow of effluents and pollution into the groundwater is also a major contaminator and something that farmers have to deal with. So I think we have to deal with these things. These things are happening.
I guess my question is that you've gone through a whole list of things that you don't really like about the legislation and about other legislation, about things that are happening. And while you have indicated that you worked well with Ducks Unlimited to preserve wetlands on your property, we know that 85% of the wetlands in southern Ontario are gone and that even in my own community they are being threatened.
If the option isn't to pass laws and to regulate, if there's another option, how do you get the people who are not prepared to accept responsibility? You see, most laws are designed to get the 5% or 10% of the people who will absolutely not participate in proper planning or ecosystems approaches or taking partnerships such as you have done. How do you get these people to recognize that it's a bigger ecosystem out there that they're affecting if they destroy the wetlands and the breeding grounds and all of these things?
Mr Magee: There are several points there I'd like to address. First of all, as far as the comment about the loss of 85% of the wetlands and 95% of the Carolinian forest -- I've heard all of that -- it's also true that 11 million people will wake up tomorrow morning in this province and they're going expect to eat, and that's where we're growing the food, on that land. That doesn't mean --
Mr Wiseman: They're growing more subdivisions than food lately.
Mr Magee: But it's also been said that's a good cash crop.
Mr Wiseman: A one-time deal, though.
Mr Magee: Right. I think it's worth noting that most land owners today are not out there draining the wetlands, and they have a real interest today in protecting them. I think it's very valid to take several approaches to the land owner that it's of benefit for him to protect his wetland, to enter into the conservation agreement with Ducks Unlimited or other like-minded organizations for tax incentives, for property tax write-offs or whatever, and all these things are of benefit and will help encourage the land owner to protect his wetlands.
I think through the environmental farm plan process we're encouraging people to protect their wetlands, and I don't see the drainage going on or the other problems on agricultural land that there have been in the past. Unfortunately, this policy is actually going to encourage people to do it if they have to, to get rid of it before all sorts of restrictions come down, and that's unfortunate.
Mr Peter Doris: The other point to realize is that we don't have a problem with wetlands as such, but when farm land is designated as a wetland or has another protected designation put on it without the prior consent and knowledge of the land owner, and this has happened everywhere from the Ontario-Quebec border right down into the Kent-Essex area in southern Ontario and all points in between, we do have a bit of a problem without the land owner being consulted about this, because the land was purchased with an intent to farm it or to do whatever and then all of a sudden without their knowledge they're restricted as to what they can do.
Quite often the restrictions are such that they take the wetland but they also take probably quite a few acres of additional land that is not wetland; it's the upland areas and that. There has to be a recognition that the private property owner has some rights as well.
Mr Wiseman: I agree that it is unacceptable for designations to take place in the absence of consultation and discussion. I think that is one of the things I would totally agree with you on, that it shouldn't be done in that way. The wetlands policy, as far as I'm concerned -- and I was one of the prime movers behind having it implemented -- was not to do that; it was to work in partnership and to have within the policy itself mechanisms for rehabilitation and monetary incentives to do that. So I'm pleased that you brought that up, because I don't think it should be happening in that way and I agree with you.
The Chair: Mr Halen, the ministry staff person, would like to give some clarification to the previous question.
Mr Curt Halen: Mr Chairman, through you to Mr Magee, I just wanted to mention that currently, under the Food Land Guidelines, there are provisions under a code of practice which you may be familiar with that do provide protection to existing farm operations. In fact, there are minimum distance separations that are to be adhered to so that if you have an existing farm and a subdivision, say, or a new residential development is proposed anywhere near that, there are formulas that have to be worked out to set the distance separation. So it does allow or provide for a considerable amount of protection for those existing operations, and that is not going to be changed by any of these policies.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to follow up on that. It is being affected by the wetland policy, though, I firmly believe. That's my experience.
But thank you for your presentation. You make some awfully good points. I agree with you about the imposition of the wetland policies. It's happened in other municipalities in Ontario, of course, where some municipalities are forced to hold hearings and get into the matter in depth with their residents after the fact. But that's not near good enough. So it is wrong and it is happening and we need to look at that.
The thrust of your paper, I believe, is that rural Ontario is different and the farmers are concerned, and for the most part that is correct. What you're saying is, I believe, that we shouldn't have the one set of rules with all the restrictions and regulations that we're designing for the urban and the suburban and the fast-growing municipalities for the rest of rural Ontario. It is different. It should be treated differently, and I think it can be. I think we need to work on this. This will probably go ahead, but rural Ontario needs to be recognized and we need to do those things. I'm sure you agree and I think you've shown the way, farmers have shown the way, through the voluntary participation in the environmental plans for farms. People are lined up to do that, and that's wonderful, and eventually we'll see all of them.
Do you see that as the solution, to have something different, in line with some of the things you're saying, for rural Ontario? Oxford's a case in point, because Oxford county is to be commended. I think there's less strip development in the county of Oxford than in any other upper-tier county or region in Ontario, from my point of view.
Mr Magee: Yes.
Mr Eddy: Would you comment on that?
Mr Magee: I think this voluntary approach -- the gentleman here referenced wanting to protect wetlands. I agree with that. I have the Ducks Unlimited project on my place, so I obviously have sympathy for that, and I think most farmers today do have a strong conservation ethic, but they want to do this on a voluntary basis, without Big Brother overlooking them. So I think the environmental farm plan is going to be a good process.
Mr Eddy: Excellent. I think you've made a good point, that people will come forth and are doing it. There will be some who won't in another treatment, maybe. Thank you for your views on this. I agree.
The Chair: We thank you for your presentation.
1130
PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOCIETY
The Chair: The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, Mr John Bacher. Welcome.
Mr John Bacher: I will be highlighting various parts of this brief.
Mr McLean: Could we have a copy of it?
Mr Bacher: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was distributed. Okay, is everyone equipped?
In my introductory remarks I will make some reference to the policies that are associated with the legislation, because I think the forward-moving nature of the legislation is quite evident when it's set in context with the new provincial land use policies, even though they're not the subject of discussion today. In particular, I would like to express our society's appreciation for the new provincial policy regarding specialty lands that would prohibit further urban expansions through zoning on to specialty crop lands.
Getting into the guts of this brief, I would first like to begin with the importance of the new language of "shall be consistent with." In this regard, the previous comment by Mr Eddy pointing out, quite correctly, Oxford county's good planning process shows I think some of the problems of the inconsistency by which the Food Land Guidelines were applied around the province. Some areas like Oxford county interpreted the Food Land Guidelines properly and brought their plans into conformity, but other areas just look at this "shall be consistent with" as "What kind of a big deal is this?" and the Food Land Guidelines remained a dead letter.
Often what this would lead to when different planning proposals were actually coming through the pipe would be appeals by OMAF, and you'd get OMB hearings as a result. Generally the OMB would interpret "shall be consistent with" in a way that's not that dissimilar, would interpret the old "have regard to" in a way that was sort of similar to what's now being proposed with "shall be consistent with," but you'd have a lot of unnecessary expense and OMAF's budget to intervene would sort of be whittled away in a lot of unnecessary OMB hearings.
Secondly, as I indicated in this regard with the policies re site alterations, it's sort of appropriate that you're having this meeting here in Niagara Falls, because the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society has farm members here in Niagara Falls who have found the inadequacy of the existing regulations about illegal fill dumping is a major problem. There is a stream here in Niagara Falls, the Beaver Dams Creek, where fill has been placed into the floodplain in violation of the fill regulations. The great difficulty of establishing proof of a violation under the existing laws makes it very hard to actually remove fill once it's been put there. So we're very pleased with this aspect of the legislation, that it gives new powers in this regard, because what's there now certainly is inadequate. It has even, as the brief points out, resulted in an attempt to have official plan amendments after the act to legalize illegal practices.
The third point is our basic way that we think the bill could be strengthened. I think this is consistent with the basic process that led to the bill being developed. I'm hoping it was sort of an oversight that this feature was not included in the bill. I know there was a lot of pressure to get the new policy statements enacted. I think this led to some problems of fine-tuning with the actual legislation in how we look at this in terms of a planning reform in the overview sort of way and how it affects food land.
It's very similar to what people who have been involved in food land preservation have called the Oregon model. The state of Oregon's basic approach to food land preservation is very similar to this bill and the associated policy statements. They have a state policy to preserve food land that is enacted in local municipal plans, and there's similar language to "this shall be consistent with," that the municipalities are to incorporate the policies into their plans.
There's one aspect of the Oregon model, though, that is not here. This is where I think an amendment to the legislation would be in order. In Oregon they have a time limit for municipalities to revise their plans to conform to state policy, and that is a five-year period. It is important to have this time limit, or we could have some of the problems that occurred with the old Food Land Guidelines, with some municipalities such as Oxford county conforming to the provincial policies and other municipalities essentially able to evade compliance with the provincial policy. I know that in Oregon this five-year provision has been very effective, that if you look at their municipal plans, all their municipal plans actually are in conformity with the state policy.
I've given an overview of these contents. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much, John, for coming. We have heard that this particular legislation will hopefully change the personality of the system of getting amendments to the official plan, that it will make this process less adversarial and that there will be more mediation and negotiation between the people involved. I'm wondering if you think this will actually happen in Niagara. I'm hoping that it will.
The other question I'd like to put to you, and then you can comment, is that I've heard planners here within our region say that it is going to be very helpful to have the provincial policy statements clearer and firmer. It will make their jobs easier in dealing with the proponents and the farmers and the whole community. I'm wondering if you feel that way.
Mr Bacher: Yes, I think this will happen. I know change in the agricultural policy -- the previous agricultural policy would allow certain urban uses if a need could be established. What we found was this basis of need was just a useless provision. It always ended up in actual practice, when you would get the issue of need debated at the Ontario Municipal Board, with the land owner saying, "Yes, I have a desire to locate this facility here." So this means you had this terrible ambiguity in the planning process. I think this package does a lot to take the ambiguity away.
Ms Harrington: Could you comment about trying to change the nature of the adversarial process in a planning meeting?
Mr Bacher: I think this is all to the good because otherwise parties could end up spending huge amounts of money at OMB hearings in a sort of winner-take-all situation. I think to avoid this by forcing the parties to compromise before a hearing would probably be beneficial.
1140
Ms Harrington: Thank you. I'll pass it to my colleague.
Ms Haeck: Yes, John, nice to see you out. I want to publicly tell all of the members here that the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society was integral to the tender fruit land protection program that the minister announced back in May, and John has probably gotten a few grey hairs over the last few years trying to see that one through. so I want to take this opportunity to publicly recognize his contribution to something extremely worthwhile.
You didn't mention it here -- and I won't get into some of the severance questions, but obviously we all look to Oxford county for some of the good things happening with regard to severances -- but one of the previous presenters talked about trees, and I know that's a concern for your organization as well. This was actually the first presenter this morning in his final comment, and he said: "Under the current tree protection enabling legislation, maximum fines are so low that municipal tree-cutting bylaws are incapable of deterring land owners who want to destroy significant woodlots to facilitate development."
Definitely, I read some of his further comments as indicating that they felt, just from the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, that probably the upper tier should have some responsibility or oversight over this particular issue. How would you respond to that kind of concern?
Mr Bacher: Well, that's an excellent concern, because I know I was at one OMB hearing and this matter of the regional tree bylaw came up, and the expert witness said the only attempt to apply this bylaw was actually thrown out of court as unenforceable. So I think a regional tree bylaw is seen as a totally useless vehicle. It's a bylaw under the existing Trees Act, so the provincial Trees Act certainly needs to be strengthened.
It's possible that through the same provisions of legislation that are here in draft form that deal with site alteration, there could be some additional powers put there to prevent destruction of trees.
There was one case here in the city of Niagara Falls where a land owner, in order to prevent possible objections to the development of a woodlot, actually had the woodlot destroyed. So this certainly shows the need for the sort of powers you're talking about.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation of your brief. That's an important matter, the preservation of agricultural lands; a very important matter to our future, there's no doubt about that.
I just want to comment on the trees bylaw. I don't understand what's happening in Hamilton-Wentworth, because in the old days in the county of Wentworth, with the trees bylaw they actually fined a developer heavily for clearing land off a table on the escarpment and forced him to replant. It's my understanding the fines go up to $50,000. I just don't understand whether that bylaw is outdated. The problem I see with the Trees Act is that it doesn't require all upper tiers to pass such bylaws. It's permissive rather than voluntary. But I'll take a look at that. It's an important item.
The other one is the control of vegetation growth or prevention of the elimination of vegetation, because when lands are stripped -- and they are stripped in many cases, large acreages, long before the development's going to take place or is approved -- you know what the result is: It ends up in creek bottoms.
What I really wanted to ask you about was these different models that you refer to. You mention the Oregon model, and you're not asking for that, but you mention agricultural land reserve models established in British Columbia and Quebec. I don't know about those. I do know that in Ontario for many years people were saying the only way you're going to preserve agricultural land is to have a provincial official plan setting that out.
Now, it seems to me some of these policies, or the agricultural policy, is in place of that. Whether it's strong enough, I'd like your opinion. But I don't know. Are those other models better than what we're doing here, or how would you compare them?
Mr Bacher: We've always had a long-standing preference for the model in British Columbia and Quebec, which establishes an agricultural land reserve, which is essentially a provincial zoning system on significant agricultural lands. Now, although this has been recognized that this is our preference, we've always seen that the second-best approach is this Oregon model approach, which is shown in this legislation.
Mr Eddy: I see, and what's being done or proposed to be done in this act is close to the Oregon model.
Mr Bacher: Close to the Oregon model.
Mr Eddy: Do you think it's going to result in the preservation? Of course, many decisions are made from time to time that eliminate, purposely, a lot of agricultural land, maybe not right at the time. I'm concerned about what happened in Westminster township, where 64,000 acres, a lot of which was prime agricultural land, was added to the city of London. Now, urban municipalities are not noted for preserving agricultural land. In fact, it's a land base for development, and sparse development in some cases, and that causes me concern. Do you have any opinion on that, the preserving?
Mr Bacher: Yes. I think what we've found is that the biggest sort of problem in preserving agricultural land has been the use of overoptimistic population projections, and this is sort of a vehicle for urban sprawl.
Mr Eddy: Exactly.
Mr Bacher: One of the interesting things I see happening in -- you're probably all aware there are these implementation guidelines being developed.
Mr Eddy: Yes.
Mr Bacher: Now, how I would like to see these implementation guidelines developed is that I know the treasury prepares these population estimates, a total population estimate, and that it actually has population estimates for upper-tier municipalities. I think it could be a good process, to my mind, if these estimates became part of the implementation guidelines so you couldn't have these inflated population projections being the basis with which a municipality would go to the OMB saying, "This is our population estimate based on this expert."
There's a remark from George Penfold. He told me that if you added up all the population projections from the province, you would just get an absurd figure, high. I think this is sort of the way to stop sprawl on good food lands, if we can get realistic population projections being the basis for future planning. Because other estimates such as densities and other ways that are used are usually sort of warped by these population projections.
The Chair: A quick question.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, to the parliamentary assistant, Mr Chair. Would this new legislation apply to the newly annexed portion of Middlesex?
Mr Hayes: It's certainly not going to supersede any kind of process that's already started.
1150
Mr Grandmaître: But the planning is being done now, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, for this new annexed portion of London, and they're working on their new official plan. Will Bill 163 affect the planning?
Mr Hayes: Well, I'm sure that their new official plan, with the guidance of the ministry, will be --
Mr Grandmaître: A day or two?
Mr Hayes: -- pretty close to conformity with what we're planning here.
Mr Grandmaître: Because as you know, most of the land that was annexed was prime agricultural land.
Mr Hayes: I realize that.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee and thank you for your presentation. I'd like to start by saying that on number 4 in your brief, the policies "mark a major advance for foodland preservation in Ontario," you talked about urban sprawl and you talked about population density. How is that going to stop urban sprawl?
Mr Bacher: Oh, this matter of population projection is quite integral to stopping urban sprawl because generally when you get urban boundaries out too far, it encourages low-density urban development. This generally happens because the municipality has what is seen as an unreasonable population projection. If we looked at the Niagara region, even in the areas that aren't unique fruit land, if these urban boundaries were permanent for 50 years, you would have no need to have any expansion of the urban boundaries. The basic thing that creates sprawl is when you have population projections that are out of sync with reality.
Mr McLean: The other area of concern, and you have raised it and I agree with you, is with regard to the five-year limit that you have put on that municipalities or counties should have an official plan.
Mr Bacher: That's right.
Mr McLean: But there's nothing in the bill that says they have to do that.
Mr Bacher: I know. This is where I think the bill should be strengthened, by having this five-year limit, which they do have in Oregon. This legislation otherwise is similar in spirit to that.
Mr McLean: Right. I think that is a major thrust and should be looked at, because I know the county of Simcoe, where I come from, should be initiating an official plan. They should have initiated an official plan before they did a county restructuring. That way, you would have more of a line of where you should be going, if you're going to restructure. If you have an official plan, then you know where you're at.
Mr Bacher: That's a very good point, and I think in the past some of this controversial matter of municipal restructuring could have been avoided. It seems that almost sort of a back way to get better planning policies is to have a restructuring.
Mr McLean: Right. I thank you for your brief. I agree with many things that you've said in it. Thank you for appearing before the committee.
The Chair: We thank you as well, Mr Bacher, for taking the time to present your brief to us.
Mr McLean: Mr Chair, I'd like a clarification on those questions that I'd asked with regard to the fire volunteers. Has the parliamentary assistant got the answer for me? It's on page 12 in the green sheets. I did my homework last night and I haven't got any answers this morning.
Interjections.
Mr McLean: Maybe I could have a clarification on the other question while I'm waiting. Ms Haeck maybe answered, and that was to do with a question I had with regard to a secondary plan or something. I'm not sure what it was. Is it covered in the act, what you were interested in doing? I don't know.
Ms Haeck: You mean Mr Paparella's question?
Mr McLean: Yes. I'm sorry to ask these hard questions.
Mr Hayes: Just on Mr McLean's question, if the member is not on the municipal council, he is exempt. I think even if they are on council, their business with the firefighters --
Mr Grandmaître: If he's a volunteer?
Mr Hayes: He's volunteer -- they would still be exempt.
Mr McLean: A committee of management of a home for the aged, is that still part of the bill that you have to fill out your conflict-of-interest if you're on a home management?
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr McLean: But the old legislation, "remuneration, including volunteer firefighters," it says here, "in respect of an allowance for attendance at meetings, or any other allowance, honorarium, remuneration, salary or benefit to which the member may be entitled" as a member. It's telling me that the volunteer firefighter, if he's getting any remuneration at all, has to fill out the forms.
Mr Hayes: Well, we're telling you that they don't. If you go back to page 9, Mr McLean, it says, "Section 4 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have" --
Mr McLean: But this is 3(1).
Mr Hayes: -- "as a recipient of remuneration, consideration or honorarium under section 256 of the Municipal Act or as a volunteer firefighter." So they are exempt.
Mr McLean: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: This committee is recessed until 1:30.
The committee recessed from 1157 to 1331.
DAVID SIEGEL
The Chair: I welcome Professor David Siegel. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. If there is time, the members will ask you questions. If we're very close to the 15 minutes, then we'll simply accept your brief as is. Okay.
Dr David Siegel: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is David Siegel. I'm an associate professor of politics at Brock University. I have an ongoing interest in the area of municipal conflict of interest and my remarks today will be confined purely to the local government disclosure-of-interest portion of the legislation. As I say, I have an ongoing interest in this area because I teach in the area of local government and public administration.
In 1990-91 I had the opportunity to serve on the advisory committee to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, so I learned a great deal about the legislation and about the environment at that time when I was able to travel around the province at meetings similar to this and hear from the general public.
I guess the main thing I want to urge you to do with regard to this legislation is, the existing legislation desperately needs to be changed. We've been at this for about four or five years now from the time that we had the first pass at changing the legislation. It desperately needs to be changed. Somehow previous attempts have all gone off the rails, and I hope you would do everything in your power to get this particular piece of legislation through, because I think it's a great improvement, although I'm going to suggest a few ways in which it might be changed.
I think the major thing that needed to be improved was the enforcement mechanism, or I guess I should say the lack of an enforcement mechanism, in the previous legislation. The municipal conflict-of-interest legislation is the only piece of legislation that I'm familiar with that requires a citizen to employ his or her own resources to accomplish some sort of public policy objective. People have to use their own resources to take a councillor to court. You don't do that in a criminal situation. You don't do that in environmental or competition policy. I find it quite incongruous and inappropriate that we expect citizens to do that.
So I think the idea of a commissioner is a vast improvement on the existing legislation because it both provides an easy and informal mechanism for citizens to present their case and to allow the province to take over funding of their case, if the commissioner feels there's a certain amount of merit there, and it also sets up a gatekeeper, because one of the things we heard a lot from councillors when I was on the advisory committee is that some conflict-of-interest allegations are based on political opportunism; some of them are not very well founded. I think there needs to be a balance there between an opening to allow citizens to make their case and a certain gatekeeper function that allows certain cases without much benefit to be weeded out.
So the strongest thing I would urge you is to go ahead with the legislation, particularly to go ahead with the idea of the commissioner.
The only arguments I've heard against the commissioner were the cost of the office of commissioner, and I think people who made that kind of criticism vastly overblew what the likely cost of this would be, because when we have a mechanism in place and operating, I think we'll probably have fewer allegations of conflict of interest because we'll have an easier mechanism to resolve them.
Counsellors were also concerned that the commissioner might become a bit too aggressive, I guess, in enforcing the legislation, but what I tried to point out to counsellors when they were upset about the idea of a commissioner is that they're already quite vulnerable. Anybody can now make an allegation of conflict of interest against a counsellor. They can go to the media. They can talk about this in the public. They can make these kinds of allegations now.
But people who make those kinds of allegations have an interesting kind of protection, because after they've made the allegation, they can always say: "But I can't take it any further because it's going to cost me a lot of money to go to court. So I'm going to continue to make the allegation, but this will never be tested in court." What I tell counsellors is that the benefit they will have with the presence of a commissioner is that people will no longer have that defence to hide behind. When they make the allegation, they can go to the commissioner and have the allegation dealt with at that point.
So I think the idea of the commissioner is a very good idea, and I think the typical arguments I have heard against it over the years don't have a particular weight in my mind.
One thing I think it might be useful for you to rethink in the legislation is the idea of the annual disclosure statement. I know this has been one of the most contentious points with counsellors. It's something that in a sense I'm in favour of, but I also understand counsellors' problems. I think your first priority should be to get their legislation through, and if this is one of the things you might have to delete in order to get it through, I think, all things considered, when you look at the requirement for the statement of financial disclosure along with the rest of the legislation, it's not really absolutely essential to the integrity of the legislation, because when I look at other things in the legislation, people are required to make a disclosure of an interest at the time that a matter is being discussed in council. That's the case in this legislation and in the previous legislation. The new legislation beefs this up because it requires a written statement of the nature of the conflict, and it also produces a register.
What I'm saying is that when I look at the totality of the protections that are involved here, the requirement for an annual disclosure of interest may be a little bit less important than it might seem at first glance.
At any rate, I think the major thing I would want to urge you to do is to consider this legislation very carefully. I heard a certain portion of your hearings yesterday and everybody there was talking about the Planning Act, the planning portions of this. So I'm glad that I was on schedule today to talk about this, because this is a very important part of this legislation. I would urge you to go forward with this legislation, to accept this legislation, and you might look at the one comment I had about the nature of the requirement of an annual statement of financial disclosure. But other than that, I think this is legislation that's long overdue for passage.
The Chair: Questions?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. Professor, about the commissioner's office, you did say that some municipal politicians were claiming, or are claiming, that it's too costly. I think $2 million was mentioned yesterday. Am I right on that, $2 million a year?
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: That cost will be, let's say, labelled against municipal government. Do you think the provincial government should be paying the costs of this office or municipal governments should be paying the costs?
1340
Dr Siegel: Well, administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, and of course the legislation for one reason or another was delegated to this committee, which is administration of justice, so I think the provincial government should be paying the tab for that.
I guess another response I would make to this concern about cost is that it's true we're saving money right now by not having something like this, but we're saving money by not enforcing a very important piece of legislation, and while I'm all in favour of saving money, I'm not in favour of saving money at the expense of not enforcing a very important piece of legislation.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you. As you know, we do have a commissioner at the provincial level. Do you think this person could do both jobs?
Dr Siegel: No, I don't. First of all, the jobs will be rather different because the legislation governing them will be different. I think the other problem is that there are 130 members of the Legislature. I'm not sure anybody knows exactly how many members will be governed by this legislation, but if you figure there are 850 municipalities, it doesn't take you long to get to 8,000, 10,000 people might be governed by this legislation. So I think that's impossible.
Mr Grandmaître: It's 7,500 municipal. That's it.
Mr Jackson: Earlier we had a presentation on conflict of interest, and I appreciate your contributions now in the afternoon session, but I'd like to get a reaction from you about the right of municipal politicians to defend themselves and the costs associated with defending themselves.
There's a case currently going on in Halton region where a government member's office was actively involved in the kinds of activities you described earlier with respect to promoting an inquest and an inquiry. This individual is now mired in legal bills running $50,000, $60,000; $100,000 may be his ultimate legal fees to prove himself innocent. His political career is in ruin.
Who in their right mind would want to run for public office if there's no appellant mechanism? Certainly the cost associated with errors, omissions and wrongful conflict-of-interest charge insurance is going to run well in excess of the millions of dollars being discussed here. Can you comment in that narrow area of the implications of this new order with respect to conflict review and the appellant rights of an individual who ultimately may be deemed wrongfully charged?
Dr Siegel: I think that's one of the things that concerns me a great deal about the way in which a councillor could be harassed by someone in an inappropriate manner. That's what I like about the idea of the commissioner, because I think the commissioner can establish an appropriate balance there. If you take your case to the commissioner and the commissioner says, "No, I don't think you've got a prima facie case; I'm not going to continue with it in the court," I would think that any citizen who would take the case after the commissioner said there's not a prima facie case there would stand a pretty good chance of ending up being liable for costs, because they've been told that there doesn't seem to be a prima facie case, and that would probably produce a certain balance.
Mr Jackson: I have a very important supplementary, if I can have the indulgence of the committee.
The Chair: If it's short.
Mr Jackson: Very short. The supplementary has to do with the principle of law, and that is this notion of, if the municipality were to pay for this commission, it could not be the same municipality that offers the errors and omissions or whatever kind of insurance we're calling it, because they are funded and determinant one and the same. That creates a legal question, and I wonder if you had any feelings about that, that the province would be at arm's length if it were to fund this, whereas the municipality would have real difficulties because it was funding the --
The Chair: Mr Jackson, please.
Mr Jackson: The amount of insurance coverage that a councillor would get would determine how well he's insulated from the expenses of a future court case.
Dr Siegel: Well, I think that's one good argument in favour of the province funding that sort of thing.
Ms Haeck: Nice to see you again. We've sat on a panel together talking about women in politics.
I'm rather interested in your remarks regarding the whole issue of annual financial disclosure, because I'm well aware from talking to constituents that frequently, while they see the province as sort of Big Brother and as spending all these bucks, most people aren't aware of how many millions upon millions of dollars are decided at the local level. As a result, obviously there are issues that could be said to be a conflict financially. I would welcome your reaction to that, and then I would also ask Mr Hayes if he wouldn't mind actually answering the concerns that both Mr Grandmaître and Mr Jackson have put forward with regard to the payment of the commissioner.
Mr Grandmaître: He wasn't listening.
Ms Haeck: No. He was.
Dr Siegel: I think there's a big difference between full-time legislators such as yourselves who as full-time legislators ought to be expected to arrange their private affairs in such a manner to conform to their full-time employment and dealing with municipal councillors who might be making $3,000 or $5,000 a year and therefore must maintain their own employment, with some confidentiality possibly in their own employment. I'm just not certain that there is a need for the full kind of disclosure that there is here, always recognizing that there are other times for disclosure. There's a time for disclosure when the matter generating the conflict is at hand.
What I said was, looking at the entirety of the legislation, I think the protections, the safeguards, are there without the requirement for the annual disclosure.
Ms Haeck: I think Mr Hayes's point is important, so I won't get into another discussion.
Mr Hayes: In response to the question about who will fund the commissioner, as I mentioned yesterday, the government is certainly looking at the means of doing that, and it will be done with government -- provincial -- resources. The province will be looking at provincial resources, yes.
The Chair: Mr Siegel, we thank you for your participation at these hearings today.
STEVEN BALZ
The Chair: We invite Mr Steven Balz. Mr Balz, welcome, and please begin as soon as you're ready.
Mr Steven Balz: Thank you. I'm appearing today as an individual private citizen who has gone through the process of appealing a zoning bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board, and I'd just like to give you some of my views on Bill 163 in three specific areas. The first is the provincial guidelines for development, and I'm referring here to the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements released by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which I understand is to be administered as part of the package of Bill 163.
Generally we're very supportive of the idea of provincial guidelines, particularly in the instances where they spell out exactly what is expected in the planning process, and that these requirements are spelled out at the provincial level, because they leave less room for differing interpretations between citizens, municipal planners and developers as to what constitutes good planning.
Of particular concern, however, is the area regarding public safety. In reviewing these policy statements, we noticed that there's a reference to public safety but it's a very minimal reference. We would prefer to see guidelines regarding public safety, and particularly the safety of pedestrians, spelled out in the same sort of detail that is given to the protection of wetlands, for example. It's been our experience that as a whole the planning process tends to overlook the safety of pedestrians and pedestrian movement, and in particular school-age children.
In the case in which we were appealing, it was proposed that a residential subdivision be placed in an area which is isolated from the rest of the urban area by a large cemetery, and it was the municipality's planners who advocated that children walk through this cemetery to get to the nearest public school. This cemetery is approximately one kilometre wide, and the children were expected to use the internal road network of the cemetery to get to that school. There are, of course, municipal roads which children could have taken. However, they lacked sidewalks and it was a very roundabout way for them to get to school.
1350
We recommend that these provincial planning policies set out very specific recommendations regarding the safety of pedestrians and that generally more attention be given in the planning process to the safety of pedestrians, those accessing public transit and so on.
Regarding the delegation of authority to approve draft plans of subdivision, we understand that Bill 163 is going to make it possible that the authority to approve draft plans of subdivision be granted to lower-tier municipalities. We perceive a bit of a problem with that in that because municipal planners and councils work very closely, quite often, with developers -- they see the same developers coming up again and again -- they form relationships, not only business but personal relationships, with these applicants. That makes it very difficult for a municipality to provide an objective hearing of a particular application.
Added to that, it's been our experience in dealing with local governments and boards and commissions that there is a real resistance for any particular board or council to give up its authority to another agency. For example, it's somewhat unrealistic to expect that a lower-tier municipal council is going to be willing to refer a draft plan of subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board when it has its own opinion on whether or not that is an example of good planning.
We would suggest that it's imperative that if municipalities are to be granted approval authority, there be a mechanism by which ordinary citizens can appeal the draft plan approval to the Ontario Municipal Board, rather than the current system in which you have to request referral. Other than that, we don't necessarily disagree that it's a good idea that municipalities be given this process, that the municipalities have the authority to grant approval of draft plans of subdivision -- just that there be a mechanism by which those who disagree can appeal that decision.
In our situation we had appealed a zoning bylaw. We had also requested that a draft plan of subdivision for the same project be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. In the Niagara region the region is the minister's delegate for approval of draft plans of subdivision, so we made the request to the region and it was turned down despite the fact that the board of education had made a similar request and we were already appealing the zoning bylaw.
The last area I'd like to comment on is the accessibility of the Ontario Municipal Board. As I mentioned, we did proceed to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, appealing a zoning bylaw. We elected to do so without a lawyer to represent us, and that was done for financial considerations. We just simply couldn't afford to hire a lawyer to protect what we felt was the public safety.
We had a difficult time at the board. Certainly in my opinion it was not because we were unable to present credible witnesses -- in fact, we were -- or that we didn't have good evidence. Our problem was simply our lack of understanding of procedure at the board. We weren't able to put together a case in a way in which our evidence and our arguments were presented well. Quite simply, we fell down in the area of presenting our case.
In order to alleviate this sort of problem, I would suggest that it should be considered that there be some sort of third-party funding or intervenor funding, such as is the case with environmental assessment hearings, by which people who wish to appeal a matter to the Ontario Municipal Board are given the opportunity to have legal counsel to represent them. I think the advantages of this would not only be that appellants would get their case heard in a much more effective manner; I think it would also be considerably easier on the board not having to listen to people like myself try to stammer through making a case.
As an alternative consideration, it might be possible to make these Ontario Municipal Board hearings more user-friendly to the public. I don't think the public should be expected to operate as a lawyer in front of the board, to be expected to understand all the rules of evidence that are used in civil cases and that seem to be transferred to the procedures that the board employs.
Perhaps some sort of guidelines could be set down, or some sort of training of hearing officers could be done, in such a way that the inherent disadvantage that the public has in going up against lawyers in a fairly formal level arena could be taken into account. It may also be possible to prepare, to some extent, appellants for board hearings by providing them with much more information. Information could be automatically mailed out to appellants, such as how to present evidence at the board and so on. This would save the board certainly a lot of time in the long run, time spent in actual hearings.
In speaking to other individuals who have attended Ontario Municipal Board hearings and environmental assessment hearings, it's our feeling that our experience isn't always the case, that occasionally people do have hearings in which they do feel that they were able to represent their case in a more effective manner. This is particularly true in environmental assessment hearings. I think that steps could be taken to make that a more universal experience.
That's all I have.
Mr McLean: At one time we used to have a user-friendly OMB where you didn't have to have a law degree to go to present your case, but today, when you have the subdividers there, it appears that you have to. I sympathize with you and appreciate what you're saying here, because we had a young lady yesterday who raised the very same issue as you have raised today. I also have the feeling that we may not have enough intervenor funding, perhaps, in order to allow people to go to present their case. I agree with you. Good presentation. Thank you.
Ms Haeck: Hello, Steve. Nice to see you here. Your project in fact revolved around a number of issues. One of them you've outlined -- the very clear safety issue. But I know that there was a real concern. From conversations we've had, you've indicated that you would have appreciated being able to be very much involved more at the front end in dealing with a range of natural features that are there, the trees and creek and a number of other things that definitely were part of this project near Emmett Road. Did you want to just make a quick comment about, say, the tree situation and how you would like to see that resolved in the future?
1400
Mr Balz: Yes. Part of the lands which were slated for development were publicly owned lands on which there was a mature woodlot. Part of the lands were also privately owned, I should mention. There was a proposed subdivision which would cover both publicly and privately owned lands. There was considerable community support for preserving this woodlot, as it was adjacent to a proposed parkway.
In the Niagara region there is work going ahead to plan a parkway along the Welland Canal. This land was adjacent to that and there was a great deal of interest in seeing that this land be used as a park, as part of the amenities associated with the parkway.
We were, I guess, so aware of the lack of any real legislation or guidelines or provincial policies to protect trees, wooded areas and the wetlands that were also included that we didn't even really pursue that at the board, because we didn't feel that there was enough consideration for protection of those things that it presented a valid planning argument, so we restricted our arguments before the board to the issues of pedestrian movement and traffic movement. Certainly I would be supportive, and am supportive, of any attempts to beef up the environmental aspects of the Planning Act.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming in to present your presentation before the committee. I just wanted some of your comments. You mentioned something about intervenor funding. There are two sides to this. While there is the need for people to have a proper presentation and legal counsel and support in their presentation, it is felt too that once we introduce intervenor funding without some sort of guidelines, it's a huge resource we've got to put forward there for any group that would come in or any individual who would want to come in to make a presentation in that regard. How do you see a control of intervenor funding? Who should get it, do you think?
Mr Balz: That concern about people coming forward perhaps with less than serious concerns and requesting intervenor funding is offset by two mechanisms. The first is the changes to the act in Bill 163 which give the Ontario Municipal Board the right to dismiss an appeal without a hearing if it thinks that it is completely without merit.
The other aspect is that currently anybody can appeal any zoning bylaw by simply writing a letter and can hold up the development process for a year or longer. If they feel they don't have a case, they can always drop the appeal before they even get to a hearing, or they can go through a hearing, stumble through it, only to have the board rule against them. In doing so, they are tying up public funds in the sense that the municipality has to appear before the board with its planners and its solicitor and respond to the appeal, not to mention the developer, who has to spend large sums of money trying to defend their application, if that's in fact the case, as it was in our case, where we had a developer and a municipality supporting the bylaw.
There's a great deal of money being spent and a great deal of time being spent currently dealing with what undoubtedly, in some cases, are not very valid appeals. By providing intervenor funding and allowing people to get legal counsel, they'll have a much better idea of whether or not they have a valid appeal. I think in the long run it would make the board a much more efficient operation.
The Chair: We've run out of time. Thank you for taking the time to come here today and thank you for your presentation.
NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE CONSERVANCY
The Chair: I would welcome Niagara-on-the-Lake conservatory, Ms Laura Dodson, next.
Ms Laura Dodson: Thank you very much. By becoming a member of the Niagara-on-the-Lake conservatory, rather than the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy, I hope I come up smelling of roses; it's quite a different organization from mine. We had a big debate about our name. "Conservancy" is a bit awkward, but we are a conservancy group.
Thank you very much for this chance to appear before you. It's certainly educational listening to what's going on and very, very interesting. I am impressed at the quality of debate, comment and the questions being asked.
I won't go into the introductory part of this. It's just to let you know that we are a very serious and committed group of people in Niagara-on-the-Lake who are deeply concerned about the heritage of this provincial heritage city -- also national -- and who are very determined to protect that heritage in any way we possibly can, even at great personal expenditures at OMB hearings and so on, such as the one we've just been through. Perhaps I won't need to go through those various parts of the introduction to let you know who we are. Having heard the comments today, I would like to go home and rewrite this, but I'll do my best with what's here.
Bill 163, which makes important changes to the Planning Act, raises many concerns. First of all, it does nothing to protect the heritage of historic areas in the province. We are of course concerned about the heritage of our historic areas, namely, the old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Queenston, St Davids and the parkway corridor connecting the old town and Queenston. We're also concerned about the farm lands and so on. We are very supportive of the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, PALS, of which one of the members is one of our directors, and of course we are concerned about the historic farm land there as well, which we think is being very well looked after, we hope, by PALS and by the government.
Secondly, we're concerned about the transferring of approval authority of official plans to the regional council of Niagara from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We're concerned that it removes a safeguard in the planning process.
Thirdly, the removing of appeals of minor variances to the OMB leaves the planning process open to abuse.
Fourthly, the adequate provision of a full range of housing is not possible in all communities. The requirement can create inappropriate development. Communities of under 10,000, say, perhaps should be exempt from this policy.
Fifthly, planning committees should include elected or appointed members of the public as well as the elected councillors.
Sixthly, people and groups should not be denied their right to appeal matters to the OMB because they did not previously make their views known orally or in writing.
Seventhly, as for speeding up the approvals process, we in Niagara-on-the-Lake must be on a different planet. Our development approvals are given at an alarming rate. We can't keep up with the pace of development.
To just expand on some of these, Bill 163 requires that only slight attention be paid to the conservation and preservation of heritage in the planning process. The statement that appears near the beginning, "The minister, the council of a municipality...in carrying out their responsibilities under this act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,...(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest," is the only statement concerning planning in heritage areas in the bill.
The wording "shall have regard to" and "significant" is open to wide interpretation and gives the policy no teeth. Having been present at many OMB hearings, we realize that lawyers and other experts use such words to sweep aside objections to a development hostile to heritage. The Ontario Heritage Act has been called "a toothless tiger" and so it has proven to be. That sentence doesn't seem to belong there, but I was thinking in terms of the very, very marshmallowy kind of language in the heritage act which doesn't really protect heritage at all, as far as we can see.
The preservation of our built heritage, open spaces and natural areas is totally dependent upon planning decisions, and the principles governing planning decisions in heritage areas must often be different from those governing planning outside historic areas. Heritage areas must be designated as such by the province and should have official plans -- perhaps these should be secondary plans in the case of a municipality like Niagara which has several smaller towns of historic importance in it -- and/or urban design plans which govern all development, traffic management, corridors leading to the area, landscaping, tree policies etc, and these plans should be drawn up not just by planners but by planners in consultation with architects, landscape architects, historians and so on, with much and continual consulting with the citizens and elected officials.
1410
Another approach to protecting heritage areas is to have a commission, like the National Capital Commission, the Niagara Escarpment Commission etc, approve all development within a designated historic area. Such a body would meet in the locality and have members from the council of the municipality. This is the type of planning control sought by the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy to stop the haemorrhaging of our heritage.
I might add there that the urgency of our need for serious and rapid treatment of this problem has been brought out of the closet by our very able and courageous MPP, Christel Haeck, who has made a proposal in the Legislature to have Niagara-on-the-Lake designated as such an area and have its planning overseen by another tier, like a commission. We'd be delighted to be guinea pigs in that kind of experiment in Niagara-on-the-Lake because we are desperate.
As to the approval of the official plans, we do not believe that the regional municipality of Niagara should be the approval authority in respect of the approval of Niagara-on-the-Lake's official plans. The regional municipality is merely an extension of the local government, and since it is a political body, it cannot maintain a neutral position as does the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We would expect the regional council to rubber-stamp all official plans.
Also, the procedure for the approving process isn't set out in the bill. Having the region approve these plans would also necessitate the hiring of more planners at the regional level. Official plans are supremely important in making planning decisions and when appealing decisions to the OMB. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is aware of the importance of wording and so on in this premier planning document. Official plans for historic areas, anyhow, should be approved by the province, which is responsible for provincial heritage.
Minor variance appeals. The removing of these appeals to the OMB is a serious blow to those of us who live in historic towns. Minor variances are sometimes major variances on developments or requests in our heritage district and should entail zoning and even official plan changes and not requests for minor variances. The minor variance route can be taken to expedite or gain approval for a change which is questionable and even prohibited. The council appoints the members of the committee of adjustment and rubber-stamps their decisions. We believe that this change will encourage the misuse of this planning tool and would deprive citizens of their right to appeal what they perceive to be a bad decision. In a fragile heritage district, a bad decision can be very serious in that it can destroy something irreplaceable and set a precedent. We urge the province to reconsider this matter.
We have had experience, by the way, with the OMB, with minor variances that allowed prohibitions in the bylaws, such as no outside employees and four outside employees, that were approved by the committee of adjustment. Had we not had a chance to appeal those to the OMB, there would have been some very important and dangerous precedents set in the home occupation bylaw and so on, almost destroying it completely.
The provincial policy requiring the adequate provision of a full range of housing. The old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, to take an example, is very small and cannot meet this requirement. Real estate prices prohibit the provision of even affordable housing. We have no public transportation that would enable people in low-cost housing to reach St Catharines and we cannot extend our urban boundaries since we have water on two sides and protected prime farm land on the other two. The provincial policy requiring communities to intensity development has led to the recommendation and approval of development that is not appropriate to the historic town. We believe that communities with a population of under 10,000, say, should be exempt from this requirement.
The word "intensify" is used constantly in Niagara-on-the-Lake to justify the setting aside of land designations and to increase their return to the developer, while destroying the character and ambience of the old town. Because Mr Sewell said "intensify," our council, which uses this word I think at every single meeting over and over again, approved a 106-unit apartment complex on the floodplain of the Niagara River, right under the ramparts of Fort George. The lawyers for the developer and for Niagara-on-the-Lake argued at the OMB that intensification and the need for all kinds of housing in a community justified the more than doubled density permitted by the official plan and the zoning bylaw on this development. We ask that Bill 163 be amended to exempt small communities from this requirement.
The composition of planning committees. We believe that planning committees should include elected or appointed members of the public. Planing boards in the past included such members and these boards seemed to work well. This practice would allow for more public participation in the planning process.
Appellants to the OMB. The requirement that one who appeals a planning decision to the OMB have spoken or written in response to the proposal could cause the loss of a person's rights. There can be extenuating circumstances that prevent such participation, or the issue's importance to someone could be realized after the time for expressing views had passed. We believe such a measure could prove unjust.
Back over on page 5a there is something that I added: speeding up approvals for development. We, in Niagara-on-the-Lake, a group that keeps a close watch on development requests and approvals, find the pace of these quite dizzying. In a historic town with a very small commercial area, the pressure to expand commercial zoning into land designated residential is very great. Small houses are bought and torn down only to be replaced too often by monster houses, changing for ever the character of neighbourhoods. There's constant pressure by developers to allow the construction of properties without providing the citizens with sufficient information and detail to allow a proper evaluation of the project, which could impact on neighbours adversely.
Everything in our municipality proceeds apace. At each meeting of the committee of the whole, there are many requests for some kind of development, and at the ensuing council meeting the following week most of these are approved. Some development proposals need to be looked at and discussed with the public at length. Any attempt to further speed the process would diminish the public's opportunities for full involvement in the planning process in their town or municipality. The process is already heavily weighted in favour of the developer, who has an army of experts at hand and who can and does lobby and consult to the point that most decisions are made before the public is even aware of the development being considered. We believe that the public should be allowed to see, discuss and comment on site plans before the council passes the enacting bylaw for a major development or for a building which might not be appropriate in its location.
We feel, therefore, that the planning process should not be speeded up at the expense of the loss of our heritage, as is certainly happening in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Some of us are quite desperate about this great loss and appeal to the province to consider assisting us in this matter before it is too late. There are many who believe that the time has already run out.
As a conclusion, I merely summarize the points that I think are made in the paper. I'd like to just add a couple of things very quickly. One of them is the great confusion that we have experienced as a body as to the legal status of guidelines, proposals, policy. We know about legislation, but there seem to be so many policies, guidelines and so on that are being used by lawyers at hearings and at the council meetings and so on which seem to frustrate us because we don't know the legal status of all of these documents. There are hundreds of them, it would seem. That's one other point I'd like to make.
One other, and I don't know whether it belongs here, that has concerned us is that there is no mechanism set down for the exchange of public land for private land. We've had an experience recently in which waterfront property belonging to the public was exchanged, with a private citizen, for property for a parking lot, and we were told that there was no possibility of even debating that issue. I couldn't find anything in the Municipal Act or Planning Act to deal with that problem.
Ms Haeck: Thank you, Laura, for your kind remarks about me personally, but also I think you're making very clear some of the reasons possibly to Mr McLean, who raised the question of my resolution earlier. Since this dear lady is a constituent of mine, I think she can make it very clear as to why my resolution came about.
1420
I just wanted to take a minute to ask, Laura: One of the reasons you folks in Niagara-on-the-Lake have a real concern about minor variances is that the size somehow, for the purposes of these changes, tends not to be so minor. I think you've indicated in some instances that a project starts off to be a particular size and then somehow becomes double in size. Could you explain the situation involved?
Ms Dodson: Yes. In our commercial area there was a minor variance request for eight shops when only four were permitted in a development. A shopping centre was excluded, was not allowed in the commercial area, and the eight shops would have constituted a shopping centre.
This went to be heard as a minor variance. All the indications were, on the material from the town, that only four shops were allowed. The committee of adjustment allowed six, rather than eight, and we did appeal this to the OMB. We had a second case of a very famous artist in town who asked for home occupation in a home and asked for four outside employees. The bylaw prohibited any. In another building it was not allowed by the bylaw -- in a garage, three times the floor space allowed. All this was permitted by the committee of adjustment, we appealed it to the OMB and the appeal was granted. So we believe that end runs can be done around zoning bylaws by using this mechanism to obviate the need for a bylaw.
Ms Haeck: You'd like to have a much clearer definition of what really --
Ms Dodson: Of a minor variance.
Ms Haeck: -- exists as a minor. It's not, as some would suggest, a simple movement of a line by a foot or something of this sort.
Ms Dodson: No.
Ms Haeck: In your experience, it has been far from minor. In fact, it has been fairly major.
Ms Dodson: Very, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: On page 3 you say, "Another approach to protecting heritage areas is to have a commission like the National Capital Commission." I live in Ottawa-Carleton and I pray to God every evening that they should eliminate the National Capital Commission because it's another level of government and a very expensive one.
Mr Jackson: There are more Liberals on it, that's why. They had a good six-year lead.
Mr Grandmaître: Mulroney did a good job in his appointments.
Interjection: He plugged it.
Mr Grandmaître: But anyway, putting the appointments aside, it's another level of bureaucracy. I'm not saying they're doing a poor job. They're doing a job, but it's another level of bureaucracy and a very expensive one. I wonder if the people living in your area would approve of such a commission.
Ms Dodson: I really intended to bring our proposal. As a matter of fact, Christel's proposal came because we submitted a proposal to the government with a very extensive photo exhibition and so on. We have a legal arm, in our group, of about five lawyers who are members of the conservancy who drew up this proposal after much consultation, and Dr Peter Stokes, the restoration architect, assisted.
We also did suggest legislation that would make this commission -- we believed we could fund it, that it wouldn't have to be a heavy burden. It could be composed of members of the council and some appointed or elected people. I think we could find enough people of stature who would perhaps even volunteer their time for such a commission. We would be delighted to look into that.
We don't think it would have to be costly. It's certainly another level of administration, as it were, but what is there now isn't working. I'm sorry, nothing is working for us and we are desperate. We have people who are frustrated beyond imagination with what's happening in our town. Something has to happen and we were so grateful to Christel for bringing this matter, even if it's just debated, so that people know what's happening in Niagara-on-the-Lake. We are just being destroyed by bad planning, overbuilding, inappropriate development etc so we would like to try something else that might work. We hoped this would.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you satisfied with the decisions made by the Niagara Escarpment Commission? Are you satisfied with most of their decisions?
Ms Dodson: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: You are?
Ms Dodson: Yes. I think it works very well.
Mr McLean: My question has to do with: Do you have a heritage committee in Niagara Falls?
Ms Dodson: Niagara-on-the-Lake. We have a historical society, we have LACAC, the local architectural conservation advisory committee.
Mr McLean: Is there a group that recommends to the province a designation of some historical building or monument?
Ms Dodson: Would that be LACAC? Yes, I would think LACAC. They're appointed by the council.
Mr McLean: Okay, so there is a group then.
Ms Dodson: Oh, yes, some very good people.
Mr McLean: What do they do differently from what your group does?
Ms Dodson: They are appointed by the council. They review the architectural features of a development and comment to the council, which may or may not accept their recommendations and quite often doesn't.
Mr McLean: Right, and what does your group do?
Ms Dodson: Our group monitors all the meetings of the council and committees of the whole and makes presentations to the committee and the council when it knows that certain developments are coming up or when they're on the books. We have gone to the OMB. I think if you read the introduction -- you haven't had a chance to do that.
Mr McLean: Yes, I did, but I wanted clarification.
Ms Dodson: So, because LACAC can't, for example, go to the OMB, we are prepared to do that to defend our heritage if we have to.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing here today.
Ms Dodson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Dodson, for taking the time to come here today and presenting your brief.
Ms Dodson: You're welcome. May I have permission to send along our proposal, through our member, for the members of this committee to look at?
The Chair: Of course.
SIX NATIONS COUNCIL
The Chair: We invite the Six Nations Council. Councillor John Peters, Mr John McNaughton, Ms Charlene Bomberry and Mr Phil Monture, welcome to this committee. I understand that you have briefs but you don't want to give them out just yet. You want to do this at the end. Is that correct?
Mr John McNaughton: Partway through.
The Chair: Okay. Begin any time you're ready.
Mr John Peters: Good day. Greetings to the Chairperson and all members of this committee. My name is John Peters. My Indian name is ato; keh ro; kweh, elected councillor, Six Nations of the Grand River.
With me today from our claims committee research office are Phil Monture, director; Charlene Bomberry, research administrator; and John McNaughton, our policy analyst for Six Nations Council.
Under the title of non-interference, Six Nations requests that the Ontario government understand that as a nation it is our policy not to interfere with the internal business of another nation unless requested by that nation. Our history outlines this alliance between our respective peoples.
It is with great sadness that I say over the years this alliance has not been respected to its fullest potential. However, if you and your committee so desire, we shall continue and my colleagues will distribute this presentation.
1430
Just a little background, I guess, while they're going to hand that out. The Six Nations of the Grand River is located on the banks of the Grand River now between Brantford and Caledonia. It is an area enriched with the cultures of many of the province's early settlers and loyalists.
There are nearly 18,000 registered members of the Six Nations, all of whom can directly trace their ancestry to the Onondaga, Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Cayuga, and Tuscarora nations. Not all of these people live at Six Nations. Approximately 8,500 live on roughly 45,000 of the original 674,910 acres deeded to our ancestors and their legacy by the British crown in exchange for their alliance during the conflict between Britain and the American colonies. The rest have settled throughout North America, living and working in places beyond what the government of Canada describes as the Six Nations Reserve, perhaps next door to you.
Why we are here: the Six Nations Council, through myself and my colleagues, desires to make known to this committee the concerns regarding its general displeasure with the government of Ontario's treatment of our rights as a first nation and specifically the effects and implications of Bill 163.
For further clarification, we do not speak for any other first nation, political, treaty or off-reserve aboriginal organizations, nor should this presentation be viewed as part of your consultation process. May the minutes reflect that part. This is not a consultation process.
General concerns: In 1991, the government of Ontario signed with the aboriginal political and treaty organizations and with independent first nations the Statement of Political Relationship, SPR. It was thought that the mutual interpretation of the SPR was to respect the first nations' rights to self-government. We have not seen the SPR reflected in the way that the bureaucracy does business. I should point out that although there have been individuals that have expressed their dedication to the spirit of the SPR, this has not been transmitted throughout the whole organization.
In the three years since the SPR has been signed, very little has transpired in terms of real results. What we have observed is an unwillingness to develop new ways of thinking, an unwillingness to reduce the bureaucratic grip and an unwillingness to try. This brings great sadness to me, as the SPR has the potential to bring Ontario into the 1900s. This is not a misquote. There is a long way to go. That first step has to be taken if our goal of mutual respect is to be reached.
I guess a little definition on respect from us: Respect does not come easy. It has to be earned. Six Nations has been very patient these many years. My generation has fought to gain the respect that your people seem so determined to beat out of us. The following generations will likely not be as tolerant. I don't think there's any question about that. Change is inevitable, and inevitably the greatest change occurs through revolution. Let us make respect the revolution that will allow us and our generation to come to prosper collectively.
These general comments are for your information. Six Nations will continue to observe and monitor your actions or inactions to determine if the government of Ontario is worthy of our respect.
I will now refer you to my colleagues to provide Six Nations Council's comments and concerns in Bill 163. But just before that, what isn't written down here, Six Nations of the Grand River, as we're known now, we are independent. We're not affiliated with the AFN, with the AIAI, with anyone. We're independent.
By no means do we pretend or ever attempt to speak for any other independent first nation, but one must remember that the proper name for Six Nations in our language is "yejihaye; ntahkwah ose kowah." Loosely translated, that means "headquarters". Literally translated, that means "where the council fire burns at Grand River." So "ose kowah," that's "Grand River." In reality, Six Nations is the headquarters -- like Ottawa is for you guys -- for all the Iroquois of Turtle Island, North America. "Don a yoh" means "I have spoken"; "nyawah" means "thank you."
Mr McNaughton: Our comments regarding Bill 163, the Planning Act amendments: Basically, Six Nations Council admires the province of Ontario's wishes to update its planning process. however, we do seek clarification on the intent of your wording so that we may come to a mutual understanding of its implications.
Our number one concern is that in the part III Planning Act amendments, and its referenced to page 3 of Bill 163, the interpretation section says, "An Indian band shall be deemed to be a person for the purposes of this act." We have three questions regarding that: What is your definition of an Indian band? What parts of the Planning Act affect a person? What is your intent of an Indian band being a person in a singular sense?
The Chair: Do you expect an answer this moment, or are you going to go through this?
Mr McNaughton: I'd appreciate an answer.
The Chair: Okay. Let's see if there is anyone from the staff who might comment on that.
Ms Linda Perron: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Perron. I'm a solicitor with the legal branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I shall attempt to go through your questions in sequence and perhaps explain some of the background to the wording that was used. If questions arise as we go through, I'd welcome any interruptions so that we can all be on the same track.
You correctly pointed to the first reference to an Indian band which --
Interjections.
The Chair: Lean closer to the mike.
Ms Perron: Okay. Now, the Planning Act, in section 1, goes through this exercise of deeming an Indian band to be a person for the purpose of the act. That is not to in any way redefine or try to change the status of what is an Indian band, but it's trying to incorporate an Indian band, which is a body. But as we know from statutory interpretation of the term, it is in fact not a corporation. So you're not a full corporate entity, which would make you an artificial person in law, and you're not a natural person.
In order to make sure that the band as an entity was given rights under the Planning Act, we went through, I guess, the legal fiction of deeming you to be a person. So subsequently in the act when we say that "persons" can appeal a decision of an approval authority, therefore that means that a band, as an entity, has those rights. It was to give you appeal rights under the Planning Act. A person, in the Planning Act, is given different rights, ie rights of appeal, rights of referral and also the right to receive notice in certain circumstances, so again, this was a mechanism to allow the service of notice to be made and your representations to be heard as an entity.
Now, that is not to say that individual band members cannot exercise these rights on a personal basis, but it's the idea of dealing with the band as an entity, as a non-corporate and, I guess, non-natural person, to try and explain it in more simple terms.
That would also answer your last question. It is singular because we are in fact referring to one band and it does not affect the status of individual band members as natural persons who can exercise rights under the Planning Act. Do you have any questions arising from that?
1440
Mr Peters: Well, I guess one of the reasons this was kind of a touchy situation was that prior to 1951, we weren't even recognized as persons, even individuals. You're well aware of that, I guess, at your station.
Ms Perron: Yes.
Mr Peters: So this here opens some old wounds. Prior to 1951, I don't know what we were. We weren't people, or persons. You know full well that no lawyer could defend us prior to 1951 --
Ms Perron: I know.
Mr Peters: -- and I thought that's what this was digging up again.
Ms Perron: Not at all.
Mr Peters: Well, it better not be.
Ms Perron: And it's not affecting the individual band members as natural persons. What it's trying to do is to make sure that if, as a band, you want to appeal a decision to the OMB, no one will come along and say, "A band is not a corporation and there is case law to that effect," or "A band is not a natural person, is not an individual." So that is making sure that you can have status and standing at the Ontario Municipal Board, for example, on appeals.
Mr Peters: The incorporation act says if we become incorporated, we then are no longer a person. That's what that means then?
Ms Perron: No. When you incorporate, you become an artificial person. So you can have an existence as an individual or as --
Mr Peters: That's what I mean. Your taxation exemption's out the window once you incorporate.
Ms Perron: I'm not familiar with those rules. There are different rules, I recognize, for natural persons and for corporate persons, and I do want to signal that there has been a response to the fact that we deemed a band to be a person and to give it status under the act, and the recommendation has been that we not only deem them to be a person but that we amend this to deem a band to be a public body. That is much more in keeping with the spirit of the Statement of Political Relationship.
So if you look at the definition of "public body" in the act, it refers to a municipality, local board, ministry, department, board or commission of any agency or government. So it's a higher status under the act, because there are greater rights given to public bodies and special rules made for public bodies that are not available to natural persons. The recommendation from policy is that this wording be changed to deem an Indian band to be a public body and that is done within the spirit of the SPR.
Mr McNaughton: How can the Ontario government claim that an Indian band will be a person when you just said that the intent of it was to make the collective able to be presented in front of the OMB? I need clarification on what you said.
Ms Perron: It's not trying to say you're something other than what you are. All it's trying to do is to give you a mechanism to make the recourses available under the Planning Act available to a band. It's a legal, I guess, mechanism for making sure that you're integrated into the Planning Act process as a band, because that's the wording. The Planning Act was structured around determining the rights and obligations of persons and public bodies and --
The Chair: Can I suggest -- I'm sorry.
Ms Perron: Yes.
The Chair: You will be able to have a copy of the Hansard as well for you to review again in the event there are other questions you might want to pursue or ask of this committee. So if you want, we will send you the Hansard of this and you can pursue it however you want in the next couple of days or weeks, as it relates to that question. You have a few other items, I think, you want to raise.
Mr McNaughton: I'd like to point out that from Six Nations' point of view of the Planning Act process, we do not agree that the intent should be to make us a person for the purposes of this act. What we would like to see in place of the interpretation is the requirement of the province of Ontario to notify, consult and negotiate with Six Nations, rather than having an interpretation clause or definition, whatever you want to call it, in this act that is vague and general.
First of all, there's no definition of an Indian band within the Planning Act or the amendment. There's an assumption made, but there's no definition. We feel that it would be best if that was not included, but instead replaced with a requirement of the province of Ontario to negotiate, consult and notify Six Nations where issues of planning are concerned.
If I can go on from there, perhaps number two will help --
Mr Peters: John, could I ask something?
The very definition of maybe not "Indian band" but "reserve" in the act says "land set aside for use and benefit of said Indian band where the title is vested in the crown." But if you turn to section 36, section 36 is only applicable to us, no one else, special reserve. It says, "where the land is set aside for use and benefit of said Indian band and the title is vested other than in the crown." That's us. We have the Haldimand deed; we have the Simcoe patent. That land, ose kowah, is ours. It's not crown land. It's not set aside. It's our land.
But it also says in these cases that it shall be viewed the same as other reserves in the act. So section 36 is only applicable to us. That's not crown land; it's our land. That's where this becomes much more serious than it would with other lands where a lot of them are held in common. Go ahead, John.
Mr McNaughton: Number two, we respect the ideals of the Planning Act amendments to allow the municipalities more autonomy in matters of planning. What we need from Ontario is assurance in legislation that municipalities must -- not "may" but "must" -- notify and consult with us, whether zoning amendments, development proposals or other things for areas where Six Nations may have an interest.
To do this, the municipality or developer would need to research the location to be rezoned and developed. Where Six Nations warrants, negotiations shall take place. They must negotiate and obtain Six Nations' approval.
With those comments, I ask my colleagues if they have any others.
Mr Phil Monture: Our position is basically nothing new. We've been practising this for a while where we have actually entered into agreements with municipalities, with authorities, with province of Ontario ministries; direct agreements with the Six Nations. As we alluded to before, things just haven't been happening well enough, to our standards.
I can leave with you copies of agreements which allow certain developments to occur under our rules and conditions. I'm sure Mr Eddy, being from the riding near the reserve and having done a great deal of consultation with us in adjourning municipalities, is aware of our relationship to work things out before we're forced to halt situations. We would like to work through all of these situations jointly with municipalities and whatever governments are out there.
They work, they are beneficial, not only to us but to all the residents adjoining any of these lands, these properties. Because we are approached daily to stop development on lands where our title remains, and basically it deals with unsettled land claims. Those claims are being filed and they're just not being settled through negotiations.
In the meantime, rather than freeze all developments within southern Ontario, we'd like to work hand in hand, but it's just not a consultation with us; it does require our stamp of approval. Until things change, I think it is a prerequisite that our consent be obtained, and I don't basically see where Six Nations can back off that position, because what we've been working at has been successful and they have turned into win-win situations.
With that, I can leave copies of agreements that we've entertained, to enlighten members of this board. It's workable. It's nothing to be afraid of. It's very workable. Those are my comments.
1450
Mr McNaughton: With respect, I'd like to thank you for your time and your request for an input.
Mr Eddy: Welcome to Six Nations of the Grand River. We're pleased to have you this afternoon to present your views.
In number one, it's another example of white man's legalese, that to facilitate a process the wording is used which you have picked up on and opposed. I can understand what you're saying, and I think what we need to do is look at that and eliminate it if you are content with the fact that any person can appeal a decision. I think that's the main thing. I hope we can look at that and see the possibility of some change, because I see that you disagree, and rightly so, that we are making a definition of something that there is no definition of. I get your point.
Number two, your suggestion there will facilitate development, there's no doubt about that. If you're in a discussion at the beginning of a planning application or a process, then it means you'll know all about it, have the information about it, and not need to come along later and suddenly stop perhaps some process.
I guess my question would be, and I'd ask the ministry to clear this up, in all cases, a municipality where they're subject to a planning process on land within a certain distance, I guess, of another municipality must automatically notify that other municipality. It's true we've been looking at this in another forum that perhaps you're not aware of and maybe you are, but what the Six Nations of the Grand River are requesting is that they be notified up front at the time with input, negotiation, whatever they term it, at the beginning rather than later.
Is there anything at the present time requiring a municipality to notify a neighbouring first nation?
Ms Perron: There isn't anything in the legislation at this time.
Mr Eddy: That's the point.
Ms Perron: But there are regulations, regulation-making powers, whereby we can require a municipality to notify any person or public body.
Mr Eddy: There are no regulations in effect now?
Ms Perron: Now there aren't any.
Mr Eddy: There would be with this act.
Ms Perron: Yes.
Mr Eddy: So when they are prepared, could we forward them to the representatives to consider and see if that meets their -- I think that's where we're at.
Ms Perron: Yes, we can.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for coming. You make good points.
Mr McLean: I'd like to follow up on that question, because yesterday I asked the minister if we could have a copy of those regulations, and they don't seem to be forthcoming. Are we going to see a copy of those regulations before these hearings are over?
Mr Hayes: They're not all prepared, Mr McLean. I think you're aware of that. But they are being worked on right now, and we said when it came time to have the legislation that the regulations would be there.
Mr McLean: I was reviewing Hansard, and we asked in Hansard if we were going to have the regulations when these hearings took place. Now, that was back in June, and today you're telling me that the regulations are not in place. We asked for them three months ago, and you might as well be up front and tell us that we're not going to have them during these hearings. That would be my opinion.
Interjection: This is only September.
Mr McLean: Well, this is only September. That's right.
Anyhow, I'm pleased that you've come forward and expressed your views, and I will read Hansard with interest on some of the comments that were made with regard to the questions you asked. Thank you.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I don't want to participate in those -- I am interested that you get your answers, that you are dealing on a government-to-government basis, that you have some very significant problems, as you mentioned, and they need to be clarified.
I want to thank you very much on behalf of the government for coming forth today, for bringing those questions, and I hope you will feel satisfied with the responses that the lawyer from the ministry has offered and will offer you. Thank you very much for coming.
The Chair: I should comment as the Chair just very briefly. Minister Wildman, or at least the government, has set up a round table, as you probably know, for many years now, with first nations' people to discuss and negotiate many, many things, including self-government. Obviously, those discussions are still ongoing. It hasn't been very easy at times on both sides, I would say, having been a member of the round table for at least one year, but self-government is part of those discussions. I know we've made progress but there's still a lot that needs to be done with those discussions between first peoples and our ministers who are negotiating all of these things. I just wanted to say that.
If there are no further questions, I want to --
Mr Peters: Just the one on self-government. We presented our paper in the House of Commons in I think 1983, 1984, on our version of self-government, which still stands today. Just the other night I was at a meeting and someone was asking, "Why don't we have some sort of paper or submission?" Ours is 10 years old, it's still up there and we haven't changed anything. That submission was all made in the House of Commons.
The Chair: I'm not sure what the federal government is doing with respect to this. I was only commenting on what the Ontario government is doing with respect to a number of issues, including the most important one for first nations, and that was self-government. Two separate processes are going on, obviously.
I thank you for coming today.
Mr McNaughton: One final comment I'd like to make is that what has to be understood is that the self-government process is another separate process as well; however, it is linked to the actions of the government of the day. The ministries must recognize that.
We have the Statement of Political Relationship that outlines what the government of Ontario understands collectively with those signing authorities there, and it's not being reflected within the rest of the ministries. There are a few glimmers of hope but it doesn't take an awful lot to look at those and see that there needs to be a lot more work done and it has to happen soon.
The Chair: Just another brief comment. It's not my job as the Chair to defend the government --
Mr Jackson: You're doing a great job.
The Chair: -- in relation to this particular issue, but every ministry is fully aware of its responsibilities in terms of how it relates and connects to aboriginal people, first nations people, in relation to issues that they are discussing. But in terms of what you just said, we obviously have that on record as well and the ministry staff are here and the parliamentary assistant has heard it, this committee has heard it, and we will obviously take your information into account as we continue to reflect on this issue. Okay?
Mr Hayes wants to comment on a previous question.
Mr Hayes: In regard to the regulations, I can tell you right now that the staff is working very hard to get the regulations as soon as possible. One of the things that was made a point of prior to these hearings ever starting was that Indian bands would be notified and would have copies to make comments on, so that's one of the things that we're doing right now.
As far as the regulations, I could be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's been much legislation in the history of a province where you had the regulations ready at the same time as the legislation. But we are working very hard on it and we'll do it faster than any other previous government has ever thought of.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayes. Thank you for coming and taking the time and bringing your brief to this committee.
Mr McNaughton: Thank you very much.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. We're doing fine with the time. We're moving to the next delegation here.
1500
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK
The Chair: We invite the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk: Mr Keith Richardson; Mr Lee Kennaley, commissioner of planning and economic development; and Mr David Roe, manager of development and policy. We welcome you to this committee.
Mr Keith Richardson: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. Our brief is relatively short, keeping mainly to one point that we know is very, very important to Haldimand-Norfolk and which we would like the committee very much to address. We're certainly prepared to respond to questions following on a more general nature if you wish to get into other issues.
The region's greatest concern with Bill 163 is the need for an amendment to provide for approval responsibility for local official plan amendments in Haldimand-Norfolk. This step will contribute in a major way to our streamlining efforts.
This municipality has been seeking delegation of district plan, or local official plan, approval responsibilities since the mid-1980s. We currently have subdivision approval authority. Most recently, the region's streamlining committee reiterated the need for this key step to improve the planning process in this area. Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff have indicated that Haldimand-Norfolk is a priority area for such delegation.
There is currently provision in the Regional Municipalities Act to establish our district plans as local official plans. It is our intention to work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to carry this out in the immediate future by the simplest means available. Simultaneous delegation from the province will afford the region a direct means to ensure regional plan implementation.
Our district plans are currently, in effect, local official plans. In practice we operate a two-tier planning system in Haldimand-Norfolk. All three levels -- local, region and province -- continue to deal with district plan amendments which are in many cases of local significance only and, I might add, cause a lot of concern to people because the issues are basically so small.
The areas appropriately hold public meetings on local planning matters. Often an official plan amendment application is accompanied by a zoning application, which must be dealt with in tandem at the local level. The region must also hold a formal public meeting because the responsibility for adoption of the district plan amendments rests with regional council. There is, furthermore, no provision for delegation to staff of non-contentious district plan amendments under the current system.
The process is subject to justifiable criticism of having too many steps and does not promote a positive public view of government. It is therefore most urgent that Bill 163 be amended to streamline the planning process in Haldimand-Norfolk region by making provision for delegation upon the establishment of the district plans as local official plans or upon delegation of the responsibility to adopt district plan amendments by the region to the areas.
We note that the regions of Peel and York are to be given local plan approval authority contingent upon establishment of an official plan. Haldimand-Norfolk region has had an official plan adopted since 1978. The plan was reviewed in 1985 and the most recent review is nearing completion, with the involvement of a number of provincial ministries.
There is an opportunity to further the intent of the Sewell commission recommendations regarding the province's role in the planning process through a simple amendment to section 10 of Bill 163. The regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk should be added to the list of regions with authority to approval local official plans. As noted, this responsibility would come into effect in the immediate future upon establishment of the district plans as local official plans.
The province's role in the planning process should focus on policy rather than application processing. There is much to be gained by streamlining the process in Haldimand-Norfolk and no loss, since other mechanisms exist to address provincial policy, including the regional official plan. Much time could be lost if Bill 163 does not address our concern regarding our official plan delegation.
A copy of the resolution of regional council regarding Bill 163 and the related report are appended to this brief.
I have with me our planning commissioner, Mr Kennaley, and Dave Roe from planning staff, who are certainly prepared to answer more technical questions than I as a politician. But we'll attempt to field any questions that you might have.
Mr McLean: Do you think that all counties or regions should have an official plan, that in this Bill 163 there should be some direction that says they should have an official plan within five years? There's nothing in here that says that now. I'm asking for your input.
Mr Richardson: Our municipality has had one since four years after the time we were incorporated as a region. It's not up to me to tell those municipalities whether they should or shouldn't have plans. The planning commissioner might look at it a little differently. I'll let him respond.
Mr Lee Kennaley: I think it's important that there be upper-tier plans in all areas of the province, personally.
Mr McLean: I guess the question really was, do you think it should be within the act, that they should be directed that they shall all have official plans on the minister's desk within five years?
Mr Kennaley: I think I'd be going too far as a planning professional to suggest to the province the time lines in some areas, because it may well be quite difficult for some of those counties to do official plans. But I think in the long run it's really important to have upper-tier planning documents province-wide. I can't really comment on the time lines.
Mr McLean: Okay. Can you comment with regard to the agricultural policy with regard to severances? I'm not sure whether you're aware of the policy statements that the ministry has put out or not, but do you have a severance policy in your county, and what is it?
Mr Kennaley: You want me to respond?
Mr Richardson: Yes, I think you should respond. It's not a simple document.
Mr Kennaley: Yes. We have basically in our regional plan a policy that provides for one severance per viable farm holding. Our plan has been recently reviewed. Regional council has suggested that this policy remain essentially intact.
Mr McLean: I see the policy here says one lot per farm operation for a full-time farmer of retirement age. You don't have the retirement age or anything in there, just one per farm, retirement lots.
The aggregate part of the bill, are you aware of it in 163? Have you any comments with regard to the feasibility of an aggregate developer wanting to locate within your region?
Mr Kennaley: We basically in our region have had very little difficulty with aggregate issues. Our plan protects the significant areas of aggregate resources. It has not become a very major, major public issue in Haldimand-Norfolk. The provision of licences and the establishment of pits and quarries is not a major issue for us.
Mr McLean: Minor variances: This direction is that it's not going to go to the OMB; they will be done locally. Do you have a plan in place to deal with that?
Mr Kennaley: We're quite happy with that provision. They're such localized matters that I think it's not a good use of the process to bring minor variances to the municipal board. Administratively, we would be quite prepared to respond to that change.
Mr McLean: The 30-day provision within the bill: Some say that it should be 90 days, that 30 days is maybe too short. Would you have an opinion on that?
Mr Kennaley: We agree with that completely. The turnaround times to committee and council really require us to do 60 days in our region. The other thing we pointed out on that score is that it really doesn't give enough time to bring in the alternative dispute mechanisms, so we would prefer at least 60 days in our region.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is with regard to wetlands. Being that your plan is now ready and wanting the approval of the minister, do you have a policy in that plan with regard to wetlands?
Mr Kennaley: Our existing official plan, adopted in 1978 and reviewed in 1985, deals with environmental issues, but we have recently reviewed our plan. The new plan which will be coming before the minister will deal with wetlands in accordance with the wetlands policy statement, we anticipate.
Mr McLean: What policies do you have in your plan with regard to disposal of waste?
1510
Mr Kennaley: The regional corporation is responsible for waste disposal in Haldimand-Norfolk and there's provision for studies and notification of neighbours to waste disposal sites. The region has a solid waste master plan which we've been working on for some years and that's reflected very generally in the most current documents.
Mr McLean: Back to my first question: You have a two-tier system. There are a lot of municipalities that don't have an official plan and there are some counties that don't. The municipalities locally that have them and the county has one -- the county takes precedence over the local one. Wouldn't it be appropriate that the upper tier be the one that would do the official plan and then would it be necessary to have to do an official plan locally? What's your opinion on that? Would they have to do it, or should they do it?
Mr Kennaley: I believe they very much should do detailed local official plans that deal with the local planning issues and the detailed pattern of land use. Those issues are not appropriate to the regional plan at all, those neighbourhood-type secondary issues, and we encourage, and we are encouraging our local municipalities in Haldimand-Norfolk, to be partners in the planning process. They always have been and legally we want to, in the very near future, have those district plans -- which they prepared, by the way -- established legally as local official plans, in accordance with the regional plan.
No, I don't believe a one-tier planning document, particularly in Haldimand-Norfolk's case -- our region is about 75 miles long -- is suitable, particularly for us.
Mr McLean: When do you think you are going to get your approval?
Mr Kennaley: We've had an official plan since 1978.
Mr McLean: I know, but from the minister for your designation as approval authority in respect --
Mr Kennaley: Oh, as an approval authority? We hope that will come by a very simple change to section 10 of this bill. Just add Haldimand-Norfolk as an approval authority, it's simple. We established the district plans as local official plans and we have done something in Haldimand-Norfolk which will be an immense benefit for streamlining of the planning process.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing today.
Ms Harrington: You've brought forward one specific concern which I will ask the ministry or the parliamentary assistant to address, but before I turn it over to them I wanted to get your reaction to some other parts of the bill. You did mention streamlining, the cutting of the red tape. Will this initiative be helpful for you as a regional body?
Mr Kennaley: The bill as a whole?
Ms Harrington: The idea of trying to streamline it and cut the red tape in the development process.
Mr Kennaley: Oh, absolutely. The delegation would save several months from our official plan amendment process. Many of these amendments that we're dealing with -- for instance, we had an amendment in Port Dover for a resident who wished to have some landscape sales in their rear yard. It was a local neighbourhood issue, not even a regional issue. That matter had to come before the local committee in council, the regional committee in council, then on to the province with a wait of a few months, because there are a great many things to deal with at the provincial level. But that simple, official plan amendment under a revised system could have been dealt with by the local municipality and, given no objections to it, simply approved at the staff level with regional council delegation of the approval authority to staff for non-contentious local official plans. Something that might take 12 months or more could be dealt with in two months and it should be dealt with in two months. The residents of Haldimand-Norfolk can see quite clearly that our processes in many cases are too lengthy.
Ms Harrington: So they have no problem with that part of the bill.
Another initiative of the bill is to, I believe, make stronger and clearer the province's policy statements, for instance, with regard to wetlands and with regard to agricultural land. Do you think this will impact on your region in a positive way? Is it going to improve your ability to protect your natural resources?
Mr Kennaley: Yes. I don't think anyone in Haldimand-Norfolk believes that we should not be protecting our remaining wetlands. We are very concerned about the accuracy of the wetland mapping and we're contacting the Ministry of Natural Resources. Regional council is indicating to the Ministry of Natural Resources that while to date our new plan is reflecting the provincial policy on wetlands, we want a review of the wetland mapping and designations in Haldimand-Norfolk.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant to comment on your request.
Mr Hayes: I understand that you just released your report -- what is it? -- your regional study or regional review yesterday. I can't really make any comment on this because you have the letter here to the minister and I'm sure the minister will deal with that as soon as he's able to do so. I cannot make a comment one way or the other on which way it may go.
Mr Wiseman: I'm interested in your official plan a little bit. How many acres of land have you added to your urban envelopes in your official plan? How many additional acres are you requesting for industrial, residential and commercial?
Mr David Roe: Our original official plan is a policy plan and does not specifically designate urban boundaries. What I might say though, in the last few years we've had virtually no expansion of our urban boundaries.
Mr Kennaley: Could I add something to that too? Haldimand-Norfolk, in its original plan, had anticipated quite substantial growth, so that our regional plan and district plan designations are quite ample for the growth that we're experiencing now. Through the current regional plan review and then the subsequent district plan review, we're not likely to need to designate additional lands because we've got quite ample designated.
Mr Wiseman: So there are already lands that have been designated for industrial, commercial and residential.
Mr Kennaley: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: You see, I have a problem with this part of the bill, to be quite frank. I have a great deal of difficulty with the 30-year allocation of land, both in the Ministry of Housing and in this bill. I think what happens is that it implies development rights for developers.
The Chair: Could you raise your volume a bit, Mr Wiseman? It's very hard. I can't hear you very well.
Mr Wiseman: My own volume. I've never been told that you couldn't hear me.
Interjection: First time.
Mr Wiseman: There's always a first for everything. I guess I have a little bit of a problem with that, because it implies development rights which, maybe as we learn to understand more about ecosystems, planning and sustainability, may not make sense in the future. So I have difficulty with rolling in a great number of acres into official plans, because then they imply development rights. If you come along in the future and you want to take away those development rights because they don't make any sense to what planners and what councillors and what residents in the future would deem as appropriate -- I just want you to maybe comment on that. Do you find that is a problem?
Mr Kennaley: I understand what you're saying. I guess if the environmental concerns are taken into account when those lands are designated, that's something that has to be done at that point in time. Part of the reason we have to plan on a longer-term basis is that municipalities have to make financial commitments for infrastructure on a longer-term basis. While it's very difficult to plan 20 or 30 years ahead, we simply have to because of the fact that decisions made today financially with regard to infrastructure are on that kind of time line. Otherwise, the municipality couldn't provide for growth.
1520
Mr Wiseman: Last question: How many official plan amendments have you asked for in Haldimand-Norfolk? How frequently do you ask for an official plan amendment and how much have you deviated from your original official plan of 1978?
Mr Kennaley: We have what, about 12 or 13?
Interjection: Twelve or 13 --
Mr Kennaley: Yes, over 13 years to the regional plan. The district plans are amended more frequently because of the fact that they're dealing with a pattern of land use issues: if somebody wants to put a neighbourhood store in or that sort of thing and it wasn't contemplated in the original plan. We get about 10 official plan amendment applications a year to the district plans.
Mr Wiseman: And these plans, do they all come forward?
Mr Kennaley: No, some of them go forward and some of them don't. It very much depends on the application of provincial policy and what the regional plan says about the issue. So there's a mixture --
Mr Roe: The bulk of them would be estate-lot proposals which have conflicts with provincial policy, and in those cases they are not approved.
Mr Eddy: I appreciate the views of the delegation and although it's interesting to have their views on matters in the Planning Act, I think we really need to zero in on their request. I would like to compliment the region because the efforts in Haldimand-Norfolk are to protect, as I can see, the downtowns of the various urban centres throughout the Haldimand section at least, that I know about, of Haldimand-Norfolk. I appreciate that effort, but I have to speak to this issue in the first paragraph, the request. Here we have a regional municipality that saw their responsibility, proceeded with it an official plan, and have the request for delegation and nothing happens.
The government is prepared to give delegation to Peel and York and worry about them. They did not accept the responsibility. I don't know when they started on their regional official plans, but they've just started. I don't know and I want an answer why Haldimand-Norfolk is being treated this way, because it's not proper. They have done their duty, they're being delayed, we have all these reviews of Haldimand-Norfolk and one of the reasons there's a problem and the citizens are upset is simply because planning takes too damn long.
I guess all governments are to blame in the eyes of the region and the citizens because of the length of time. I don't understand it, I don't know why we're not facing up to it now. But I'll tell you now, if the province would get off its ass and face this problem, then they'd have time to deal with some of the other items they should have been dealing with and, in my opinion -- and it's a charge -- deliberately delayed official plans in many other municipalities of this province that could have been processed while they're dealing with these problems in Haldimand-Norfolk, which the regional council is willing to deal with, and has requested to have the opportunity to deal with -- that other upper tiers have been given the responsibility. I don't understand it and I want to know.
The parliamentary assistant, as I understood, is saying he can't comment on it because of the review.
Interjection: Why?
Mr Eddy: They have an official plan, they have a planning department, the official plan is approved, let's get on with it. It shouldn't have to be in here but I want it included. Can it be? Will it be?
Mr Hayes: I don't think I have to bang the table and I don't think I have to really apologize, because --
Mr Eddy: No, you don't.
Mr Hayes: -- if you want to get into your funny little politics you go ahead, but -- the government's been dragging its butt for many years --
Mr Eddy: It's not funny little politics. I live it. I live with the problems in the region and I didn't know this was a big problem and I don't understand it. It's a problem of not understanding. It's not you I'm criticizing, I'm just criticizing everybody in the ministry who hasn't faced --
The Chair: He's about to give a response.
Mr Eddy: Yes, thank you.
Mr Hayes: I think that's really the reason why we are doing what we're doing, reforming the planning process in this province --
Mr Eddy: With some municipalities.
Mr Hayes: I did bear with you, Mr Eddy, if you'd just listen to me for a change. That's why we're doing this, and that's why we're doing the consultations across this province. But in regard to your request, I think what has to be done definitely -- this committee can deal with that request. It was a different circumstance up until now because we were dealing with, I believe, the two tier, and now we're dealing with the one, the upper tier. Am I correct on that?
Mr Kennaley: No. It's the other way around.
Mr Hayes: But this is something this committee can deal with and this committee can make recommendations, okay? Thank you.
The Chair: We appreciate the contribution you made today with your presentation. Thank you very much.
PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY
Ms Olga Pawluk: Thank you for the opportunity to address you on Bill 163. My name is Olga Pawluk. I reside at 10 1/2 Kernahan Street, St Catharines, Ontario. I'm founder and past president of PENS, Preserve Established Neighbourhoods Society.
This group was founded because it had become apparent to a number of our members that the processes, procedures and language of various levels of government were thoroughly baffling and befuddling to the average citizen. This of course included many of our own members. Our mandate is to research these various processes, procedures and terminologies and attempt to present this information in a clearer format to the average citizen to assist them in comprehending and dealing with the systems and language used by those within the systems.
Time and time again, the average home owner is faced with decisions made on their behalf by either elected officials or appointed quasi-officials that directly affect our homes. The biggest investment most of us make is in our home. This is done after a lengthy search for the right neighbourhood and the right home. The decision to invest in that particular home is based on the conditions at that particular point in time. There are no special clauses in the buying agreement that notify the buyer that the now circumstances will stay as is; nor are there any clauses that caution you that these circumstances may well change in the future based on someone else's decision on your behalf. These decisions are made with the blessing of various levels of governments -- provincial, regional and municipal -- all funded by the very same home owners via their various tax dollars.
Despite all the careful research and finally finding the ideal established neighbourhood or subdivision and the home within it, far too many of us are faced with, or have already suffered through, the prospect of having our block redeveloped. The first time around, the subdivision was subject to all the rules of the various levels of governments. Some years later we are faced with the unwanted redevelopment of our area by these same levels of government without our buying into the revised rules.
With the present focus on increasing density to the maximum throughout many cities, a great many of us have become unwilling, and without recourse, participants in major redevelopment in our neighbourhoods.
Consider the example whereby a 25-unit apartment building is introduced into a normal city block. It has the impact of doubling the number of homes in that block, calling each apartment a home. You might want to refer to it as a superimposed subdivision. In the past subdivisions were referred to as bedroom communities. Now we can refer to them as bunk-bedroom communities.
The Geneva South Home Owners Association had concerns recently about just such a possibility. As preparation for the hearing at the region, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs booklet, a citizen's guide, number 5 in the series entitled Land Severance, was obtained from the regional land division committee office -- these neat little books.
Going through this book very carefully, a number of areas were highlighted. The things in this booklet that are highlighted didn't exactly happen as we had expected. The booklet's intent may have been to give guidance to the average citizen and all it did was create confusion. Area home owners were astounded to learn how very little assistance was available to them.
1530
For example, the announcement of an application for pending changes could be avoided altogether. We were, however, informed that two fluorescent orange signs, unreadable from the road and missed by many, were the regional government's way of informing bordering and area property owners. This sign has smaller lettering on it and if you travel on a very busy street you don't have a hope in hell of being able to read what it is. It could be "for sale," it could be "apartment for rent," it could be almost anything. The type of sign that I think would be more suitable and probably fairer to the average citizen trying to watch the road they're driving on and watching a little bit along, the signs would be something like a real estate sign. I draw to your attention that I doubt anyone here has ever driven past one of those signs and not noticed who the real estate company was, who the agent was, what the telephone number was to call. Now, for an average citizen to be driving by, surely to God, they could be privy to just a little bit of extra lettering in that sense. It could be titled, for example, with the region, severance and the date, and let it go at that.
Quoting the regional Niagara land division committee secretary-treasurer, "Although provincial legislation requires neither a public hearing to be held, nor any notice of the consent application to be given to nearby property owners, it is the committee's policy to do both"; in other words, a sign that you can miss. In this particular example, there should have been still a third sign, which wasn't put up at all. The assumption then is that this or any land severance and amassing of a large parcel of land without any declared plans could be approved without any participation of any kind by the neighbouring property owners, and this at the direction of the provincial. Isn't this appalling?
I quote further from the same letter, "The provincial policy the committee referred to is an Ontario government policy statement entitled Land-Use Planning for Housing which was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on July 13, 1989." So much for open communication and citizen involvement.
A letter of protest about this process was directed to MPPs Jim Bradley and Christel Haeck. The regional Niagara land division committee responded. Copies of both letters are attached for your information.
At the same hearing, a multitude of concerns were raised by concerned neighbouring property owners and dismissed as details for municipal officials to attend to. That flies in the face of what it says in this little booklet, "If a proposed severance comes to your attention and you have a serious concern about its effects on you or your property, you should contact the approval authority." The book says one thing, the people at the region say something else and the average citizen concerned about their own home seems to slip right through the cracks between these two systems. The caution that the Ontario Municipal Board frowned upon frivolous appeals left the implied message that our many concerns would not be deemed serious enough. Fair and open consideration for the average citizen?
No matter the amount of reading I do, everything seems slanted towards a speedy approval for developers and to save them money. While there is the occasional mention of citizen group participation, there is no clearly defined acknowledgement in writing of the impact on those whose lives are directly affected, nor is there a clearly defined procedure that allows the individual citizen to be introduced into the process from the outset. Asking questions results in having someone on some committee inform you that there is no need to participate in the decision that affects the major purchase of your life, your home. Even worse, this is condoned by a provincial law. As one of a very large group of taxpaying citizens called property owners, I cannot protest strongly enough that this is an injustice to us all.
You're preparing a law that focuses on some future group of people at the expense of the existing people. We protest that you have found our lives to be so easily dispensable. The average home owner is trapped in red tape and is not furnished with adequate guidance and information on how to protect against the loss of their way of life and, in far too many instances, the loss of their property value. How can the property owner recover from this loss? Is there something in the process that gives the property owner a speedy rebate for the loss of their property value? With this loss in property value, does it then follow that one can pay less property taxes? Perhaps the developer who caused the loss in the property value and quality of life can dip into the moneys he's saved by the speedy new process to compensate those whose lives he chose to impact.
Most of us can fully comprehend the reasons for increasing density. What we cannot comprehend is the great degree of intensification, nor can we comprehend how we are not afforded the opportunity to participate fully in the process from the outset. There should be no consideration of applications to amass lands and sever property without full disclosure of the plans by the applicant. The regional government, by granting these applications without any plans, sets the redevelopment of a neighbourhood in motion. Plans must be divulged from the outset. No plans, no hearings.
Multiple meetings, many scheduled during the day when most property owners are at work, do nothing to facilitate the open government we keep hearing about. Meetings must be scheduled for the best time for all citizens. There must be representation from both levels of local government, regional and municipal, at these meetings.
How many members of this committee have been faced with the redevelopment of their neighbourhood? How many of you have welcomed a big apartment house in your backyard or side yard, or perhaps a giant house spliced on to the property by your bungalow?
How many of you believe that the average citizen is unable to think clearly enough to be able to make their own decision about the direction of their life? How many of you have invited the average citizen to test-market the Guidance for the Average Citizen booklets before making them available to the general public?
How many of you give serious thought to the constantly changing terminology you toss out to the average citizen without any concern that these terms add further confusion to present planning procedures? Have you considered a glossary of terms to clarify your jargon to the average citizen? For example, has "neighbourhood" now become "infrastructure"?
Are all committee members home or property owners, or are some of the committee members who live in apartment buildings deciding on how a home owner will react?
You're about to embark on a new procedure that affects the properties and neighbourhoods of areas previously developed. Excluding these property owners from this process is unacceptable. Property owners must participate in decisions affecting their quality of life and properties. Don't force the average citizen to accept your decisions.
Please recognize the average citizen. Allow them to fully participate in decisions that affect their lives and their neighbourhoods. We as citizens must have some control over our lives. Don't sacrifice the requirements of the many for the few.
In summary, allow me to share something that I find very interesting: The Canadian Bill of Rights, in part 1(a), refers to the "right of the individual to life, liberty, security of person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." Thank you.
1540
Ms Haeck: Olga, nice to see you. I know that in your role as chair of PENS -- your group actually has undertaken to develop a glossary that would aid citizens in their efforts to deal with developments in their area.
Ms Pawluk: The glossary is part of a resource kit that we've developed. We find that too many times all of us in our workplace develop jargon; you short-form an awful lot of things. It may be unintentional, but you do. After a while, you lose sight of the fact that people who are not within that circle find it a foreign language. We've worked towards redefining "bafflegab," as some people call it -- others are offended by it -- into some language that is simple. There are not any exotic words or new words introduced. Keeping it simple is really a thing that the average citizen needs. They need some consistency in this instead of a new word every other year or whatever about the same topic confusing people.
Ms Haeck: Your group was very much involved in something that did affect my home, but not directly: the redevelopment of Welland Avenue. In that process, I know that your group definitely made sure that a lot of people were aware of that road expansion.
Your comments relate to what I know is part of the bill, and that relates to notice provisions, not just the time but actually who is affected by a notice and really what should be part of that notice. My question really pertains to what you would like to see happen if in fact, as in your case, you've got an impending apartment complex. What kind of notice would you like to see the neighbours receive? How far should that notice actually be directed?
Ms Pawluk: I didn't want to talk about a specific piece of property, because I didn't think it was the plan here, but in this instance it was an L-shaped piece of property. We had two signs side by side on one street and a third sign not shown on the other portion of the L, on another street, at all. People who lived right next door in that same area hadn't spotted those signs because they're similar, as I say, to these "Apartment for rent," "Car for sale," "Tomatoes in the backyard," any of these things. If it's a busy street, you tend to avoid driving that street, so that something that's going on in your backyard is not necessarily something you know about. You will take a circuitous route to get home to avoid getting trapped in the traffic, and yet you need to take the traffic route home to know what might be going on in your backyard.
There should be some mechanism that would allow a small item in the paper.
Ms Haeck: How about a letter or something?
Ms Pawluk: A letter. The municipality gets a hold of people in the area; the region does not do this. One of the things that I personally find the most offensive of all is that in this particular hearing at the region, when I flashed this book it offended a number of the people who were at this hearing. They didn't like having the words quoted, yet I picked up this damn book right from their land division office.
If the book is guiding you and the committee is following some of this and if we get into an area where it becomes very, very tight and someone finally gives you a, "That's the way it is, because the province said so," what do you mean, "The province said so"? What did they say? Give me a piece of paper that shows me literally, that says that you don't have to show me or you don't have to tell me.
I think an ordinary person should be entitled to that. This is playing with the major investment in their lives. I think people want to participate in that. They don't want someone to come along and say, "There, there, dear, I'll think for you." If I think clearly enough to buy the house, I should be able to think clearly enough to know what I want to go on around it.
Mr Wiseman: You asked this question: How many of you welcome a big apartment house in your backyard or side yard? Before I even took possession of my house, the developer was asking for an official plan amendment to the area behind me so that they could put up a 42-foot medical building in an area that was zoned public use.
How easy should it be for developers to get official plan amendments? How deeply entrenched do you think the official plans and what they are indicating in terms of low, medium and high density and residential, commercial, industrial properties, how firmly entrenched should those be in official plans so that people can have the knowledge that when they do their homework, they do their research, what they're being promised is what they're going to get?
Ms Pawluk: I think it should be spelled out. For example, if you're saying low density -- and I'll throw this out as an example -- it's one storey. If it's medium density or as you go up, there has to be some measurable device. As we talk about density, some bigger properties that people live in are hard to take care of. There's an awful lot of work involved and everyone in this day and age is not interested in that amount of work. If there's to be development in an area, if it's in line with the type of neighbourhood that it is, if the highest building is two storeys high, then the apartment building should not go higher than that. We should not have to get into game playing that I've seen where occasionally someone says, "You know that building, that's higher than the three storeys it was supposed to be," and someone says, "That's okay; we'll fix that." What they do is they'll pile up a little bit more earth along the side and they'll say, "We'll just take the measure from here up to the roof."
Interjection.
Ms Pawluk: This is exactly what torments the average citizen. I'm sorry; this is done. You pick up a paper and you read it. There has to be something to stop the game playing and allow people to enjoy their homes based on what they've found and bought and invested in, instead of looking over your shoulder one day and saying, "My God, how the hell did they ever do that to me?" I certainly am not the only person who thinks this.
Mr Wiseman: I'm sitting here because you're not the only person.
Ms Pawluk: I pointedly asked the question because when you come in and you look at a lot of names, instantly these things go through your mind, "I wonder how many of these guys live in an apartment house and they could care less about the roof of that guy down there." You think it; you can't help but think it. I'm sorry.
Another thing is where you talk about, "Well, the apartment will only be so high." But then they have all of the extra gables and the fancy chimneys and everything else and now, all of a sudden, the thing again has grown a storey and a half with all of the exotica. It has to be from ground to the very top of all the paraphernalia, that is the measure, from top to bottom, no piling up of earth along the side.
Mr Curling: Thank you, Ms Pawluk. You say it as you see it and it's true. I want to thank you for your presentation. At times, as you say, sometimes I agree with the description of what we see problems to be but we don't really agree with the prescriptions of what the government sometimes bring about. You talk about density too and game playing. Intensification is another game playing too. You have bought land or your home with a certain kind of neighbourhood and then, all of a sudden, there is this surge of intensification without any consultation on the impact on the community.
I put a question to you then and to help my colleagues in the committee here: Should the government halt this intensification approach, while telling us to believe that it wants want a reformation of the Planning Act and in the meantime going ahead with intensification? The fact is that sometimes people feel that's had a great impact on them and they almost sometimes seem to be circumventing the plan.
Ms Pawluk: I understand that we have to have a certain amount of intensification. I think the argument with most people is the degree of it, and the degree of it stretches to such a point that it impacts highly on the surrounding homes. If you hold everything up, then you'll have everyone crying the blues of: "Oh my God, now the developers have got to go into idle mode. Isn't this sad? Isn't she awful? Oh boy, this is bad stuff." On the other hand, if you have a situation that says, if we have moderate intensification in a neighbourhood, where you do add some homes that are similar to the homes that are there, and if you add an apartment house -- it doesn't have to stretch to the absolute max -- then it's not destroyed the fibre of the neighbourhood. It's added some living space in the area but it's not done it at the expense of the other people around there.
1550
How you can legislate that without almost specifically saying you can't come within so many feet of a home or you can't have a driveway right at somebody's house side -- I'm really not entirely sure how you could get by that. But I think there has to be some more specific language, because as long as it's general, then it can be interpreted in all kinds of ways and it always seems to be at the disadvantage of the home owner. I think people want to feel that they're into a fair game. You know, there's a possibility here I might win something. A lot of times people go into these things and come out feeling that they've been had.
Mr Curling: I understand, and as I said too, the description is that there are homes needed for people to live in out there. In the meantime, if we change it too dramatically, in too dramatic a form, what we find is that whatever the official plan or whatever the density had called for, whether we build a high-rise in order to get the density or whether we pack the basement without any fuller consultation, my feeling then -- and I'm going back to the reformation of the Planning Act -- is that what they want to do with consultation is that while this is going on, we're also talking about reforming the Planning Act.
I am saying to you, you think that a better cooperative approach is to maybe put a halt on all of this and make sure that we have the Planning Act in place. In the meantime, right now there's a great abundance, regardless of what one is saying, of accommodation out there and the game that we all play is to talk about affordable accommodation. But there's enough accommodation there, and I'm just wondering what strategy you would suggest to the committee.
Ms Pawluk: Given his example and the fact that there is housing available, then if there's not too lengthy a delay I think there should be a pause to take a deep breath and take another long, hard look. Again, you can't just say intensification. You have to say intensification at the expense of what? You're not into a greenfield area and you can't take the example of putting this humongous building beside these little homes. There has to be a levelling factor that allows some intensification, in some areas less, in other areas perhaps more, but a pause is not a bad idea.
Mr Jackson: Thank you, Ms Pawluk, for your presentation. I find myself agreeing with your presentation. Your last comment resonates well with me with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights, but it was deleted from our charter, as you are painfully aware -- private property rights in this country. I think it strikes at the heart of what your concerns are, because you don't have that right where you can run to the Supreme Court to prevent even a provincial government from substantively changing what you rightly admit is the largest investment you'll ever make in your lifetime.
My question is around the issues of what is deemed by the province to be of provincial interest. We're seeing some very strange variations on this. I know in the previous government the Liberals were selling off some of our best real estate holdings in Metropolitan Toronto and they were increasing the intensification to pump up the price so that they could make more money for taxpayers, but it was changing the intensification.
More recently, we've seen overrides being implemented by the province because of moving a mental health facility out of an institution and moving it right into a stable neighbourhood, which has really got the community in an uproar because it doesn't have the services in place, but the current government defends it.
So intensification has maybe been one issue. People tend to look at these questions of provincial interest as environmental issues only, but they also can be in this other area of affecting property values and so on.
Do you or does your group have any comment about the range of issues and the power that the province would have in identifying virtually anything it wishes under a provincial interest and then imposing that on neighbourhoods even for political reasons, as is the case with the mental health facility in Toronto?
Mr Grandmaître: May I thank the guest speaker?
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I was very careful not to identify Mr Grandmaître as the minister responsible, nor Mr Curling as the Housing minister. I was very careful not to identify that.
Ms Pawluk: I'll try to give a careful answer. I think even in the example that I've talked about you have instances where you cannot even see a report, where someone has gone into the area and when this is discussed you do not see a report, where someone has come by and said, "Yes, I've gone to look at Mr Grandmaître's neighbourhood and I think that will be going in the middle of his block and it will affect so many homes and it will affect what looks to be an awful lot of young children running around."
As these policies evolve, as you open the doors, you open the door to someone flipping out the word that the province said, "We can do it." They don't tell you exactly what the province said they could do, and maybe they're only interpreting it in their way, but there's that excuse. But introducing things like this, there has to be something to force a recognition of the people surrounding that property and the impact on their lives.
Perhaps there has to be an extra sheet of paper, but the extra sheet of paper has to say that I've talked to Mr Jackson, Mr McLean, Mr Grandmaître, Mr Curling, all of whom surround this property, and I have duly noted the impact that I am going to have on their lives. That's missing and that's sad, because you're dismissing the average citizen: "Hey, I've got this neat law. What the hell, I can do anything I want," and that's sad. I mean, we all pay taxes and we all elect you and we all hope that you will do things on our behalf, but at times the system looks like you're not doing it for us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time and presenting this brief to this committee. We appreciate it.
NIAGARA RATEPAYERS FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
Mr Jim Perry: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Perry. I'm here this afternoon representing a local environmental group, Niagara Ratepayers for a Healthy Environment. We have about 500 members. We all live in close proximity to the Mountain Road dump in Niagara Falls. We represent about 80% of the households within two kilometres of that dump site.
Reading through your literature, which was a task, I believe your basic premise that the commission has found is that the current system is backlogged, it's full of needless disputes and it didn't adequately protect the environment. I'm here today to give you our experience and it's quite the opposite.
While we had to wait 10 months for a hearing date, all our members felt it was well worth it. Our dispute was far from needless. The hearing process, frankly, protected our environment and the health and safety of our families far better than the local agencies were prepared to, and it's all the result of a joint hearing.
In a nutshell, our story is simply this. Our group opposed and appealed the nine-year expansion of the city dump in Niagara Falls, which already had tentative approval from both the Ministry of Environment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Because the area in question impacted both of those pieces of legislation, the hearing was a joint hearing.
1600
In retrospect, did we win? Probably not. In the good Canadian tradition, it was a compromise. The city was asking for nine years; it got five. However, there's a much tougher set of regulations that dump must now operate under, and while it's tougher than what I think was proposed by some parties, it was not as tough as we were hoping.
Based on that experience, we would like to make five points to the commission this afternoon. These are elements we think you should consider in your proposed legislation. They're based on the experience that we had with this group opposing the Mountain Road landfill site.
They are simply this:
The first one is intervenor funding. That's one area we'd like to talk about. The second is the necessity of a Ministry of Environment review. The third is, in our opinion, the weakness of policy statements. The fourth is the mandated openness that city councils are requested to have versus the perception of corruption. The fifth one has to do with the motivation or unwillingness of local agencies to mediate and negotiate with third parties.
First off, a real cornerstone, as far as our group is concerned, is that the intervenor funding must be left intact as it currently is. The promise of intervenor funding up front is absolutely essential. The applicant wants the rezoning or whatever and in our opinion the applicant must pay. Our particular little battle cost close to $150,000. It is well beyond the means of a neighbourhood group to raise that kind of funding. It's our firm belief that concerned, informed citizens are valid stakeholders in this exercise. We require funding to remain proactive.
The second cornerstone is that the environment must be protected by an MOE review process. This is especially relevant for municipally sponsored projects. We really can't expect the local government to be self-monitoring. It really isn't in their mandate they have and it certainly is not sometimes politically expedient. It must be remembered that city projects often have very significant and serious environmental impacts. The city of Niagara Falls has two right at the moment: One is the Mountain Road dump expansion and the second one is the current expansion or modification of its waste treatment plant. Both of these projects could of course, if improperly designed, have a significant impact on the neighbouring areas.
The third cornerstone, in our opinion, is the weakness of relying on policy statements. It was our experience that clear, legally defensible legislation is imperative. Policy statements just won't suffice. The legislation must also have teeth in it, like the Environmental Assessment Act. Until we took the city of Niagara Falls to a hearing, we frankly did not get what we were asking for and we got these kinds of comments: "Well, the legislation exempts us from this. There's a grandfathering clause that comes into effect on that," and so on and so forth. Our experience would seriously challenge the wisdom, in this type of project, of having the municipality simply have to be consistent with environmental policies. I think it's too naïve. I think it's too simplistic a concept.
Our experience was also true with the Niagara Escarpment act. The entire area that was in question is under the planning and developmental control of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Originally, the staff of the commission recommended against the expansion and yet the commission itself, which has political appointees, voted yes. Legislation, again, is imperative.
There was, or still is, an amendment passed to the Niagara Escarpment plan, amendment 52 which, to the layman, says that it deletes the use of dumps and dump expansions as a permitted use on the Niagara Escarpment. Despite this, the Mountain Road landfill was allowed to go ahead. The commonsense view to the citizen is that if the local agency had stuck to its guns, we wouldn't have had to go to court. Again, it's the issue of whether local groups have in their mandate total commitment to environmental concerns.
Fourth is the concept of openness versus the perception of corruption in land use planning. Our experience was that there is corruption of a sort. I'm not talking about people personally gaining financially; I think your proposal covers that and tightens that up. The kind of corruption I'm talking about is total, open honesty....
After our group made a formal presentation to council, we were invited by the mayor, Wayne Thomson, to hold several sit-down sessions with Niagara Falls city staff and we did have those sessions. Margaret Harrington invited us to a sit-down session as well with the MOE. We had a variety of questions and concerns, but quite frankly the fact was that the original plan was not altered based on any of our concerns.
The fifth and final key element that we would like the commission to consider is the willingness of local councils and local agencies to negotiate with a third party. Our experience has been that municipal councils are used to getting their own way and they are just not committed to negotiating or mediating with interested third parties.
As mentioned earlier, we did have several meetings with the city of Niagara Falls, but the record is that not a single concession was given at this level. We asked for some rather inexpensive things, like extra fencing. We asked for a few extra test wells right along the edge of the property where our subdivision is. We were not given any of those. But when we got to the final hearing, of course, and it's in the report, we did get them.
As well, we asked for some expensive things. We asked for proper hydraulic containment on the site and proper drainage systems and we did get those. Some of them we did not get, though. We did not get a methane gas collection system that we asked for.
1610
The important thing is, after the fact and after this is all over, we do have our set of guidelines, and the local neighbours are well aware of these. In fact, we have complained this current year, and give the local MOE its due, it has issued about 20 citations so far this year to the dump in terms of its operation. Unfortunately, I have to report we still have somewhat of an adversarial relationship. You do mention that this is not good, but sometimes unfortunately it's necessary.
To sum up, our experience with the city of Niagara Falls and the local offices of the Ministry of Environment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission leads us to believe that this commission should take a far different approach when considering city-sponsored projects. We believe you should stay closer to what is currently in place in terms of full reviews and hearings, and we request that you consider maintaining the five existing elements that I've talked about: the intervenor funding; the full, exhaustive type of review that you have by the Ministry of Environment and by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, if it happens to apply; for city- or municipal-sponsored projects, we feel that policy statements are not the way to go and what you need is defensible legislation. Here you're dealing with sometimes large, fairly sophisticated staffs of engineers, and there are hordes of consultants and lawyers and everything else, so these folks are able to read between the lines and make all kinds of interpretations in terms of policy statements. Fourthly, for city-sponsored-type projects, we believe very strongly that the hearing process must be maintained, if nothing else at least as a fallback position to ensure openness and honesty and full disclosure.
Lastly, for all this trouble and effort and expense, the hearing process does produce some good board decisions, and having a document like this is frankly worth its weight in gold as far as local citizens are concerned, because it is the key to keeping things on track and keeping the dialogue and the negotiation and mediation going in a constructive way. It does allow us to talk on a fairly level plain with the agencies that we're dealing with and it allows us to not have to go as much to the media and the protest route and all that kind of thing.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the basis of my presentation. I do have one question I would like to ask of the commission, but I'm open to questions now.
Mr Grandmaître: Tell me a little more about your experience with the NEC, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. You didn't seem too pleased with their services or their --
Mr Perry: No, I was extremely disappointed. I actually used to live in Mr Jackson's riding in Burlington, and my experience in Burlington was that the NEC was quite tough. I was involved with a golf course that wanted to put an addition on its clubhouse and we were stonewalled. My family grew up in Burlington and we had some marvellous experiences walking along the bluffs there. I'm extremely fond of the Niagara Escarpment from my own personal experience, and I was quite disappointed in the reaction and the importance that they placed on the escarpment in this end of the province.
Mr Grandmaître: Did you know that eventually these responsibilities will be turned over to the respective municipalities surrounding or along the Niagara Escarpment? What are your thoughts on giving back that responsibility to local authority?
Mr Perry: God help us.
Mr Grandmaître: So you want to see the NEC in place for many years to come.
Mr Perry: I would, yes. As I say, I was disappointed in their reaction to the fact that they did not stick to the guns in terms of what their planning staff had recommended. I was quite disappointed. But I understand that politics and funding and taxes sometimes override these things.
Mr McLean: I want to thank you for coming today to present the five points that you've talked about. Has the Mountain Road dump been approved?
Mr Perry: Oh, yes, it has.
Mr McLean: It has a nine-year approval rate, has it?
Mr Perry: No, it's not. It's actually officially five. Despite what you read in the press, it's five with a conditional two.
Mr McLean: Is it for the whole area?
Mr Perry: It's for the city of Niagara Falls, yes.
Mr McLean: I want to say that the issues you raise with regard to hearings -- the lady before you was excellent too with regard to people being heard, and that's the whole thing I'm concerned about: With the shortened process we have here, are the people really going to be listened to? It appears to me that some municipalities today think that when they're in power they can do what they like and they're not listening to the people. I hope that what we have heard here today is certainly part of the overall process, because people have got to be listened to. I appreciate you coming. Thank you.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much, Mr Perry, for coming. I think from the way you have presented it, it is very well researched and you have a heartfelt commitment to what you are saying, a real example of grass-roots involvement in a process, and I thank you for that. Do you have a copy of the brief that you have presented?
Mr Perry: No, unfortunately I don't. I don't know whether there's a reporter here today or not.
The Chair: Yes, it's on Hansard.
Ms Harrington: It would be very nice if I could get a written copy of what you have there.
Mr Perry: I will do that.
Ms Harrington: You have pointed out that there certainly were problems with the process in the past and they have built up over many years, in fact decades. It's a cumbersome process, and you've even indicated that it may be unfair in some circumstances. That's the whole point of this piece of legislation, to tear away all that buildup of massive problems in the system and try to put something in place which works and works well.
Now, you indicated a couple of problems, first of all, an adversarial system. We really want to change that personality of the system so that before the decision is made, at whatever level, whether it's at council or at the OMB or -- there is input from the people affected. We heard this very clearly yesterday in Toronto when we were briefed by the ministry and others involved in this legislation.
Secondly, you talked about provincial policy statements. The idea of this legislation is to make them stronger and clearer so that the planners all over Ontario and the citizens know what is protected in this province. So hopefully this will in the long run help citizens like yourself everywhere.
I want to go back to some of your points. First of all, you talk about intervenor funding. Who paid the $150,000 cost?
Mr Perry: Our friends at the city of Niagara Falls.
Ms Harrington: The actual citizens donated this amount. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Perry: No, no. The city of Niagara Falls.
Ms Harrington: Oh, the city. Okay.
Mr Perry: Actually, I'm a taxpayer, so it was my money.
Ms Harrington: You also talked about the weakness of the policy statements, and I'm saying to you that we are strengthening them. Your fourth point was about the openness of city council and the perception of corruption in regard to land use planning.
Mr Perry: If I might just correct that perception, the comment does not relate to city council. The concept there relates more to city staff, in that it's simply not a level playing field. My opinion, and if I were an engineer my engineering opinion, on what is necessary -- it's just not a level playing field with what the city staff engineer thinks. That's why the hearing process is so important. You need a technical referee.
Ms Harrington: To be able to be heard and to negotiate on an equal level.
Mr Perry: That's right.
Ms Harrington: Okay. I hope everyone around this table as well as the staff of the ministry are listening to what you are saying, because we really do want the citizens to be heard in this new process.
Finally, your fifth point was about local councils negotiating with third parties. Well, that leads us to what we were just talking about. You found that normally they don't want to listen.
Mr Perry: They're quite prepared to listen, but that's all they're prepared to do.
Ms Harrington: Would you have any suggestions then as to how we can work with people to encourage city councils to do more than just listen?
Mr Perry: I guess you have to strengthen their mandate. You know, it's which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure what the answer is. I hate fixing anything that's not really broke, and I don't really think this thing is broke. I think it works reasonably well. You've got good legislation. The Environmental Assessment Act, in my opinion, is sound. I think the Niagara Escarpment plan is sound. You just need local agencies to challenge local municipalities on their sponsored projects and stick to their guns, on all the technical points.
Ms Harrington: Hopefully, this is the beginning of a process. I think all levels of government are beginning to realize now that the future is different with regard to what we safeguard in this province, which is our environment, whether it's the agricultural lands or whether it's the wetlands or whether it's the woodlots. There is a different approach.
I think someone else has a question here.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman, just a --
Mr Wiseman: I have five things. I'll talk to him later.
The Chair: Very well. Mr Perry, we thank you for participating in these hearings today.
Mr Perry: Okay. Do I get to ask a question?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Perry: Good. That's what I thought.
Mr Grandmaître: We're open.
Mr Perry: You're open; okay.
Interjection: We're open now.
Mr Perry: Perhaps someone could clarify what you mean by the fifth major change to the Planning Act, and I'll read it to you:
"Municipalities would be able to further integrate environmental concerns into the planning process by adopting an optional process which may be considered under the Environmental Assessment Act."
I could find nothing in the literature that I read that even mentioned that.
Ms Diana Dewar: My name is Diana Dewar, from Municipal Affairs. The legislation has a provision in it which allows municipalities to adopt a process where, where they are examining alternatives in the preparation of an official plan or an official plan amendment, that will receive credit, if you like, when the environmental assessment is being done. So it's a way of linking the official plan process, and those requirements would be the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act process.
Mr Perry: Do you have any literature on that optional process?
Ms Dewar: That process will be set out in a regulation, and that is being worked on by our staff right now.
Mr Perry: Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Three things before we break off: First, the bus will leave at 4:45. Second, the committee will start its hearings at 8:30, not 9, which complicates our life a little bit. I think that's it. We'll adjourn until 8:30 tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1625.