CHATHAM KENT HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION OF KOMOKA
LAKE HURON PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL WATER ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Thursday 1 September 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
County of Kent
Ralph Pugliese, planning director
David Langstaff, warden
County of Lambton
Mary Jane Marsh, warden
Malcolm Boyd, planning director
Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association
Henry Regts, past president
Stella Berbynuk
Municipal Electric Association
Jim Yarrow, chair
Storey, Samways Planning Ltd
Tom Storey, president
Roy Wilkinson
Ratepayers Association of Komoka
John Driver, member
Brian Ritchie, member
Lake Huron Preservation Association
Joseph Hoffer, legal counsel
Ontario Municipal Water Association
Thomas Warwick, board member
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
Haslam, Karen (Perth ND) for Mr Winninger
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 Gary Wilson
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister
McKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal planning policy branch
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 1002 in the Wheels Inn, Chatham.
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.
COUNTY OF KENT
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're happy to be here in Chatham. We are asking Mr Aaron De Meester isn't here, so we'll begin with the county of Kent. I understand that Warden David Langstaff is here, Mr Robert Foulds is here and Mr Ralph Pugliese. Am I pronouncing the name correctly?
Mr Ralph Pugliese: Yes.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): You're going to have a problem with this.
Mr Pugliese: It's everybody else who's going to have to pronounce it.
The Chair: I wanted to be sure that I was pronouncing it correctly as opposed to the others who might have had a different pronunciation of your name.
Mr Pugliese: Sounds good to me.
The Chair: Welcome to this committee. You have half an hour for your presentation. If you would like some feedback from the members, leave as much time as you can at the end of your presentation.
Mr David Langstaff: My presentation should take 20 to 25 minutes if I move through it briefly.
The Chair: If that is the case, there might only be five minutes, in which case you'll only get one question from the members.
Mr Langstaff: I think my brief is fairly clear, sir.
The council of the county of Kent will be making two submissions to the administration of justice committee. This submission deals with open meetings, sale of real estate property and the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, which will be presented by the warden and chief administrative officer. The submission dealing with the proposed amendments to the Planning Act will be presented by the warden and the director of planning.
Proposed legislation regarding open meetings: The procedural bylaw for the council of the county of Kent already provides for open meetings of our committees and our library board save and except for the last item on the agenda referred to as "Matters to be dealt with in camera: personnel, property and litigation."
Basically the existing list in the county procedural bylaw setting out the subjects which may be discussed during the in camera portion of the committee meetings and during an in camera meeting of council meeting in committee of the whole is essentially the same as the list proposed in Bill 163. As a result, council has no concerns with the fact that subjects that may be discussed during a closed meeting are limited to clauses (a) to (g) of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of the proposed new section 55.
There are three issues which the county of Kent wishes to raise. They are as follows:
A concern that the definition of "committee" includes intermunicipal advisory committees: Members of the administration of justice committee are aware that during the past 10 to 15 years neighbouring municipalities, primarily cities that are not part of a county system and the county, have formed intermunicipal liaison committees in order to ensure continuation of improved working relationships. These committees have no authority other than to make recommendations to their respective councils at public meetings unless a particular recommendation falls within the subject matters listed under subsection 55(5).
Kent county wishes to point out that in the vast majority of cases, discussions at the city-county liaison committee level serve a very useful purpose. Often issues brought before the liaison committee involve very direct and frank discussions where an attempt is made to better understand the position of either party on a subject of interest to the entire area. Often these discussions lead to one of the parties expressing a willingness to suggest to its council that it reconsider a position already taken, or at least amend its position on a particular issue now that it has a better understanding of all the ramifications of the decision taken.
It is the county's submission that if the meetings are open to the public, these discussions will not result in a clearing of the air and as a result a better understanding of what is best for the entire community. Public meetings will force the participants to stick to their position in order to save face before their electorate, and as a result the liaison committee members will not be able to get to the bottom of the issue and reach a compromise which can then be recommended to their respective councils. If the legislation remains as proposed, it is our submission that intermunicipal relationships will suffer since there will not be the current opportunity available to air minor irritants which will over a period of time become major obstacles.
It is recommended that the definition section of proposed section 55 of the Municipal Act be amended to clarify that an intermunicipal advisory committee is authorized to hold a meeting closed to the public for any purpose and take a vote during a closed meeting providing any action resulting from a decision made in the closed portion of a meeting of an intermunicipal advisory body is referred to the respective councils where the subject must be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines set out in proposed section 55 of the Municipal Act.
The second concern, a concern that the inability to take a vote during a closed meeting will limit council's or committee's ability to direct staff: The county of Kent appreciates the fact that the Legislature is attempting to ensure that when the final vote on a subject discussed during a closed meeting is taken, it is conducted in the public portion of the meeting in order that the electorate can determine how each councillor voted.
In fact Kent county under its present procedures does exactly that. If we deal with a property matter in a closed meeting of council meeting in committee of the whole, a vote is taken during the closed meeting, and once staff understands the direction of council in committee as established by the vote in committee, staff prepares a report to council from the committee of the whole with a recommendation. This recommendation is then dealt with in open council and the vote is taken. If we are not allowed to take a vote during the closed portion of committee meetings, it is our submission it will be impossible to direct staff.
We have two examples where we feel it is imperative that a committee of council be allowed to take a vote when a meeting is closed and we are aware that you will be presented with other examples as you travel across the province. Our two examples are as follows:
Our executive committee has been assigned the responsibility of retaining a new clerk-administrator for the county. We will be holding interviews during a closed meeting and making our selection of the preferred candidate during a closed meeting. The warden or secretary of the committee will be required to discuss an offer with the preferred candidate. As warden, I would be reluctant to make an offer unless I have a preliminary vote of the committee directing me to do so. Otherwise I stand the potential to be second-guessed by committee members who may submit I did not understand the body language and innuendoes made during the committee's discussion of the merits of each candidate.
It is our submission that it is necessary to have the committee vote while the committee is in the closed portion of the meeting in order that the individual making the initial job offer is confident there is sufficient support to do so. Obviously, once the details are worked out, council will in open council vote on the appointment of the individual and the electorate will know the position of council members on the appointment.
Our transportation committee often deals with property purchases for road widening during an in camera portion of the meeting. In situations where the purchase is straightforward, that is, the purchase price is in line with the council's policy, the agreement of purchase and sale is accepted by a vote of the committee and the recommendation goes to the county council where the vote is taken in open council. If council agrees with the recommendation, the agreement is signed by the appropriate officials and the transaction is finalized.
There are situations when the committee discusses the potential for a counteroffer. Often the committee members do not agree on the value of the counteroffer and sometimes there are members who feel that a counteroffer should not be made.
It is our submission that unless a preliminary vote is taken while the committee is meeting in closed session, it will be impossible for a staff member to ascertain if a counteroffer should be made, and if it should, the exact nature of the counteroffer. Obviously, once negotiations result in an agreement, the agreement will be the subject of consideration in open council.
It is recommended that subsection (9) of proposed section 55 be amended to read:
"(9) Despite this section, a meeting shall not be closed during the taking of a vote unless the vote is taken in order to provide officers with direction during the preliminary discussion of the subject matter."
1010
I think the next one is a bit interesting. Lack of opportunity to have a cabinet or a caucus: Kent county council notes that the members of the Ontario Legislature and the members of municipal councils serve exactly the same taxpayers. As stated earlier, we do not object to the proposed legislation which limits issues that may be considered during a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public. In passing, we simply wish to comment that we find it rather hypocritical for a government that has a cabinet with its solidarity and a caucus to clear the air before going public on any particular subject to suggest that municipal government should be more open. This is a double standard.
It is recommended that, in order to ensure that the taxpayers of Ontario can expect all levels of government to deal with issues before government in a similar fashion, the definition of "meeting" under subsection (1) of the proposed section 55 be amended to read:
"`Meeting' means any regular, special, committee or any other meeting of a council or a local board save and except a meeting of its cabinet or its caucus." If the legislation were amended, the county could refer to its executive committee as "cabinet" and to the meetings of council meeting in committee of the whole as "caucus."
Disposal of real property: Kent county currently has a procedure for the sale of real property. Council rarely finds itself in a situation where it has real property which is surplus to the county needs. However, on the occasions when this has arisen, save and except those situations which automatically fall under the provisions of the Municipal Act dealing with road closings and the subsequent disposal of property, council has publicly declared the property surplus to its needs.
We acknowledge that there may be situations where an appraisal of the fair market value of the property is appropriate. However, in situations where a council has publicly declared that the real property surplus to the needs of the municipality will be sold by tender, the council of the county of Kent sees no real purpose served by forcing the municipalities to go to the extra cost involved in obtaining at least one appraisal of the fair market value of the real property when in the opinion of Kent county council the tender process will automatically address this question.
The Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act: The council of the county of Kent is of the opinion that, given there will be a commissioner appointed under the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, form 1, the disclosure of financial information form, which is to be completed within 60 days of taking office and updated before December 31 of each year except in an election year, should be filed with the commissioner.
There are four specific reasons for this recommendation and they are:
Kent county council notes that the availability of the financial information form which is to be available for public inspection in the offices of the municipal clerk has the potential to make information regarding innocent bystanders available in a form much more readily available than under existing circumstances. For example, a member of council may hold mortgages on properties in a municipality. Currently individuals must attend at the registry office and pay a fee if they wish to determine if there is a mortgage on their neighbour's property. If a member of council holds the mortgage, individuals may discover this information while reviewing a disclosure of financial information form available in the clerk's office. In the opinion of Kent county council, this is entirely inappropriate.
Kent county council notes that the financial information form must be updated before December 31 of each year except in an election year by filing a supplementary report. We are concerned that, in the event this information is readily available in the offices of the municipal clerk and in the event a business person in a relatively small town or village is involved in municipal government, the requirement that the individual update the information regarding liabilities secured against his or her financial interests in the past year could be very beneficial to a competitor.
Kent county council submits that during times such as the past recession, there could be a number of individuals who, through no fault of their own, are required to increase their liabilities, disclose them in the supplementary report while showing no corresponding increase in assets. The unintended effect is the release of facts about a particular individual, in this case the difficult financial circumstances being faced by the individual, which has no relevance to the intent of the legislation.
Even though this same information may be available from other sources, an interested individual such as a potential creditor would be required to make a request for the information from a sheriff's office or similar location and take the steps necessary and pay the appropriate fees in order to obtain same. Again in this instance a competitor could obtain this information as an indirect result of an individual reviewing a disclosure of financial information form available in the local municipal clerk's office. You would do well to consider that the indirect result of knowing a person's financial circumstances at a particular point in time is similar to posting the names of welfare recipients in the clerk's office.
Kent county council is concerned that staff who have ready access to this information in situations where staff are affected by decisions of local council, downsizing, strikes etc, may promote the fact that this information is readily available in the municipal offices as a pressure tactic to having certain members of council change their views on the issue before council.
Kent county council hastens to point out that the information filed by the members of the provincial Legislature is not available in the local constituency offices. Presumably members of the Legislature would not want to have this information available to their staff and their electorate. As pointed out earlier in the brief, we serve exactly the same taxpayers. We do not appreciate the double standard and submit that the information form should be filed with the commissioner and available to the public under exactly the same circumstances as members of the provincial Legislature.
MPPs' disclosure forms which contain similar information are filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, who is referred to as the chief permanent officer of the Legislative Assembly with the rank and status of deputy minister. Obviously the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly does not directly report to the members of the assembly in the same manner as the clerk in a small local municipality. In addition, the information filed by our local MPPs is not readily available to their constituents. Residents in Chatham-Kent and Essex-Kent ridings must set aside an entire day, plus the cost involved in travel to Toronto, to obtain the information regarding their MPPs.
However, under the proposals in Bill 163, these same residents during their lunch hour, or in many small municipalities during their coffee break, will be allowed to view similar information on individuals who serve them in a similar capacity at another level of government. If this accessibility is what we want to achieve, then it's our submission that copies of the disclosure statements filed by MPPs should be available to their staff and the public at their local constituency offices. This will eliminate the double standards that will otherwise exist once Bill 163 is passed.
We thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you and request that you give the concerns of the county of Kent their consideration and merit.
I'll now go on to the second brief that we have with regard to the Planning Act. The following is the county of Kent's submission on the administration of justice committee on the component of Bill 163 dealing with the proposed changes to the Planning Act.
The amendments to the act are touted by the provincial government as empowering municipalities at the local level. In fact, if one were to consider the changes proposed, one would realize that the empowerment is superficial and the province will have greater and stronger powers than ever to control development at the local/county levels of government.
Section 2 lists the provincial interest matters which the municipalities, the OMB and others must have regard to when carrying out their planning responsibilities. This list has been extended substantially to include a wide array of planning issues in the social, economic and environmental streams, including a provision wherein regard must be had for any other matter prescribed.
Subsection 3(5): All decisions made by all planning authorities, including the OMB, must be consistent with provincial policy.
Subsections 17(45), (46) and (47): Upon an appeal to the OMB, the minister must give 30 days' notice in advance of a hearing on the matter if there is an issue of provincial interest. The OMB decision on the issue of provincial interest is not final until confirmed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Clause 47(1)(a) and subsection 47(2): Where the minister could exercise powers conferred upon council only with respect to subsection 50(4) relating to matters of subdivision of lands, the powers have been extended to include all issues regarding sections 34, 38, 39 and 45, which deal with zoning, interim control, temporary uses and minor variances respectively. Such powers are exercised through orders and are not subject to the normal notification and appeal processes as are the matters under the effected sections.
Subsection 50(1.1) gives the minister the authority, through an order and with stated reasons, to remove the powers of the council of a municipality with respect to granting of consent, a certificate for the validation of title and power of sale for one or more applications. In such instances the minister assumes the same powers initially bestowed upon the municipality.
Section 16.1: A council may follow the prescribed process and develop materials prescribed for the preparation of an official plan, and any of these may be considered under the EA act with respect to any requirement it must meet under the act.
Clause 70.1(e): The minister may prescribe the content of official plans and prescribe different content for different municipalities and different classes of municipalities.
The abovenoted sections in particular give the province and specifically the Minister of Municipal Affairs stronger powers than ever before to control the direction of municipal planning in Ontario. The provisions in subsection 3(5) requiring that the planning decisions be consistent with provincial planning policy are testimony of this.
When disputes over the interpretation and intent of provincial interest issues are taken to the OMB, the board would seem to have little discretion in making a decision in favour of a position other than that advocated by provincial staff and the minister. The existing concept of "have regard to" is much more in keeping with the goal of integrated provincial planning policy and municipal planning. Thus the existing legislation in this regard should be upheld.
An added assurance that ministerial interpretation will be maintained can be found in subsections 17(45), (46) and (47) of the act, which require the blessing of OMB decisions by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It would seem that the ministry would have another opportunity to make their case a second time to the Lieutenant Governor if the board ruled against them.
This is provincial veto powers over the board and significantly undermines the integrity and use of the board and the fabric of planning in Ontario. It should be stated that the way it really is is that the minister would have the ultimate power to decide planning issues. This is not characteristic of a democratic process. The Ontario Municipal Board should have the final ruling on any planning matter put before them.
It must be remembered that the minister may force a municipality to address certain matters in their official plan in an official plan acceptable to the minister and in doing so may also refuse to refer matters to the OMB under certain criteria. These provisions are presently found in the existing Planning Act found in subsections 23(1) to (4). New subsections 17(45) to (47) are overkill and place municipalities at an unfair disadvantage.
1020
There seems to be a general and mistaken belief in provincial circles that county planning departments cannot accommodate the official plan and subdivision approvals process.
Section 17 precludes counties from being the approval authority for local official plans and amendments where such counties have approved official plans.
Section 51 precludes counties from having subdivision approval and only allocates these privileges to cities, regions and the county of Oxford. The minister continues to be the approval authority for plans of subdivisions.
I would note in the following section we've made a slight change. It will be different from the presentation that you have in front of you. It's that we've added local official plans to the description.
Counties are being discriminated against in that they are specifically precluded from the authority to grant approvals of local official plans, amendments and plans of subdivisions. Many counties are quite capable of assuming this role. This approach also discriminates against the developer who is prevented from receiving the benefits of having a local approval authority to deal with.
One large benefit in having approvals at the county level is the overall reduction in time and resources from that which is presently required. The omission of counties from this authority is not only discriminating against counties and their abilities but also serve in prolonging the planning process and thus frustrate efforts in growth and development.
Kent county wishes to have the local official plan and subdivision approval authority and feels that it has the resources and expertise in place to successfully deal with this function once a county official plan is in place. If there is real intent to streamline the planning process, counties should be granted the same privileges as regions and separated cities.
The pressure on public agencies to respond to notices of consideration of consent applications is eliminated, conveying the illusion that it is a fair practice to withhold communication until there is disagreement in a decision of a consent authority and at that point the appeal process is the only alternative.
Subsection 53(28): A public body does not have to make oral or written presentation prior to a decision for consent in order to appeal same. This clause puts a consent authority in the awkward position of not knowing the concerns of a public agency who chooses not to respond until after a decision is rendered. At that point their response would likely be in the form of appeal if the situation cannot be resolved by a change in conditions of the provisional consent. This adds costs and significantly aggravates the planning process and causes frustration among the participants. Public agencies should be required to correspond within the allocated time period. If an appropriate response is not possible within the time period, then a request should be made for an extension to a reasonable time period.
A number of additional procedures serve to lengthen and frustrate the planning process rather than making time periods required for approvals more reasonable.
Clauses 17(16)(a) and (b): In addition to notification having to have been given 30 days in advance of a public meeting to consider an official plan or amendment under subsection 17(10) or an alternative process under subsection 17(11), municipalities are required to allow 30 additional days to lapse prior to giving approval to the official plan or amendment.
Subsection 53(4): Notice of application for consent must be given 30 days before a decision is made.
The 30 additional days required to approve an official plan by council would reduce the flexibility for council and needlessly delay those amendments which are simple and non-controversial. The present process is quite functional in that a council would proceed with an official plan or amendment only when it feels that it has considered all of the issues and is prepared to make a decision. This could come immediately after the public meeting or after a 30-day period. Councils should be left with that flexibility.
Requiring that notice of consent be given 30 days prior to a provisional decision only serves to significantly and needlessly prolong the process. Presently consent authorities have the option of postponing the decision until they are satisfied adequate time has been given for notice beyond 14 days.
Some municipalities, for reasons of cost and minimal development activity, have not seen the need for an official plan. They have, however, been able to give reasonable flexibility to their zoning bylaw through the privilege of granting minor variances. This route is no longer available to them and must resort to amending their zoning bylaw for minor non-compliance situations.
Subsection 45(5): This section implies that a municipality must have an official plan before variances can be granted from the municipality's zoning bylaw.
This provision makes it awkward for those municipalities who choose not to have an official plan. Their only avenue available to deal with the variance situations is by amending their zoning bylaws, again prolonging the planning process. This is clearly visible in case of very minor variations where there is concurrence and an absence of objection and negative impact.
We hope that we have been of some assistance to you today. In closing, we would like to remind you that the process of planning reform has been a very long and intensive one. Many people have worked very hard to bring their views to the fore. We trust that you will give careful consideration to the impacts of the proposed legislation by considering their benefits and long-term consequences and make the changes that would avoid discrimination against various planning authorities in this province and lengthen the planning process needlessly. Only in this way can relations between the provincial and local government be strengthened to serve the needs of the people of Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We don't have much time actually. Mr Hayes, however, does want to make some points of clarification on some of the items that you've raised.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): In talking about subsection 45(5), Dave, where you mentioned about, "This section implies that a municipality must have an official plan before variances can be granted from the municipality's zoning bylaw," it doesn't have to be that way. They can grant variances. I just wanted to make that one point.
The other point is that when you talk about being treated the same as some of the regions where they have the right to okay official plans and amendments, counties can have that right too, if they have the official plan and meet the criteria, the same as the regions do.
Mr Langstaff: I don't believe that was clear to us in the act as we read it, Mr Hayes.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Eddy, I have a concern here.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I just have a statement. I don't have a question.
The Chair: If you have a statement that is brief, that's fine.
Mr Eddy: Yes, that's all it is, Mr Chair.
Thank very much for your brief. I really appreciate the time you spent on this and the important matters that you've brought forward for our consideration, because there are some new items in here.
I want to apologize to you for not having enough time to deal with each of these in a separate time frame. In other words, we should have had a half an hour for each of them because you've raised some important things. I can only hope that the government's proposed amendments coming forth will address some of these concerns. I take particular note in your comparison to the operation of municipal council with a provincial government with its caucus and its cabinet.
I must say, you've pointed out some of the problems, but I think you haven't gone far enough because, in my experience, I have seen one-man rule where the Premier of the province -- and I'm thinking of the establishment of county school boards --
Interjections.
Mr Eddy: -- went ahead without the knowledge even of the Minister of Education and thrust it on the people of Ontario.
Mr Hayes: Are you talking about David Peterson?
Mr Eddy: No.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Langstaff, I appreciate the comments in your brief. It is very clear what you've said. It didn't leave room for a lot of questions because you made it clear. I want to say that the number of briefs that we have had from wardens and from counties has been tremendous and the input that they have has certainly given us a little different view than what we're reading in some of the correspondence we got from the ministry. I hope that the ministry is listening and taking into account what you're saying. Thank you for being here.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much. I also took note of a lot of your comments, but I did want to make a slightly different comment, which is very much the reverse of what Mr Eddy has made, with regard to the conflict-of-interest statements that we have to fulfil. I can assure you that the press looks at these very carefully within days of their having been made available from the conflict-of-interest judge.
I know that in light of their interest -- and my name's appeared in the Toronto Sun on two occasions because of a small local investment that I have.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): What page?
Ms Haeck: I couldn't even remember. I couldn't even remember.
Mr Jackson: Well, it didn't help Peter Kormos one bit.
Ms Haeck: That's right. But in any case --
The Chair: Order, please.
Ms Haeck: In any case I would suggest to you that the kind of worry that you have, our documents are very much available to the public, like what we're asking municipal councils to do or county councils to do. It would be simply a matter of filling in where you have an obligation with no amounts in place.
In turn, what appears for the press to peruse and for our public to peruse is simply where we may have a mortgage. It does not indicate any amounts. It only indicates that there is an obligation. It does not in fact give someone else an undue advantage over someone else. It's just to in fact inform all and sundry that yes, I owe money on my car. Beyond that, no one knows how much it happens to be. So I think you should feel certain that no one's trying to outdo anyone else in this.
Mr Langstaff: Can I reply to that, sir? Our concern is the type of thing where I, as a councillor, might own some mortgages within my municipality and, if you lived in my municipality, you might be one of them. You might not want --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. No, please go on.
Mr Langstaff: The way we understand it is that we would have to list those mortgages. Now maybe we are wrong on that and, if we are, we would just like the clarification because that is the type of thing that we are concerned about.
Ms Haeck: I'll turn it over. Maybe Mr Hayes would like to clarify this point.
Mr Jackson: It's not property specific.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hold on, please. It's not useful for this to be happening. I'm sorry, Mr Langstaff. Did you finish your comments?
Mr Langstaff: I'll close at that, sir.
The Chair: All right. Is there a ministry staff who wants to comment? Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: Mr Langstaff is correct in what he's saying. That's supposed to be up front, yes. You have to list your mortgages.
The Chair: Okay. We've run out of time, at least for this deputation. We appreciate the submission you have made to this committee. Thank you for taking the time to come.
Mr Langstaff: We certainly appreciate being able to make the submission and thank you for hearing us.
Mr Pugliese: Mr Chairman, just in closing, if you would like to take a look at subsection 17(3) of the proposed legislation vis-à-vis approval authorities, it doesn't mention counties in there.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Interjections.
The Chair: I want to check to see whether the county of Lambton is here, Mr Malcolm Boyd, Ms Mary Jane Marsh. Okay. We're obviously early for that next submission. I presume Chatham-Kent Home Builders' Association isn't here. Okay. What we'll do is to recess in the meantime.
Mr Jackson: Did you inquire is anybody here ready for today? Because there may be an afternoon one who's ready.
The Chair: This is true. Is there anyone here in the audience who has a submission to make to us and would like to come forward? No. All right. This committee will recess until 11 o'clock or until somebody shows up.
Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, I propose that we bring the Kent county delegation back and have some questions.
The Chair: We will recess until 11 or until the time that the county of Lambton shows up.
The committee recessed from 1034 to 1101.
COUNTY OF LAMBTON
The Chair: I welcome the county of Lambton, Mr Malcolm Boyd and Ms Mary Jane Marsh. You have half an hour for your presentation.
Ms Mary Jane Marsh: Thank you. I'm pleased to be here to make this presentation. We will be making a presentation on not only Planning Act amendments but also the conflict-of-interest legislation part.
The county of Lambton responded to the Sewell commission and to the minister on the final report of the Sewell commission. The county expressed the view that the recommendations did not add to local decision-making, which was stated to be one of the goals of the commission. The commission made a large number of recommendations, both in changes to the act and in the proposed policy statements, which would inevitably lead to centralized control of planning throughout the province.
The insistence by the government that all municipal planning decisions "be consistent with" provincial policy rather than "have regard to" provincial policy, regardless of statements in local official plans, will ensure that meaningful community involvement in planning decisions will be undermined and provincial civil servants will be in a position to dictate policies to elected municipal councils.
The province has imposed a highly centralized provincial policy-making framework at the expense of decision-making powers of counties and member municipalities. Lambton county was convinced that many of the recommendations of the Sewell commission would cause local planning documents to become mere mirror images of detailed provincial policy, regardless of its relevance to that community. This government appears to have endorsed the Sewell vision that any semblance of a partnership in planning between the province and municipalities be ended.
Virtually all of the comments which the county submitted on the Sewell commission final report were ignored by the government, including the county's support of the commission recommendations on sewage treatment and septics, which the county feels would have gone a long way to dealing with existing environmental problems. Therefore, there is likely little to be gained by repeating those concerns and this brief will only deal with a few specifics.
Under section 4 one of the stated purposes of the act is that it is to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy, and no mention is made of facilitating a more meaningful decision-making process at the municipal and community level. At least the government is up front in stating that the planning process will be from the top down. We know that this will not work, that basic planning must involve the people of the community, the grass roots.
The bill and the policy statements must be revised to only require that local councils "have regard for" provincial policy. We do not see that the current wording of the Planning Act needs changing. The reasonable implementation of provincial policy shall be determined by the OMB in times of conflict. The bill will prevent the board from being reasonable. They will have to implement provincial policy, as augmented by detailed guidelines which are to come, regardless of whether it makes sense in a local area or is accepted by the local people.
Under section 14 the Sewell commission did not in any way recommend the establishment of joint planning in the manner adopted by the government. The government approach is completely unacceptable, not only because it could wreak havoc in a number of counties, but it would set a precedent for provincial government intervention into the essential power of a county council to set the levy to cover expenses of the county.
This section permits the minister to authorize, without county approval, two or more municipalities, including separated cities, in the same county or different counties to join together for planning purposes and be completely free from paying any portion of the county levy for planning. Subsection 14.7(2) will remove any powers from a county to control or influence anything of a planning nature in the joint planning area. This will cause a great deal of damage to a county's ability to plan for growth and development at a broader level.
This is a huge intrusion into the integrity of county government decision-making. This is a direct attack on a county's ability to provide standardized service levels. Providing the legal mechanism to let municipalities opt out of paying for county planning could be followed by mechanisms to opt out of county roads programs or county libraries. Counties must vigorously oppose legislation which could make it impossible for a county to provide a county-wide service and will affect how a county levy is distributed. Likely the municipalities wishing to opt out will be the more populous and affluent. That will make area planning even more difficult for those who are left.
Lambton county would prefer that the act require that all counties undertake planning. That was made a requirement for regions, and area-wide planning issues also exist for counties. All upper tiers should be required to plan. That would eliminate the need for section 14.
If the province is not willing to take this step, then it should provide that section 14 does not apply to any counties prescribed under section 17, counties which must have an official plan. How could a county undertake an official plan if it could not cover those municipalities which were doing joint planning on their own?
All counties with existing approved official plans should be prescribed. Those counties and any county which completes an official plan within five years of passage of the amendments should be exempt from the application of section 14. This would likely provide an incentive for some counties to undertake planning. No other incentive to undertake county planning exists in the bill.
The bill must be revised to require that there be a motion of consent from any affected county before the establishment of a joint planning area which will be able to opt out of county planning. The Legislature must make changes to section 14 or it could become a governance issue between the government and counties.
Lambton county understands the difficulties in establishing a county presence in planning which can be effective and at the same time trusted by the member municipal councils. The provincial approach to ensure at least a minimum level of cooperation is wrong; it has gone too far. It could encourage any municipality which was dissatisfied with county planning, for whatever reason and over even a short time period, to obtain the support of a neighbour and apply for their own planning authority, exempting them completely from the county.
Subsection 17(3) gives the power to regional municipalities with existing official plans to approve local official plans. Counties are not given this opportunity -- simply because they are not regions? Counties with planning departments and existing official plans must be given the same opportunities as regions to approve local planning documents in order to avoid further discrimination against counties.
1110
Subsection 17(19) provides that the provincial bureaucracy can refuse to consider an amendment if, in their opinion, the application is incomplete. There is no appeal. This places unwarranted and unacceptable control with the bureaucracy. An appeal mechanism must be established if an approval agency refuses to consider a plan or an amendment.
Subsection 17(29) permits the provincial bureaucracy to refuse to refer all or part of a proposed decision to the OMB. The bill, subsection (30), must be amended to provide that clause (29)(a) does not apply to a public body.
Section 51, approval authority for plans of subdivision: In the implementation report of 1990, which dealt with restructuring the county of Lambton and the city of Sarnia, it was agreed that the province should immediately delegate all approvals for subdivisions and condominiums to the county. Successive requests have been ignored, even though there was local agreement and the county had an approved official plan and experienced professional staff.
Section 51 proposes that any city within a county will obtain subdivision approvals but that all other municipalities in that county will have to continue to seek approvals in Toronto. Metro Toronto will not have the same powers as other regions. This just does not make sense. What is this government trying to say to Metro and all counties? All counties with existing official plans and all counties which enact official plans must be given the powers to approve official plans. Any further delegation to cities or to any municipalities within a county should be decided within a county, not mandated by the province.
In summary, the county of Lambton is convinced that the proposed Planning Act changes, when combined with the enforcement of the new, comprehensive provincial planning policies, will make planning at a local level a relatively meaningless exercise. The government intends to set up a top-down planning system in Ontario. The changes recommended in this brief will somewhat mute the adverse impact on all counties in the province.
Lambton county has recently restructured in a manner similar to Oxford county, except that the smaller municipalities were retained. The upper tier was greatly strengthened. Lambton county has had an approved official plan in place since 1980 and has shown a commitment to careful area-wide planning. Lambton county, and other counties which show a commitment to change, should be able to take advantage of all of the policies which have been made available to the regions and Oxford county.
Lambton county also supports the detailed recommendations of AMO on the bill, as the county has agreed with most of the AMO positions of this government's attempts at Planning Act reform.
Do you want me to go right into the local government disclosure of interest issues?
The Chair: Yes, please do.
Ms Marsh: All right.
Lambton county continues to have strong reservations with some of the provisions contained within the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994. In general, we have supported the recommendations made by AMO throughout the process of revision of the legislation. There are, however, some specific concerns which the county would like to discuss.
Specifically, the county of Lambton urges the province to consider adoption of the Manitoba model as it relates to the release of financial disclosure statements. As you may be aware, this model adopts a gatekeeper's philosophy. In other words, the financial statements are not routinely released or made available to the public for its inspection. Rather, specific inquiries regarding potential conflict must be made to the clerk in writing and the clerk must then respond in kind. Such an approach, the county believes, strikes a good balance between the privacy rights of the elected officials and the public's right to integrity and accountability in its politicians.
Lambton county also feels strongly that the defence of bona fide error should be maintained. Local politicians are only politicians on a part-time basis. They do not have access to the same sophisticated resources which the provincial and federal politicians do in order to ascertain whether or not their actions are in conflict with legislation. Even with such access to resources, it is still possible, as a cabinet minister for the Premier recently discovered, to run afoul of the legislation. Where a politician has attempted to comply with the legislation but has made a bona fide error, such should be a full defence in the event that charges are laid.
Related to the preceding point, Lambton county feels strongly that the commissioner, or someone in a similar position, should be available to provide counselling for members who wish to operate within the framework of the legislation and need advice in so doing. Many local politicians do not have access to the necessary resources, either legal or financial, which could prevent them from running afoul of the legislation. An accessible pool of expertise in the commissioner's office could greatly alleviate much of the guesswork on the part of those unable to find or to afford qualified help.
Lambton county is also concerned about the waste of resources. All municipalities are creatures of provincial statute. As the province has already established its own provincial commission, why must the same be established for municipalities created by the province? Both provincial and municipal politicians are elected pursuant to provincial laws. It seems to make sense that financial statements for both should be filed in the same office, for to do so would surely save resources.
Regarding the conduct of in camera meetings, the county is proud to note that its current procedural bylaw already complies with the changes proposed by the ministry. The county remains concerned, however, that the province not define too narrowly the list of issues which may be discussed in camera or restrict too tightly how or when such information may be released.
Finally, the county notes that there has been much discussion as of late regarding slander and libel suits against municipal politicians. There are several cases currently before the courts in other regions of the province. As well, the cases heard to date seem to contradict each other as there are little or no guidelines for the courts to follow. The county is accordingly concerned and urges the province to consider adopting provisions which would define and provide for the same level of privilege currently afforded to provincial members of Parliament.
That is our submission from Lambton county.
Mr McLean: I'd like to go back where you talk about the commission's recommendations on sewage and treatment and septic tanks. The Sewell commission had made some of those recommendations in their report and there's nothing in Bill 163 really that relates to that. The concern you have is that, I guess you feel it should have been in the report where they'd have to be looked at every five years or something?
Ms Marsh: I have to refresh my memory here myself.
Mr McLean: I think that's what the Sewell report wanted.
Ms Marsh: Yes, they did. They did ask for a five-year inspection and there were other concerns with septics. Septics have been left out completely and Lambton county now administers the septic program rather than the MOE or rather than the board of health in Lambton, so we do have concerns that septics were left out of Bill 163.
Mr McLean: Yes, I see that by your comments and I was wondering if your feeling was that they should have been left in. Obviously, you're saying yes.
Ms Marsh: Yes.
Mr McLean: Thank you. The other issue was subsection 17(19): "Provides that the provincial bureaucracy can refuse to consider an amendment if, in their opinion, the application is incomplete. There is no appeal. This places unwarranted and unacceptable control with the bureaucracy. An appeal mechanism must be established...." What type of an appeal mechanism would you like to see put in there, if an approval agency refuses to consider a plan of amendment?
Ms Marsh: Could I ask the planning director, Mr Boyd, to comment?
Mr Malcolm Boyd: The approval agency could well be an upper tier, so it's not just the province that this is concerned about. It could be an upper tier acting unreasonably as well. I think the appropriate place for that to go would be the board. I think the OMB is set up to deal with issues of equity and common sense and they're very good at what they do, so the proposal would be that that would provide for an appeal to the board. Otherwise, these things can get stuck for ever in a bureaucracy because they don't like the proposal and they can say, "Well, you haven't done enough studies. You have to do this study, that study," and they can grind you down, and at a certain point enough's enough and send it to the board.
1120
Mr McLean: The other areas, when Lambton and Sarnia were amalgamated, or I guess was it part of Clearwater that was going into part of Sarnia, the agreement was that the county would do the approvals. Was that a recommendation made by the ministry, that it would be the county that would do it? Obviously they never allowed you to fulfil that.
Mr Boyd: It came from a joint working group that had support from the ministry staff. The ministry staff were a support group. The irony here of course is that this bill will give the city the delegated power and no one else, and it just makes no sense in our jurisdiction where the city is part of the county.
Mr McLean: Why didn't they let you proceed with the approvals? Was it the ministry then that stopped you from proceeding?
Mr Boyd: Yes, it was ministry staff. Ministry staff don't like our official plan. They feel our official plan is outdated, and we don't understand frankly. It's an argument we've had with ministry staff. Our plan is the same age as Oxford's and as Huron's. Ours is a policy plan. They don't think it's detailed enough, but we feel it works well. We have complete official plan coverage from the lower tier. There's a model that the ministry staff didn't like and they've just never given us the approval.
Mr McLean: Would you say you were left out in the cold or left out in the heat, or just left out?
Mr Boyd: Just left out.
Mr Grandmaître: Depends on the season.
Mr Eddy: The agreement wasn't fulfilled.
Mr McLean: We understand that, Ron.
The other question I had had to do with the powers. You talked in your brief about the powers that Oxford and the regions have and that the county should also have the same powers, which I agree with, and that's what you're asking for. But I'm afraid that it may not happen, and obviously from your brief you're having some concerns about it too.
Ms Marsh: That's right.
Mr McLean: What do you think we should do to make it happen? I mean, we've discussed it with some of the ministry staff and I think they're saying yes, the county should have it. But what I'm saying is, what are the criteria laid out so that the counties know what they have to do in order to have that approval process that they've so badly wanted?
Mr Boyd: The biggest problem, of course, the province has is that there are counties and there are counties. We understand that there are counties that really don't function as counties and that there are counties that do. All I can say in our criteria we have restructured and we have an official plan, and I would think that should be enough.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): The first part of your brief, which is on the Planning Act amendments, stated that you do not believe that the local decision-making is enhanced. I would like to start out by saying that we believe, as a government, that the planning process across this province has not been a good process for many years and that it's certainly time that it was changed, and the principles on which we base the change are to give the municipalities more authority. I will ask the parliamentary assistant to clarify that more to give you the actual details about that.
We also wanted to be more efficient, to cut red tape, and I think that would be of benefit to everyone in Ontario. But it has to be based on sound principles, which are the principles that we have in our policy statements, that have to be consistent right across this province. I'd like you to try and think in those terms, that this is important to the people of the province as well, that they are interpreted locally but they are clear and consistent right across this province.
The other thing that's very important in this new process is participation by the citizens. I would hope that every municipality would have advisory groups that will come into the process and yet not slow that process down. So communication is very important between the citizens and the politicians as the planning process goes forward. At this point I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant to explain to you how this does in effect give you more decision-making power.
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: I'm always a lot briefer than many other politicians. First of all, I would like to get a little bit of clarification from the delegation because section 4 right now in the existing act allows counties to be delegated. In the earlier presentation, I said it doesn't show in 163 because it's already in that other section and we are looking favourably on amendments to deal with that area.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that your official plan is dated 1980. There haven't been any updates in that. Do you feel that you would meet the criteria today -- that's one question -- under 163? What is being said here is that there is an agreement, and I'm not questioning that at all, but what is the condition that the ministry is saying that you do not meet to be able to be delegated?
Mr Boyd: There have been changes of --
Interruption.
Mr Jackson: There's Ellen MacKinnon on the phone right now.
The Chair: Mr Boyd, please continue.
Mr Boyd: There have been changes in provincial administration of that part of the existing act. It swings back and forth. At the time the Sarnia-Lambton agreement came, there was a push on from higher up in the provincial staff to down-delegate because they were swamped. Then the issue with Grey county came in and all approvals were stopped. Now they've come on again, and they're inconsistent. I understand that some counties down east, Victoria and Prince Edward, have been delegated. There's no consistency. My sense is that it should be, if you have an approved official plan, that's it.
Now the province is saying it's got to have an approved official plan, the provincial staff is saying there's got to be an approved official plan incorporating all of our policy statements, and we don't understand why that makes any difference because you're not requiring that of regions. You're letting regions with old official plans have delegation. Why can't you do it to counties? We just don't understand the inconsistency of staff.
The Chair: We're running out of time, Mr Hayes, because we have the opposition as well.
Mr Hayes: All I'm saying is that --
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: Well, you can call it discrimination.
Mr Eddy: They're being treated differently.
Mr Hayes: You can do whatever you want, but we're in the process of changing discrimination that's been there for many years.
First of all, what we're saying here is that hopefully the whole idea of having this reform in planning is because of a lot of the problems that we've had in the past and in the present where things have been inconsistent. I think if I was still a municipal politician, I would certainly want to have provincial policies clear, which they're going to be, and guidelines where municipalities can plan properly and one area will not be treated different than the other area just because they're a region, a city or a county. That's why we're here today, and we'll be cleaning up some of these things.
Ms Marsh: We would agree with you, except for the exceptions that we've mentioned.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with the member for Niagara Falls that it is a complicated system and the intention of the government was to improve the system, but what the government has failed to do is to recognize what real counties have done in the past.
Those who have, let's say, observed the planning laws of this province, inadequate or not, have respected the demand of the government, but now we're changing the roles of not only regions but also counties. What the counties are telling us and have been telling us for the last three or four days is that it won't work: "You want to create a partnership but you're leaving us out." It's planning from the top down. You may not agree with me.
1130
Maybe I can ask the parliamentary assistant, in Mr Sewell's considerations and when he met with the different groups for the last two and a half years, what consideration did Mr Sewell give to counties that were respecting the existing planning laws?
The Chair: That's one question. Mr Eddy, do you want to add a point or a question, so we do that all at once, because there isn't much time left.
Mr Eddy: No, go ahead.
Mr Grandmaître: Can I get an answer for my question?
The Chair: All right, but just as a reminder that after that we may not have much more time left.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, tell the parliamentary assistant to be precise.
The Chair: He's usually precise and short.
Mr Hayes: Have you got the question?
Mr Grandmaître: That's it, that's my question.
Mr Hayes: Mr Sewell certainly wants this to be a policy-driven piece of legislation.
Mr Grandmaître: Right on.
Mr Hayes: That's what he wants to do, and also give the power to the upper-tier municipalities, and that's what we're working on.
Mr Eddy: Your worship Warden Marsh, thank you for bringing forward this brief. One point I wanted to make was, the wording "be consistent with" is a big change, but we're told it is flexible, and what was considered were the words "shall conform to," which are much stronger. We're told that "be consistent with" is middle ground and it's more flexible.
Now it's up to you to get that explanation from the ministry because you have pointed out that it isn't -- I agree completely with your views on joint planning. I'm really concerned about the agreement. If there ever is a county in Ontario that should have the delegation authority of approval, it's Lambton, because you are a region. You're not restructured, but you are partially. The town of Clearwater was added to the separated city. The separated city was brought into the county. You reallocated the services. In effect, you are a region, and it's discrimination. Did you write to the minister and ask for the delegation authority, and do you have a response and what does it say, and may I have a copy of it?
Ms Marsh: We wrote many times.
The Chair: I'm sorry. There's no more time.
Mr Eddy: Oh, I've finished.
Ms Marsh: You don't want an answer?
Mr Eddy: Yes. We just wasted half an hour, so we've got time for your answer.
Ms Marsh: We asked for that authority many times. The answer back, I believe, was always no, but I don't know the background.
Mr Boyd: The latest answer back has been it was pending Planning Act review.
Mr Eddy: Your fear of bureaucracy is well founded.
The Chair: Ms Marsh and Mr Boyd, we thank you for taking the time to come and thank you for the presentation you made to this committee.
Ms Marsh: Thank you for hearing us.
CHATHAM KENT HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association, Mr Gilles Michaud and Mr Henry Regts.
Mr Henry Regts: Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for the opportunity allowing us to make this presentation to you this morning. I'm making this presentation as a member of the Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association, of which I'm a past president. I will be referring to my notes and reading it for the most part, but I'll also do it off the hip a little bit, if you don't mind. I also have with me Mr Gilles Michaud, who's currently the president of the Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association.
We're making this presentation to you out of concern that while the objective -- I'm only addressing basically the matter of streamlining the Planning Act as it applies to land developers and builders. I know there's lots more in the Planning Act that we could be addressing or lots more in Bill 163 that I could be addressing, but we try to concern ourselves with those items that have to do with the land development industry. I'm concerned that even when we go through this process of Bill 163, if it's totally adopted as presented, we'll have an even more complex act than we had before and that the result will not be obtained, that is, of streamlining the process.
Now I'm making these comments, but I do want to give you a little personal history about myself. I'm a consulting civil engineer who has specialized in land development matters and official plan amendment zoning changes etc for almost 30 years. I'm currently a member of the Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association, I'm one of its past presidents, a former member of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, a member of the land development committee of that association for many years, and have acted as a consultant for land developers and have developed land on our own since about 1974.
I graduated from the University of Windsor and worked in that area for almost 10 years and was involved in the first official plan done for a county, by the way, which was the Essex county official plan, I believe. The company I worked for was G.V. Kleinfeldt and Associates, engineers, planners. I worked for them, and they produced that first plan. I was very much involved in the engineering aspect of that plan. Our company at the same time did the Huron official plan. I know that's outdated and been replaced since that time, but to give you an indication that I am aware of what planning's about and what official plans are about.
I've also served on planning boards. I served on a planning board of the town of Essex in 1966 and served in Chatham here on council. I'm on council presently, but I also served on LACAC committee prior to that. I'm not trying to pull rank or anything, but if I didn't tell you I was on council, you might say, "Well, there's a conflict of interest right there you didn't tell us about." I don't think this is a conflict of interest. It's saying that I have a real keen interest in community development, in home building, and that's why I'm here.
Mr Michaud is also a member of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and we have a professional code of ethics that we adhere to that we sign as members of that association. Over the past 20 years, I'm talking about since 1974, in Essex-Kent we have not seen any major development failures in our community that had a serious impact on home buyers whatsoever. I know Mr Hayes is from our community. He can probably attest to that in Chatham-Kent and Essex county. We haven't had any major failures of any kind, so that the system that has been in place has worked, although it has been very, very slow.
We also support the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, which is really for the protection of the consumer, more so than the builder, I think, as we all agree that know anything about it. Now, also the home builders maintain that they are the only ones speaking for the new home buyer and they're the only ones there promoting a new development, a new housing scheme or whatever. The new home buyer obviously isn't there because he hasn't got an interest in that place just yet.
Our organization, which is the Ontario Home Builders' Association, which we are a part of, has had many, many meetings with the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Mr Sewell and other organizations, and I think we're in favour of changes. I think you've heard us push for changes and we want to see changes. We would hope that these changes and guidelines would speed up the land development approval process, but we're very concerned there are some things there that will not speed it up but in actual fact will delay it. This is why we want to bring it to your attention here as well.
I'm not going to review this stack of documents I've got here with me, but I believe that you probably have a copy of the Ontario planning reform submission by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. If you haven't got it yet, you'll get it, and I didn't make 30 copies of it for you. But in addition to that the home builders do, you know, look at the guidelines and try to adhere to those streamlining guidelines.
New planning for Ontario, land use planning for housing, I think we're familiar with guidelines and we are prepared to accept proper guidelines for the development for our industry, which we think will be for the benefit of our communities.
I've said all of that, really, to let you know, and I think you people do know, that planning and housing matters have tended to become very, very complex and complicated and are interconnected to all kinds of other things. You do this thing here and you upset something else.
I'm not telling you anything new here, but please, what I'm here for, for one other thing, is that the policies that may be great for one particular area, for northern Ontario, may not work well for southwestern Ontario. If it's Toronto -- Chatham is only 40,000 people plus or minus. Those policies that work well in one area, you can't force down the throats of some area.
Please, when you listen to the county of Lambton, their situation's even different from the county of Kent and it's different from the county of Essex. I know that we have to have general rules in Ontario; I'm in favour of that. But please, one thing you'll hear over and over again from those of us who don't live in the Toronto region is, "Please don't give us Toronto solutions to our problems."
I say the same thing when I meet with the Ontario Home Builders' Association, when they have problems. Their problems are not our problems. Their problems are trying to keep up with building 100,000 homes. We've never had that problem around here.
Also, it's been my experience over the last 30 years that the larger the city, the greater the complexity. I don't think I have to belabour that; you would agree with that.
1140
Also I'd like you to know that in the Chatham-Kent-Essex area, we've been able to maintain low land prices. Our land prices are in the order of $500 to $600 to $700 a front foot for lot. If you go to Stratford, you go to London, you go to anywhere else, you're talking double those land prices, so we must be doing something right to maintain those prices. Also something has happened to us. We've had a major recession here in 1980, and I don't think we've fully recovered from that. If things are really booming here, I think our land prices would be substantially higher too.
Anyhow, I believe that, having worked with the municipalities from Windsor to Chatham to some in Lambton as well, the people have tended to be reasonable. Our major problems seem to be beyond the region, although we have problems in there as well.
I believe the revisions as proposed in Bill 163 do very little to reduce housing costs and, in fact, they do more to increase costs and I'm very concerned about that.
I had an opportunity to speak to Mr Hayes just briefly. I didn't know he was going to here this morning, but I've attached, in the appendix, an article. I share Mr Hayes's opinion that he's hoping this process would speed up the land development process. I'm 100% in favour of Mr Hayes, as you very well know, and if it doesn't happen, I'm going to be on your back and a few other people's backs as well, I suppose.
Furthermore, the government action on affordable housing in our area indicates that the Ministry of Housing is talking about financing an additional 50 to 100 homes in the Chatham area that I'm talking about. There's another attachment you have at the tail-end, a letter of mine to Mr Randy Hope indicating that we had over 64 ads in our paper indicating apartments for rent, probably in the order of 200 apartments. The last thing we need in our community is an additional 100 geared-to-income rental units when we have this kind of vacancy rate. We've been running 16% to 25% vacancy rate, contrary to what you heard from CMHC, about 3% or 4%.
We're concerned that that is not the answer to the housing situation. I've a son in the building business and Mr Michaud is in the building business. Our homes start here at $95,000 and up, and you can get a quality home for $115,000. If you take a trip around our city, I think you'll see what's available here at very reasonable prices. You can read the rest that I've written there, that in the rental industry right now, apartments just are not saleable at all because of rent controls etc.
But our main objective in seeking official plan amendments, zoning changes etc is really to put housing on the market, and housing that people want to buy and can afford. In our area I indicated to you that the prices, like $95,000 and up, get you a quality three-bedroom home.
Furthermore, I'd like you to know that the Ontario Home Builders' Association, if they haven't already made a presentation to you, have something like 3,600 to 4,000 members employing something like 60,000 or more people. When you use a multiplication factor there that probably translates into more like 240,000 jobs.
So I'm here to say that the Chatham Kent Home Builders' Association as well as the Ontario Home Builders' Association need your support, need Ontario government support and need your listening ear to be able to produce affordable housing. Mine is therefore the plea that you will listen to specific requests for amendments as made by the Ontario Home Builders' Association and supported by our association.
The total brief I think you already have, but I've just handed to you pages 25 to 31, which indicate some of the major changes that we feel should be addressed and we would like you to hear us on -- particularly page 26, section 6 is in the material that I attached to the lot I've given you. I heard talk about sustainable economic development and we feel that that concept should be defined or deleted.
There are specific references here to the Planning Act changes, and I don't know how much time I've got to go through those specifics or not, but those are the specific ones that I think are very important to our industry. How much time have I got, Madam Chairman?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): You have until 12 o'clock. It's up to you how much of that time you want to use, but please keep in mind that each of the parties would like to ask you questions.
Mr Regts: If I might, I would like to suggest that if you turn to the attachment that I gave to my letter, page 25, on the bottom of page 25 it talks about provincial interests. Obviously not every provincial interest is articulated as policy.
If you skip right down to the bottom of the page it says: "Provincial interests listed in legislation enjoy special status because they have been duly considered by elected officials," and I think that's rightfully so. Other things that are in policy guidelines that haven't been considered by elected officials should not have the same status.
On page 26, section 6, regarding subsection 3(5) of the act, it says, "shall be consistent with." You heard other presentations this morning. We feel that the proposed amendment, "shall be consistent with," should be deleted. We don't think it's beneficial to our industry.
Regarding approval of the official plans, on the bottom of page 26, subsection 17(16), we think there are going to be more delays in getting official plan amendments approved. If the approving body, such as the county or the city, can't make that decision within a week or even at that public meeting, why another 30 days to make a decision? If all the presentations have been made and council's ready to make a decision, let it make a decision rather than waiting 30 days.
Furthermore, the approval authority in this, if I'm speaking county or city, should have discretion as to who receives notification. We feel that speaks for itself.
Subsection 17(24), on the top of page 27, says, "Persons do not need 30 days to decide to ask for a referral. The time frame should be shortened to prevent unnecessary delays."
Over 30 years I've gone through many of these, which I consider vexatious and frivolous, but I've talked to Mrs Helen Cooper of the OMB, and she doesn't know what the definition is for that, and neither does anybody else. Yet I think there are frivolous and vexatious objections that should be dealt with immediately.
Subsection 17(29): Giving the approval authority the power to refuse to refer a decision to the OMB is a bit like allowing the catcher to call balls and strikes. Please, if the developer feels it should be referred to the OMB, why should anyone deny the developer that right, or the builder in this case?
More problematic, if something is determined premature, why not let it go to hearing to decide whether it really is premature? I have so often heard the word "premature" when that's just another way of delaying something rather than really dealing with it.
Public bodies are largely responsible for delays in the current approval process. I think we found that in our city, that it's not so much our local authorities as others that have held us up. That's not a general rule, but we are very concerned that greater delays, greater time factors, greater costs.
Subsection 17(40), page 28: If the board is rejecting an appeal because, for example, it believes the appeal is intended to delay or is frivolous and vexatious, a time frame should be set for notifying the appellant and allowing representation. The time frame should be 15 days for notice and 15 days to make representation.
This has been a real problem for us in the past. Oftentimes these zoning objections come in at the 11th hour, and now with fax machines we've had it where they come in late and still they came on the date of objection and they are being considered. Even though they're late and the OMB has new rules, they're being considered as an appeal. We feel there should be some better rules than that to take care of that matter.
Skipping down to section 14, re subsection 22(1): The time frame to hold a public meeting within 180 days is too long, given that a decision on the OPA must be made within 180 days. The time frame for a public meeting should be shorter.
I support that idea, that the time is very much of a cost factor here and anything that can be done to shorten up the time frame would be appreciated. Furthermore, waiting, that a proponent who wants to refer a matter to the OMB has to wait 180 days before he can do that, that's unrealistic. You have to wait six months before you can get an appeal and that just isn't proper, in our opinion, at all.
Interim control bylaws: Currently they're good for one year. The idea is to make them two years. My experience has been if there's an interim control in place for one year, they flip it over and have two years automatically virtually. If you make it two years, you virtually delay a project to four years. That's no way to reduce the cost of housing and that's no streamlining. We feel that proposed amendment should be deleted.
Plans of subdivision: There's a requirement now for a public meeting, and the Ontario Home Builders' Association is of the opinion that that public meeting is unwarranted. My personal experience has been that public meetings have worked in my favour, so I differ a little bit from my association on this particular issue. That's why I'm telling you it's not the same in Toronto as it might be in Chatham. In Chatham we've had good results with meeting with the public before rather than after. There's certainly some room for modifications there, I believe.
1150
On top of page 31, there's a provision for lapsing approvals which we think is unwarranted. Once you've gone through all the work and hassle of getting an approval through and then to find out in 12 months it could be simply thrown out, that you don't have an approval any more, it says right here, "will invite extortion by municipalities and force developers to bring product on stream when it cannot be absorbed by the market."
That's certainly true, ladies and gentlemen. There are certain projects in Chatham that have been extended and extended and extended and the market is still not there for them. I'm well aware a project could take 10 years and longer to bring on stream, and if the approvals couldn't be extended for a reasonable amount of time, it would just drive up costs even more.
The one that's of major concern to me as well is subsection 51(34). It has to do with redline changes to plans. Redline changes, as your adviser will tell you, are minor changes to plans. Please don't do away with that requirement or that possibility because there are needs for small changes that don't affect -- yes, that make the plan just 100% correct. That's all it does. It doesn't change anything else.
It might be in a situation where you might have originally had six lots and now you end up with five lots. We do that by a redline change. I think it's important that that stays in the act. As a further point, public meetings are also very time-consuming and very often with very little modifications or substance.
I've just about reviewed the sections that I feel I wanted to bring to your attention regarding the amendments to the Planning Act. I've reiterated on the second page of my letter that subsection 51(34) would appear to do away with what's called redline changes. We suggest that's improper and therefore, please, keep that in act, that that will be allowed in the future.
My summary: As a member of the home building industry, I am very concerned that our government receives submissions from our industry but does not appear to see the benefits or is not willing to implement them even for its own benefit as well as for the citizens of Ontario. A healthy and strong home building industry will distribute wealth across the province. It will also result in more taxes being paid by more people, keeping more people occupied and providing better health and stability for our society. If the research of the organization called Habitat for Humanity is valid, then the ownership of a home gives much greater stability to a family and provides both economic and social benefit. As members of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, we want to see this improvement to our communities.
Personally, having been involved in the home building industry and the land development industry for many years now, and for a number of years also involved politically in our community, we desperately need community economic development as well as industrial, commercial and residential development. If you like, I'm taking off my developer's hat here, but as a local politician, we want commercial and residential development. We need some of these reasonable changes.
I don't know when you ladies and gentlemen arrived, last night or early this morning, but if you take a drive through our downtown, it's in a desperate state. It's an area that has not seen development for many, many years. It needs something. We can also show you, if you take a drive around the city, the fine new subdivisions that are around our city right now. These are areas of new development, and I think they're a credit to our community. We believe as home builders we can continue to provide this kind of industry for our community, provided our provincial government gives us the necessary guidelines and support to carry out this work.
I'm not here running down the government, I'm not running down all the regulations you've tried to put forward, but I'm saying would you please, please listen to the people that are working in this industry. I want to work. When I work, I pay taxes. When I work, I provide housing for people, I provide a place for families to live in. I believe that's good for Ontario, I believe that's good for all of us.
When I, as a representative of the industry, come out and tell you what you're doing is harmful to us in industry, it's harmful to our communities, it's not for the benefit of Ontario, would you please listen. Would you please consider those points of view. That's not to say that the home builders have got all the answers for you: give them 100% of what they want, it'll be gold and gold for everybody. I doubt if that's the case. But I do believe that we do have professional ethics, that if you do check our records, what we do and what we produce is quality in this community and it's quality across Ontario by the Ontario Home Builders' Association.
Therefore, in closing, I respectfully request your careful review of the complete submission by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. Mine is but a small part of that. Where it's at all possible we could have agreement for changes, could we please have them from your government? In addition, if there are reductions in time available to us, then we need those time frame reductions. That's a major cost to us.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Regts, if you would like the committee to ask you questions, we do need this time. We've got five minutes left.
Mr Regts: Thank you very kindly. That's the end of my submission too, so I'm open to any questions you might have.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Regts. It's a very detailed one, and I'm sure people will look at these suggestions. The government side is first. I wondered if Mr Hayes would like to comment.
Mr Hayes: Yes, I'd like to just make two short comments. Henry, when you talk about the time frame to hold public meetings within 180 days being too long, I assure you, as a builder and developer, I realize that there is nothing there now that keeps from having that public meeting. It could be 300 days or two years or more. There's a time limit put in here on that.
The other thing is that I certainly appreciate your input and your suggestions, but the same as I told the individual yesterday from the home builders' association, the home builders' association is having input into the implementation advisory task force. As a matter of fact, I don't know Ian Rawlings and Jo Casey are here, but we are listening to the home builders' association along with many other organizations.
I'd like to just real quickly ask the staff, Philip here, to clarify the issue dealing with the redline changes.
Mr Philip McKinstry: The redline changes are still possible, but the government believes that some of these changes can be quite significant and that there should be some kind of at least public notification of those who have been involved in the development before. That was why that was put in. But they certainly are still possible, and we would recognize that they may often happen.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Now I'd like to ask Mr Curling if he has a question.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you very much. You know, as you made your presentation I could hear the frustration in your voice, for over the years developers have spoken to governments about making policies in Toronto that have a greater impact than the other cities and have no consistency really with the kind of development you want in your areas.
Most governments are obsessed with the fact of rent-geared-to-income housing policy and not really having an overall comprehensive housing policy, as you said, building homes that are affordable and identifying some of the frustrations, as I say, with the bureaucracy that are involved, in order to get your development on line.
One of those things which I'd like you to comment on in what has been coming forth in the housing policy here is the matter of the intensification, and the way it will be administered seemed to me was geared to downtown Toronto and somehow asking you to adhere to that kind of aspect of it.
The Vice-Chair: Would you like him to be able to answer this?
Mr Curling: Yes, of course I will ask him to answer that, and I know he will, and very anxious too, and as a matter of fact, the affordability aspect of it, about making about 30% percentile geared to a certain part of the income area of the community. Could you comment on those two areas for me?
Mr Regts: Well, I think the affordability criterion is for the 60% level of people and not spending more than 30% of the income towards housing costs. Intensification is not really a Chatham area, Windsor area, Essex-Kent county area problem at all. We have --
Interjection.
Mr Regts: Well, regardless of where it's from, we think it's a Toronto-centred problem and not so much -- we have lands in our city, like 600-plus acres, that we could do all the development without worrying about intensification by the large definition of intensification, so it's not very important to us.
But there are things in our downtown area, where we would like to take down commercial buildings and put in residential, maybe that's called intensification as well. If that's it, that's welcome. There are some of the things that we have to do downtown that we want to do downtown, but that kind of intensification is welcome. If it means simply increasing density, in our community there's just not that kind of need for that kind of thing.
Mr Jackson: Thank you very much, Mr Regts and Mr Michaud, for an excellent brief. You've covered a lot of territory.
Mr Regts, you didn't have occasion to comment about the disclosure and conflict-of-interest sections. Since you do wear two or three hats before us this morning, you may want to comment on that, but I'll set that aside for a moment. I'm intrigued by your letter to Randy Hope on the issue of the vacancies and so on. I am someone who has almost a similar background to yours and has been involved with rent control legislation since 1975 and have consistently voted against it in the Legislature.
I'm intrigued by the value of your rental properties, which are maintained at artificially high prices because they're locked in according to rent control and aren't allowed to fall freely and assist people with affordability. But I'm anxious to ask you why it is that you can't seem to convey, either locally or to the government, that with this kind of a vacancy rate, this kind of market intrusion by the government would have an adverse affect on the community.
I mean, it took courage to write a letter like this because self-interest would be: "Let's build more housing and who cares if it stays empty. Let's burn up the money, it's taxpayers', it's being shipped down the road from Toronto. To hell with them. Let's just build and have a few short-term jobs and we'll have another government disaster on our hands."
But you've had the courage to say: "Please, this is public money. Let's rethink it. We've got enough vacancies in our community" -- 16% to 20% is the figure I think you shared with us. That's pretty dramatic, and I know from my perspective we've been criticized, the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution has been criticized because we strike at this very issue.
The Vice-Chair: Would you like a response, Mr Jackson?
Mr Jackson: I'm going to get to it very quickly, Madam Chairman, thank you.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Where's that soapbox for Cam?
Mr Jackson: Well, we know you're very critical of it.
The Vice-Chair: Order.
Mr Eddy: Randy should have answered the letter and then we would have had an answer.
The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Jackson, would you place your question.
Mr Jackson: We're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on these kinds of projects and obviously one right in this community of Chatham. Would you like to comment on that, please.
Mr Regts: Mr Jackson and ladies and gentlemen, I think you've heard some presentation from our county as well. If you haven't, you're going to hear from our county. Our county and our city are a very frugal bunch of people. Rather than grab the government money and run and spend it, they've had a tendency not to do that.
I think if you know about our KAAG group, which is the joint group between our boards of education, public board of education, city of Chatham etc, our costs per pupil at our schools, both Catholic schools as well as Protestant schools, are the lowest in Ontario through cooperation that's been achieved between our county and our city.
We're not in the habit of grabbing government money saying, "Look, this is a government project, let's do it," but that's not to say it wouldn't be welcome. We were looking for that AgriCorp project that we didn't get. We would like to see the Judy LaMarsh Building filled with people working and staying in this community. Those are government jobs, and we would like to see our St Clair College grow. We do want that type of thing.
Now, I know you're getting to me about apartment buildings. Let me correct the 16% to 20% so that don't misunderstand on it. Those are our buildings, 16% to 20%, and they're smaller buildings. The official count is something like 4% or 5% around Chatham, but we have something like 4,000 apartment units in the city of Chatham and if you talk to the smaller apartment owners, like the apartment buildings from zero to 12 units and that type of thing, they have the highest vacancy rates and the units are available at low cost, and much lower cost than the subsidy rates that are being paid in the new projects in Chatham.
From our point of view after all, we will accept the government money when it comes in but it has not been wisely spent.
The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately, I will have to cut you off. I thank you, Mr Regts, for your presentation, and Mr Michaud for coming this morning. We have gone a little over time but I would like to advise the committee at this time that we will be starting this afternoon at 1:45. At this time we will adjourn the committee and I thank you for your brief. We will be carrying that forward.
The committee recessed from 1204 to 1345.
STELLA BERBYNUK
The Chair: I'd like to call the committee to order. We welcome Ms Stella Berbynuk. You have 15 minutes, and if you would like the members to ask you some questions, please leave as much time as you can for that.
Ms Stella Berbynuk: I will try to.
The Chair: Very well. Please begin any time you're ready.
Ms Berbynuk: I'm ready to begin. I want to thank this committee for allowing me to come and express my views. I'm not a professional in the sense that the other complainants have presented their cases. I'm going to do it from a very layman's point of view, and I hope I can add new dimensions to what has been said and what you have considered.
What I have done is, I have taken two sections of the Planning Act outline in a very ordinary way, and what I'd like to address my remarks to before I proceed with the particulars are two sections.
The provincial government will set the policy, the municipal government will make the decisions and the Ontario Municipal Board will pre-screen matters in order to refuse hearings to applicants or objectors for a list of reasons. Here I ask myself, is this a democratic process, to deny the right to be able to go and present your case before the OMB? It is a well-known fact that the Ontario Municipal Board can be biased in its decisions and favour mostly politically influential developers.
Then what I did next is, I read the following reasons for Bill 163. One was to eliminate controversies over decisions around land use in Ontario -- I question the validity of that kind of statement -- and to create an ecosystem planning process that meets the needs of the community, the economy and the environment. I ask myself, is this apple pie in the sky, or is it an impossible dream? I went to the dictionary and I looked up the definition of "ecosystem," where it defined the system as "a complex of ecological community and environment forming a functional whole in nature." I don't know whether that is possible and I will address that a little bit further.
Now I'll come to the provincial government establishing land use planning, which the municipalities will follow or else. I want to go back to the 1970s. The Tory government imposed zoning orders which froze certain land developments and advised municipal governments that if the zoning bylaws did not incorporate the policies of the zoning order, there would be objection forthcoming from several provincial agencies. It sounds to me like Bill 163 is similar to that. I was hoping we would get away from that.
I won't talk about municipalities, because they're various shapes, forms and a combination of many shortcomings. I would like to point out what happened in the 1980s, talking about protecting farm land. I don't know whether that is possible under Bill 163. I can remember in the mid-1980s when Bill Davis raved about living in Brampton, and he talked about it everywhere he went, whether it was in Windsor or Toronto or Detroit or Tokyo or London. They went before the board, and what was involved here was 2,000 acres of prime land in Brampton, and the OMB did not deny a hearing but ruled that the development should go on. So I say to myself, for the OMB to deny an applicant a hearing for a list of reasons is a denial of a person's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just for the sake of expediency.
Now I would like to take your attention to the questions of the ecosystem and the economy. I'm just wondering in this world, where everybody's working to one global effort to survive, whether that is possible. Let me go here into certain newspaper articles why I find it isn't feasible to do what the bill proposes. I mean, it's a very ideal situation, but in this world, there's no such thing as an ideal situation.
In the early 1970s, zoning orders were imposed to protect development on the grounds that development in certain areas would endanger future inhabitants due to the fact that there are plenty of poisonous residues in underwater sediment. Some 24 years later, it's the same, if not worse, and I'm just wondering if we have to go through the process where we have the planning board or committee tell us, "Really, is this the way we should go?"
I don't think I have to tell this committee about the dangers of the sediment that lies -- and I'm going to talk about Lake St Clair, because I live there, and on the Thames River. I would say less waste is being dumped into the Great Lakes, but there are plenty of poisonous residues in the underwater sediment just waiting to be stirred up. We had Dow Chemical and large corporations, Ontario Hydro and other big conglomerates, that have poisoned our lakes and still persist in doing so, even though to a lesser degree.
The other question I would like to address here -- and here I have articles -- the Detroit newspaper has really reported some very, very extensive reports on the conditions of Lake Saint Clair. There is something that just recently developed we weren't really aware of, and it was because of zebra mussels entering our lake system:
"Zebra mussels scarf a lot of algae. That means more sunlight can filter through to the bottom of the lakes, causing more seaweed to grow. The weeds eventually break off and wash to shore in stinking blobs, providing a perfect medium for burgeoning faecal bacteria."
Now, that happened on the shores of Riverside and all the properties on the Canadian side of Lake Saint Clair. Tons and tons had to be removed. People were very upset about the situation, and nothing could be done for them.
It goes on to say, "Some scientists say that the cleaner waters mean high coliform counts and mounds of messy seaweed will become more common along Michigan shores," and, as you say, Canadian shores in the future.
Now, I would like to go into some of the things and read another article, which was reported on April 21, 1994. This is a very serious condemnation of what is happening in the Great Lakes:
"Only a fraction of the Great Lakes, which contain one fifth of the world's fresh surface water, is fit to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday. A survey that includes 99% of 8,560 kilometres of Great Lakes shoreline found only 2% in top condition, safe for drinking, fishing and swimming and able to support aquatic wildlife and toxic-free shellfish.
"Oceans fared best, 80% able to support all uses. Rivers and streams, 18% of which were assessed, were good for all uses 50% of the time.
"The prevalent pollution includes PCBs, mercury and DDTs, mainly from air and rain but also from industrial and municipal discharges, landfill disposal, urban runoff and sewage overflows and 30% of the droppings from birds and wildlife."
I'm cutting it short. Maybe it would be best for you to ask me questions, which I hope I can answer from my very small experience.
Now, it has been reported in the Ontario Private Campground Association books that: "Ontario has more than 250,000 lakes, thousands of kilometres of rivers and streams and almost 90,000 square kilometres of Great Lakes. More than 150 species of fish live in these waters. There has been some concern the way that commercial fishermen" -- now, I'm not trying to say to stop it. But what happens is that they put their nets out into the waters, and on rainy days or very bad days it's very difficult for them to get them and a lot of fish die. It's important to the tourism industry and the recreation industry. Statistics show that every year nearly three million residents and 700,000 non-residents enjoy fishing in Ontario.
1400
We'll talk about water. I thought I had my article here on water. Water is very important, and it's becoming an issue because of the United States. What if they ask us to assist them in their water problems? I ask, how could we deny them water when they're such a good neighbour? So we have to worry about water.
I think I am correct in saying that the Ontario government has awarded a firm to explore how to save water, to cut down the use of water.
This was done many, many years ago, and I'll show you some of the statistics we have here: flushing toilets, daily use, 41%, and only requires 102 gallons; bathing and showering, daily use is 37%, 70 gallons and requires 23 gallons of cold water; cooking, washing, drinking, 14%, 15 gallons of heated water and 20 gallons of cold water; washing cars and watering lawns and plants is only 4% and only requires 10 gallons.
So it's important that we do have these systems whereby we can conserve water. There have been showerheads devised, also water restriction units, and I'm wondering why these are not being mandated in some way, shape or form for the people in Ontario to use these units, because the day will come when we're not going to have that water. This, I think, should be the one aspect.
The other aspect that's so vital to our lives is air. That we can't control to a big degree, because when you think of Mount Pinatubo, what did it do? And then the oil burning in Saudi Arabia, what did it do to the air? It travels all over the world.
I think I will leave it at that. Now you can shoot your questions at me.
The Chair: I wish we had time for that, actually, but we've run out of time.
Ms Berbynuk: I've talked 15 minutes?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: See how time flies when you're having fun?
The Chair: But we appreciate very much your coming and taking the time to present this brief to us.
Ms Berbynuk: Thank you for having me. I hope I did add some dimensions to some of the problems that maybe other people expressed.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail. I think, in order to save our economy and sort of get ourselves out of the mess we are in, immigration must be controlled. We cannot afford any more of this. We can afford to probably send them food and maybe our doctors and our medicine, but to bring them here, we just can't afford it any more.
The Chair: Thank you.
MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite the Municipal Electric Association, Mr Jim Yarrow as the chair, and Mr George Hostick is the past president. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Jim Yarrow: If anybody's late this afternoon, I don't know whether you noticed it coming down this morning, but it's too bad this isn't a roads committee of some kind. The 401 is just a mess around the Toronto area. In fact, I'd like to find out if it's still a mess for going home.
Interjections.
Mr Yarrow: I think I've started a whole new committee, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: The mess committee. Please begin.
Mr Yarrow: I'd like to thank you, Mr Chairman, and the committee for hearing us this afternoon. My name is Jim Yarrow and I chair the Municipal Electric Association, or the MEA. As well, I chair the Brampton Hydro Electric Commission. Joining me is George Hostick, president of the MEA and also the general manager of Niagara Falls Hydro. Kevin McGuire, our staff member from the MEA, is sitting just behind us.
The Municipal Electric Association was formed in 1986 from two predecessor organizations: one that represented elected and appointed commissioners and one that represented utility management. Today the MEA represents Ontario's 307 municipal electric utilities, which serve 75% of the province's electricity consumers.
The MEA welcomes the opportunity to address the standing committee on administration of justice hearings on Bill 163 and to lend our voices to that discussion.
As the elected and appointed members of municipal electric utility commissions will be directly affected by the proposed legislation, the MEA has developed this presentation on behalf of our members. As the umbrella organization for hydro-electric commissions and public utilities commissions in the province, we have prepared the following remarks. We expect that some individual utilities may lend their own voices to the discussions as well.
Although we are concerned with the entire bill, the main focus of our presentation this afternoon will be on the disclosure-of-interest and open local government sections.
In principle, the MEA supports the government's efforts in trying to limit instances of conflict of interest. The MEA supports the provincial government's intent, but we question the vehicle through which the government has chosen to achieve these goals. Commission members can continue to declare a potential conflict of interest without having to disclose their holdings. Current practice within our industry is that commissioners declare a potential conflict of interest on matters that come before the commission. This practice has worked very effectively. Municipal electric utilities have remained relatively free of instances of conflict-of-interest problems. Consequently, MEA members question the need for the filing of disclosure-of-interest statements.
Many of our members have expressed the concern that the prospect of revealing one's holdings may deter excellent individuals from seeking office. In many communities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract individuals of quality to seek office. The reluctance of individuals to reveal their holdings could lead to further difficulties in attracting individuals to serve the public.
The MEA recommends that rather than requiring appointed and elected members to file a disclosure-of-interest statement, the legislation should include specific procedures for declaring a potential conflict of interest and the steps that must be followed once a potential conflict of interest has been declared.
Although the MEA is not recommending that the government proceed with the requirement for filing disclosure-of-interest statements, it is supportive of the position that will be brought forward to this committee by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It is our understanding that AMO will consider or will recommend that the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act be modelled after the Manitoba Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act as it relates to the release of information from the financial disclosure statements. We understand that under the Manitoba legislation the clerk of the municipality or secretary of the board acts as the custodian of the information. Copies of the disclosure-of-interest statements are not released directly, but information found in the statement may be made available upon request. In this way the member's privacy is protected. This is a far less intrusive model, in our opinion.
1410
The MEA is also very concerned about the cost implications of the proposed legislation. Section 7 of the bill gives the minister the authority to appoint a commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the duties set out in the act. We question the need for the appointment of a commissioner under the act, given the significant cost associated with the establishment and running of yet another office of commissioner. We also question the need for the further expansion of the provincial bureaucracy. Given the provincial government's commitment to cost controls, the MEA wonders whether the government should be increasing the size and scope of the provincial bureaucracy.
We are also concerned about the cost to utilities of having to collect and maintain members' disclosure-of-interest statements. This is an additional cost that our customers will be forced to bear. Both from a cost factor and the effect on members' privacy, the filing of disclosure statements should be deleted from the bill.
As we said a moment ago, our members strongly question the need for the legislation. Nevertheless, given the government's stated intent to proceed, we do have specific concerns which we wish to address.
Although not set out in statute, it has been a valuable practice to appoint persons to the Ontario Hydro board of directors from municipal electric commissions. As Ontario Hydro's largest customer, distributing 70% of the electricity consumed in the province, municipal utilities have indeed argued for greater representation on the Hydro board. Ontario Hydro is the utility regulator, approves rates and also sells electricity to municipal utilities. It could be argued that Ontario Hydro has a pecuniary interest in many utility decisions. In its current form, Bill 163 impacts on utility commissioners' ability to continue to sit as effective members of the Ontario Hydro board. Subclause 2(3)(a)(iv) states that a member of a local board has "a pecuniary interest" if he or she "is a member of a body that has pecuniary interest in the matter."
The MEA believes it is vitally important that municipal utility commissioners continue to sit on the Hydro board. As an integral part of the electrical industry in the province, we know the business. Municipal utility representatives provide valuable input into the operation of the Ontario Hydro corporation. This input should not be lost. We are proposing that clause (h) of section 3 be amended in order that utility commissioners continue to sit as effective members on the "body," Ontario Hydro. We are recommending that the phrase "or an association of councils or boards" be added after "board" in the last line. In a moment, I'll recite the proposed change that this phrase creates: an exemption for representatives of the MEA or other similar associations.
Similarly, members of the Municipal Electric Association's board of directors are in part made up of municipal electric utility commissioners. In some cases, decisions made by the association may have a pecuniary impact on the operation of individual utilities. MEA sells services to its members, albeit on a cooperative non-profit basis. Utility commissioners also sit as members of the Municipal Electric Association Reciprocal Insurance Exchange board of directors. MEARIE, which operates as a separate entity from the MEA, is a reciprocal insurance exchange based on a contractual agreement signed by all of its members by which those risks common to public utility commissioners are shared. Again, actions and decisions of the MEARIE board may have a pecuniary impact on local utilities.
We therefore suggest that clause (g) of section 3 be amended, and I'll deal with just how that would read in a moment. We are recommending that the phrase "or by a group of municipalities or boards" be added to the clause. Again, the addition of this phrase creates an exemption for individuals who sit as members of the MEA or other similar associations.
Language should be changed in clause (h) to say "as a member or office holder of a council, board or other body when it is required by law or by virtue of office or results from a nomination or appointment by council, board or an association of councils or boards."
Again, we are recommending that the language in clause (g) should be changed to say "as a director or senior officer of a corporation incorporated by the municipality or board or by a group of municipalities or boards or to carry on business on behalf of the municipality or board or by a group of municipalities or boards or as a person nominated by the council or board or by a group of municipalities or boards as a director or officer of the corporation."
Clearly, the MEA supports the principles of openness, transparency and the public's right to know. As discussions and decisions which occur during commission meetings and special meetings may have a direct impact on the public, the public should have an opportunity to participate in those discussions or be present during the deliberations. Members of the public should not only be aware of the board's decision, but should also be aware of how the board came to its decision. The MEA supports this principle; however, as with most principles, some exceptions must be put in place.
As members of the standing committee are well aware, discussions are often held during which various options are explored and solutions are hashed out. In many cases, the discussion is politically sensitive and therefore takes place in closed meetings. This is the case with cabinet and caucus meetings at both the provincial and the federal levels. The same principle should hold true for the local level of government. If discussions are forced into the public, more and more of the discussions will take place at the staff level. The result could be that local officials will tend to rubber-stamp staff positions. We strongly caution against this. We recommend a broadening of the exception for open meetings as set out in section 55 of the bill.
An additional exemption should be included which would read "advice regarding strategic planning and rate setting."
The MEA fully appreciates the rationale for the disclosure of gifts and benefits received as an incident of protocol or social obligations accompanying the responsibilities of office. It is our understanding that the minister will make a regulation setting out the limit for non-reporting of the gift or benefit at $200. This appears to be based on subsections 6(2) and (3) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, which place the monetary limit at $200. Bill 163 also allows for the commission to pass a resolution to set the limit at a lower value.
Given the fact that the Members' Conflict of Interest Act is six years old and that the monetary limits may be dated, the MEA suggests the monetary limit for the non-reporting of gifts and benefits could be set at a higher level. Bill 163 should continue to allow local boards to pass a resolution to set the limit lower. We support the government's decision to have the limit set out in regulations, thereby allowing for regular increases to the limit, if needed, without the difficulty of trying to amend the legislation.
Subsection 6(2) requires that pubic utility commissioners file a financial disclosure statement with the secretary of the commission within 60 days of being appointed or elected. The bill does not indicate whether the secretary must ensure that the information that is filed by the commissioner is accurate. We question whether the onus rests with the member or the secretary of the commission to ensure that the information filed is in fact accurate. As well, there appears to be no penalty for failing to file. What course of action must the secretary take if a member fails to file?
The end of this presentation and the recommendations: The MEA is seeking an amendment to the bill in order to clarify the role and responsibilities of the commission secretary as it pertains to the filing of a financial disclosure statement.
Although the major focus of our presentation is on the local government disclosure-of-interest aspect of the bill, the MEA also has some concerns with the Planning Act amendments. The MEA is concerned that the proposed changes under the bill will impose provincial policy standards on local decision-making. In some cases, the provincial interest may conflict with local interests. Currently, subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act states that municipalities and local boards "shall have regard" to provincial policy statements in exercising planning matters. Bill 163 amends this section so that municipalities and local boards "shall be consistent with" provincial policy statements.
1420
The proposed amendment will, in effect, mandate provincial policy upon municipal utility commissions with regard to any planning decisions rather than requiring utilities to consider provincial policy when making planning decisions. The nature of the electricity technology requires a level of flexibility which takes into account local conditions. We can foresee a potential conflict between the provincial policy and local conditions. We therefore recommend that the current language found in section 3(5) of the Planning Act be retained.
The MEA recommendations can be summarized as follows:
(1) The requirement to file disclosure of interest statements should be removed from the bill.
(2) In order to control costs, the office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner should not be established.
(3) The standing committee should adopt AMO's recommendation that the Manitoba Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act be a model for the Ontario legislation.
(4) Amend the pecuniary interest sections in order to allow commissioners to continue to sit as effective members of the boards of Ontario Hydro, the MEA and MEARIE.
(5) Broaden the exemptions from open meetings.
(6) Recommend that the monetary limit for the non-reporting of gifts and benefits be set at a level higher that is being considered and that municipalities and boards continue to be able to set a lower limit.
(7) The commission secretary's responsibilities and authority concerning the maintaining of disclosure-of-interest statements should be clarified.
(8) The current language found in section 3(5) of the Planning Act should be retained.
On behalf of the MEA, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express our concerns. We trust that our presentation will assist you in the task of improving the bill. Given the government's commitment to move forward on the bill, the MEA has attempted to provide positive suggestions for amending the proposed legislation. We are prepared to answer questions.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for your presentation. I go back to page 2 of your presentation, "....continue to declare a potential conflict of interest." I was always told there's no such thing as a potential conflict of interest. You do have a conflict or you don't have.
Mr Yarrow: I used to be on municipal council and I think that language comes from the Municipal Act at a previous point in time. I think the meaning is more important than the wording in this instance and I wouldn't argue with your point.
Mr Grandmaître: My second question has to do with the commissioner, that you don't think that a commissioner is needed. If the legislation goes through, would you accept that the provincial commissioner, the existing provincial commissioner, become the municipal commissioner as well and hold both offices?
Mr Yarrow: That would obviously be an alternative and would satisfy the recommendations that we have of cost control.
Mr Grandmaître: I'm sure you're not too pleased about the cost of this --
Mr Yarrow: No.
Mr Grandmaître: -- commissioner's office because you would have to pay for it, not the provincial government.
Mr Yarrow: That's correct.
Mr Grandmaître: This would be the responsibility of the municipal government school boards and also of your office.
Generally speaking, I don't think you agree that we should add a disclosure --
Mr Yarrow: I think we state that very clearly.
Mr Grandmaître: Good. I hope your message gets to the minister and the ministry. Thank you.
Mr McLean: On the issue you raised with regard to somebody not filling it out properly or not disclosing all of their finances, can the ministry staff tell me what would happen if somebody made a mistake in filling out their forms?
Mr Peter-John Sidebottom: The obligation would be on someone, I suppose, to initially raise this with the member. Failing that, if members insisted that the information was correct, then the option would be to ask the commissioner to investigate to determine whether in fact it was accurate.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is: Is the ministry acceptable to looking at alternatives such as the Manitoba model? Are they willing to look at that as an alternative?
Mr Hayes: I think we will certainly review any proposals or amendments that are made. As far as saying, "Yeah, we'll go that route," I'm not about to say that, but we'll certainly prepare it and we think we have a piece of legislation here that is probably better than the Manitoba one.
Mr McLean: Well, obviously we're not getting any answers.
Mr Hayes: I'm sorry, Mr McLean. We have these meetings to get people's input and we'll review all the comments that are made and recommendations that are made. I think that's all we can commit.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr Hayes just what was wrong with the Manitoba plan that was drafted by a real social democratic party in Manitoba.
Mr Hayes: Well, there's always lots of room, regardless of what party you're in, for improvements and --
Mr Yarrow: I thought this was our appearance.
Mr Hayes: No, no, not at all.
The Chair: Mr White first, and then if there's time for another question --
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'll defer to Ms Harrington.
Ms Harrington: First of all, I'd like to thank both of you gentlemen for coming this distance on the 401. I certainly realize how far it is.
I wanted to ask you about your stand on the office of the commissioner. I'm wondering if you're aware of some of the reasons that we went to this idea. In the past, a citizen who wanted to pursue a matter where he or she felt there was a matter of conflict of interest would in effect have to go to the courts and would have to do it at their own expense, I believe; that is, with the cost of a lawyer. In effect, this is really helping our society to not have those barriers, and there certainly are advantages to having a commissioner dealing with about 7,500 people who are in municipal elected office across this province, to help them as well.
Actually, I should ask the ministry staff to comment on that particular aspect or reason for having a commissioner. Have I stated it correctly?
Mr Grandmaître: I think so. I heard your question very clearly, but the answer will be --
The Chair: Are you seeking affirmation of your statement?
Ms Harrington: From the ministry that this is one of the reasons we've gone to a commissioner, so that the general public does not have to go through a lawyer.
Mr Sidebottom: Our findings have been, over the last 20 years of experience with the legislation and, more recently, the last four or five years, that the costs have become prohibitive and in fact have acted as barriers to justice, so that the average person would be quite reluctant to gamble $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 to enforce what is a public piece of legislation.
There are two aspects, one being the cost and the other being that this is public legislation involving a public officer and yet it went to a private individual, which people felt was inappropriate.
Ms Harrington: I wanted to make sure that you did have the background as to why this was important, and if you did wish to comment further, Mr Yarrow or Mr Hostick.
Mr Yarrow: I think it was stated earlier, would we consider the alternative to be an existing commissioner? I'd suggest that would be one way to answer the question of cost.
Ms Harrington: So your main concern was just the cost?
Mr Yarrow: Yes.
Ms Harrington: Well, hopefully we're not, as you say, setting up a bureaucracy; we're setting up a smoothly functioning, efficient, one-person system.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Harrington. Mr Hayes has a few comments to make by way of clarification.
Mr Hayes: In your presentation, when you talk about section 3 of the disclosure of interest act, (g) and (h), this legislation that's existing legislation right now, outside of very minor, it doesn't change those sections at all under the new act.
Mr Yarrow: I think it's the overall context.
Mr Hayes: I know, but there's legislation that's been there for years. We're taking it and putting it in here.
Mr Grandmaître: From the municipal act or --
Mr Hayes: No, from the conflict-of-interest act.
Yes. There was another area when you talked about the clerk and what procedures. It is spelled out quite clearly in section 15, where the clerk of a municipality and the secretary of a board shall maintain a register of disclosures for the members of the council or board respectively, and there's a fair number that it lists here on the procedures that have to be followed and have to be met.
Mr Yarrow: I think the main import there as far as we were concerned had to do with whether or not the information being filed was accurate, and how do you attest the accuracy of it? I would submit that of course on a personal level --
Mr Hayes: The commissioner would be doing that, and I don't believe it would be the clerk if someone questioned it. I mean, the commissioner provincially would be the one who would be checking it out.
The Chair: I think we are finished with questions and other points. We thank you very much for coming today and thank you for the presentation.
Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, could I have clarification from the parliamentary assistant? How many commissioner offices are you going to open up in northern Ontario?
The Chair: A staff person, perhaps?
Mr Hayes: I don't plan on opening any myself.
The Chair: A rephrasing of that, please? Not a rephrasing: Please restate the question so that a staff person can --
Mr McLean: How many offices of the commissioner are going to be opened up in northern Ontario?
Mr Sidebottom: The legislation provides that the minister will appoint a commissioner and then the commissioner has certain powers to appoint assistant commissioners. But there is, as I understand it, no intention at this point to open, if you like, regional offices for the commissioner. Most of the work of the commission will be done through the mails. People will be submitting documents in writing, so there won't be as great a need to have onsite hearings with individuals.
STOREY, SAMWAYS PLANNING LTD
The Chair: We invite Storey, Samways Planning Ltd, Mr Tom Storey, president.
Mr Tom Storey: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My colleague is George Denys, who is the deputy reeve of the township of Raleigh. Maybe by way of introducing myself, I can indicate how he fits into sitting up here with me.
As you noted, I am the president of Storey, Samways Planning. I've been practicing planning in the Kent-Essex area for approximately 20 years. I'm here today representing the township of Harwich and the township of Raleigh, and Mr Denys is the deputy reeve of Raleigh. When I saw him arrive, I thought it would be prudent for me to invite him to come up here with me since I'm representing him. He may have some words of his own either in answer to questions or in addition to what I've provided you in a written format.
This presentation is made on behalf of the township of Harwich and the township of Raleigh, located in south-central Kent county, total population of 12,500, a population which has remained unchanged since 1971. The two townships comprise approximately 170,000 acres. Most of that land is either prime agricultural land or speciality crop land. I'd like to add -- it's not in here -- that although the population is remaining steady, in fact their demographics have changed radically. The rural farm population in these two townships, as well as most of Kent county, has decreased by about half, and this has led to a lot of changes and pressures on the various development scenarios which could occur in the township.
The townships are concerned about retaining local control of land-use planning, protecting their strong agricultural economy, but pursuing other economic development opportunities which may exist in the interest of diversification and community economic improvement. They have been very active in a wide variety of long-term strategic planning endeavours in recent years, including the preparation of several recent papers on the Sewell commission report. The townships are very near to concluding a precedent-setting, comprehensive intermunicipal planning and water service area agreement with the city of Chatham, solving problems that required provincial intervention and great expense in other municipalities such as Sarnia and London.
The townships are concerned that the passage of Bill 163 as it presently stands will result in further concentration of land-use planning authority in the provincial bureaucracy and not, as claimed by the minister, in the empowerment of lower- or upper-tier municipalities.
Subsection 6(2) of the act -- I'm talking about Bill 163 there when I refer to the act -- replaces subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act in that local municipalities must now "be consistent with" provincial policies rather than "having regard to" these policies. The existing section places a significant burden on a municipality to prove why it should be able to depart from stated provincial policy. This has permitted local councils a reasonable if limited flexibility in applying provincial policy and has mitigated any abuse of power by the province by providing a third-party arbitrator of disputes in such matters; ie, the OMB. Also, the courts and the OMB have developed a jurisprudence regarding interpretation and application of the phrase "have regard to" which is now understood by all parties in the land-use planning field.
With the issuing of a new comprehensive set of policy statements and implementation guidelines, the province has occupied a powerful policy position, as recommended by the Sewell commission, which should not require the imposition of further limits on local decision-making.
Section 10 of Bill 163, where it proposes a new subsection 17(29), would now allow the ministry to refuse a referral to the OMB of an official plan amendment passed by a municipal council on the grounds that there are no apparent planning grounds or that the plan is premature. I have a lot of experience in going to municipal board hearings, and these are in fact very often the issues to be decided at an OMB hearing.
In subsection 17(11) of the present act, the minister is required to refer an amendment if requested by a council. The ministry cannot refuse to refer based on its own value judgement of the planning merits of the plan, as it will now be able to do under Bill 163. This is clearly a usurpation of authority by the province and a denial of a basic right of an elected council to third-party arbitration before the municipal board.
Subsection 42(1) of the act, which amends section 70.1 of the Planning Act, provides the ministry in clause (e) the power to dictate "the contents of official plans" for a single municipality or a group or class of municipalities by regulation. There are two concerns with this item.
First, in 1993, Bill 40 of that year gave the ministry the power to enact regulations under the Planning Act, a power reserved prior to that for the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- the cabinet, in other words. At the time, the minister could only regulate innocuous matters of procedure, and that may be why no one took particular notice.
However, now a municipality is confronted with a circumstance whereby the ministry has the power to virtually amend or force amendment to a municipal plan by regulation, without even the modest buffering or check on such authority previously offered by the cabinet. This is a substantial power shift to the provincial bureaucracy at the expense of an elected municipal council. Once again there is reason to question why the planning process in Ontario is not given an opportunity to "test drive" the new policy statements without resorting to such additional draconian measures.
Part I of the act replaces the old Ontario Planning and Development Act with a new OPDA which is set out in schedule A of Bill 163. This is a very powerful act, seldom used in the past, which gives the minister the power to order the establishment of development planning areas and prepare plans for these areas which would override municipal bylaws and existing official plan policies. In the old OPDA, such an order had to be approved by the Legislature. Now approval is only required by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Also, in the old act the minister could only refuse to consider an amendment to the development plan if it was not made in good faith, was frivolous or was made only for the purpose of delay. In the proposed act, the minister can refuse to consider an amendment if it is not in the provincial interest. Given the much-broadened provincial interests described in part III, section 5 of Bill 163, which replaces section 2 of the Planning Act, it would appear the ministry has almost carte blanche in this matter. As in previous instances described above, local municipalities are now denied an avenue of open consideration of an important planning matter at the provincial level, ie, approval of a plan by the Legislature, and the disposition of locally prepared amendments to a provincially driven plan is subject to value judgements of provincial bureaucrats rather than third-party arbitration.
The Sewell commission proposed a planning system which gave the province much greater control of policy issues but balanced that authority by providing municipalities greater approval authority. In particular, Sewell recommended that counties with official plans become approval authorities for lower-tier official plans and plans of subdivision. Bill 163, while granting such authority to several regions, does not make any statement regarding counties. Therefore, a vital check on provincial authority in local planning issues concerning the system of power redistribution envisioned by Sewell is missing. For municipalities like Harwich and Raleigh, there's nothing to offset the considerable new power of the provincial bureaucracy which I've alluded to above.
1440
Conclusions:
(1) By making it difficult, if not impossible, to vary from the strict wording of new provincial policy statements, many of them prohibitive in nature, Bill 163 places further limits on the land use planning decision-making authority of municipal councils to the point where they are afforded virtually no flexibility of interpretation and no reasonable recourse to the OMB to overcome any abuse of power by the provincial bureaucracy. This situation is exacerbated even further by the lack of a formal or legislated public input and approval process for implementation guidelines prepared by the province.
(2) The right of a municipality to third-party arbitration by the OMB, an important mitigation of provincial bureaucratic power in the past, has been greatly reduced by the right of the ministry to refuse referral to the OMB of official plan matters approved by municipal councils based only on value judgements of the planning merits of the subject issue.
(3) The provincial bureaucracy can now virtually amend or force amendment of municipal official plans by regulation. Such action should be considered a denial of the right to due process otherwise provided in the Planning Act and an important cornerstone of the planning review system proposed by the Sewell commission.
(4) The only true check of the substantial power given to the provincial bureaucracy in the Ontario Planning and Development Act, ie, approval by the Legislature, has been removed.
(5) The effective balancing of decision-making power and policy provision between the provincial bureaucracy and municipal councils recommended by the Sewell commission has not been implemented, particularly to the detriment of counties and lower-tier municipalities.
Recommendations:
(1) The proposed amendment to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act -- in other words, that subsection dealing with the "to be consistent with" phrase -- should be deleted until at least such time as it can be demonstrated that the province is unable to effectively apply its new policy statements without such authority.
(2) An additional amendment to section 3 of the Planning Act should be provided requiring the preparation of implementation guidelines of provincial policy statements be subjected to a public consultation and approval process.
(3) The proposed new clauses found in section 10 of Bill 163 whereby a ministry official can make a value judgement on the planning merits of a referral request on an official plan matter either be deleted entirely or reworded so as not to apply to municipal councils.
(4) Clause 70.1(e), found in subsection 42(1) of Bill 163, which gives the ministry the power to regulate municipal planning policy matters of substance, be deleted.
(5) Restore the requirement for legislative approval of ministerial orders regarding development planning areas, which has been deleted in the proposed new Ontario Planning and Development Act.
(6) Remove the power of the minister to refuse consideration of an amendment to a development plan prepared under the Ontario Planning and Development Act based on its impact on provincial interest, found in subsection 6(4) of schedule A.
(7) Add a provision to section 17 of the Planning Act making counties with official plans eligible to become approval authorities of lower-tier official plans.
(8) Add a provision to section 51 of the Planning Act making counties with official plans eligible to become approval authorities of plans of subdivision.
Mr McLean: I'd like to go back to page 2, section 10 of the act, "subsection 17(29) would now allow the ministry to refuse a referral to the OMB of an official plan amendment passed by a municipal council...." They're making it worse than what it has been before, are they not?
Mr Storey: Yes.
Mr McLean: What would happen now if I had an aggregate 100 acres and I wanted to have that rezoned and I went through the process at council? The normal steps are that it ends up at the OMB. The ministry could now say: "We're going to defer it. We're not going to let it go to the OMB." Could that happen?
Mr Storey: First of all, if it's a zoning matter, it would fall under another section of the act where it would go directly to the OMB. If it's an official plan matter, which is what this refers to, which is more serious, I think, if municipal council approved your application and amended its official plan, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the power to refuse referral for a number of reasons. The two which have been added are if he or she doesn't think it's based on any planning grounds or if he or she thinks that the plan is premature. As I stated, usually those are common reasons why it goes to the municipal board in the first place and those are the issues you're fighting over. Now those issues can be decided ahead of time by the minister and you don't have a right to go to the OMB.
Mr McLean: The minister can refuse an amendment if it's not in the provincial interest.
Mr Storey: It doesn't state that.
Mr McLean: That's what you say in paragraph 4.
Mr Storey: That has more to do with the Ontario Planning and Development Act. Actually, the province declares a development planning area, puts a plan on and then you or I or one of the municipalities covered by this plan proposes an amendment, and if the minister doesn't think the amendment is in the provincial interest, he can refuse further consideration of it.
Mr McLean: But you say "...a provincially driven plan are subject to value judgements of provincial bureaucrats."
Mr Storey: Right.
Mr McLean: So the bureaucrats are going to be making the call and then the minister will rubber-stamp it. Is that right?
Mr Storey: I'm not clear on how the decision-making process works. I've assumed that the minister is subject to an information flow controlled by the ministry and I'm not sure how they come to their decisions.
Mr McLean: I want to thank you for your presentation. I hope that the ministry will make some changes in light of it.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to try and give you a different slant on subsection (29). As a former community activist, my paranoia would come from the other direction, that the minister would disallow my request, as a citizen, to go to the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis that the request wasn't made in good faith or that it was frivolous or vexatious.
I would be worrying, as a community activist, that a region or a county that has an official plan but has been given approval authority with respect to the development would then be able to turn around and offer up an official plan amendment that would take a piece of property that was zoned in the official plan as industrial/commercial and rezone it as residential, and that I as a resident would be unable to take that to the Ontario Municipal Board because somebody in the ministry has deemed my complaint to be frivolous or vexatious or that it doesn't meet the planning criteria.
You've given us the view of the council and that view as curtailing the rights of council to make those decisions, but I think there's another side to this in that it can be used the other way. We have been hearing from a large number of citizens. That's a possibility as well.
Mr Storey: Any objection can still be rejected if it's frivolous or vexatious. That hasn't been removed from the act; it's that they've added to it.
Mr Wiseman: What we're hearing and what I would say is that this section is more likely to be used with respect to citizenry than it is to councils because councils, in my history, have done some pretty strange things.
Interjection: Changes.
Mr Wiseman: Official plans that have just been created -- for example, in Durham we went through three years, almost, of official plans, working on this official plan, creating this holistic plan for growth and development. It's not even a year old and the regional council wants to make three changes to it that are considerable. My fear about this section is totally the opposite of yours, and in my opinion "shall be consistent with" is far too weak a phrase. It should be "will conform to," on behalf of the citizenry. So you can see that this is a compromise situation to be in.
1450
Mr Storey: That would be a disaster, Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: With respect, in some cases it's a disaster for the citizenry of this province when councils make those kinds of changes and make those kinds of flips in official plans, where they take zonings that are supposed to be industrial/commercial and turn them into residential/commercial and the Ontario Municipal Board rubber-stamps them.
Mr Storey: With respect, Mr Wiseman, if you were to do what I suggest and remove items (i) and (iv) from subsection 17(29), citizens objecting to whatever happens in Durham will still have the right to go to the municipal board. Under this, if the regional council has the right as an approval authority to say some objection at a lower-tier level is premature or not a planning issue --
Mr Wiseman: That might be the only thing you and I agree on.
Mr Storey: -- then it can deny to forward that on. So this affects the public. I'm here on behalf of Harwich and Raleigh, but this affects the public in the same way it affects a municipal council.
Mr Wiseman: I agree with that.
Mr Storey: So that's why I'm saying let's pull that out of there so that someone can't be arbitrary in preventing the referral of items to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Wiseman: That doesn't go to the municipal board anyway. If you knew the law you would know that. That goes to a joint hearings board.
Ms Haeck: I am interested that you are coming to us strictly from the point of view of the municipal sector and haven't made mention of one or two of what I would consider the important aspects for the residents. I think in that sense I'm taking somewhat the view that Mr Wiseman has taken.
Mr Martin, who's the provincial facilitator, gave us a technical briefing on Monday and indicated that the resident phrase here was "test drive," that the whole concept of a complete application and working with the residents and making sure that the whole process is fully understood by the public and the residents of an area is extremely important and one of the things that is a real change in the whole planning structure or what is being proposed here for planning in this act. I'm wondering how you view the whole process of providing a complete application and making sure that's going through the approval process and the possibility for public involvement in this whole planning process.
Mr Storey: I strongly support that part. In fact, most of what Mr Sewell recommended that found its way into the act was a process that we've already been following in most of our communities, certainly for significant developments or proposed changes to an official plan. I have no objection to that whatsoever. My objection here is simply that we're trying to pile one new authority on to another. I'm saying we've got a very comprehensive set of provincial policies proposed that deal with virtually every item now. In the past we didn't have provincial policy statements on the environment per se or on the natural resources. Now that we've got them, now that we have implementation guidelines, let's give them a try and see how things work before we give all these other powers over to the minister.
Ms Haeck: One of the things that I know my residents are very concerned about and that they have found themselves in some rather frustrating arguments with their own municipal officials about at times is that certain things have been put in place. They did not understand that the basis of that particular infrastructure provided the mechanism by which massive development could occur in basically rural areas, which was not anticipated by the residents and they were assured years before that this was not going to happen.
The planning criteria on which these further development decisions are made are frequently not understood by the public and the ramifications of these decisions are pretty massive for individuals. I've referred to planning as an arcane art. It is somewhat mysterious to the local residents. I didn't pretend to be a planner -- I'm a librarian by profession -- before I got elected, so to try to delve through this any more than anyone else is as frustrating for me as a layperson as for the residents, and I have a lot of sympathy for them when they don't understand what the standards are.
I think by putting policy statements in place residents finally, more so than I would say planning departments and municipal officials who have been working at this for a number of years, have a much better understanding of at least what the floor is, as opposed to having to be digging in the basement even to try first to come to an understanding of what's being put in place.
I think it's a matter of providing everyone with a better understanding of how we're approaching the idea of what's going to be happening in their neighbourhood. I know I've probably taken my time.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to comment briefly on the first paragraph, where you say your townships are "concluding a precedent-setting comprehensive intermunicipal planning and water service area agreement with the city of Chatham, solving" some problems, and you mention a couple of disasters of the past where thousands and thousands of acres of prime agricultural land have been added to urban centres, which will use it, I expect, or tend to use it for one purpose only, and that's to develop it as fast as possible.
I think what you're saying on the disasters of the past is, let's build a better future, a new way. I really appreciate that and compliment the municipalities in working in that manner. That should be the way of the future: cooperation.
I just want to say that I don't want to have the conditions or terrible planning decisions that have been mentioned in Durham colour my views of planning in Ontario, and especially rural Ontario, because I think a long time ago Durham was designated as part of the greater Toronto area and designated as a growth area and wanted it at that time. I don't want that to colour what happens in the rest of Ontario. I want to make that clear.
You're saying in the point on page 2 that "...the plan is premature." Indeed, many applications to the OMB have been on that very point, whether it is premature or not, and all people are heard. People are always going to be frustrated with planning decisions because in all applications, usually people are not satisfied even if they get their own way, mostly. We've got to remember that. Planning means change as you go along and you've got to be prepared to give your input.
I think the main thing I wanted to zero in on was your statement in item 5 at the bottom of page 2 where you say, "The Sewell commission proposed a planning system which gave the province much greater control of policy issues, but balanced that authority by providing municipalities greater authority." It seems to me you're saying what is proposed here does not accomplish that aim and I think you feel very strongly that this aim must be accomplished. Would you elaborate on that for us briefly? It would be helpful.
Mr Storey: Certainly, I'd be happy to. Sewell, in my estimation -- we looked at it pretty carefully and made several presentations -- was saying the province should lead the planning process by providing more coherent and comprehensive policy statements, and I agreed with that.
Mr Eddy: Oh, I see.
Mr Storey: On the other hand, while the province should assume a greater role in providing policy, approval authority was going to be dispersed from centralized position where it is now, primarily with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, out to upper-tier and even, to some extent, lower-tier municipalities.
In this act, I don't see the second part of that teeter-totter working there, just the first part, where the minister has been granted all sorts of new powers and abilities to act that he never had before, but I don't see the opposite occurring for local municipalities. That might be the best approach too for Durham or York or Hamilton-Wentworth or any number of regional municipalities where controlling growth and development is a problem. We don't have that problem in Harwich and Raleigh or in Kent county.
1500
Mr Eddy: There's a difference --
Mr Storey: As I pointed out, the population hasn't grown. Between 1971 and 1991, the acreage of improved farm land actually increased in Kent county, so this is not a county suffering from rampant development. It's just the opposite. We're doing our best to discover economic development opportunities and are trying to pursue them and balance that with the need to protect the agricultural economy. That's the best example I can give.
We don't want rules that are set up for one situation being applied to us. We thought the old rules were bad enough, frankly, but they're becoming even more conservative or restrictive in their approach, which makes it more difficult for townships like Raleigh or Harwich to try to diversify to some extent their economies.
Mr Eddy: I see the difference between urban and rural. Indeed, some rural areas are actually losing populations.
The Chair: We've run out of time.
Mr Eddy: I just want to comment on the term "be consistent with." The ministry says there is flexibility in that statement, so later I'll ask you for your comment on that.
The Chair: Another time, perhaps. Mr Hayes, do you want to make some clarification?
Mr Hayes: Yes. Thank you, Tom and George, for your presentation. On page 3, your issue number 2, what Mr Sewell recommended in Bill 163 actually set out the basic or minimum content of official plans, upper-tier and local. Bill 163 leaves this content to be defined in regulation. Dale Martin's implementation task force, which covers just about every stakeholder in municipal politics or planning, is consulting and developing a list for the regulation. The theory is that everyone, regardless of whether they're a region, county, township, will know up front what the rules will be when you're developing the official plan. I think that's very important. Just to clarify, the regulation could not be used to amend an official plan actually in the way, Tom, that you indicated in your presentation.
The other issue is dealing with subsection 17(29), which we've had a lot of discussion about. I don't see where the minister or the bureaucrats are getting any more authority. In fact, the municipalities will be having more authority. The thing is that this section as set out, as we talked about before -- we've heard a lot about all of the frustrations and roadblocks and things -- will actually streamline the process. There's no question in my mind on that. I think the most important thing that's added in here is:
"The approval authority may refuse to refer all or part of the proposed decision to the municipal board if,
"(a) the approval authority is of the opinion that,
"(i) the reasons set out in the referral request do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground...."
Then it goes on to say other things, but I think that is very, very important. Thank you. I hope I have cleared this up somewhat.
The Chair: Do you want to comment on this, or not?
Mr Storey: I know Mr Hayes and I respect him and I disagree with him.
The Chair: We thank you both very much for the presentation you've made to us.
ROY WILKINSON
The Chair: We welcome Mr Wilkinson.
Mr Roy Wilkinson: I should say at the outset that I'm not here to present specific recommendations for changing the proposed legislation known as Bill 163. You've already heard some and will hear lots, more likely, in the next three weeks of these hearings. Rather, I'd like to discuss the process or at least my personal perception of the process which led to the bill. I'll refer only to parts II, III and IV of the legislation.
The proposed changes to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, now to be called the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, are significantly different from those originally presented early in the current three-year term of elected municipal officials. The legislation is the result of much input from individuals and elected bodies, including the Ridgetown council on which I've served since 1977. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is to be commended for responding favourably to many of the recommendations it received.
Our concern from the outset was about the need for public disclosure when only eight elected members of councils, commissions and boards in the whole province in 18 years have been found guilty of violating the present act.
Only in June of this year did it come to my attention that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has been calling for a register of disclosure since its 1979 report on municipal conflict of interest and that the practice has been adopted in a number of other provinces. Perhaps had we known this earlier in the consultation process -- and I'm not blaming the ministry because we didn't know -- we, Kent county council and others would have directed our concern about the overkill towards AMO instead of towards the province.
Because of the changes agreed to by the ministry, disclosure will certainly be far less intrusive than first proposed. Although I have only seen the draft forms to be used, it appears now, thanks to AMO, that completing them will just be a time-wasting chore for 99.99% of elected municipal officials, who will never violate the act.
The process leading to the changes to the Planning Act fell just short of being a model for the consultation process which should be undertaken when any significant legislation is proposed by the province.
While many initially questioned the relationship between the Sewell commission and the government, it's now obvious the concern was unwarranted. Some might even suggest it was fearmongering to undermine the efforts of the province.
Many councils, including ours, made several presentations during the process of redrafts and public hearings. Many of the recommendations made along the way by our council were addressed by the commission. By and large, we don't have substantive concerns with the legislation. Only time will tell if the changes actually speed up future amendments to our official plan and zoning bylaw and local development. We will also have to wait to weigh the impact of future provincial policy statements.
The flaw in the process as I see it which prevents it from becoming a model is evident in the difference between the commission's report and what is now Bill 163. My concern is that a number of recommendations have been completely neglected or significantly altered.
After hundreds of municipal officials made their views known, and these were articulated by the commission, I am very disappointed that some bureaucrat or bureaucrats have second-guessed this collective wisdom. I understand that the commission, AMO and the environment movement were in agreement on how the legislation could have been written. At the very least, they should have been consulted about changes before the bill was written.
While originally sceptical, eventually the public gained confidence in the consultation process to change the Planning Act. I'm very, very concerned that many will now lose confidence in this government if amends aren't made immediately to redress the interference of the bureaucracy in this process. The views of the commission, AMO and others must be reconsidered and they must be parties to the implementation process. If that doesn't happen, Mr Chairman, I see little value in your government ever again suggesting that municipalities consult with you on any issue.
1510
I haven't described the discrepancies between the commission's report and Bill 163. I have no doubt that many others have already or will soon do that. As you probably know -- certainly Mr Hayes knows very well -- municipalities outside of the Golden Horseshoe often complain that provincial decisions do not reflect our needs because of the Toronto mentality of many of the government's bureaucrats. I'm afraid this time they are out of step with all municipalities, large and small, as well as the environmentalists and the home builders: all those affected by the act. If the parties hadn't agreed, it would be one thing, but because there is general agreement among them, if this hearing does nothing else, it must send a clear message to the bureaucrats that the elected officials, not them, are running this province.
Throughout the consultation process I constantly heard that various elected bodies had no problems with the proposed changes to the Municipal Act which affect meetings of councils, commissions and boards. With one voice they said, "Oh, we already have open meetings." Mind you, some of them have recently amended their procedures to conform.
Now there are cries of mistrust. I've heard fears that when two members of council discuss a municipal matter on the street, it would be considered by the act to be a meeting. I wonder why these concerns weren't raised earlier in the process. I am personally suspicious that they are ill-founded and are intended only to undermine the integrity of this government. In any case, the report of your hearings must clarify the definition of what is a meeting.
I was on holiday until yesterday. I haven't had much time to prepare, but I thank the committee for allowing me to present my views at this hearing. I trust that your eventual findings and deliberations will be impartial and will reflect the wishes of the people you serve. I look forward to your final report.
If you wish, I'd be pleased to answer questions you may have concerning my presentation and/or my thoughts on the bill per se and how I see it impacting on my municipality.
The Chair: Thank you. There is only time for a very brief comment or brief question from each caucus.
Ms Haeck: I want to thank you very much, Mr Wilkinson, for coming before us. Actually, Mrs Harrington just showed me a clipping out of the local newspaper in Niagara Falls from a resident and this is his perception, Mr Perry's perception: "In our own experiences, municipal governments are used to getting their own way and they're not interested in negotiating with third parties."
He was referring to dealing with citizens and citizen groups, which I think leads to the sort of overall perception that people have that when you get two councillors in a doughnut shop, possibly meeting a developer who came in also for doughnuts to take to the hockey game, maybe they might be concluding a meeting.
I really appreciate the fact that you've raised the point of a glossary and a range of definitions because I think we all, through this whole process, have had some very good discussion dealing with what the public's perception is. Obviously, there's a perception on the part of certain municipal councils about what we're trying to do, but I'm happy that another citizen came forward and raised some very good points. You can obviously comment on my comments, but I think your views are important and I think the more we can clarify a number of those terms, the better it will be for all of us.
Mr Wilkinson: Certainly, thank you. I don't see where those two councillors meeting that developer can come to a resolution. They may discuss the matter, they may discuss what they would present in a committee, but they cannot speak on behalf of the council --
Ms Haeck: That's right.
Mr Wilkinson: -- as you very well know. So the matter still is going to have to come before open council, where decisions will be made and recorded, open for public scrutiny.
Ms Haeck: Agreed, but perceptions are somewhat skewed --
The Chair: M. Grandmaître, briefly, of course.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for your presentation. As always, I'll be very open about this. Do you think that this legislation will remove the perception that municipal politicians, provincial politicians, federal politicians are a bunch of crooks?
Mr Wilkinson: No.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
The Chair: Ever so brief. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: I want to thank you for coming forward. You said it as it is, and it's nice to hear that. Eighteen people is not many people to --
Mr Wilkinson: Eight, in 18 years.
Mr McLean: Oh, it's 18 years, eight people.
Mr Wilkinson: You take that 7,500 that was referred to earlier and multiply that by 18 years and multiply it by the number of decisions that are made at every council meeting, and we're talking about a minuscule need for such legislation.
Mr McLean: Yes, and you said if they don't fix it, they'll lose confidence in the government. Well, I think they've already lost that. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Hayes has another comment, a quick clarification.
Mr Hayes: Just on that point, Roy, and thank you for your presentation, but just so everybody understands, there were 60 in that period that were found guilty of conflict of interest -- am I correct? -- and there were eight penalized out of all those 60. So that will add to the fact.
Mr Jackson: Over how many years?
Mr Wilkinson: Eighteen years.
The Chair: Over an 18-year period?
Mr Hayes: Yes. Actually, it's a 22-year period, but the fact of the matter is that there were 60 of them that were actually found guilty, so there's more.
The Chair: That's quite clear. Mr Wilkinson, thank you very much for taking the time to come and for presenting your brief to us.
RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION OF KOMOKA
The Chair: The Ratepayers Association of Komoka, and there are a number of people. Welcome. Perhaps one of you might introduce all the others.
Mr John Driver: Okay. First of all, I'd like to say thank you so much for inviting us here today, even though I haven't had much time to prepare for this, only a week and three days. However, to my right here is Mr Henning Jenson and to his right are Mr Brian Ritchie and Mr Dave McHardy.
Anyway, I understand, sir, that we only have about 10 or 15 minutes here. I'd certainly like to give my --
The Chair: It's half an hour you've got, actually.
Mr Driver: Okay, I appreciate that.
The Chair: I think the point was that for your presentation, if you wanted, you could take 15 or 20 minutes, or possibly longer, to allow time for the other members to ask you questions. That was the intent.
Mr Driver: Okay. Yes, I understand it. Thanks very much.
I'd like to address one thing with regard to subdivisions. I've been very concerned about this for a number of years and I've written letters back in the 1960s concerning land use and land abuse. I'm just going to read what I've written here.
"I'm very concerned about the way that developers purchase land in the southern part of Ontario. It certainly appears to me that no one in government or elsewhere is concerned enough in regard to the amount of agricultural land that is being taken up and taken off of food production, only to be covered with asphalt and concrete and so on.
"The land upon which most food grows in the province of Ontario is to be found in the southern hemisphere, approximately less than one third of the entire province of Ontario, yet we allow developers to rape this land. We need a change in government attitude and should start building homes and subdivisions in satellite cities north of the best agricultural land in Ontario." If we don't, we're going to be just like the codfish story.
I wrote a thing back in 1966 to the federal Fisheries minister in regard to codfish. That was back in 1966, and he wrote me back and said: "Mr Driver, we'll never run short of codfish. We have too many rules and regulations already in place to guard against what you're thinking and proposing." However, all we have to do is take a look at the devastation that it's made on the North American continent today.
1520
I'm concerned. I did the same thing when I spoke to Western university back in 1966 with regard to land and land use and land abuse. So this is kind of old hat to me, but I was much younger then.
Anyway, back to this. The more agricultural land that is used for development, we will rely upon more and more imports. Big bucks will always speak louder than words. I feel we will lose more and more of our natural resources to developers.
Let's look at Komoka, Ontario, for instance. It consists of sand, gravel and huge reservoirs of fresh water, all underground. All of this underground, while developers are buying up land to build homes on it. The Komoka area is one area that is very fragile and it should be preserved as a greenbelt area because of its natural resources. In the future, we will need the resources. But when the developers get done with this, the fresh water and so on will be all gone and entirely drained off from the area, when our world is fast becoming short of fresh water.
It is time now that governmental bodies look at prohibiting cities from growing larger than 300,000 people. Now, I put that proposal before the federal and provincial governments back in 1966 and 1967, because being an old retired fire inspector and a fire marshal in this province of Ontario, we know where a lot of problems are. The bigger cities that are all in North America are going broke. It costs too much money to run them. They're uncontrollable, social-services-wise. You can't police them properly, and there are many other things that come with big cities. Therefore, you should start to consider what I've said prior to that and start building satellite cities north of the best farm land.
But we are very concerned with our town of Komoka and the area and we're scared for the natural resources that are going to be built upon there. The land is being bought up now by developers and the red tape and the bureaucracy that you have to go through is something frightening to me. We've been doing this for months and months now and we've just come to no conclusion from governmental bodies in regard to this. They're going to press on with sewers and so on and water in there, and I think that's frightening.
Mr Brian Ritchie: I'm Brian Ritchie. I am a police village trustee in Komoka. I was elected on the platform that we would try and prevent some growth coming into the community that was based on condominiums.
Lobo township is the township that we're part of. It has a population of about 5,000 people, and Komoka happens to have 1,100. The outside area sees Komoka as the appropriate place for growth, and so the official plan got put in place that would represent the larger agricultural bodies' wishes, not the wishes of the people in Komoka. So the township council elected at large was primarily composed of people from outside of the urban area, Komoka.
They decided that what they wanted to try was to do a new kind of development, condominiums, in a town that's made up of single-family dwellings and senior citizens' homes. So it's an unusual mix, because what they were looking for was a higher tax rate. That is what they wanted. They wanted more commercial development down there. We are close to the Thames River. They thought that water and sewage ought to be placed into the Komoka area. So that area south of the whole of Lobo township -- it wouldn't bother the agriculture at all -- would be a central area to grow and get money for the community. So four fifths of the township supports the idea of Komoka growing.
What we're here concerned about is the consultation process. Komoka has over and over again at public meetings expressed its wish to be left alone to grow slowly, at approximately -- this is even slow for a provincial average from what I understand. I understand that 4% is about twice the speed at which growth goes on within the Ontario, but we were prepared to grow at about 4%. They wanted a third of Komoka larger within a three-year period. They've gone about the official plan, which we objected to, in an attempt to try and get the official plan through. They did manage to. We've got an objection with the OMB on it.
The OMB is helpful that way to us, in terms of trying to stop a group of politicians who don't represent the whole community but are using a section of the community as a scapegoat for some desire they've got, which is more growth. They aren't concerned about destabilizing one community because it doesn't affect the destabilization in their community.
I have a number of questions and they revolve around the issue of consultation, I guess. My understanding, as I read through these documents that were sent to us -- the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements, Understanding Ontario's Planning Reform, the growth and settlement policy and these laws -- I know these laws were heavy going so I'm pretty sure I'm mixed up on a number of those.
I understand you're trying to speed up the process and empower municipalities and I like that. It makes sense, if growth -- we shouldn't be slowing down developers if they've got the right kind of proposal going into a community. Let's help them through and get the jobs for Ontarians and allow people to live in nice communities, but the stabilization factor has got to be in place.
If my understanding is right, the official plan is where the public involvement comes into play. Somehow there's got to be this idealistic perception that people get involved before they realize there's a problem; that they've got enough foresight to say, "Hey, this could really go wrong here, so we'd better make sure the official plan is described adequately." I'm not certain that's the way ratepayers act. For the most part, they have their own personal lives that they're living and they're not looking down the road, as politicians do, for what could happen in the future and what to take advantage of and what to mix and match and reshape. So their issues aren't political issues or public issues; they're more private issues.
What you're asking in this document is that the public ratepayer be concerned ahead of time about the official plan because, after that, if I understand it correctly, those developmental permits will be provided by some clerk at the county office. Do the public get notification at that point? I'm not sure they do. Things are becoming bureaucratized at that point and so the people don't get a chance to perceive what's going to happen. I'm very much concerned about consultation.
The other thing I think might help is if -- I didn't get a perception that there was a referendum of any sort coming into it. If there's some major issue that's arising that's going to cost people a lot of money -- like they're bringing water and sewage to Komoka and it's costing a lot of money for the individuals in Komoka. But the rest of the community doesn't get to pay for this and they would like us to have it because it means growth in the southern part. So everyone's about to pay, from the description of the township council, a minimum of $6,000 and upwards of $10,000 or $11,000 from what we're hearing. That's the people in Komoka; the rest of the place doesn't get to pay, right?
Well, the Ontario taxpayer gets to pay because there was a grant given, a grant of almost $10 million. For a few homes -- we're talking fewer than 20 homes that needed water -- $10 million has been spent and every household in Komoka is being asked to spend between $6,000 and $10,000 for this.
I think if you've got a perception of what I'm saying, we're stuck in a situation where the election doesn't make a difference because we're only one fifth of the community so we might get one, maybe two, councillors on who reflect our point of view; the other three are a reflection of the agricultural community who would like it to grow.
The concept of community that you're offering in this definition seems inadequate to me. In needs to be clarified so that the community is not a whole township or municipality but, rather, portions of it can be a community as well. Maybe I've got a misunderstanding of the definition of "community" but we're acting like a municipality that's a community. We're not; we're broken into segments and there's friction going on.
1530
A referendum then could be of service if it applied to the particular area that was going to be financially indebted over the innovations.
First off, the official plan -- people have got to be involved ahead of time. How do you plan on educating people so that they know they've got to be involved ahead of time? The public doesn't usually get concerned with political issues until it impacts on them.
You're suggesting that the developer's permit is something else that's going to hide the problem away because the clerk's dealing with it. How do we get educated at that point that a new development's going on and that it's been granted, and what right do we have at that time to object and take something to an OMB or to some other body and reach some compromise solution that might be more desirable?
If I can give you an example with the development that was proposed for Komoka, the condominium development -- the council passed it. We argued with it, put a presentation to the OMB. Because we objected to the OMB, the issue got held up. The developer bypassed the council, came to us and asked what can we resolve and what were the main issues. One was we wanted it to be freehold, because we didn't want this large community, a third of the size of Komoka, voting on water and sewage for Komoka if it was going to come to a vote -- and because they've already got water and sewage -- and not provide it to a community that might want it, or prevent us from doing what was the will of the rest of the people in Komoka.
So the developer comes to us and we arrive at an agreement that allows for freehold with 76 homes instead of 124 homes. The council was caught in this bind where it wanted growth and it wanted growth at any cost, and so it gave away everything that was available to it. They weren't concerned about the impact on the schools and how much it was going to cost, because the school's already full, right? They're going to have to build another school.
There are issues here that the township council -- when you develop your regulations to try and control this, or you develop your official plan, it's got to make sure the township council doesn't use forms rather freely and just vaguely describe what's going to happen.
I went through the water and sewage proposal that came out of Lobo township to get the grant. There's nowhere in it that describes why the water is in fact necessary, other than one little box that says, "nitrates: 25.4% of Komoka water samples are contaminated." We got hold of all the contaminated results and all the good results and in fact it's not that high. It's sitting around 10% or 8% at any given time, maximum, which is below the standard for giving out the grant, but the council managed to get it.
I think you can sense the frustration that we've got, and we're looking for legislative help here in providing us with access at some point to be made aware of the details so that there's total exposure of information, and we're not held up. We were held up for the longest time about the actual details of which homes had contamination, which homes had been retested. They included in those tests homes that had three wells, one well of which was good, the other two weren't being used, okay? They included in those well samples agricultural well samples from outside the communities that aren't used for domestic purposes. They used whatever was useful to get the figures up. I don't know if they intended to do that specifically, but when they took all the details of the studies, they included them all and came up with this marvellous figure.
We're looking for assistance in the legislation that provides really meaningful public consultation, not what we go through over and over again. Will this end up in a vote? Will you delay this at least until the election so it can become an issue at the election? And the answer is always: "No, we will handle it ourselves. We are a council. We've been elected to do the job."
They see themselves as elected, but they are primarily elected by four fifths of the community that's agricultural, and so your policy of saying settlement has got to go into areas of growth already puts it in Komoka's bailiwick. That makes sense to me, but Komoka should have some say in it too, and so a meaningful consultation becomes the critical issue. I think that's it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There are three minutes per caucus, and Ms Haslam and Ms Haeck, as well.
Ms Haeck: No, Ms Haslam hasn't had a chance to ask a question, so I'll defer to Ms Haslam.
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I think we all sit over here and say, "Yes, we understand what you're saying." A lot of us come from rural ridings or small townships that deal with larger councils. I've got a couple of questions and then I'm going to just leave it up to you.
You talked about meaningful consultation and I've got some questions. I'd like some suggestions to be sure that your input is heard. What type of suggestions do you have for us to say, "This is how our input is really heard?" You said the OMB is helpful to us. I'd like to know if you see changes in here that will help you in the process. Are there changes here that you see will help you in your input and in your concerns about being -- you keep saying they represent four fifths and we're only one fifth and the majority rules and that's the truth. All I'm saying is, you want better input, what suggestions do you have?
You talked about an official plan. How do you get people more involved? I look on page 78 of the proposed legislation and I find, under public participation, "The minister shall ensure that the public is given an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the proposed development plan." So if you don't see that as being enough, what do you see us putting in that legislation? Also, if you go on to page 79 at the top, "When a proposed development plan has been prepared, the minister shall ensure that, (a) notice is given informing the public of the proposed development plan..."
There are some things in the legislation that you're talking about. If this isn't enough, what do you see as being enough? What type of process would you like to see when you talk about meaningful consultation?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm a people person and I keep saying in any piece of legislation that I look at, where is the accountability for my citizenry, where is the opening up of the process so they have access to that, and where is the process that says they do have a say, and it's not all behind closed doors and it's not all in closed meetings?
I'd be interested to know what your suggestions are for opening up the process, for having better input and maybe looking at more meaningful consultation.
Mr Ritchie: Okay. To start with, is it intended that there will be a planning advisory committee in townships? If that's what is intended and they are appointed people, then we're back into the same problem: The council selects the people. I put my name forward a number of times, and other people have as well in the community to try and reflect Komoka's point of view. They're not always rejected, but they don't select people who are really outspoken, right?
I don't know how you get that. If you want a planning advisory committee, maybe it's got to be made up of a larger group where the ratepayers or whatever select the people to be on it to represent them, rather than the council selects people that represent its point of view and merely have them do it. Okay?
Mrs Haslam: I hear what you're saying and I'm just asking, very quickly -- I also hear that councils are elected, and they're elected to lead and they're elected to make the decisions. I personally do not agree with a referendum over every tough item.
Mr Ritchie: No.
Mrs Haslam: I am elected to make tough decisions. I may not agree with all of them and I certainly have my option to voice my concern over them, but I'm elected to lead, I'm elected to review the legislation, and I'm elected to know what's best for the community. I'm just wondering whether that is the only solution.
Mr Ritchie: No, I don't think it has to be an election. I don't think it has to be a referendum. There are arbitrations, somebody coming in and trying to work out the differences, a feeling that you've got a kind of ombudsman approach to the situation, somebody who's going to be fairminded and not represent a particular point of view.
Mrs Haslam: Would that fit into what is being suggested?
Mr Ritchie: The OMB?
Mrs Haslam: Yes.
Mr Ritchie: Yes.
Mrs Haslam: So that would really be helpful to you.
Mr Ritchie: My understanding is that goes at the end, after you've argued with something and it's failed. I'd rather see it come earlier in the situation. We're not getting this thing resolved. People aren't working it out too well. Let's have the mediation come in earlier and try and resolve it. Right? So the lines aren't drawn.
Mrs Haslam: Better --
The Chair: Ms Haslam, I'm sorry. Mr Wiseman would really like to make a comment. I feel in pain not giving him that opportunity.
Mrs Haslam: Oh sure, cut me off, that's enough, go ahead.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman, go ahead please. You have to be quick, though.
Mr Wiseman: Your presentation here is the very reason why the wording in subsection (5), "Decisions consistent with policy statements," must remain -- "shall be consistent with" at the very least -- because then you have recourse to the policies and the statements and the Ontario Municipal Board in a far more meaningful way than "shall have regard for" will ever give you. That's part of the legislation as well and -- that's it, I can't say any more.
1540
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wiseman. That was a comment, I think.
Mr Eddy: So that doesn't count with time. Well, I'll have some comments too, in that case.
Mrs Haslam: Can I have part of Mr Eddy's time?
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Eddy.
Mr Eddy: I realize your frustration and I've seen it in other places and that's unfortunate, in view that your frustration is really with your locally elected council and your concern about the future of your own community. Unfortunately, since the Second World War, there's been a growth and development mania mentality in Ontario, I feel, and we haven't done it right in the province in that our cities have gotten too large. The thousands of acres, probably millions of acres, of the finest arable land in the world have been put under concrete and asphalt. There's no doubt about it. The province has tried the system of satellite cities and we have the Townsend fiasco and the South Cayuga fiasco that you may know about.
Your point is well made that the growth and development should be in places on land that is not arable, prime farmland because one day people are going to suffer because of it. I'm thinking more in this area because I'm a rural person of the London-Middlesex area and Sarnia township, but there are a couple of things I would say. I think you have some hope and what you must educate yourselves to and your people, if you're going to have input -- you're quite right, it's got to be done at the official plan review stage. You've got to be in there and you've got to say: planning is local; it's community planning and this is our community; and this is the way it's got to be and take it to the OMB. To take individual applications to the OMB when the land has been pre-designated for development of growth puts you at a disadvantage in your area, there's no doubt about it. I know the area well: the south end of Lobo township in Middlesex county, just west of the buffer zone a bit.
I'd like to ask you if you think the annexation of 64,000 acres to the city is going to relieve your problems, or will it accentuate them because people see the city getting too big and they want to come out to a small community and live like I do in a small community, and many people see that as a distinct advantage. The other thing is the possibility of hope maybe in a county, a land use official plan rather than if the county -- and I understand they have to proceed with a land use plan perhaps, and that's another area. When it comes to that, you want to be involved from day one, absolutely, so that there's a full scale -- if you're not heard at it. I think we've got to remember it's community planning. Planning is a local thing and it's community and that's you, the community of Komoka.
Mr McLean: I want to thank you for coming today and making your thoughts known and expressing your opinions with the community that you live in. The problem we have with this legislation, I believe, is they're directing development to small-town Ontario, to hamlets or villages that have water and sewers. There's no doubt in my mind that with a population of around a thousand, they're promoting the sewage system for that very reason, and I don't see anything in this legislation that is going prohibit exactly what you want to slow down. It's frustrating but I certainly understand where you're coming from and the problem that you have because I'm from rural Ontario myself.
Mr Ritchie: We are bothered by what has happened, but the fact is I think it can happen to other communities, and this legislation is really your opportunity to help shape it so other communities don't go through the same process, or at least have enough input to feel they have some control over what's happening. That, I think, is the critical thing, to feel like you had some control, because if you don't feel like that, you feel like you got shafted and you're angry.
The Chair: Last comment, perhaps?
Mr Driver: Can I add as past president of the organization, the ratepayers' association, the situation that's occurred right here in Komoka, ladies and gentlemen, is so severe that I've had a number of elderly people in that community come to my door and tell me that if this thing isn't stopped there, they've now got the for sale signs on their property and they have to vacate their premises, because they're not going to be able to afford the taxes. The township has told us already the taxes will rise between $700 and $1,000 per unit in that village alone. That brings the average taxes on the property there to approximately $3,000 per unit, in that area. Retired people can't heft that and they are putting their homes up for sale.
Ladies and gentlemen, as citizens of that community, they've supported that community for many, many years, but now they've got for sale signs on their properties. I think that not ought to happen in the province of Ontario or in the Dominion of Canada. Shame on us for allowing such a thing to happen to our good citizens in that community. I think something must be done with regard to the cost of that. I don't think they should be able to drive people out of their homes, but it's being done right here in Ontario and in Komoka.
The Chair: I thank you all for sharing some of your concerns and sharing some of your suggestions with this committee.
LAKE HURON PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite the Lake Huron Preservation Association, Mr Joe Hoffer.
Mr Joseph Hoffer: Good afternoon, Mr Chair, members of the committee. My name is Joseph Hoffer. I'm a lawyer representing the Lake Huron Preservation Association.
Before I get into my comments, I'd like to thank Ms Bryce first of all for accommodating us on very short notice to appear before this committee, and I don't believe he's here, but the honourable Mr Tilson, who informed us of the circulation of this committee and really opened the door for this opportunity.
I represent the Lake Huron Preservation Association, which is an association of property owners, approximately 350 in total, who own property and live along the shoreline of Lake Huron between Goderich and Camp Ipperwash. This comprises about seven municipalities, and over the last two years they've been involved in a battle -- sometimes a battle -- with the local conservation authority, which was in the process of implementing what was known as a shoreline management plan.
The shoreline management plan was the product of an initiative by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the object of it was to introduce certain planning principles along the shore of Lake Huron among the seven municipalities. It proposed some very severe land use restrictions, and it was as a result of that concern that the association was formed in 1992.
We made submissions to the conservation authority. We did have an opportunity to have changes made to the shoreline management plan, and then along came Bill 163, and we see that there is the potential to have all the gains we thought we had made completely wiped out as a result of the proposed amendments to the Planning Act.
The text I'll be using is essentially what you find at the first tab of the brief I've given you, tab A, and I'm going to be referring periodically to the other tabs. In order that you understand the nature of our objection, I would ask that you look at tab 1.
What we object to is the proposed wording of subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act. The first page at tab 1 gives you the existing wording, and we've highlighted the existing words that we feel are very important. That is, "In exercising any authority that affects any planning matter," and then I'll just editorialize, the decision-maker "shall have regard to policy statements issued under subsection (1)."
The Sewell commission made recommendations about changes to subsection 3(5), and the final version which is in Bill 163 is on the next page. It is very different from what the Sewell committee recommended, and it is very different from the existing wording. It starts by saying, "A decision," rather than making reference to the exercise of authority. It goes on to say, "...and such decisions under any other act as may be prescribed" -- so decisions not just under the Planning Act but under any provincial legislation that may be prescribed by the regulations -- "shall be consistent with policy statements," provincial policy statements. The import of these wording changes I'll explain in a moment, but I wanted to highlight the words we take issue with, and the language.
1550
The reasons for the objection by LHPA relate to the interplay between the comprehensive policy statements, which, as you know, have been promulgated in conjunction with Bill 163, and the wording of subsection 3(5). The two can't be looked at independently, because they're very deeply interrelated.
We have approximately six objections, and the objections relate to, first of all, inconsistencies between the recommendation of the Sewell commission and what we find in Bill 163 in subsection 3(5). Before I go into the specific inconsistencies, I just want to state for the record that the directorship of this association does not understand why so much money was spent on a commission to get recommendations which, in the case of this one recommendation alone, have been departed from in six separate ways, and I propose to go through the ways they've departed from the recommendations of the Sewell committee.
First of all, I've excerpted a portion of the final report of the Sewell commission at tab 3, and at pages 12 and 13 of the final report, the Sewell commission recommended that a comprehensive set of policy statements, as contained in the report, replace the existing provincial policy statements. The comprehensive set of provincial policy statements, as contained in the report, were not adopted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the language which was adopted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the comprehensive policy statements is vastly different from that proposed by the Sewell commission. The Minister of Municipal Affairs' policy statements are far more restrictive than the Sewell commission had recommended, and ultimately, as I will illustrate, this will work great injustices on people not just within the Lake Huron Preservation Association but people throughout the province whenever a comprehensive policy statement comes into play. So that's the first inconsistency.
The second inconsistency is found at page 14 of the report, where the Sewell commission recommended that in the short term the province adopt a comprehensive set of policy statements and that in the long term the wording in subsection 3(5) be amended from "shall have regard to" to "shall be consistent with." What we've done in the short term is (1) adopted a different set of comprehensive policy statements and (2) we are also in the short term adopting the language change that the Sewell commission recommended. That's inconsistency 2.
The commission's recommendation at page 15 of its report, which again is at tab 3 -- I'll just look at it. It's in the first column, about halfway down:
"The commission is recommending that the act be amended to state that the exercise of any authority that affects any planning matter" etc "shall be consistent with...." The language recommended by the commission was "the exercise of authority" shall be consistent, not "a decision" shall be consistent. In my submission, there is a great difference between whether or not a final decision or an interim decision is consistent and whether or not a particular planning agency has exercised its authority in a manner that is consistent with the provincial policy statements.
If you go on to the recommendation, you'll see as well that that was the specific recommendation by the commission and that was contained in the summary final report as well. So that's another inconsistency that we find.
A fourth inconsistency is the reference in Bill 163 to "such decisions under any other act as may be prescribed." Nowhere in the Sewell commission, and certainly not in the recommendations, have I been able to find the suggestion that the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation incorporate decisions made under the Building Code Act or the Environmental Protection Act or the Conservation Authorities Act somehow, magically, into the Planning Act. So again we have another inconsistency with the Sewell recommendations that has a substantive effect on this section.
Another inconsistency that has occurred in practice is that at page 16 of the Sewell commission report, the commission recommended that there be a further opportunity for comment on the comprehensive policy statements.
We did participate in that further opportunity. We received a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We sent back some correspondence. We were told it was much appreciated, and then the next thing we saw was the final set of comprehensive policy statements, which were completely different, in my submission, from what the Sewell commission recommended.
And nowhere in this process were people who live in floodplains or who live in heritage areas or who live along the lakeshore informed about the proposed comprehensive policy statements and informed about the effect that those policy statements would have on a day-to-day basis on those people. There was just a letter that came to certain people who'd been involved in the process, and in our submission, the people who were affected by this comprehensive policy statement should have been given notice, should have been told what the import was and given a proper opportunity to make submissions to the minister on it.
Another departure from the recommendations was the recommendation by the Sewell commission that the comprehensive policy statements be reviewed every five years. I haven't found that in Bill 163. That recommendation was put in, if you read the commentary, as a result of the Sewell commission's recognition of the very significant status that the comprehensive policy statements would have and that there would be problems if there was not a process of checks and balances for amending those comprehensive policy statements. Again, it's a recommendation that's been ignored in Bill 163.
It's LPHA's position that the existing language in subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act should be maintained. Alternatively, it's respectfully submitted that the full recommendations of the Sewell commission should be implemented before an amendment to subsection 3(5) of the act is made, and when such an amendment is ultimately made, it should be in the language recommended by the Sewell commission and not in the language recommended by the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The first inconsistencies that I've just outlined to you in our objection all relate to the inconsistencies with the Sewell commission report. Our other objections I'll run through fairly quickly.
The second objection is that the proposed amendment will radically alter the nature of decisions made respecting land use planning in Ontario. When the language of the proposed amendment is isolated, it's clear that it constitutes a very radical amendment. A municipal council or the Ontario Municipal Board will no longer be asked to decide whether a development proposal is in accordance with sound planning principles. Instead, the issue will be, will this decision be consistent with the comprehensive policy statement?
This shift in issues will ultimately permit unfair and discriminatory decisions to occur. Such decisions cannot be challenged in any meaningful way at law, because the only issue, again, is, is it consistent with the policy statement, and you can't appeal the policy statement. It's a separate document altogether from the Planning Act. Many of the planning disputes that now go before the Ontario Municipal Board, as you know, are decided on issues of whether or not the proposal represents sound planning principles and sound planning policies. That's usually answered by a specialized tribunal through expert evidence. That forum will not effectively exist when you're dealing with provincial policy statements. All you really need is somebody who can read the policy statement and tell the OMB what it means.
For LHPA members, the clearest illustration of the problems associated with the proposed amendments to the Planning Act can be found in the policy statement dealing with natural heritage, environmental protection and hazard policies. They're set out at tab 2 of the brief, and goal 3 of the natural heritage policy statement provides that "development" -- it's an absolute prohibition -- "will not be permitted within: (a) the regulatory dynamic beach standard; (b) the regulatory flood standard within the defined portions of the 100-year flood level along the connecting channels...." The term "development", if you look at it, includes, "the construction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind; or the making of an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of increasing the size of usability thereof...." That's a sweeping definition.
1600
Many LPHA members already live in the regulatory flood standard and the dynamic beach standard area. There are many homes located in that defined area. Their homes have been on the property, in many cases, for generations. These people would not be permitted to build a patio deck, put in a flower bed, insulate their cottage, add a washroom or even put a pup tent on their property if the strict requirements of this policy were followed.
There is some potential for relief through policy 3.1.3, which states that "Development may be permitted," and then it lists some criteria, and I'll just highlight one. The proponent would have to demonstrate that "no adverse environmental effects will result." That's extremely vague. I would say that it can mean just about what anybody wants it to mean.
The reason I highlight these two sections is to illustrate that there's an absolute prohibition, there's some permissiveness, but it's at the absolute discretion of the decisionmaker, and all that has to be justified when a decision is made is not why the proposal was denied but why it was granted. So whoever has to make the decision doesn't have to justify their response if it's a refusal.
The harshness of the policy and the effect of subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act is best illustrated when you consider the case of an individual whose home is located within a regulatory zone, as many of these are, and is destroyed by fire. So you've got somebody who's had a home there for 80 or 100 years. It's destroyed by fire.
The home owner would be precluded by these policies and the wording of subsection 3(5) from rebuilding their own home. The only way they could do that would be in the absolute discretion of a municipal council or a local conservation authority, and I haven't looked at the details of all the other policies, but whoever the provincial decision-maker is would have the absolute discretion to decide whether or not Mr and Mrs So-and-so and their family can reconstruct their home.
A refusal to give relief could not be challenged because of the wording of subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, and an informed insurance company would never ensure a home like that, because if you couldn't rebuild, they would have to pay the land costs of moving to another site outside of this zone that's been defined, and a mortgage lender would no way mortgage a property located in those zones that's going to be subject to the absolute whim of a decision-maker.
If you think it through, there are all kinds of other implications. Is the province going to be required to compensate someone who's lost their home as a result of this, because it's been characterized in one case as a form of expropriation. Who's going to pay the property taxes or make up for the shortfall on the property taxes when these homes plunge in value because they can't be insured or mortgaged? These are all some of the fallout that can occur as a result of this wording.
Now, just so you know I'm not dealing with this in the abstract, I've appended two examples of where this type of decision-making has occurred in this province and where, if these policies and this section of the Planning Act was proclaimed, those home owners wouldn't have their homes and their property in exactly the same fact situation.
The first example is at tab 7. I'm not going to take you through the case, but this is a case where I represented the home owner. What happened was, she bought a piece of property that was located in an area controlled by a conservation authority. It was in London, and the buildings had been there for 80 years. They'd survived Hurricane Hazel and the great London flood and just about everything else, and they were still standing when she bought it.
She started making renovations to the interior of these buildings, and a member of the conservation authority came along and said: "I'm sorry, you can't do that. You need our permission if you want to do that, because you're in area that we control." She said, "Well, how do I go about getting permission?" He said: "Forget it, you're not going to get permission. We wouldn't give you permission. This property has been on our acquisitions list" -- which is unpublished -- "for the last 20 years." She said, "What can I do with my property?" He said, "The conservation authority is prepared to pay you" -- and he gave her a figure which was $150,000 less than she had paid for it 18 months earlier.
She was very upset by that. She challenged that, and she went to court, and the only reason she won was because of the construction of the Conservation Authorities Act which the court placed on a particular regulation in a section of the act.
If these amendments are put in, she would lose that case, and not only could she lose it because of the effect of the amendments on the decision-making under the Conservation Authorities Act, but the building inspector could easily say to somebody, "I don't care if the conservation authority's approved it; the comprehensive policy statements say that development is prohibited and I don't have to approve it," and you couldn't challenge that decision because it would be consistent with the provincial policy. So that's the first example I wanted to give you.
The second example is even worse. It involves a family who lost their home to fire in the Ottawa Valley and, again, they were located in an area controlled by the local conservation authority. They wanted to rebuild. They were refused permission to rebuild because of the location of their home. They were told that if they wanted a home, they'd have to get it somewhere else; they couldn't build in this particular location.
Again, they went to court. They were ultimately successful because of the construction that the judge put on the language of the Conservation Authorities Act and regulations, but it's another case where they would not have been successful had this legislation that's proposed in Bill 163 been proclaimed.
It's something that does have concrete and profound ramifications. The same ramifications extend to the 350 members of the Lake Huron Preservation Association and everybody else who lives along the Great Lakes in the province of Ontario. That's the second objection: that decision-making will be severely altered as a result of this proposal.
I've already outlined the objections listed at page 13 of my submission. The public has not received adequate notice of the effect of the proposed policy statements in combination with Bill 163 and has not been given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy-making process.
Number four, the policies are too inflexible and do not contain a mechanism for review and amendment. The Sewell commission's proposed policies were flexible. They were more permissive. If a people could demonstrate that, for example, they could meet the floodproofing criteria and that other things could be safely done, then their proposal could go forward. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has done the reverse of that. They've put an absolute prohibition, and then said, "We may allow you to do something if you can do A, B, C or D." But you know the importance of that word, "may." They don't have to do anything, even if you do satisfy all of the criteria.
I should point out in the Stacey decision, which is the last case in this brief, that was a case where the home owners were proposing floodproofing measures to ensure that their property would not be destroyed in a flood and they were still rejected outright by the conservation authority and the local municipality.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that LHPA recently ended a two-year battle to effect some changes to a document which purports to be an implementation of a provincial policy. The SMP purports to implement what is now known as the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River policy statement. Having gone through that battle, they are now faced with another provincial initiative which could well destroy any gains they've made over the last two years. After reviewing the provincial initiative in Bill 163 in some detail, LHPA has concluded that the proposed amendments to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act will adversely affect its constituents' proprietary interests and will also affect the interests of other members of the public throughout Ontario.
The proposed legislation is not consistent with the Sewell commission recommendations and will introduce a system of planning in this province which will leave many members of the public open to the whims of local and provincial decision-makers. It will restrict the fair and independent decision-making of the Ontario Municipal Board and will inevitably cause hardship and frustration for members of the public who happen to be affected by these policies and who happen to live in an area where the public agenda and private interests are not necessarily consistent.
To avoid the adverse consequences of the proposed legislation, we urge you to reject the proposed amendment to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act and to retain the original language which is now in the Planning Act. Alternatively, we request that the premises which form the basis for the Sewell commission recommendations be implemented before any amendment to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act is adopted and we ask that such implementation occur prior to the language of subsection 3(5) being amended. If the language is to be amended, then it should be amended in the terms recommended by the Sewell commission and not that proposed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Thank you for listening to me.
1610
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation, a very complete presentation, and I'll be happy to review it in further detail at my leisure.
You've stated the concerns, and I think I'll just point out one thing. We're told that the new terminology, "must be consistent with," is flexible and does provide flexibility. The ministry has told us this on several occasions. It's stronger than "have regards to". The problem, we're told, is that "have regards to" means, you know, you open the book and then close it. But this is still flexible. Now, you're saying it's not, and that is one of the major concerns that you have, I feel. Is that correct?
Mr Hoffer: Yes. The reason it's not flexible is because a decision that is made has to be consistent with some other document that is not part of the Planning Act --
Mr Eddy: Right.
Mr Hoffer: -- and that document is inflexible. You can't appeal it, you can't challenge it, you can't --
Mr Eddy: Not subject to review.
Mr Hoffer: -- do anything about it. The provision in the Planning Act which would require a review of it once every five years has not been included, so in my submission it's very inflexible.
Mr Eddy: You say that the bill is inconsistent with the Sewell commission in so many areas.
Mr Hoffer: Yes.
Mr Eddy: Thanks for your information.
Mr Curling: I just wanted to emphasize that, because it's exactly what Mr Sewell said when he presented his case before us, before coming on the road here, the inconsistency of the bill and what he, in his report, reflected. He was extremely concerned about that, and I see that you have endorsed that.
I think this is a well-put report and it's something that we will reflect on, and I hope the government also will look at it in more detail.
Mr Jackson: I'll just commend you, Mr Hoffer, for the depth of your presentation and say I share many of the concerns you've raised. When I look at the Crombie commission and its designation of large tracts of land in the urban areas I represent in the greater Toronto area, this concept has been raised about your house burning down and then all of a sudden going to City Hall and finding out that we have a provincial interest in your land and therefore -- and we're talking lakeshore properties worth $1.5 million -- now saying, "Well, sorry, we have a provincial interest here and we'd like to make this part of a parkette or something." That's a real, legitimate fear within this framework now, so I thank you for bringing it forward to the committee's attention, and hopefully we'll have a chance to debate it.
Mr White: Thank you very much for your very well reasoned and well articulated presentation, Mr Hoffer. I just wanted to check on a couple of points. You're arguing on behalf of cottagers who have basically cottages that have been in their families often for generations. These are properties that were constructed in the flood plain that would not be permitted now, so they're anomalies, in a way.
Mr Hoffer: No. With all respect, if I can explain, some of these are cottages, others are homes. These people live there year-round.
Mr White: But all these buildings are within the flood plain.
Mr Hoffer: No. These buildings are located along the shoreline of Lake Huron, and it was never designated as flood plain or anything of that nature until the shoreline management plan was finally approved earlier this year. They undertook numerous studies and they determined that a line should be drawn along the lakeshore and that everybody who was on one side of the line would be regulated in the terms reflected in this policy, and everybody on the other side of the line would be okay. So that's how it came about.
Mr White: So this is under the flood plains policies that were adopted in the late 1980s.
Mr Hoffer: No. I used the provincial Great Lakes flood plain policy statement for two reasons; one, it relates to the two cases that I've attached to the back, but the idea of shoreline management plans, according to the conservation authority, came about as a result of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River policy statement. So that was one of the sources for --
Mr White: Are you arguing for the right of those property owners to expand upon their properties, to enlarge upon them?
Mr Hoffer: It depends on what you mean by that. Let me give you an example. There are many people, particularly as they approach retirement age, who would just as soon sell their home in the city and then winterize their cottage. That increases the usability of the cottage. It's prohibited, okay? Many people have been doing it for years, but now it's prohibited. There are people who might like to put another washroom in, maybe one upstairs, because a lot of these are very large homes. You can't do it because you're increasing the usability of it.
If you take it to the extreme, a five-member family couldn't move into a cottage that a two-member family was moving out of because you're increasing the usability of it. I mean, that's the type of thinking that can expand out of the definition of development that we have in the comprehensive policy statement.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hoffer, for coming and for presenting your brief to us today.
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL WATER ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite the Ontario Municipal Water Association, Mr Tom Warwick. Welcome.
Mr Thomas Warwick: Thank you, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I want to make a very short presentation, which will be a relief to you. I know you've had a long day.
My name is Thomas Warwick. I'm a lawyer in the town of Blenheim. Blenheim is a small county town located south of Chatham. I have been in practice since 1964. During that period of time, to give you a background of my experience, I have been a member of the Kent County Board of Education, the high school boards, and for the past 12 or 15 years I've been a member of the public utilities commission.
My presentation today is on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Water Association. That association is the flip side of the coin to the electrical association, which has already made a presentation to you today. We represent the majority of the potable water suppliers in the province of Ontario. We have something in the neighbourhood of 250 members.
To preface my remarks, I will say that the OMWA supports the submission of the Municipal Electric Association, and I'm familiar with their submission to you. Today, however, I would like to zero in on schedule B of Bill 163, in particular three sections.
The first section is section 18. If my interpretation of subsection 18(2) is correct, it appears that you would be permitting municipalities to act as their own insurers. My concern is this: Does that not affect the no-fault highway insurance provisions that are presently in effect? If it takes the no-fault highway provisions out as far as the municipality is concerned, I think you are exposing municipalities to a tremendous liability situation. You're going to see an awful lot of lawsuits under the tort system developed if that is the intention of that section.
So I want to bring notice to your committee today that I feel that section might be a minefield and you should be aware of it. I think it could add tremendously to the costs of running a municipality if that is in fact the interpretation of that subsection.
Mr Wiseman: What number is it?
Mr Warwick: That's subsection 18(2) of schedule B. That's on page 99. If you read it, it says: "The Insurance Act does not apply to a municipality acting as an insurer for the purposes of subsection (1)."
Now, does that do away with the no-fault, as far as municipalities are concerned, with motor vehicles? I don't know. I would think that's what it means, and if that's the case --
The Chair: Let's get a quick comment on that.
Mr Sidebottom: The reference in section 18 is only to the insurance that's required under this act, not to all liability incurred by municipalities. It's simply that for the purposes of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, and then this section follows. This only applies in respect to that, not in respect to all insurance the municipality may be required to cover.
1620
Mr Warwick: If that's the case, fine, but if isn't the case and if a municipality can use that section for insuring its vehicles, then we may have a problem.
Mr Sidebottom: This section is no different than what exists in the current Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Mr Warwick: Okay. That was my off-the-cuff concern right there.
Now the next section I want to turn you to is subsection 2(3), and the page number there is page 89. This section deals with conflicts of interest and it deals with husbands, wives and children. My concern is this: What about other immediate family members? What about brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers?
I sit on a municipality, on a public utilities commission. There is a member who also sits on the same commission who sells us insurance. His argument is that the insurance company is his brother's.
Mr Wiseman: Is he the agent?
Mr Warwick: He's an agent, but he's not a shareholder of the company. See what I'm getting at? Now, I think that's a conflict.
Mr Eddy: No.
The Chair: Please, Mr Eddy.
Please make your comments and then when we get to the questions, they may ask clarifying questions of the staff.
Mr Warwick: All right. My point is this: I think if you want to be really fair about a conflict, you should expand the family members in that section. You should bring in brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers; in other words, immediate family members. You shouldn't stop at husband and wife or children. All you have to do, if you have a company that has a contract with the municipality, is have the shares owned by your brother. I do feel that there are conflicts existing, and because of the limitation, the people aren't being adequately protected from these conflicts.
So I bring that to your attention. I have seen it in my experience. I am a municipal lawyer as well, and I question that. I would think that if you're going to bring in spouses and children you should expand it to other immediate family members. I know you've got to cut it off somewhere, you can't go on to third cousins, but I do think that you should include brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, period. I'm very surprised that that's not in there.
Mr Wiseman: Couldn't we have amended that by saying that they can't act as an agent for family members?
Interjection: He's done it again, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Please go ahead with your presentation.
Mr Warwick: I just bring that to your attention. I'm surprised at the wording here. Quite often you wouldn't have children involved because they're too young anyway. I do think that if you want to fairly deal with conflict situations, the terms should be expanded to include immediate family members.
Now, the other section is section 6, and this is also the section that was brought to your attention by the electrical association. If you are really serious about passing section 6, you are going to have a very, very difficult time in getting people interested and running for municipal government. Nobody who is really qualified will want to expose himself to filing financial statements.
During the time that I've been involved in municipal government, which spans 30 years, I have seen the quantity and quality of candidates deteriorate. You don't have the same type of people sitting on councils today that we had 30 years ago. You don't have good business people getting themselves involved. It was bad enough when you had to go for a three-year tenure over a two-year tenure. If you had more business people involved today, you might not have the deficits that you have today. I do think that if you are serious about having people file financial statements, you're going to find that a lot of people aren't going to run any more.
A lot of people don't even know that this is even being proposed. I've mentioned it to a lot of people in our area and they're amazed that you're even thinking about passing such a section. I've had people tell me, I've had other councillors tell me, I've had clerks tell me, that it's going to make it very difficult to get good business people today to run if they have to file these disclosure statements. For how long should the secretary retain this disclosure statement, and what happens if none is filed, and how confidential are they? People just aren't going to do this.
My experience in going before councils today in the rural areas -- back 30 years ago when we went to council meetings, we asked for decisions. Council made the decisions. Today, when you go before councils, they hedge around, they look to the executive administration for answers, simply because they're not qualified to be sitting there. You've lost your business people; the business heads are going. I'm suggesting to you that this is a real minefield if this is passed. You may not like what I'm saying today, but I think if you're really honest about it, it's the truth.
Those are the only three points I want to bring to your attention. I'm not going to belabour, and if you have any questions, I'll be quite happy to try to answer them.
The Chair: Very well. Thank you.
Mrs Haslam: I was going to be so nice and then I heard some things that really made me --
Interjection.
Mrs Haslam: -- made me question. Yes, you all know I can.
First of all, I'm going to leave Mr Wiseman's comment for clarification on how we could address that concern regarding wording that would mean you couldn't buy from an agent but you could buy from the brother-in-law's company as long as the agent wasn't sitting at the table with you. I think that's certainly something that we can look at.
But what you said that really got me going was that we were not getting anybody into council, or anybody to run -- we were not getting truly qualified people. Boy, do I take offence at that, because I think we've opened up our government to more disabled people, more women, more working people. I do not consider them not qualified to hold positions. I consider that they have various opinions on how policies should come forward that may not agree with "the businessman," but that doesn't make them any less qualified to hold those positions.
I think of situations where we have one or two gentlemen who own a large downtown core area in the city. The decision to move buses from that end location may not seem to some people to be a big decision, but unless we knew that that person owned a lot of the business around there -- that colours his decision, not the decision as to whether a better location would be better for seniors or disabled or students who get off at the end of the line.
I feel that opening up the process and making it a more open government does not hamper people from running. If saying to someone, "You must indicate that you own mortgages or have a business interest," will preclude that person from running, then it makes me ask why they ran in the first place, if they're so adverse to saying, "This is the kind of business I have," or, "This is the kind of job that I have."
So I believe in accountability, I believe in citizen input, I believe in open government, and I fill out the forms that say I have a mortgage, I own a car, my two children have a $500 bond, and that's the extent of it. I don't have a problem with that. If I'm running for any other reason than the fact that I like to participate in changes and I like to see government opened up, then I shouldn't be running for that job.
1630
The Chair: Mr Wiseman, a brief comment or question?
Mr Wiseman: It's a very brief comment or question. This comment about deficits: My understanding is that municipalities for the most part do not have deficits, that they're deficit-free because there are restrictions on that. If business people and others were so good at balancing budgets, then why has the federal government, with a $450-billion deficit, tripled in the last nine years when 76% of the members who were elected were in fact business people? Also, I think Confederation Life and Olympia and York and the way that business people run those large corporations on leveraged buyouts, on borrowings from banks, are a major problem in terms of what is happening.
Putting huge malls in downtown cores that destroy the old streetscapes of towns is a major problem as well. It seems to me that a lot of those things are done at the request of the business community. Local communities and residents and ratepayers' associations come forward and say: "Don't do that. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense." Yet when it happens and when the predictions of the ratepayers and average people come true, somehow or other the businessman comes out of it looking like he was the brilliant one even though it was his idea in the first place that destroyed the economy of downtown centres. So you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from me for that comment.
Mr Curling: Mine will be pretty short. I want to thank you for your contribution very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling.
Mr Warwick: May I respond?
The Chair: Yes, please, to any of the comments that have been made.
Mr Warwick: I'm not suggesting that I don't encourage non-business people from sitting on councils. I'm saying that I want to encourage some business people to sit there and to give us a business insight into how to run a business. A municipality is a business. I always feel more comfortable when I vote for a Prime Minister or Premier who is someone who has made a payroll once in his life, not an academic. I always find from my experience that when you turn to a business-inclined person, they will have some idea that I hadn't even thought of before and can be very assisting in running the business of a municipality. The clerks don't have that business experience, and sometimes the business people will assist the clerk, the administration, from a business perspective. But I know in our area, and I can only speak for the area I come from, a lot of the business people have told me that if they have to bare their soul financially and tell us what's in their bank account and what they're worth, they are not going to run, because they don't feel it's anybody's business.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hold on, please. This is a comment that Mr Warwick is making.
Mr Hayes: I think it has to be clarified; I'm sorry.
Mr Eddy: There might be further comment on it.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want to clarify that?
Mr Hayes: Tom, I think we have to clarify that part about the conflict, because we're not asking people to let the public know what their worth is and how much money they owe and things of that nature. This legislation is not going in that -- like, they have to divulge where their income is coming from in the first place. You're a solicitor. Your income comes from your --
Mr Warwick: But don't you have to indicate the amount?
Mr Hayes: No, not at all, Tom. We have to do that.
Mr Warwick: Yes, I realize you do.
Mr Hayes: But no, it is not going there, Tom. Not at all.
Interjection.
Mrs Haslam: Where you know where your conflict is.
The Chair: Mr Warwick, if you want to complete some of your thoughts, please do.
Mr Warwick: No, I just wanted to bring that out. That was a major concern we had, that we're going to discourage people from running if they have to bare their soul financially. If they do, then you're going to find a lot of people are going to say: "No, I'm not going to run. I don't feel it's anybody's business. I don't want to make a disclosure of my financial matters." In a small municipality, as you know, Mr Hayes, that information is public. That's why some people bank in Chatham and do their business in Blenheim.
The Chair: You clarified that.
Mr Warwick: But if I can have that assurance that this is not the case --
The Chair: That has been communicated already.
Mr Hayes: That's right. You have our assurance of that. We've got opposition members here who are agreeing with us.
Mr Curling: For the first time all day.
The Chair: Mr Warwick, we thank you very much for communicating your concerns to this committee and for taking the time to come.
Mrs Haslam: Would you like to have a draft of what a conflict-of-interest form looks like?
Mr Warwick: Sure.
The Chair: A few reminders to the members. Those of us who are going by bus to our next committee hearing in Midhurst will be leaving from Queen's Park at 7:30 in the morning.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Tuesday, September 6.
The Chair: Tuesday. Did I say Monday by any chance? No, I didn't. Tuesday, September 6. This committee is adjourned until that time, 9:30 am in Midhurst.
The committee adjourned at 1636.