Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth ND)
Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot
L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): I will bring the meeting to order. The meeting
of Wednesday, November 15, 2000, is now underway, for the
purposes of Hansard and other purposes. Our first item contains
reports of the subcommittee dated Thursday, September 28, October
5, October 12, October 26 and November 2, all 2000.
I am prepared to entertain a
motion for all of those at once.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): So moved.
The Chair:
Moved by Mr Wood that the reports of the subcommittee dated as I
have stated and as you find in your agenda be approved. All in
favour? The motion is carried.
NTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID JOHNSON
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition and third party:
David Johnson, intended appointee as member and chair, Ontario
Municipal Board; cross-appointment as part-time chair, Assessment
Review Board (Ministry of the Attorney General) and Board of
Negotiation (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing).
The Chair:
We have one appointment to be reviewed today. It's a half-hour
review of intended appointments, as always. It's from the
certificate received on October 27, 2000: selection of official
the opposition party and third party. It's Mr David Johnson,
intended appointee as member and chair, Ontario Municipal Board;
cross-appointment as part-time chair, Assessment Review Board,
with the Ministry of the Attorney General, and Board of
Negotiation, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Welcome to the committee, Mr Johnson.
Mr David
Johnson: I'm delighted. Old habits die hard. I might say
that when you said, "All in favour," I almost put up my hand.
The Chair:
As you know, or perhaps you don't know-you may not have appeared
before this committee in this context before, but I believe when
you were in opposition you were perhaps on this committee at one
time-we have the guest who is the intended appointee able to say
whatever he or she sees fit at the beginning. So if you wish to
make an opening statement, we'd be happy to hear from you.
Mr Johnson:
Thank you very much. I'm pleased and honoured to be here today as
the nominee for the positions you have indicated: chair of the
OMB, chair of the Assessment Review Board and chair of the Board
of Negotiation.
As I'm sure the members know,
these boards have been working together under the recommendation
of Bob Wood's task force on agencies, boards and commissions.
The OMB, and specifically the
chair of the OMB, in my view plays a most important role in the
province of Ontario. Over the years I've had the honour to serve
as alderman, mayor and member of provincial Parliament for over
26 years. Alderman is not a term that's used today. I guess that
dates me, Marilyn. I think it was over 20 years ago. I think the
city of Toronto used it.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth): I changed it.
Mr Johnson:
You changed it. Well, credit to you.
During that period I've had
the opportunity to serve on many local and regional planning
committees as well as the local planning board in East York. In
those capacities, the experience I received as a member of the
panel to receive witnesses on land use issues and to make
decisions on those matters has left me with some strong
impressions, notably that land use issues are among the most
important issues to the average residents of the province, for
the reason that the outcome of the issues may affect their
neighbourhoods and their day-to-day lifestyle.
The fair hearing process is
essential. I understand that not every decision can please every
party before a hearing, but I believe that all the parties should
feel they have had the opportunity to put forward their point of
view and that their point of view was respectfully received.
During my six years as MPP
here at Queen's Park, four as a cabinet minister, I had the
opportunity to work closely with provincial assessment officials
and conducted a number of forums in my riding on assessment
matters. As a result of those forums and the information that
people received, there were thousands of appeals that were
generated and most of them were successful.
That experience has fortified
my belief that when most people talk about taxes, they're
actually talking about property taxes and all of the components
of property taxes, of which
assessment of course is a key ingredient. So it's most important
that property assessments be fair and that the process for
ensuring that fairness is open and accessible and understandable
to the ordinary person. It's because of those experiences, and my
interest, I might say, in continuing public service, that I think
I would serve well in the positions I'm being considered for here
today.
With that, I thank you for
your attention, and I'd be happy to answer questions.
1010
The Chair: I
will commence with the official opposition.
Ms Churley:
How much time do we have?
The Chair:
It will be 10 minutes per party.
Mr Ted McMeekin
(Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Mr Johnson, I
appreciate your appearing before us today. It's the first time
I've been to this committee too, so bear with me.
I'll just say at the outset
that when Mr Johnson's announcement was made, it was, as I
recall, late on a Thursday. My initial reaction as one who, like
Mr Johnson, has had some experience in the municipal sector was,
"Oh, here we go again," a late Thursday announcement on a holiday
weekend, trying to hide the move from any kind of critique. A
further abandonment of municipalities: moving something that used
to be in the Attorney General's office to the OMB-I believe it
went over in the early 1990s-and now sending it back. Chatting
quickly with some of my municipal colleagues, I was led to
believe, and may be corrected today, that there was little if any
consultation with municipalities with respect to this move. Then
I stopped and I got to thinking, what a way to spoil an
announcement.
I guess by way of segue I'm
going to say that if the government is intent on moving in this
direction, and they clearly are, I and my caucus can't think of a
better person to appoint than Mr Johnson. Your background, sir,
as a mayor and as an honourable cabinet minister, MPP and, most
importantly, a former resident of Greensville, speaks well for
you. I want to say that up front.
You might say, "Why the heck
did you want to have the chance to speak with Mr Johnson if
you're feeling reasonably comfortable?" It has nothing to do with
you, Mr Johnson; it has to do with the social policy around the
combination of boards and commissions and such, as outlined. I
wanted to have an opportunity to catch a glimpse of some of Mr
Johnson's thinking. In that context, Mr Johnson, I'd like to ask
you a couple of questions.
The major knock on the
Ontario Municipal Board from a municipal perspective, and as a
former mayor of the town of Flamborough I can speak to this
directly, is what is perceived, I think accurately, to be the
increased overturning of the decisions of citizens and their
democratically elected councils, almost to the point-we've seen
this with the Oak Ridges moraine issue in particular-where
seemingly the will of the people and their democratically elected
councils, after a lot of debate around land use issues,
particularly as it relates to the environment, is simply being
thrown out. In fact, some of the bigger developers often will
indicate their desire to go to the OMB even before a decision is
made at the local council. I'm wondering if you can comment on
that, given that a lot of municipal leaders think the OMB should
be done away with entirely, primarily for those reasons.
Mr Johnson:
In terms of that latter comment, that would be out of the purview
of the OMB, or the chair of the OMB. If it was the will of the
Legislature to do away with the OMB, then that's where the
decision would have to be made, by the elected representatives of
the province of Ontario.
I'm not unsympathetic to your
lead-in to the question in the sense that my beginnings were with
ratepayer organizations going back to-I'm dating myself
again-1972. I was the president of a ratepayer organization in my
area, in East York, and then assumed public office, in 1973, as
alderman. Of course, as a member of municipal council, I guess
I've seen positions of the borough upheld and not upheld at the
OMB.
The OMB does have authority
given to it, and the courts have held that there should be
deference to municipal decisions, but the OMB is not bound by it.
In any particular case, deference must be given to municipal
decisions. The board must have regard for provincial policy
statements, but the board with the current set-up has to take all
matters into account and make its decision. In the capacity of
the people in this room, you may feel that's not the proper
approach, and that should be addressed. It's not for me to say. I
think my position is one simply to ensure that all get a fair
hearing, all parties, whether they're ordinary citizens,
ratepayer groups, municipalities, the province of Ontario or land
developers, and work within the framework that we have.
Mr McMeekin:
My colleague has a supplemental question she wants to ask and
then I'll come back.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Thank you.
Good morning, Mr Johnson. You've made some statements with regard
to your experience on the planning committee. You've spoken about
the importance of land use issues. You've indicated that you
believe that as a member of the OMB, when reviewing an issue
before the OMB, you would consider a municipal decision, you
would consider provincial policy, you would consider issues of
land developers.
I just want to share with you
a concern I have. I believe that the needs and the well-being of
the people of the province need certainly to be a very key factor
when you consider these decisions. I would like to refer
specifically to a decision, a bylaw that was made by the city of
Toronto. It was made because there was great concern by the
elected officials with regard to access to affordable housing for
the people in the city. They established a bylaw that would
restrict the demolition of units that would be more affordable
and that would not be
replaced as affordable units. The OMB struck down that
decision.
The concern I have, sir, is
that I believe the OMB needs to have, while they consider all of
the policy issues, a very clear understanding of the needs of the
people and what is good for all participants concerned. Certainly
the well-being of developers is a consideration, but do we or
does the OMB have the right to ignore the well-being of many for
the well-being of a few?
I've very concerned when I
learn about decisions of this nature, where I believe that very
important issues-certainly an important issue in the city of
Toronto is access to affordable housing, and it would appear that
the decision made by the OMB did not consider that as a big part
of that decision.
I was wondering if you could
comment to me about where you place the well-being of the people
who will be affected by decisions made by the OMB. You've
indicated that municipal decisions are important, provincial
policy, the well-being of land developers, but I need to know
where the well-being of the people of the province factors
in.
Mr Johnson:
Ultimately, I think we're all here in this room to serve the
people of the province of Ontario; and if the decisions that are
made collectively are not, in terms of the well-being of the
people of the province of Ontario, then perhaps the system needs
to be changed.
You in your role have a
certain role to play in terms of ensuring not only the well-being
of your constituents but all of the people in the province of
Ontario. The chair of the OMB, and the OMB in particular, has
another role to play in that regard.
As I indicated, I firmly
believe that all citizens should feel welcome, should feel that
the OMB system is open and accessible to them, that they receive
a fair hearing, that they're treated with respect. At the same
time, it's expected that the OMB process is one that has to deal
with certain issues, and people would be expected to speak to
those issues at hand. At the end of the day, the OMB is charged
with making decisions that respect good planning principles, that
have deference to municipal decisions, that listen to people,
anyone else who makes presentations, and have regard for the
provincial policy statements. Hopefully, at the end of the day,
those decisions will serve all the people in the province of
Ontario. If not, then perhaps the system should be changed.
1020
The OMB, though, doesn't
create policy. The OMB is an administrative tribunal. If the
members of this Legislature feel the system isn't properly
weighted, then perhaps that's something that should be addressed
by the Legislature.
The Chair:
Your time has expired. We now go to the third party.
Ms Churley:
Good morning, Mr Johnson. Nice to see you again. Too bad you're
not here any more to be getting the 42% raise that we may all be
getting.
Mr Johnson:
I don't think I'd better make a comment on that.
Ms Churley:
No, I'm not asking a question on that.
I wanted to follow up, in
fact, on a phrase you've used a couple of times now, and that is
"have regard for" provincial policy. As you know, because you
were part of the government, the Harris Tory government revoked
the NDP's Planning Act reforms which said the OMB, municipalities
and the province had to make planning decisions that were
"consistent with"-you remember this-provincial policy. Your
government changed that and watered it down to "have regard for,"
which is very different from "be consistent with." My view, and
I've expressed this many times, is that it takes away a very
strong tool that the OMB had.
Let's come back to the Oak
Ridges moraine, which is a very difficult issue that the OMB has
been grappling with. The province has laid out its position on
the Oak Ridges moraine, a position that, on the face of it, is
progressive environmentally. But many people fear, and I believe
with some good reason, that the province is saying behind closed
doors to the OMB to go ahead and rule for the developers.
I'm not suggesting, Mr
Johnson, you would do that. But what I want to know is, given the
fact that the tool which made it very clear that if a province
has policy, and it's progressive environmental policy-when you've
got a board that no longer has to make a decision that's
"consistent with" provincial policy, you just have to "have
regard for" that, I would like to know how much weight you would
put on the province's written policies when you don't have to any
more in decisions around, for instance, the Oak Ridges
moraine.
Mr Johnson:
It wouldn't be prudent for me to comment on any particular case.
There is a hearing underway right now, as you're well aware, in
terms of the Oak Ridges moraine, so I'm not going to comment
specifically on that.
The phrase "be consistent
with" was part of Bill 163, which the NDP government had passed
and implemented, and Bill 20, I guess, was the bill that
introduced "have regard to"-"to," I guess, is the proper
preposition.
I don't know that I can give
you an answer, because each and every case is different. There is
a history there. I don't know how deeply to get into politics
because this is not a political situation that I'm being
considered for, so I guess I need to be very cautious. You will
know that some municipalities expressed a desire to have more
flexibility; perhaps not all. I don't know. But there were voices
from municipalities that felt the phrase "have regard to" was one
that would allow municipalities more flexibility, so that may
have been part of the rationale back there.
Each case is different. The
provincial policy statements are important; the local municipal
position is important; the position of citizens and their groups
is very important. They must all be considered. I've certainly
had a history of that in East York in terms of listening to all
of the above. Ultimately the OMB, with the system that's in place, is charged with
listening to all of these, taking all that into consideration,
and making what it deems to be the best solution based on those
voices and based on solid planning principles.
I think there was a case
recently in Pickering where the citizens were very joyous at the
outcome, and I guess there are other cases where people are not
feeling that the proper decision was made.
Ms Churley:
The issue around "be consistent with" as opposed to "have regard
to" is based, as you know, on a two-year consultation across the
province and the serious concerns many municipalities and people
had about the paving over of our farmland and urban sprawl.
Sometimes municipalities were making fairly bad decisions in the
face of what we're dealing with around those issues.
I think I heard you say that
you would take a province's position very seriously-I hope that's
what I heard you say, anyway-even though you don't have to any
more, that the work a province does, and then coming out with a
policy, would be taken seriously.
I'm glad I heard you say a
couple of times now that you will listen to people, that that
would be taken into account as well. As you may know, during the
OMB hearings in the King City case, board member Ron Emo said-and
I'm paraphrasing-that he didn't care about public opinion when
making a decision. Then the board proceeded to rule that King
City's plan to provide sewage services sufficient to more than
double its population could go ahead. As you know, that's a very
huge, controversial issue as well.
I want to follow up on a
couple of your statements about listening to the public and ask
you, do you think public opinion should carry as much weight as
all of the other factors you're dealing with when you're making a
decision?
Mr Johnson:
I think public input is very important and, yes, the provincial
policy statements are very important and municipalities'
positions are very important. I don't know how Mr McMeekin
conducted council meetings in an area like Dundas-probably the
same way-but ours were televised in East York. I remember
instances where people would be watching, and the most
interesting part was the public deputations, when citizens were
coming forward and stating their cases.
Because East York is very
compact, one night an individual who was watching on television
got riled up by the proceedings, turned off his TV, hopped in his
car, came down to the municipal office, came in and made a
deputation on that very same issue. That's the way we can operate
in East York. The OMB may not be able to operate quite the same
way, but I felt delighted that we could involve citizens in that
way. While the OMB will be different, I do believe citizens'
input is very important.
Ms Churley:
I just wanted to get at a little bit of your views on what good
planning means to you, because some say the OMB only goes by the
rule of law and I think you have somewhat alluded to that. I
believe the OMB is expected to rule based on good planning as
well. I'd like to ask you if you think good planning is in any
way a subjective exercise. After all, good planning for whom? For
example, do you think compact urban form is good planning? Should
cities be actively trying to discourage car use? Those kinds of
issues, I believe, need to be taken into account by a good,
effective OMB. Yes, you're following the rule of law, but it's
also your job to look at good planning and the future impacts
that your decisions are going to be making on our
communities.
Can you give me a sense of
what you believe your role is?
1030
Mr Johnson:
Certainly I think good planning involves adverse impact on the
surrounding community and neighbourhoods. Transportation issues
are very much part of good planning. Compatibility of the
proposed land use with the surrounding community-these are
aspects of good planning. I'm sure, again, that Mr McMeekin's
council would have considered the same kind of thing. The
availability of local services-soft services, hard services-is
part of good planning as well.
Ms Churley:
A question that is really pertinent to my riding of south
Riverdale, which I know you're very familiar with, and other
inner areas in the city is, what do you think about the local
retail strips, promoting those, even when it means saying no to a
big-box retailer like Wal-Mart? We've had that kind of situation
in south Riverdale. Small businesses are quite rightly concerned.
I think that's going to become more and more of an issue in the
inner city, that the big-box retailers are moving into our
communities.
Mr Johnson:
I would think primarily that would be the jurisdiction of the
local council. I'm not sure it would be my position to have a
position on that matter. If that was something the local citizens
and the local council felt was important, then I think they
should reflect that in terms of their planning, their zoning
bylaws, official plans etc.
Ms Churley:
You wouldn't anticipate something like that coming before the
OMB?
Mr Johnson:
Well, I suppose if it involved changes to the zoning bylaws or
official plans to implement something like that, and if there
were people who objected to that, then it could end up at the
Ontario Municipal Board. The board would have to take into
consideration the views of all the people and good planning
principles etc and make an outcome, but I would hope that would
be the kind of thing that could be dealt with successfully by
local councils.
The Chair:
Ms Churley, time goes by quickly when you're having a good
time.
Ms Churley:
It does. Thank you.
The Chair:
Now the government caucus.
Mr Wood: Mr
Johnson, thinking in terms of the simpler decisions the OMB
makes, what do you think is a reasonable time frame between the
time of first application to the board and a final decision being
rendered by the board?
Mr Johnson:
There are various time frames involved. I guess it depends on the
magnitude of the application. There were a couple of cases referred to here
today. The Oak Ridges moraine, for example, is a little more
complicated and one might expect a slightly longer period of
time.
I will say that one of the
most frustrating things for all parties, from my experience at
the local level, is a situation where a case is not dealt with
for an extended period of time. I think the OMB caseload is now
being dealt with much more expeditiously, but when I was mayor
there were instances where it was well over a year that some
cases were taking to work their way through. This is uncertainty
for all parties concerned, whether for or against it, and it's
very nerve-racking.
I guess I would have to say
that would be one of the issues that would have to be dealt with.
We'd have to make sure that all the proper input is in, again,
that people have the opportunity to speak, that it's accessible
and understandable, but another word I would throw in there is
"efficient." Matters need to be dealt with focused on the issues
at hand; pre-hearing meetings, mediation attempts to resolve
matters so that matters perhaps don't even have to go to a
hearing and can be resolved without a hearing, or if they do go
to a hearing, the pre-hearing meetings can focus them down to
just what the issues are and they can be dealt with in a short
period of time, perhaps 30 to 60 days type of thing.
There is a notification
procedure, of course. That has to be made, so there's a period of
time that has to elapse while that's being undertaken. Then
beyond that, particularly the less intricate ones-variances,
perhaps consents, that type of thing-should be dealt with very
quickly.
Mr Wood:
Could you condense that answer into a time frame for the simpler
types of cases the board deals with?
Mr Johnson:
After the notice procedure, within 30 days or so should be about
par for the course.
Mr Wood:
What about the more complicated cases that the board deals with?
What do you think is a reasonable time frame after the notice
periods?
Mr Johnson:
There's quite a range of cases there. I'm not sure I can give you
a number in that. One would hope that all the evidence could be
collected and dealt with in an expeditious manner. The Oak Ridges
hearing is underway right now, which will probably take place
over the course of a year. That seems like a long period of time
to me, but again I don't know all of the circumstances, so I
really shouldn't comment in terms of if that's appropriate or
not.
You have to make sure that
everybody has the opportunity to get their input into the
process. But if it can be focused, then I think the more
intricate hearings should be able to be dealt with within 90
days, in general.
Mr Wood: Are
you prepared to look at ways to make the current process more
efficient?
Mr Johnson:
Absolutely-some of the suggestions I made earlier, such as the
pre-hearing approach to focus the issues, to determine exactly
what needs to be discussed and mediation attempts to get the
parties together. Training is important for the members of the
board so they have the ability to focus on the issues and
understand what needs to be done.
I know the board is using
telephone conferences in certain circumstances that may be
appropriate. We are in a new electronic era. I don't know
precisely how that or the Internet might affect the ability to
conduct hearings through electronic means; I'm not sure. But I
think, for the benefit of all, every opportunity should be taken
to expedite matters, provided that people have a fair opportunity
to give their input.
Mr Wood: Do
you see an increased role for the electronic processing of
information by the boards?
Mr Johnson:
In the case of the Assessment Review Board, there is a
possibility of entering appeals electronically, as I understand
it, so that may be one example. I don't know what front-end
processing could be done in terms of the OMB. Clearly we're in an
era where we have opportunities through electronic means not only
to expedite but to give more information to people, to make
people better informed, and consequently, if they're better
informed, to make them understand the process and be part of a
process.
I think there's not only the
ability to speed it up and perhaps be more cost-efficient but
also to get people more involved in the process and to give them
more information about what the issues are.
Mr Wood:
What role do you see the chair having in monitoring the
performance of the board members?
Mr Johnson:
I believe the chair should play the key role in terms of
determining the scheduling of the hearings and the members for
those hearings. The chair of the board should play a key role in
terms of appraising the productivity or the ability of the board
members. The impression I have is that we have some very
excellent board members, but no two people are created the same
way and some people are more adept than others. Some people
perhaps need more training. I think the chair should play a key
role in determining those kinds of things. Those are a few
examples.
Mr Wood:
Those are my questions. Do we have any others? We'll waive the
balance of our time.
1040
The Chair:
We have heard questions from the three parties represented in
this committee. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson, for being with
us today.
Mr
Johnson: Thank you.
The Chair:
We will now give consideration to the appointment. I will accept
a motion and any discussion.
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
The motion that the appointment of David Johnson to the boards
mentioned in here be concurred in by this committee has been made
by Mr Wood. Any discussion?
Mr Wood:
I'd like to say that I think Dave Johnson would do an excellent
job as the chair of this board and I think we're very fortunate
that he has agreed to take on this job. I think he'll do a lot of
good things for the people of this province.
Mr McMeekin: I concur with the
comment. If we're going to go in this direction, clearly Mr
Johnson is an excellent choice, Mr Wood, so we would want that
for the record.
The Chair:
I am sure you will have that repeated in the Legislature.
Mr
McMeekin: I'm sure we will. But with that caveat, I want
to just say that, knowing the propensity of the government to
quote honourable members opposite, if they would, as an act of
basic decency, use a full quote. I'll just extend beyond that
because, notwithstanding my respect for Mr Johnson, I do want to
say for the record and say here on this record that if members
opposite do want to quote me, I would appreciate the full
quote.
I don't believe, and we're
not convinced in the Liberal caucus, that this will make the
system more efficient. Our fear is that this move out of
municipal affairs will almost by definition, taking it to the
Attorney General's area, tend to make this activity more
litigious. We need to make activities less litigious. I think our
caucus and certainly this particular member believe very strongly
that there ought to be more emphasis on local democracy. I think
Mr Johnson, although he is being careful, alluded to that in some
aspects of his testimony before us this morning.
There's a paradox here
which needs to be flagged. Some of the changes to the legislation
which Ms Churley mentioned, and some subsequent changes,
seemingly were designed to devolve more authority to
democratically elected municipal councils. It hasn't always
worked out that way. I think the key issue in Ontario is very
much how we handle issues like urban sprawl and juxtapose that to
what, again seemingly on the surface, is an enhanced emphasis on
direct democracy. It occurs to me and to a number of municipal
colleagues I've spoken with that this doesn't do the trick,
notwithstanding the good work that Mr Wood attempted to do with
his committee and his review.
I just want to flag that
and again share the belief that if we're going in this direction,
we need a good person there. Obviously, Mr Johnson comes with a
lot of skills and maybe a little baggage too, but that's for
another day.
I want to make those
comments for the record. That having been said, it's our intent
to support this appointment.
The Chair:
Ms Churley.
Ms
Churley: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll bet if you weren't in
the chair, you would have liked to ask Mr Johnson some questions
as well, wouldn't you?
The Chair:
I have to be neutral in the chair, of course.
Ms
Churley: I know. With great regret, I will not be
supporting the appointment of Mr Johnson. I've known Mr Johnson
for a very long time. When he was the mayor of East York, I had a
great deal of respect for the work he did in his community.
However, although I believe Mr Johnson has a great deal of
integrity, with his having been a minister within this existing
government, I have concerns about his close ties to the
government.
Given the concerns that I
and the NDP have about the direction the province is going in
terms of planning-paving over farmland at an unprecedented rate,
urban sprawl and all of the environmental problems that
entails-and also expressing the same concerns that Mr McMeekin
expressed around the direction the board is going in, I presume
for efficiency's sake, I have really grave concerns about that
direction.
Having said all of that, I
would like to see the chair of the board be somebody with not
just a municipal background-admittedly Mr Johnson, I think,
outshines us all here in terms of his municipal background-but
with more of a planning background and environmental background,
as well as a municipal background, at a time when we have some
very serious cases before the board right now, and there will be
more to come.
Regrettably at this time,
given the kinds of challenges the OMB and indeed the province and
municipalities are facing, I would prefer a person with a
background in environmental planning and an understanding of the
bigger picture, particularly given that the OMB has been let off
the hook in some ways. Let me put it this way: a very strong tool
they used to have when they had to have decisions consistent with
provincial policy has now been taken away.
Regrettably and without any
offence to Mr Johnson, I believe he's the wrong person for this
job at this time.
The Chair:
Any other comments by members of any of the parties? If not, I'll
call for a vote on the motion.
All in favour? Opposed?
The motion is carried.
There being no further
business before the committee that I am aware of, the committee
is adjourned.
