Transcription du comité 1994-sept-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

Town of Oakville

Sean Weir, councillor

Doug Gates, town solicitor

Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto

Peter Clutterbuck, executive director

Greater Toronto Area Mayors' Committee

Peter Robertson, mayor, Brampton

John Marshall, commissioner, planning and building, city of Brampton

Robert Johnston, consultant

City of Scarborough

Joyce Trimmer, mayor

Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto

Peter Gabor, chair, task force on planning and reform

Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in North York

Colin Williams, president

Timothy Pellew, member

Gerard Ronan, member

Green Door Alliance

Lorne Almack, director

Regional Chairs of Ontario

Peter Pomeroy, chair

Pat Murphy, member

Black Creek Project

Tariq Syed, planning coordinator

Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association

Patrick Meany, president

Carol Devine, first vice-president

Patrick Daly, second vice-president

Mary Hendriks, past president

Lake Dalrymple Associations for Environmental Protection

Lorne Hill, co-chair, steering committee

Rodney Northey, counsel

Mary-Jean Smith, secretary

Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario

Elbert van Donkersgoed, research and policy director

East York Tenants Association

Mary Jo Donovan, president

Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations

Deborah Wandal, member

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition

David McQueen, co-chair

Dorothy Izzard, vice-chair

Niva Rowan, member

Ontario Public School Boards' Association; Ontario Association of School Business Officials

Donna Cansfield, president, OPSBA

David Burnham, president, OASBO

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant / Présidente suppléante: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

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 Iles ND)

Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Ms Haeck

Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Malkowski

Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Harnick

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Ms Harrington

Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Wilson

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Bisson

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Winninger

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Environment and Energy:

Campbell, Alexander, soil specialist, on-site unit, approvals branch

Ng, Wilfred, director, approvals branch

Ministry of Municipal Affairs:

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister

McKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal planning policy branch

Sidebottom, Peter-John, senior policy advisor, local government policy branch

Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel:

McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Stobo, Carolyn, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0909 in room 151.

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.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): We welcome the town of Oakville, Councillor Sean Weir. Mr Weir, with respect to what you were telling me, the fax I don't think has yet arrived, so you'll have to do your best with what you've got.

Mr Sean Weir: We'll see if that's good enough, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. For the benefit of the other members who may not be aware, the other part of the delegation from the town of Oakville is our town solicitor. His office telephoned me a few minutes ago to advise that he is apparently trapped in a GO train because of an accident on the line, and he may not be here on time. I have a draft of his remarks, and they relate to the planning portions of the bill. I will read those if that's acceptable.

My intention was to speak to you simply on the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act. My council is quite concerned about a number of provisions and has authorized me to speak to you with regard to those points.

Generally speaking, the town of Oakville endorses the submission made to you by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, and I know it made a number of particular or specific recommendations. I wish to address three points and three points only.

The first is with respect to subsection 2(3) of the proposed act, that's schedule B to Bill 163, and the second is with respect to financial disclosure. The third point is with respect to clause 4(1)(d) regarding a member's presence during a meeting at which the member declares a conflict of interest.

The first point is with respect to knowledge of a pecuniary interest. With the exception of clause 2(3)(a), the draft legislation requires a member to know that he or she has a conflict of interest. This is the deeming provision I'm referring to; clauses (b), (c) and (d) all require the member to know.

Generally speaking, I suggest to you that in the circumstances covered by clause (a) the member would know that they have a pecuniary interest in the matter before council. However, I have an example I can provide to you, it's a very real one and strikes close to home with me.

I'm a partner in a Toronto firm with over 200 lawyers in that firm. Our client list extends to many thousands of names and it's virtually impossible for me to know every client on that list and recognize it simply because it appears in the agenda. I've asked the lawyers in my firm to let me know when they're doing any matters with respect to the town of Oakville.

However, it's quite conceivable that we will -- and we've had matters like this, where our firm represents a client. I don't know that they're a client of our firm. Our firm is not acting in the matter before council, yet a client of our firm is before council. In those circumstances, I could see that I don't know in fact that somebody we act for is before us. I could vote in those circumstances without that knowledge, in good faith, and have breached the statute. That's one real example that causes concern to me and I'm sure there are others.

The first submission I'd make to you is that you add the language -- and I've given you some remarks and you'll see it in the middle of page 2 -- to clause 2(3)(a) right at the end of that clause. It's language similar to what you find in clauses (b), (c) and (d) "and the member knows that such corporation, person or body has a pecuniary interest in the matter."

I'm not sure there's anything that would offend the spirit or intent of the legislation, and I don't have any problem with that, but I have concern that where members act in good faith and without knowledge of a conflict, they may be caught, and I'm not sure that's the intention.

The second point I'd like to make is with respect to financial disclosure. I don't have any difficulty in making some portions of my financial affairs public, and I don't have any concern with that. There are two things I'd like to say to you about this.

One, I'm not sure that those who wish to satisfy their idle curiosity when they're in signing their kids up for a parks and rec program and say, "Oh, I'd like to know what Sean Weir's affairs are" -- so they just go next door to the clerk's office and say, "Give me his information."

Members of provincial Parliament have a central registry where their information is filed. I'd recommend that we consider doing that, or at least that you have to fill out an application or pay a $5 fee; something, as I said, so there's no impediment to access but would slow down those who merely wish to satisfy their idle curiosity.

The second point -- and this is where I'm endorsing what I believe is proposed. I have received a draft form and I've stapled it to the last page of my remarks, which is what I understand is what we will be required to disclose; in other words, what you own, where you work, who you owe money to, but not the amounts.

If that is the case, I don't have any difficulty with that form at all. If there was an attempt to request that we disclose amounts, I don't think that serves any public interest, and doesn't go to what the legislation's trying to get at.

I would ask this committee to do its best to ensure, if this form is what's proposed for draft regulations, that indeed this is what finds its way into the regulations and there's no move to disclose specific amounts as to the value of your home or your mortgage or what you make at your day job, if you will.

The final point I'd like to stress is presence at meetings at which you declare conflict of interest. I know there's been perhaps some differences of opinion as to what the wording of the proposed legislation actually means. I think most of you are aware that most municipalities in the province of Ontario provide for declarations of conflict of interest at the commencement of each of their meetings. The way the legislation is currently drafted, if you're down at item 20 on the agenda with a conflict, you would have to leave immediately upon making that declaration.

I've provided you with some suggested language on page 3 which would make it clear that you leave the meeting immediately prior to the matter being considered and remain -- I've got "in absence," it should actually be "absent." There's no reason for me to change that -- but "remain absent from the meeting until the matter is no longer under consideration."

I think in these committee hearings, at least one of the members has alluded to the fact that sometimes members of council choose to avoid taking sides on a difficult issue by declaring conflicts where they're perhaps straining it. I'd suggest to you that the current proposed legislation lends itself to any councillors who wish to abuse that privilege. As I said, if they're at item 20 on the agenda, I believe the way the legislation is written, you don't have to declare it at the beginning of the meeting, that's a subject of the municipal bylaws.

I'm sure that your defence of the proposed language would be "The member doesn't have to actually declare it until the item appears on the agenda." However, if they wish to, as I said, avoid a very troublesome issue that's item 11 on the agenda, then what they do is declare their conflict at the beginning of the meeting, leave the meeting and come back when their conflicted item has been dealt with. So you may be working a disservice to the constituents of a particular municipality by taking their elected representative out of the debate when there's really no reason for them to be out of that debate. So I'd ask you to adopt the language that's on page 3 of my submission, just to clarify that they only have to leave the meeting immediately prior to that issue being considered.

Those were the three points I wanted to make to you with respect to the conflict of interest. As I said, we generally endorse the AMO presentation but, in my view, these are the three most important issues.

I don't see that my town solicitor has arrived, although his more polished remarks apparently have. If you'll bear with me, I'll just try to get right to his discussion which relates to planning issues. I'm not as familiar with these sections of the proposed legislation so I would read through his remarks. The thrust of Mr Gates's remarks -- he's been solicitor with the town of Oakville I believe for almost 20 years; town solicitor for about the last 13. He's very conversant with planning issues and the relationship between the local municipality, Oakville, the senior local government which is the region of Halton, and the OMB. The town of Oakville has been to the OMB on several occasions.

The thrust of his remarks really is that the proposed legislation takes away too much from the local level of government, which is fine when you have a very small local municipality which does not have the resources to have a full-blown planning process or department. When you have significant municipalities such as the town of Oakville, we do have a very sophisticated planning department, our own official plan, and so the thrust of his remarks is: If the local municipality wishes to delegate its functions up to the higher tier, that's fine. Don't mandate that and don't strip the local municipality of its functions. With that by way of introduction, I will just read his remarks.

The first is with respect to official plans: Subsection 17(7) of the proposed act would require regional municipalities to prepare and adopt official plans. Subsection 17(8) would permit local municipalities to do so. A community's official plan is perhaps its most important planning document. It sets out the hopes and aspirations of the community for the next 10- to 20-year period and mandates the zoning bylaws and development during that time.

In these days of restricted budgets, cutbacks and reduction in duplication, it is clear that if an official plan is mandatory at the regional level, and only permissible at the local level, official plans for local municipalities will be completed at the regional level as part of the regional plan.

0920

Municipalities should be encouraged, and not discouraged, to put in writing their plans for how they wish their towns and cities to grow. This will provide direction and guidance to the public, to staff, to the development industry and, in the long run, reduce time-consuming confusion and frustration. Without a specific requirement or encouragement, very few local municipalities will have the financial means or staff resources to be able to complete appropriate plans. This could impair and perhaps end real local planning.

Official plans, we submit, should be mandatory at the local level unless delegated up by the local municipality to the next level of government, and the content of official plans is also very important. The town of Oakville is concerned that you will also adopt by regulation Mr Sewell's recommendations respecting what may go into local plans and what will go into regional plans. Mr Sewell's recommendations would result in virtually all of the more important decisions respecting Oakville's environmental issues, Oakville's growth and phasing, Oakville's allocation of employment plans, Oakville transportation and transit issues taking place at the region.

I'd now like to introduce Mr Gates who has survived his adventures on the GO train this morning. Once you've got yourself put together, Doug, you can take over, but I'll carry on for a moment and finish this first point.

Oakville believes these decisions should be made by politicians who represent those citizens most affected by these decisions, that is, Oakville's town council. More appropriate direction would be for the region's official plan to focus upon the specific application of provincial policies and upon regional policies respecting regional services in the region. Decisions respecting environmental issues, growth and phasing, allocation of employment plans, transportation and transit issues should be made at the local level and incorporated in local official plans.

I think you're going to get to another example at that point, Doug. I'm on page 5 of your remarks.

Mr Doug Gates: Another example of the enlargement of regional powers has to do with the proposed subsection 17(29), which gives powers to the region to refuse to refer an official plan to the OMB if the plan or amendment is premature. This latter test may enable regions to thwart local official plans by deeming them premature and thereby frustrate local planning initiatives. The local municipality would have no appeal to the board in this situation and would therefore be without recourse.

While cases of dispute between the region and the town are rare, we take the position that the issue of prematurity is best left to the OMB to deal with.

The second main issue in planning has to do with subdivisions. With respect to the subdivision approval process, again regional powers would be enhanced at the expense of those of the local municipalities. Subsection 51(14) of the proposed act provides that, if required by regulation, a public meeting must be held by the approving authority. In Oakville the approving authority is the region of Halton. With respect, the region of Halton is not the proper place to hold a public meeting concerning a subdivision in Oakville. The public meeting respecting a subdivision in Oakville should take place before Oakville town council, not Halton regional council on which Oakville only has seven of 25 votes.

The third planning issue relates to minor variances. The current Planning Act provides in subsection 45(12) that any person interested in a committee of adjustment decision may appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The proposed section 45.1 abolishes such appeals and provides for a review by the council of the local municipality. In our opinion, council is not the appropriate place for committee of adjustment appeals.

Firstly, any person who's concerned about lack of right of appeal to the OMB will opt to apply for a rezoning. Rezoning applications can and often do end up at the OMB. The board's load will not be significantly reduced and the municipality's planning load will be significantly increased, since many applications will be diverted away from the committee of adjustment process to the rezoning process.

Secondly, one of the many laudable attributes of the OMB which Oakville town council recognizes is its independence. There is a presumption that it is not influenced by any councillor's acquaintance with members of the public, nor by the number of votes siding with a particular issue. Anyone who has witnessed a municipal council's performance in the six months before a municipal election will tell you how difficult it is on occasion for the municipality to come to the best decision at the expense of losing votes. Our council does not welcome this new power.

Finally, there could be a significant downloading of costs from the provincial government, which currently funds the OMB, to municipalities. Councils may well have to hold special meetings to deal with these reviews. More staff time would be required to prepare for and attend these meetings.

The fourth issue on the planning side relates to site plan changes. Turning to the site plan approval process, it is proposed that a new provision be added to subsection 41(8) of the Planning Act to allow a regional municipality, as a condition of site plan approval, to require the conveyance to it, free of charge, of land for a public transit right of way. Oakville believes that this change is a good one but that it should be amended to allow local municipalities as well as regional municipalities to have this power. In some urban areas within the GTA, it is the local municipality that exercises the responsibility for public transit within its boundaries. In fact, virtually all of the local suburban municipalities west of Toronto have their own public transit operations. This is Oakville's position. There is no logical reason why local municipalities should not also have this power.

Finally, with respect to affordable housing, the proposed policy statement on housing would require all local municipalities to provide opportunities for affordable housing in each community planning area. The term "community planning area" is the subject of a rather loose definition in the implementation and interpretation section of the policy statements. It is difficult to determine from the definition exactly what is meant by a community planning area, but it seems to be something smaller than an entire community but larger than an individual site. It could very well mean a single neighbourhood. It is Oakville's position that this reduces council's flexibility in deciding where it is best to locate affordable housing within Oakville. Oakville would like the current flexibility to remain.

Respecting a couple of the other legislative changes unrelated to planning, there are two that Oakville would like to comment on.

One has to do with section 193 of the Municipal Act relating to the disposition of surplus real property by municipalities and local boards. The proposed clause 6(a) would allow the minister to make regulations prescribing the classes of property for which an appraisal would not be required as part of the process of disposing of the real property. It would be our suggestion that the regulations not require an appraisal for any properties to be offered for sale at less than $25,000. The reason for this is simply one of cost. Appraisals can cost anywhere from $500 to $2,500, so it makes little sense to require appraisals for properties of low value.

0930

The second issue under the Municipal Act relates to in camera council meetings. Under the proposed section 55(5) of the Municipal Act, there are seven situations in which a local municipality would be allowed to hold a meeting or part of a meeting in camera. We think there should be one addition to the list which would allow a local municipal council to go in camera to discuss matters pertaining to industrial strategy. For instance, a new company may wish to locate in Oakville and may wish to speak to council in camera in order to make sure the local council really wants it. Some industries are not embraced by municipalities. Companies do not like to make their future plans public because it may give their competitors an advantage or it may unnecessarily upset their workers if a change in location is contemplated, even at a very early and preliminary planning stage. It's for this reason that we recommend that for matters of industrial strategy, council also be permitted to go in camera.

I brought with me a summary of Mr Weir's and my remarks and I would like to leave it with the committee. But just to summarize very briefly, Mr Weir covered with you the conflict-of-interest reform having to do with, first of all, personal disclosure. I think Mr Weir indicated to you that the Oakville council and he were pleased with the published disclosure form if that is the one that is utilized, but would have some concern if a more detailed form were required.

Secondly, with respect to conflict of interest, if there is a conflict that the councillor doesn't know about, then at the very least the councillor should be able to use that in a defense of a conflict-of-interest charge.

Thirdly, on the presence at meetings, Mr Weir made the point that the councillor, when declaring a conflict, shouldn't have to leave the entire meeting, but should only be required to leave the meeting for the particular item that the councillor has a conflict for.

With respect to Planning Act reforms, there were really four main issues Oakville brought to you this morning: firstly, that the official plan should be mandatory at the local level unless delegated up; secondly, that regional official plans should deal with the application of provincial policy and regional policy respecting regional services; thirdly, that local plans should deal with substantive issues affecting the community, including environment, growth, phasing, employment plans, transportation and transit; and finally, that the OMB, not the region, should determine the prematurity of an official plan.

I dealt with the issue of subdivisions, that the subdivision public meeting should be held at the local level; with respect to minor variances, that the appeals should remain at the OMB; with respect to site plans, that the town and local municipalities should have the same ability to require as a condition public transit rights of way; and with respect to affordable housing, that the policy remain on an Oakville-wide basis. With respect to the two other changes, we're suggesting that no appraisals be required when the properties have a value of less than $25,000 when being sold by municipalities and, finally, that council should be able to go in camera to discuss industrial strategy.

I apologize for being late. The transportation system seemed to conspire against me no matter what this morning and I'm pleased that I'm finally here. At the end of the submission or any questions, I'll hand out my summary to you.

The Chair: Mr Gates, we ran out of time. We're happy that you made it here this morning and we want to thank you both for coming and for the submission you made to this committee. You can give us those recommendations if you like, and we'll circulate them.

SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Chair: We invite the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr Peter Clutterbuck.

Mr Peter Clutterbuck: I have provided a copy of the statement which I'm going to make and I'll launch right into it. It's only eight pages, and then perhaps there will be some questions afterwards.

Founded in 1940, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto is an independent voluntary community organization dedicated to research, planning, policy analysis and advocacy on the social, economic and cultural issues which have an impact on the conditions and quality of life of the residents of Metro Toronto. The council works primarily from a Metro-wide basis, but also frequently in conjunction with its social planning partners outside Metro's boundaries, in the GTA and across Ontario. It is this interest in larger planning issues which brings the council before the standing committee with respect specifically to revisions to the Planning Act and the proposed Ontario Planning and Development Act.

The Greater Toronto Area Social Planning Network was organized in 1991 because the member organizations recognized that growth and development in the GTA necessitated more regular information exchange and even joint planning activity on social development issues in the region. In late 1991 and early 1992, the GTA social planning network partners served together on the Provincial-Municipal Human and Social Development Working Group set up by the Ontario GTA office as part of its six-study initiative on a planning framework for the GTA. This resulted in the working group report titled Planning for People and Communities. This report constituted part of a discussion in April 1992 which the GTA social planning network had with John Sewell, chairman of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. The Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto also submitted a formal brief on land use planning reform to the Sewell commission in February 1993, as did several of our social planning counterparts in the greater Toronto area.

Having established our interest in land use planning reform in the GTA and Ontario, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto wishes to begin with a general statement of support for the amendments to the Planning Act and the general thrust of the Ontario Planning and Development Act.

The council congratulates the Sewell commission for its work which has led Ontario to this point, even though we feel that the commission did not give strong enough force and coherence to the integration of social development principles with land use planning, as we stated in our submission to the commission. Nevertheless, the commission's report was comprehensive, well organized and clear in its proposals.

The process for the development of the commission's report was also extremely thorough and open, making the commission very accessible to planning interests and to the general public. In this regard, the commission followed a course which serves as a good model for its own specific recommendations on public involvement in a reform planning process.

The social planning council's primary interest in Bill 163 is with respect to provisions which promote the integration of social development principles and objectives of land use planning. The council released an historical and conceptual treatment of this kind of integrated planning approach in the Social Infopac dated December 1993, a copy of which is appended to this brief for the honourable members' information.

Planning for People and Communities, the report of the Provincial-Municipal Human and Social Development Working Group referred to earlier, articulates seven human and social development goals, which are appended to this brief, and recommends active collaboration between human service and land use planners in the public and voluntary sectors. The report also recommends that "the Planning Act be reviewed and amended in light of these recommendations, particularly in terms of human and social development goals."

The social planning council's assessment of Bill 163 in this regard is that:

(1) The bill makes major strides with respect to provision for and encouragement of public participation in the land use planning process which is in accordance with social development principles of community empowerment and participation.

(2) The bill incorporates general reference to social development objectives in the language of the two acts, but mostly as secondary considerations and with little reference to application and few expectations with respect to municipal action.

Regarding public participation in the planning process, the council heartily endorses the provisions for amendment to the Planning Act, and especially section 4 of the Ontario Planning and Development Act.

One further provision to enhance both acts would be specific reference to the participation of organizations in the non-profit voluntary sector which are not either "public bodies" nor strictly "private interests" in the typically understood meanings of the terms. This is an important consideration to begin burning into the consciousness of the public authorities and professionals who control the planning process both provincially and municipally. For example, most recently, social planning in the voluntary sector was invited as an afterthought and with only two days' notice to a Ministry of Municipal Affairs consultation on guidelines on linkages between social human services and land use planning.

Therefore, our first recommendation: The social planning council recommends that specific reference be made to organizations in the non-profit, voluntary sector in the sections of the two acts which deal with public participation in the planning process.

0940

The social planning council supports the amendment in section 2 to the Planning Act which accepts the Sewell commission's recommendations that areas of "provincial interest" be specified for the formulation of municipal official plans. The council is also encouraged that six of the specified areas of provincial interest in section 2 relate to social development considerations, also suggested by the Sewell commission.

Notably, however, the amendments to the purpose section of the Planning Act, section 1(1), do not include the Sewell commission's original recommendations, which were much stronger statements in terms of linking land use with social development objectives. Therefore, the council recommends adoption of the commission's original recommendations for part of the purpose statements of the Planning Act, specifically:

"(a) to protect and conserve the natural environment and foster the wellbeing of ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations; and

"(b) to foster economic, cultural, physical and social wellbeing."

Section 9 of the amendments to the Planning Act repeals section 16 on the contents of the official plan and substitutes the following:

"An official plan shall contain the prescribed contents and,

"(a) shall contain goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social, economic and natural environment of the municipality or part of it, or an area that is without municipal organization."

While the inclusion of "social, economic and natural environment" considerations in this section is encouraging, it is clear that land use planning is the driving force here and that these other considerations are secondary. The problem with this approach to integrated planning is that social, economic and environmental considerations are limited to effects when we would argue that they could well be considered to be the purpose or intent for some physical planning. Therefore, the council recommends a statement on the contents of official plans in this section which suggests a more balanced relationship between physical and social, economic, and environmental planning considerations.

Further on the contents of the official plans, clause 16(b) on the "description of the measures and procedures to attain the objectives of the plan," including provision for public participation, is not a requirement of the official plan. Municipalities "may" include these descriptions but do not have to do so. Therefore, the council recommends that the language of this clause be changed to "shall contain." This is the only way in which public involvement will be safeguarded and local experience in the development and application of social and economic indicators and measures related to land use planning decisions will be gained.

As a new act, the Ontario Planning and Development Act is a little less encumbered by the primacy of physical planning compared to the Planning Act. In subsection 2(3), the minister is empowered for a development planning area to "(a) cause to be carried out an investigation and survey of the environmental, physical, social and economic conditions affecting the development planning area or any part of it."

This is a noticeably more integrative planning approach than the Planning Act's provision for the primacy of physical planning. Social, economic and environmental factors are not subject to the effects of physical planning, but are included at the outset as part of the overall assessment of the development planning area. Section 3 builds on this integrative approach, referring to "policies for the economic, social and physical development of the area" equally, but again a "may" rather than a "shall" statement introduces this section. The council recommends that the specified contents of a development plan in section 3 be a required, not discretionary, matter.

What is really needed in Bill 163 is clear provision for social impact assessment in development plans in the same way that environmental impact assessments are done. The social planning council recognizes, however, that such a provision would be perceived as conflicting with the current objective of "streamlining" the planning process. These first tentative steps of incorporating social development objectives into the legislation will probably have to suffice for now.

As our Social Infopac indicates, some municipalities across the province, including Metro Toronto, have already begun to articulate broader social, economic and environmental objectives in their official plans. The real challenge over the next few years will be to translate general statements in local development and official plans on the integration of social development and land use planning into practice and application. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto believes this is where more research and development are required in order to identify reliable social indicators for purposes of both monitoring plan implementation as well as designing social impact assessments for proposed new developments. In this regard, the social planning council supports the Sewell commission's recommendation that research and information become one of the province's responsibilities under an amended Planning Act. The more effective and coherent integration of social development principles into land use planning and the identification of relevant indicators and measures should constitute one part of the needed research agenda.

The council also supports the commission's recommendation for a "state of the environment report" at the upper-tier level at five-year intervals in which "municipalities should identify and select key indicators of local relevance to their natural, social, cultural and economic environments and then establish procedures for monitoring them."

These provisions are not evident in the amended Planning Act or the new Ontario Planning and Development Act, although section 19 of the latter does give the Minister of Municipal Affairs opportunity to provide financial assistance for such research.

Therefore, in conclusion, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto recommends (a) that the ministry require upper-tier municipalities to produce the state-of-the-environment reports at five-year intervals, minimally, as originally recommended by the Sewell commission; (b) that the ministry provide research support to the community for the further development of the integration of social development and land use planning; and (c) that the learning from both the preceding be used for future amendments to the two acts under consideration in order to strengthen the incorporation of social development objectives in land use planning policy and practice.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I think this is a very sound presentation and has some of the things that we've been hearing across the province about the exclusion of many of the areas that the Sewell report had presented.

As a matter of fact, the concern that they have too is about the policy. It seems to me that the review of the plan is okay, but the review of the policy is not there although the Sewell report had indicated that somehow, maybe every five years, I think this was the time frame, a policy should be reviewed. You know, especially in your area of social work and social science, the dynamics of the changes. What would be your comment, first, that the government feels that the policy is not up there for any debate, that it cannot be debated upon at all? What is your feeling about that after review of this policy?

Mr Clutterbuck: You're referring to the development of the comprehensive set of policy statements that are now -- there's an implementation guidelines task force for it? We think that in this field we are, in our area of particular interest, social development, in maybe the same place that the environmental movement was 20 or 25 years ago. So it would be good to make a very strong effort at defining what we think is good and important policy in this area, but certainly we don't assume that it's going to be definitive and all-enduring into perpetuity, that this is the kind of thing which should be periodically reviewed, based also on our ability to actually develop measures and indicators that show our ability to measure progress in achieving these policy statements.

So five- or six-year reviews of the policy statements, we think, would be a good idea as well. We're just learning, in other words, in our area.

Mr Curling: So therefore I'm hearing you say that the government should and must review that policy within the next five years, but again the policy is not up for grabs.

You seem to say too that the progress of the environmentalists within this and the inclusion is well stated, but somehow on the social aspect of it, it is not at all. It's being more or less ignored although even the Sewell report had indicated that way.

We have been hearing all across the province that, going along with the Sewell report, if they had actually adhered to some of the recommendations, even 50% of that, they would be near addressing some of the needs out there. But again, we are not able to understand yet why the government would include, as some of the quotations from some of the members here on the government side have said, only a third of it.

Mr Clutterbuck: We feel that there is progress in this bill, that in fact there is incorporation of an awareness of and some attempt, especially in the new Planning Act, to make some provisions to broaden land use planning beyond the economic imperatives of development. So there is progress and we even had some stronger recommendations for the Sewell commission that it didn't actually incorporate.

We would like to be faster further, but we understand that change takes a long time and that, although we'd like to see improvements and we specified the exact ones for these two acts right now, we're at least happy that there's a beginning in incorporating these concerns.

0950

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As you know, one of the objectives of planning reform was to empower municipalities. In your submission, I don't know if it's an indication of a lack of confidence in municipal planning, but you don't appreciate the word "may," "municipalities may." You would like to have stronger language and have it say "shall."

Mr Clutterbuck: This is with respect to measures, indicators and procedures around the official plan development, right?

Mr Grandmaître: Do you think that by amending the present legislation to say "shall," municipalities would be, let's say, more responsible -- if I can use the words "more responsible" -- when it comes to planning?

Mr Clutterbuck: I think that it would safeguard the public involvement, because that "may" statement also refers to the procedures by which the contents of the official plan are reviewed. So it seems to us that it's too easy -- there's always enough work to do -- to let discretionary action not happen. We think the province should actually expect that and we should be documenting what we learn about this across municipalities over a period of time and get better measures and indicators and better ideas of how to involve the public in these important decisions. So, yes, we think "shall" is important.

Mr Curling: Have we got a minute?

The Chair: One minute, we do. Yes.

Mr Curling: One of the concerns that we have and I have too is about non-profits. I think that non-profit organizations have played an extremely important role, but what has happened now is that the not-for-profit, non-profit -- a question was asked with one of the groups to say, "Do non-profits make a profit?" As a matter of fact, the bottom line was, yes. We're talking about the development of housing.

Do you feel that there should be a clear definition of what is a non-profit and then who is delivering it? Because one of the problems we're having now is that those non-profit organizations that are delivering housing are delivering it at a higher price than the private sector. Is there a concern about that at all within your area?

Mr Clutterbuck: Yes. I am aware that there's some issue around that although I don't think there have been good measures or studies done on the comparative quality of the housing that's provided to people. Certainly in terms of housing, but also in terms of human services in general, a good part of the delivery network is by community associations in the non-profit voluntary sector. So we think that it is definitely important for there to be more specific recognition of that in the two acts. There are references to persons and public bodies or private interests being included in the planning process. But since there is such a large network of non-profit community organizations interested in both human services and housing across the province, it would be good to be specific about the role of this sector in helping to integrate land use and social development planning.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning, sir. I guess the last statement you made is very important, because I've observed over the last 10 years that municipalities have improved substantially what they're doing with regard to their plans and the impact studies that are taking place. I guess the bottom line is, the municipalities and people such as you want clear guidelines so that they know what they have to do, and that's where we seem to run into the problem when plans go to the MOE. They will be changed, modified, sit on a desk for months, and that's the frustration that municipalities and developers have. I haven't seen a municipality come before us that doesn't agree with strong guidelines for the environment and the impact studies that should be done. But what the problem seems to be is, there's nothing set out, the steps they take to do it. That, to me, seems to be the problem we have.

Mr Clutterbuck: Yes, and that's one of the reasons for proposing that, as the amendments and the new act are implemented, we have to set up a research agenda so that we become more confident about what those guidelines should include. I know the ministry now has a task force studying implementation guidelines. We think the community should be strongly involved in that, and before we are totally confident of our social impact methodologies we should get a better understanding about what are the appropriate measures and indicators, how can we be confident in them, and how do we collect information about progress in this area of land use planning and social development.

So I would argue that it is important to get stronger guidelines, but the community should be involved over the next few years in actually developing them and then be very confident about our social impact tools and also be confident about the need to make sure the process isn't so long-running that all the vigour and energy around actually doing something in the community are lost as well.

Mr McLean: That's what the public meetings, I would hope, would do: give those people the opportunity to have their input.

But with regard to the five-year intervals, I sometimes wonder -- five years is put in there -- some could be eight. I see when we review official plans -- I was involved in those, years back -- it would take three to four years before you even get it to the minister for her to look at, and by the time you got the official plan approved, it was outdated already. So when we look at the five-year -- and Sewell had that in his recommendation and it didn't seem to end up in the legislation.

Mr Clutterbuck: Our specific support was for the state-of-the-environment monitoring report at the end of five-year periods, which is almost like an evaluative capturing of what has been learned with respect to social indicators and measures over the five-year period and how in fact social development and land use planning have been well integrated. We know official plans take their time to develop and be approved, we understand that, but from the point of approval there should be these five-year reviews in terms of the state of the social environment in particular. That's our interest.

Mr McLean: What's your view of "be consistent with" rather than -- what does the old one say? -- "have regard to"?

Mr Clutterbuck: With respect to which particular --

Mr McLean: Well, in the bill, it's "shall be consistent with policy statements set out by the ministry."

Mr Clutterbuck: The responsibility, from our point of view, and the provincial interests from, we think, the public's point of view is that the ministry does set out policy parameters and principles and values that it is important for municipalities to use in formulating their own official plans. In fact, we think some municipalities are ahead of the province in terms of actually trying to do this, incorporate this; Metro Toronto, Halton region, for example, are two in particular. In fact, I think some of the work some of the local municipalities have done maybe even has partly defined the province's job for itself. We think it's an appropriate role for the provincial policy statements to be made and for municipalities to have to adhere to them. We think it's stronger than just, "Consider them and do what you want."

Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing this morning.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you, Mr Clutterbuck. Your statements actually fall very closely to the healthy cities committee that exists in my own community and in fact reflect some concerns that they are echoing almost on a daily basis.

In your appendices, on page 6 there's a quote with regard to the World Health Organization, if I remember correctly, the third item, which is, "Health should be monitored by physical, social, aesthetic and environmental indicators of wellbeing." As far as this review that you're referring to, I think that groups like yours, and obviously what healthy cities does, they do it on an ongoing basis rather than when the five-year mark rings and now all of a sudden we gear up to action. I think the kind of contribution that groups like yours really make is the fact that you can provide ongoing research and input into the process, and I think what you're asking for, if I may be so blunt, is that you be regularly included in the process.

Mr Clutterbuck: That's for sure. I wasn't suggesting that we hibernate for five years and only appear on the scene with an interest at five-year intervals but that there's an ongoing data collection process, design work around social indicators, that the community is involved. One of the major resources we feel that's in the community is support to work with governments, municipal and provincial, in this regard: our social planning councils, district health councils, the public authorities as well.

I'll give you one specific example. I know of one local municipality here in Metro Toronto where there is a subcommittee of the municipality that includes social planning people to review the social impact of new developments. That's a good sign, but they tend to get these development plans two days before they're expected to make a report and make recommendations, and they actually are working overnight in order to do what's really an impossible task of doing a social impact assessment of a new development with two days' notice. So there's progress in terms of some of the mechanisms being set up; there's not the proper respect for the need for careful study and consideration and proper input.

Ms Haeck: No, and I fully agree. In fact, we had the situation in St Catharines, with losing our older buildings almost on a daily basis of late, that the local LACAC has finally been given the opportunity to review demolition permits so that they could record what's happened to some of those older homes prior to their being destroyed. I suspect that for you, the urban forum -- be it the heritage buildings, which usually allows for some housing projects to be undertaken -- is as important to you as the green space; all of this is really part of your province, so to speak.

Mr Clutterbuck: It's not only important to me generally, but it's also important to me because I'm a native of St Catharines.

Ms Haeck: I thought you might be, actually. There are a few Clutterbucks in St Catharines. Anyway, I'll defer to my colleague.

1000

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Thank you very much, Peter, and I'm very pleased to see you coming before the committee, as I'm sure you'd appreciate. Some of the issues that you bring up, the negotiation obviously between municipal planners and a not-for-profit group like your own, it would be an interesting dialogue over time. I'm interested also in the issue of the tools you talked about, the evaluative tools and also the framework tools for, as you were saying, the social impact studies. I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little bit upon the work that's been going on in that area and what needs to happen.

Mr Clutterbuck: We've actually done a proposal on a state-of-the-art study of what is actually happening in Ontario at the local level. We've identified, as indicated in the Social Infopac, seven or eight communities where people are really struggling with this and trying to define their own policies and their own notions of how integrated planning occurs and identify what the indicators are and how you collect information related to those indicators over time.

We propose that what we should do first of all is go to the ground, where people are doing it in local communities, and do a state-of-the-art study that would lead, we would hope -- our plan is that over a nine- or 10-month period we could learn enough from community groups, that we could work together with people from all of those communities to just start to define more systematic tools and instruments and resources for a more standardized approach.

We think things are at the indicator development stage right now, not at the tool-and-resource development stage, and we need to move, over the next year or so, especially if parts of this are going to be incorporated in the act, into developing stronger assessment tools. That's why we're not actually recommending to include right now mandatory social-impact assessments that we're confident are going to be in place for all time. We have to develop these tools over the next year or so.

Mr White: So what you're saying is that presently the act allows you to move forward in those areas.

Mr Clutterbuck: We've indicated where we think it could be strengthened in that regard, but there's a beginning point here; there's a place to start, in that regard.

The Chair: Mr Clutterbuck, we thank you for coming and thank you for participating in these hearings. But before you leave, Mr Hayes wants to clarify a matter.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): In regard to talking about the public input there and changing "may" to "shall," I can understand where you're coming from, but the fact is that there are minimum requirements all through the act itself that do require public participation. So it is required all the way through the act. The other part, when you're talking about your measures and procedures, some of the descriptions, the municipality could actually implement this into the official plan. So it allows them to do that, but at the same time public participation is required all the way through on all procedures.

Mr Clutterbuck: This is the section on contents of the official plan, and it seems to us, as you say, if the spirit is of inclusiveness and public participation throughout, if the first statement in that section refers to what should be contained in the official plan, the second, it seems to us, should just logically and naturally be mandatory rather than discretionary. We don't understand. In fact, that is one of the major inconsistencies, it seems to us, in the act itself, that throughout there seems to be the means by which this can happen; why shouldn't we expect municipalities to actually incorporate it as a compulsory matter in their official plans?

Mr Philip McKinstry: The reason that section was put in is because it's sort of a legal, technical matter. The act, first of all, as Mr Hayes indicated, is very clear on the fact that in every process a municipality undertakes there has to be minimum public participation. But the older Planning Act, the 1983 Planning Act, allowed municipalities to set out alternate measures, so therefore we felt it was important to indicate to municipalities that they could still have measures in their official plans. But whether or not they have these measures in their official plans, they still have to comply with the minimum participation requirements under the act.

So if they're doing an official plan or a subdivision, there are very clear minimum participation requirements, and public participation is very important in terms of the Planning Act.

Mr Clutterbuck: The "may" part of that subsection refers, though, to public participation procedures also. That's how I read it. The verb actually applies to the whole subsection.

Mr McKinstry: Right. It talks about "they may bring in," so they could, if they wanted to, bring more stringent public participation into their official plan. However, whatever they do in their official plan, they are required to conform to the minimum requirements in the Planning Act for public participation.

Mr Clutterbuck: I think we might challenge them, because we're also talking about measures and indicators in that section, and it just does seem to us to be inconsistent. The only way we're going to learn how to do this integration better is to actually insist that municipalities attend to it, not only make the nice general motherhood statements in the official plan but actually indicate how they're going to measure that and chart their progress and what ways the public is going to be involved. So we feel that would be an important change.

GREATER TORONTO AREA MAYORS' COMMITTEE

The Chair: We invite the Greater Toronto Area Mayors' Committee, Mayor Peter Robertson.

Mr Peter Robertson: Good morning, Mr Chairman and committee members. This is my second time before you. The first time, last Tuesday, it was acting on behalf of our own municipality and today it is to speak on behalf of the greater Toronto area mayors. They consist of 30 different municipalities, stretching from Whitby on one side to Burlington on the other. We had an extended consultation process with the staff and also with each other and it was no mean feat that we came to a consensus. So we hope you'll listen to me today even better than you did the last time, because I represent such a large population with a consensus.

Our presentation will go in three steps. John Marshall, who was leading the technical part of the review, will speak first, then Bob Johnston, a consultant with Mississauga, will highlight something about the parkland dedication and then I'll conclude with a statement on part IV of the Planning Act and the fill regulations. We'll start with John.

Mr John Marshall: I'm here to present to you a summary of the GTA mayors' response to Bill 163. A formal response with respect to the planning and development reforms has been submitted to you in a 35-page report. This was adopted by the GTA mayors on September 16, 1994. I provided copies to Ms Bryce this morning and I'm sure you'll have access to them.

The GTA mayors made many submissions and participated extensively in the deliberations of the Sewell commission and also with respect to the consultation paper, A New Approach to Land Use Planning, and also have actually met with staff on several occasions with respect to the provincial policy statements and made very detailed submissions with respect to them. We've also met twice with Mr Philip to express our concerns with the Sewell commission and the proposed statements.

With the exception of nine points noted in our submission, the GTA mayors generally support the proposed revisions to the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the amendments to the Planning Act and the Municipal Act that deal with planning and development reform in the province, for a number of reasons.

First of all, the province is now stating provincial policy in areas of provincial interest. We think the areas of interest are more extensive than they should be, but they are finally stating those policies and getting out of the process of approving local official plan documents.

Lately, the province has tried to streamline the whole process of approving these documents, but we feel the best means of streamlining is just for the province to get out of the game and leave the local planning to the local municipalities, particularly in the GTA. Also, there has been some initiative to delegate the commenting authority from, for example, the Ministry of Natural Resources to the conservation authority, and we feel this is a step in the right direction.

I think the key point is that the province will delegate the approval of local official plans, secondary plans and related amendments to the regional municipalities, thereby keeping the approval of these documents at more or less a local level. If the proposed legislation is passed as intended, regional municipalities will be able to delegate the approval authority of plans of subdivisions and condominiums to local municipalities. We heard an amendment from Mr Hayes last week. If that amendment is made before third reading, that'll certainly resolve our concerns in that area.

1010

The proposed amendments will provide the minister and the Ontario Municipal Board with the ability to expedite consideration of legitimate appeals and to refuse those that have no merit. Too long, parties have been able to hold up the planning process and abuse it through making appeals to the OMB and either withdrawing at the last minute or extending hearings to a really ridiculous degree.

We feel it's a positive step that local councils will be enabled to hear appeals to committee of adjustment decisions. If somebody wants to pursue that further, they can make a rezoning and have access to the Ontario Municipal Board. These are very detailed matters and we feel they can be handled at the council level.

The fact that a development permit process will be enabled will provide local councils and staff much more flexibility in dealing with zoning bylaws, rather than having to make amendments for the very minuscule changes in requirements and restrictions or uses.

Finally, the local councils will have expanded powers dealing with the dumping of fill and the alteration of grade. Certainly, we would like that to be expanded, but generally we feel it's a step in the right direction, really, the province's withdrawing from the administration of local plans in the province.

The GTA mayors' nine areas of concern or objection are set out in detail in table 1 to our submission. I'll go through those briefly. These concerns can be alleviated by the following amendments being made to Bill 163 before third reading.

First of all, proposed section 2 to the Planning Act has 16 areas of provincial interest set out, plus the final killer, "any other matters prescribed." We feel that the proposed section should be amended to indicate that the province has a broad interest or a general interest. Otherwise, it's just an invitation for the province to get involved in local decision-making, where we really feel that the basic direction is to go the other way and not interfere with local councils.

Secondly, that the proposed subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act be revised to indicate that decisions of a municipality shall be consistent with the intent of provincial policy. Our feeling is that this gives us some latitude for interpretation when our decisions are going to be evaluated by the OMB or other bodies. This is consistent with the consultation paper in December. Certainly, it was tightened up since then and we agree with the original proposal. We think it's an improvement on the words "shall have regard to," which basically means you can look at something and do what you want to do.

Third, that proposed subsection 17(7) be revised to require that the preparation of an official plan is mandatory by local municipalities in regional municipalities that have a two-tier planning system, and that the preparation of the official plan is a prerequisite of the delegation of plan of subdivision approval to local municipalities. There was some concern expressed that by doing this, it would make planning mandatory by all small municipalities, townships across the province. We feel that separating out the GTA where the two-tier system exists -- and also in areas like Ottawa-Carleton -- would resolve this problem just by recognizing that two levels of sophistication exist in planning in the province.

Basically, we're concerned with the whole idea that local plans are permissive. That they "may" be produced by local municipalities really denigrates the planning process, particularly in the GTA, where councils have highly sophisticated planning and development approval processes and have allocated major resources to planning: human resources, information technology, what have you.

The fourth point is that the time period for the processing of a zoning bylaw be amended from 30 to 150 days rather than 90 days. I think any developer will tell you that 150 days for the processing of a zoning bylaw amendment is a very quick approval process when you consider that public meetings require the technical review etc.

The fifth point relates to the fact that we would like appropriate sections of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act to be amended to establish time limits on the Ontario Municipal Board's consideration of appeals from the date the appeal is received. Because it takes so long to get a hearing held and to hold a hearing and to get a decision, it's an automatic incentive for those who want to delay development, oftentimes commercial developers who are keeping competition out of the marketplace, just to throw an appeal to the OMB and extend the process for two or three years.

We feel that the following time limits should be placed: first of all, for holding a pre-hearing conference, three months; commencement of the hearing, six months; and issuing of the decision, 30 days from the adjournment of the hearing, except for very lengthy hearings. This will provide deadlines on the Ontario Municipal Board in the same way municipalities have deadlines and will force the board to maintain staff resources necessary to hear the objections expeditiously and issue the decisions very quickly.

Sixth, we feel that subsection 41(8) of the Planning Act should be expanded to authorize local municipalities, in addition to regional municipalities, to require conveyance of land for public rights of way for transit. As you know, many GTA municipalities have the responsibility for transit and should be able to meet that requirement.

Seventh, that no changes be made to the provisions relating to parkland dedication unless concurrent changes are made to the Development Charges Act, and Mr Johnston will speak to that point.

The eighth change we would like to have made is that Bill 163 be amended to include a proposed amendment to the Planning Act that enables the province, regional municipalities or counties to delegate the approval authority for plans of subdivision and condominium. This will be accomplished by the amendment that Mr Hayes proposed last week.

The ninth point, that proposed section 223.1 of part XXVII of the Municipal Act be amended by adding provisions that enable councils to regulate tree-cutting, vegetation removal and the removal of topsoil and peat, in addition to the dumping of fill and grading. Mayor Robertson will speak to this in more detail.

In summary, we feel that the proposed changes will substantially improve the planning and development process in the province by enabling municipalities to carry out their business without a lot of interference at the provincial level. We feel that this empowerment will enable us to deal more effectively with the various aspects of the process that predominantly involve local communities of interest.

Planning is a local exercise and municipalities are held accountable by their residents for planning. The involvement of other levels really, frankly, isn't appreciated by them and they can't understand why things take so long, because some provincial staff had to get involved in doublechecking and triplechecking the work that's done by competent local officials.

Mr Robert Johnston: The GTA mayors Friday, at their committee meeting, passed the following resolution. It was moved by Mayor Robertson and seconded by Mayor Sainsbury:

"Whereas the GTA mayors support the principle of fairness and equity in assessment of parkland dedication through either land dedication or cash-in-lieu contributions, therefore the GTA mayors request the minister and the Premier to defer the proposed amendments pertaining to section 42 in Bill 163 until adequate consultation has occurred with municipalities; and further

"That the GTA mayors request the provincial facilitators' consultation committee to conclude and agree upon the wording implications of parkland dedication policy before satisfactory legislation is drawn up; and further

"That a clause on retroactivity must be included in the agreed-upon formula."

The impacts of section 42 will mean the shift of funding for parkland revenues from the Planning Act receipts to development charges bylaw or property taxes. There will be a negative impact on the flexibility to plan and provide for parkland and, to preserve parkland standards, municipalities may require developers to dedicate land at the maximum density allowed at registration or require all cash in lieu of building permit issuance, which will badly damage the process for planning and providing of parkland. In particular, the city of Mississauga, because it's been using a process since 1983, will lose approximately $11 million in cash-in-lieu payments as the legislation fails to address the issue of retroactivity. But at the same time, there will be a windfall of $11 million to developers who have only made their first stage in the payment.

The GTA mayors, again, support the principle of fairness and equity. They believe that the provincial facilitator, in working with the working group and the municipal representatives, received consensus that yes, there were changes required to section 42, but it was the understanding that before the legislation was to be implemented, there would be consultation with that working group again. That consultation hasn't occurred as of this time.

1020

Mr Robertson: The last items I'd like to highlight have to do with part IV of the Planning Act: tree removal and the removal of vegetation. In my community there have been instances where the developer will go in and cut down the trees just prior to the application. There is no present legislation at the municipal level that indicates that we can do anything about that. Within the environmental thrust of this particular bill, we would hope you would put that in.

The second thing, it speaks to fill but it does not include the removal of topsoil or peat, and so in the definitions within the legal and technical wording of this, we ask you to include the words "removal of topsoil and peat." But most of all, as landfill has changed significantly in Ontario, where municipalities do not allow a lot of products to go into the landfill site, clean fill needs to be defined and broadened.

In about two hours' time I am going to an environmental hearing, as a witness, where a business has piled debris from building sites 30 feet high, rubble and things that are traditionally moving out of the public sector and into the private sector. Can you imagine owning a little business beside a pile of rubble 30 feet high, with rats consistently running out of it to the neighbourhood? At the present time, the municipalities cannot deal with changes in grade of property and cannot deal with the issue of dumping fill in an outside storage situation. So we appeal to you to include those changes of definition to anticipate the changes that are happening in the business section of our community vis-à-vis landfill.

I'll leave it there, Mr Chairman. Hopefully there'll be some questions that we might clarify.

Mr McLean: The first question I'd like to ask is with regard to subsection 41(8) of the Planning Act, that "(site plans) should be expanded to authorize local municipalities...to require the conveyance of land for public transit rights of way." Are you talking about highways, or what are you talking about?

Mr Marshall: The transit rights of way could involve a number of areas related to transit. They could be additional dedicated widenings related to dedicated lanes for transit, or pull-off areas or actually dedicated rights of way for transit. We feel that there is a whole range of technologies out there related to transit that the municipalities are required to deal with and we feel we should have the powers to require rights of way as necessary for expanded transit use in our areas.

Mr McLean: We've heard from a lot of municipalities and we've heard from a lot of them around Metropolitan Toronto, but I haven't seen in many of the briefs I have had the opportunity to review any major changes of road patterns. I drove Highway 2 to get to Oshawa and it was a nightmare. There are all kinds of subdivisions and plans being approved and probably the same in Brampton, and where is the major thrust that's going into having the roads to accommodate these people who are in those subdivisions? I don't see it. What is the GTA mayors' recommendation with regard to that?

Mr Robertson: I think John has said we're asking for that ability to deal with it at the municipal level. On our Queen Street, for example, where we're doing an intensification, we're planning to do a dedicated bus lane and that will require our ability to pick up land, as properties sell and resell, in order to do that.

Mr McLean: What is your further definition with regard to the undefined concept of natural corridors? Is that valley land? Is that land that's in conservation authorities? What's your definition?

Mr Marshall: The whole concern with natural corridors came out of some of the municipalities dealing with the Oak Ridges moraine. I didn't participate directly in those discussions. My understanding is that the provincial staff involvement in the process was starting to expand the natural corridors to include not just valley lands but changes in topography that link different features and were frankly becoming very small-l liberal in their interpretation of what constitutes a natural linkage or a corridor. Something right across table land that they thought was significant in terms of linking, say a valley land and a marsh area, they would say, with a wave of a hand, "That's a natural corridor and we want you to preserve that."

We felt that it was becoming very arbitrary, the grabbing of table land to satisfy a number of environmental features and not just protecting the actual critical features, such as valley lands and marshes etc.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Robertson; an excellent presentation, very comprehensive and I think it reflects the level of sophistication that the GTA mayors' committee has. I certainly have a great deal of personal experience with that mayors' committee, representing the city of Oshawa, which I believe is the easternmost fringe of that group.

You have so many excellent recommendations that it's really very hard to deal with all of them all at once, and this is an awful lot of work that I'm sure my colleagues will attempt to digest just as well as the government will.

I would like to ask you a question. In your opinion, when you make reference to what's called a Trees Act, the vegetation removal act, which would be a permissive piece of legislation allowing municipalities to proscribe the elimination of trees etc, in the GTA, would most municipalities be wishing to assume those powers?

Mr Robertson: I think so. From the consensus across the GTA with the mayors, they've asked for that. It would be obvious to require a tree study and you'd only preserve the species of tree that had major value and vegetation that had, but at the present time we have no legislation that can do that.

Mr White: Would it be difficult to train the personnel involved to be officers, to be able to make those kinds of judgements?

Mr Robertson: I don't think so. I know, in our municipality, we have three people on staff who are specialists in that particular area, where they were trying to feed the trees in the park, for example, to extend their life, to deal with the diseases of trees that might happen and might wipe out some beautiful species. I know from our own experience, we do have that staff on hand.

Mr Marshall: The municipalities -- I know Brampton in particular, since 1978 in its official plan, has identified all the woodlots beyond the existing development and put them in a number of classes in terms of whether they're worthy of preservation as part of parks or being worked into the development. So the level of sophistication, not only on our staff but also by consultants whom we hire to set out these policies, has created a situation by having those powers just to enable us to follow through and preserve good stands of trees within development and naturally compensate the developers fairly for that as part of the parkland dedication.

Mr White: What you're saying is you'll be up and ready very soon then, if you had those powers?

Mr Robertson: Absolutely.

1030

Mr Grandmaître: My question is concerning the committees of adjustment. As you know, their decisions will be final. You cannot appeal their decision to the OMB. Do you think more and more developers will go for a zoning change, which can be appealed to the OMB, rather than going to the committee of adjustment?

Mr Marshall: In my view the developers will go the committee of adjustment route. It's far quicker to get an initial decision; it may take a month versus three to get to council, and frankly there aren't that many appeals of the decisions of the committee of adjustment. They can be dealt with quickly. In my experience, I would say there would be a very few cases where a particular applicant would go the rezoning route after having gone that other route, because clearly the committee of adjustment and council at the appeal stage would have considered all the planning merits of it. There are extensive technical reports accompanying any decision on an application, so I really don't see that as being a major factor in creating additional paperwork.

Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on the new wording in the legislation that official plans "shall be consistent with" and "provincial interest"? What are your thoughts with this modification to the Planning Act?

Mr Marshall: As we indicated in one of the points, we feel that the proposed wording should be revised to indicate it should be "consistent with the intent of," to provide some latitude. My own view is that the words "shall have regard to" are probably the weakest way of expressing an intent that somebody conforms to something. It basically means they shall look at it, and certainly if you go through a process and you're required to "have regard to" and you get to the OMB and you haven't taken serious concern, you're going to end up in the same position whether it's "shall have regard to" or "be consistent with the intent of." But we don't have any fundamental problem with "be consistent with" as long as it's with the addition of "with the intent of", so that you're not tied into every last term and every last word of a policy but have some latitude to implement the intent of that policy.

The Chair: Thank you. We have run out of time. We just don't have enough time. We want to thank all three of you for coming and we thank you for the contribution you have made to this committee.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH

The Chair: We invite the city of Scarborough, Mayor Joyce Trimmer.

Mr Curling: The great city of Scarborough, that is.

The Chair: Big city. It's a big country. Welcome, Mayor Trimmer.

Ms Joyce Trimmer: Thank you very much.

The Chair: If you don't mind introducing the lady beside you.

Ms Trimmer: Judy McLeod is -- I never get the title right.

Ms Judy McLeod: Director of strategic planning for Scarborough.

The Chair: Please begin any time you're ready.

Ms Trimmer: Just to give you a little background on Scarborough, it is a city of over a half-million people with professional staff and a commitment to responsible land use planning. We've shown our commitment to the environment through such activities as our initiatives to save the Rouge Valley and through private legislation to control dumping of fill, tree cutting and drainage in privately owned ravines. Anticipating the province's streamlining initiatives, in January of this year, Scarborough council adopted a new procedural bylaw and a new set of procedures to streamline the planning process that provides for a better level of public involvement and substantially exceeds the requirement of the new legislation.

Scarborough supports the cornerstones of the provincial planning reform package: empowering municipalities, providing environmental protection and streamlining the planning process. There are many useful and positive actions which will help to streamline that process, such as adding time limits to the approval process at the approval authority level and removing the right to appeal minor variance decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board, but while we support these objectives, it is clear that the new legislation falls short of making the changes that are needed to streamline the process and to get this province back on the road to economic vitality.

I support, and my council along with other Metro-area municipalities support, the decision to not delegate approval of the local municipal official plans and official plan amendments to Metropolitan Toronto. Metro claims to have been isolated and treated differently from other regions that have received delegation approval. Well, the truth is that Metro is different in many, many ways. Indeed, regional representation is such a hodgepodge and so confusing and inconsistent that even the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are unable to explain or summarize the existing structure of representation without considerable research. I know that because I tried. I thought I could get it all in a neat little package that says, "This is how all the regions work." They said, "It'll take us some time to put it together because we don't know."

It is, however, clear that most regional governments have some element of indirect region-wide political representation, but Metro is specifically different in the following two ways. Incidentally, I know that you heard from the GTA mayors just prior to my presentation now. I do want to make it clear, though, that when you hear representation from the GTA mayors, I would advise you to find out which municipalities they are representing, as I want to make it clear that they do not speak for Scarborough and in fact they don't really speak for any of the municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto unless they have specific permission to do so, and I don't know that they have that. That's not to say that we don't agree on most of the issues.

But getting back to Metro, Metro has direct election by Metro ward. It elects council members on a ward-by-ward basis. As you know, many of the objections and delays that plague the planning approval process result from a local not-in-my-backyard kind of issue.

These should be dealt with through public meetings, negotiation and consultation at the local level. That is the level closest to the people and the issues. The approval authority, if there must be one, should only be there to determine whether the planning decisions have been consistent with the provincial policy statements and conform to the metropolitan official plan.

Our experience is that direct election has encouraged Metro councillors to be parochial and to take their backyards with them, slightly enlarged though they may be, rather than dealing with issues from a broad regional perspective. There's a temptation to become involved in the details of ward issues. There has been far more interest, both at the political and staff level, in meddling in local issues and much more involvement in a level of detail that goes beyond that of an approval authority. There is the danger of setting up a duplicate public meeting at the local and again at the Metro level. This will not help streamline the planning process but will result in confusion, duplication of public meetings and an overlapping of functions.

We have some examples, as I understand you were given by Mayor Lastman, and we have our own examples. Even, for example, when we go out of our way over a two-year process on a very complicated planning matter to involve Metro and Metro staff right through the process, innumerable meetings with the community, and this particular horror story, you might say, is one where right at the end of a two-year process, we are going forward with the approvals and the Metro commissioner, although his staff's been involved, he gets involved and says: "No. If you don't make this change, we're going to the OMB." We hassled it out at Metro council at length. It was a long debate, and eventually Metro council, fortunately in this case, saw reason, but the whole process was unnecessary. It was a long, lengthy process that need not have happened.

Again, all the arguments used by Metro to gain delegation apply to the cities within Metro. Scarborough is also a "highly sophisticated municipality with a professional staff capable of performing those planning functions required of an approval authority." That's a direct quote from Metro's presentation to you.

1040

I join with all of the other local mayors within Metro -- and I should remind you that it is rarely that we all see eye to eye on an issue, so you really should pay attention to an item where you have all the Metro municipalities seeing this in the same light -- that we wish to emphasize to you that we have the resources, we have the professional staff, we have the expertise and we have the commitment to a responsible, streamlined planning process which should enable the province to confidently delegate approval of official plans in their amendments to area municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto.

The province should take the bold step of really empowering municipalities and streamlining the process by delegating that approval authority to the area municipalities.

As well, I can think of no reason why subdivision approval has not been delegated to cities such as Scarborough. We are expected to continue to follow the cumbersome process of receiving applications, circulating applications for plans of subdivision and condominium, holding community information meetings and public meetings, liaising with agencies including Metro and developing conditions of approval. We must then forward our recommendations to Metro to undertake the actual approval. Again, this takes time and duplicates effort when the city has the resources necessary to grant approval. Again, in those areas, Metro is becoming more and more involved in the local issues.

The major issue facing cities such as Scarborough is economic recovery. Bill 163 and the accompanying policy statements do little to spur economic revitalization.

Policy statement B does state that communities should be planned and developed to provide opportunities for a diversified economic base which supports a healthy and stable economy and enhances employment opportunities. It encourages municipalities to prepare economic development strategies and to use existing infrastructure efficiently. These are fine objectives, but until the province takes action to resolve tax inequities between Metro municipalities and the surrounding regions, they are only so many words.

To quote from our June 1993 submission to the Fair Tax Commission, a recent survey found that 53% of businesses relocating from Scarborough gave taxes as one reason for leaving, but 30% of the businesses relocating from Scarborough give taxes being too high as the sole reason for leaving. And where are they going? Of the businesses surveyed, 77% moved to other cities in the GTA. Inequities in the tax system are forcing us towards an American-style system where successful businesses migrate to the outlying regions at the expense of inner cities. And all the planning in the world isn't going to keep businesses there unless they've got a good financial reason to stay there.

I strongly encourage the province to take heed of its own policy statements. If it is your intent to work with us to reduce urban sprawl and encourage intensification -- and we do agree with that, by the way -- and efficient use of our existing infrastructure, please give us the tools with which to do it.

While the proposed vision of planning in Ontario is intended to empower municipalities to take greater control of the planning process, many of us have found the legislation and accompanying policy statements, the policy statements' accompanying regulations and the mandatory contents of official plans to be a much more prescriptive, regulatory and top-down approach to planning than we now have.

It will fall to municipalities to come to grips with the guidelines, to determine the meaning of "significant" as it relates to ravines, woodlots, natural corridors etc, and to weigh the merits of six policy statements which must be read together, with no one policy statement having priority over the others.

The proposals do not implement Mr Sewell's recommendation to establish a lead ministry to resolve issues and priorities among ministries, and quite frankly, the lack of coordination among ministries, and the length of time it still takes to obtain ministry responses, has been a big frustration at the local level. Despite all of our efforts at mediation, this is the stuff that lengthy OMB hearings are made of. Rather than empowering municipalities, I fear that it will empower objectors, it will empower the OMB, it will empower the lawyers and the consulting industry and with, as you know, all of those costs being borne by municipalities, the development industry and, more important, the general public.

Although, let me confirm again, there is a great deal in your proposed legislation that we can support, we do have just these few small issues, but particularly the one for final approval that we do have some problem with, because we feel it will add quite considerably to the lengthy process. We, like you, are trying very, very hard to shorten the process and to get on with some good development in this municipality.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I appreciate the comments you've made here this morning, Mayor, but everyone -- the six municipalities and many of the people I've spoken to -- essentially say the same thing. You sort of keep the status quo. But we have big problems and you talked to a couple of those problems. You talked to tax inequities. Maintaining the status quo maintains, quite frankly, the inequities because, as you know, it's a very difficult thing for the province to come along and say, "Well, we're going to somehow, in some magical way, level the playing field." We went through an exercise, and you can understand the difficulties.

We have within Metro over 100 elected councillors and mayors; that's more political representatives -- I can't think of any other region. Quite frankly, it rivals the province. There are enormous inefficiencies in the government structures: six tax collection departments, six fire departments, six or seven boards of health. You have uncoordinated planning. The city limits don't stop at Steeles or don't stop on the eastern and western boundaries. Quite frankly, the GTA Metropass was a thing in the works for a long, long time. People can't move on the public transit system between Metro and the surrounding areas. We had to get involved in that process and move people along.

The last thing I would mention is this: At a time when Metropolitan Toronto should be thinking broader than its own boundaries, I heard one councillor at Metro say in a televised debate -- unbelievable, in a televised local debate -- that he would not support the extension of the Spadina subway to York because somehow it would pander to the interests of York region. This is the absurdity and the kind of thing that we're dealing with.

So to come here and say, like many other people who have come here and said, "maintain the status quo," quite frankly, the status quo is not working. I'm not saying that in some way someone should come along and either do away with the local councils or do away with Metropolitan council, all I'm saying is the current system, irrespective of the planning changes that are being made, isn't working.

I feel there's a deep, dark, black hole in many of the leaders in Metropolitan Toronto -- many of the mayors who are not coming before this committee and making recommendations to that effect, recommendations that would streamline the process, that would make things more efficient, that would stop the bickering between councils and between the region and councils, that would make Metro more of a visionary institution as opposed to a very limited parochial one. I understand my time is up, but I can tell you, I could go on for a long time on this.

The Chair: I know. We recognize that.

Ms Trimmer: Mr Chairman, do I have an opportunity to respond to that?

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Ms Trimmer: The gentleman has hit on a topic that's very dear to my own heart and I agree with a lot of what he was saying. But, first of all, we are addressing Bill 163, which is dealing with planning, so I was dealing with planning. We do know our business in planning. We know how we can cut corners and how we can shorten the process.

1050

However, you went very widely into governance and I should tell you that I am a big proponent of review of the whole system. I couldn't agree with you more. That is the major problem we all face. There is much too much government; there are too many levels; the taxes, as a result of all those levels, are much too high. But when I have proposed and I have stood up and made motions at Metro council and indeed, when we had our summit, when Metro had a summit meeting and you had a number of ministers present at that meeting, and the federal government had ministers there, I was the only mayor who said the time has come to review governance in this region. And you know what the response from your minister was? "Do it yourself."

Interjection: No.

Ms Trimmer: Yes, really, and that should be on tape or on film somewhere. When the area municipalities again requested the province to review the process -- because the province is the only one that can really do it, they are the ones who control us all, they are the only ones who can get some action.

Even when Metro set up its own system to review, which it's going under now, you know very well that when one level of government, Metro, is involving discussion with the others, they wanted the province to be part of that process. The province was very reluctant to be part of that process. And so I urge you to be a major part.

When all the yelling and shouting is done, when all the review is done, you know as well as I do that there is only one level of government that makes the decision, and that's this level. It was this level that mucked it up in the first place with its direct election. I'm sorry, it was a different government from yours, but it was Mr Peterson who implemented direct election when the discussion in Metro and the request from Metro was, "Don't do it, it's not going to work." That has been one of the biggest mistakes. The way in which it was set up was a major error. That is where all the bickering started, not before. And when you look at the other regions, you've got different --

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer, I hate to interrupt. This discussion can go on --

Ms Trimmer: Anyway, he got into --

Mr Perruzza: One last comment, Mr Chair.

Ms Trimmer: It's a different issue.

The Chair: I'm sorry. You see, these kinds of discussions --

Mr Perruzza: This --

The Chair: No, Mr Perruzza, it won't work.

Mr Perruzza: This is governance as well.

Ms Trimmer: But it's not --

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer --

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's worse. Look what they did in Ottawa-Carleton.

The Chair: I've got three people here.

Ms Trimmer: Yes, that's right. This is only a fraction of governance.

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer.

Mr Perruzza: Don't start now.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza.

Mr Perruzza: You guys started this, okay. Don't start.

Interjections.

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer --

Ms Trimmer: Set up the review process and get on with it. I'll join you.

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer, I hate to interrupt --

Ms Trimmer: I have said I would support getting rid of some levels, even if it's my own, if it is proven that the most efficient, cost-effective way of going about it is to make those cuts. But you've got to get on with the review and then make the recommendations. Do it.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you. I appreciate that, and that's what we need more of exactly.

Ms Trimmer: I've been saying it for years and nobody's listening, and I bet you don't listen either.

The Chair: I suspect a lot of people don't listen in general. We need to move on. Mr Curling, there are four minutes. Please continue.

Mr Curling: It's typical of this government anyhow, sidetracking the issue. The issue is about Bill 163, not the lecture to the mayor. Let's maybe try to refocus again here.

Madam Mayor, I think your presentation was excellent and with the short time which is given for you to address this wide, omnibus bill, of course, it is not adequate enough -- again, the typical way of putting this omnibus bill in and then trying to ram it down and push it through as quickly as possible.

One of the things we're hearing, too, is: Do we really need more legislation, or do we need a system that is efficient, or is it that there's a breakdown in the efficiency of the system? If we get that right, maybe we could save a lot of time and not have legislation and politicians spewing over all of this all the time, getting lawyers to interpret it, and then in the long run the system is again backed down and backlogged and there is a longer process in approval.

Do you think that an efficiency of the system, improving, would go a further way than having an elaborate omnibus thing which the government says it will have and must have by January 1995?

Ms Trimmer: Yes, I do, in many respects, it would be helpful. I believe what we're saying is that if the government of the province -- obviously I recognize the philosophies change from government to government but, none the less -- if those in power will state their philosophy in clear planning language and require that we comply with it, once the discussions and the debate have taken place you've got to make your decisions, say what you want and then leave it to the municipalities to conform to whatever it is you want.

We'd like to be part of the process, of course, because we do know what happens out in the community. We have a better idea than any other level of government what is happening on the streets, in the parks and on the waterfront, and the people talk to us all the time. We can be good negotiators. But if you have your philosophy on certain issues -- as I know you do on housing, on density and those things -- if you will work with us to get those standards set and then leave us to have to comply with them. We'll let you know if we don't like them, but if we have to comply with them, we will and we do.

Mr Curling: Again, most of the policies that are put forward by the provincial government or politicians become a spitting match, as we see as we put things forward here. One of the things you've just mentioned is one that I'd like your comment on, especially in housing and the affordability and the policy statement that is made by this government, because we've heard in many other regions that the policy stated there cannot be applied in other areas.

Remember, we're dealing with a provincial policy and maybe what can work for downtown Toronto can't work for Scarborough. The reputation, as you know, of Scarborough is that it accommodated more affordable housing than any other municipality in the entire province. When a policy comes again and says, "Any other new housing must have a sort of percentile addressed to affordability here," what is your comment on that?

Mr Perruzza: Why don't I invite you to Jane and Finch, Alvin?

Mr Curling: Why don't you just let the mayor respond?

Ms Trimmer: We do have concerns with that which we express all the time. This is where we have used a statement which we think is fair, but it is turned around against us frequently and I don't think we're allowed to have it any more; it's fair share. We are strong believers in fair share, because you do reach a point of overburdening the system.

When we are planning for our communities, we want to be sure that we are planning for the density, the children, the schooling, the recreation, the day care; we are strong supporters of those things. If we have a density imposed on us after the fact, after our city has been planned, or areas have been planned, as the perfect community and then along comes another policy that says, "Okay, now you're going to have" -- I'll give you one in particular, and that is the basement apartments. That is one where we've complied with all of the rules of planning, and then out of the blue comes a ruling that says, "Okay, open the field, everyone, to anyone who wants a basement apartment." That can undermine over a period of time, or depending upon what happens -- but it has the capability of undermining the total planning process and the costs involved.

That is the kind of thing, and it's not because we are opposed to basement apartments. We're very concerned about them and their safety but I don't want to get into that, that's a whole other issue. But that is an example of how something coming along after the fact, imposes itself on already well-planned communities and must, without a doubt, have an impact upon them which is probably going to be negative.

1100

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee this morning, Ms Trimmer. The question I have is: Do you think this legislation before us today will streamline the planning system or not?

Ms Trimmer: Parts of it will and parts of it won't. It depends on your final decision, specifically with regard to the municipalities in Metro having --

Mr McLean: Approval process.

Ms Trimmer: -- the approval process. If you don't give the authorities that it certainly isn't going to streamline. We're going to get into so many meetings and so many hassles, it's not going to be funny and it's going to totally frustrate the communities and the people.

Mr McLean: I thought the parliamentary assistant, some time ago, indicated that would be there and that we would be streamlining and that you would get approval. Does the ministry staff agree with that or do they not? Obviously he's not listening. I wanted to ask you --

The Chair: Mr McLean, that's not fair, one of the members was talking to the staff.

Mr McLean: Well, he wasn't listening to me. He can be talking, but he's still not listening. Perhaps I'll ask the question again: Is approval authority going to be delegated to the Scarboroughs of the world and the Metros of this world?

Mr McKinstry: At the current time the subdivision approval authority is delegated to Metro but it is possible for the minister, at his discretion, to delegate that to Scarborough. The act does permit that.

Mr McLean: Okay, so we got the answer, it doesn't permit it. It would be interesting to know what amendments --

Mr McKinstry: It does permit it.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You weren't listening to him.

Mr McLean: -- are going to be brought forward to amend that.

Ms Trimmer: At the moment it's not and the proposal is that the minister may --

Mr McLean: That's right.

Ms Trimmer: -- and who knows what the minister will be inclined to do. I haven't the first idea.

Mr McLean: The 77% of the businesses moving out of your area that you claim are moving still within the GTA area -- which areas would they be moving into, the Metros or the Bramptons of the world; Mississauga?

Ms Trimmer: I guess wherever they can get the best tax deal and it would be anywhere within just -- north of Steeles, east of the Pickering town line, just out of Metro. I will tell you also that we have been fighting back by providing service. I will also tell you that I believe no one gives the kind of service through their economic development department as well as Scarborough. We have an excellent team that has been working, and I must tell you that we work with the province as well, as best we can, to keep those businesses in Scarborough. We have had a number of successes, probably more than anywhere else, but it takes one heck of a lot of work on the part of our staff. They are really out there beating the bushes for every reason to persuade these companies to stay and to help them as best we can, and we've kept a number.

When it really comes down to the crunch, it's the dollars. I should tell you that they're still being wooed by the States. I get copies of letters and information that the governors come up here on their raiding trips to get companies going down there. It's still going on. It's tough to combat that when their numbers look so good.

Mr McLean: I want to thank you for appearing this morning before the committee.

Ms Haeck: Possibly one of the staff would like to at least inform the mayor about how you apply for subdivision approval. I know that's something that was in --

The Chair: I'm not sure, Ms Haeck, that would be fair at this moment. We're moving on. Staff can talk to their staff obviously at any point if they want some --

Ms Haeck: I just thought it might be an interesting point for the mayor to keep in mind.

Ms Trimmer: Anything you mention will be followed up by my office, never fear. I'll find out what the process is, but in the end, if it comes to a decision of a minister, it depends on all kinds of things.

Ms Haeck: I thought I'd make her aware of that.

Ms Trimmer: Oh, I'll follow up. Thank you.

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer, I just wanted to make a point. Mayor Robertson just made a point to me by saying that the membership of the GTA does include within Metro representation from Etobicoke, North York, Toronto, the city of York and the borough of East York. That was a point he felt that I should simply articulate out loud.

Ms Trimmer: Yes, but the point I made was whether or not he speaks for them.

The Chair: I understand that. Sure.

Ms Trimmer: My understanding and communication from all the mayors is that they don't.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Ms Trimmer: Clearly, unless they've signed a document that says, "Yes, you can speak for me," you don't.

The Chair: Mayor Trimmer, I was just raising the point of representation from the various cities and the borough of East York.

Ms Trimmer: Yes. We used to be part of it, but we're not any more.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Mayor Trimmer, we've run out of time. We appreciate the fact that you and your staff have come here today and made this presentation to us.

Ms Trimmer: Thank you to you and members of your committee.

BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Chair: We invite the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. Welcome to this committee, Mr Murphy and Mr Gabor.

Mr Peter Gabor: My name is Peter Gabor and I'm chair of the board of trade's task force on planning and reform. Part-time I'm a principal in my architectural practice and actually get to do some work. I must admit to being frustrated many times because the planning process holds up so many worthwhile projects.

Like many other groups and associations, we have appeared over the course of the committee's hearings and we've been actively involved in consultations with the minister and with the task force on numerous occasions. I must admit I'm a little bit concerned that the consultation process with us, as with other groups that I've been party to, has been very difficult because we have met many times, copious notes were taken by the people who were consulting with us, and then our comments were completely ignored. I hope that in coming here today we will get a more receptive hearing than we have to date.

As I said, we met with the Commission on Planning and Development Reform, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister himself. We have had previous correspondence on this issue as we have reviewed matters as they have progressed from the initiation of the draft documents and on to later stages. More recently the board of trade joined with other groups, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Urban Development Institute, the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Bar Association, a very diverse group, in a unified expression of concern about the direction that this bill is taking.

Although there are many issues that would require attention here that we have concern about, such as gatekeeping, municipal funding ability for required studies, grandfathering of existing projects and overloaded public participation in the process, I want to concentrate my comments here on two areas this morning: streamlining the approval process and the effect of the proposals on economic development and job creation. We are, after all, the board of trade. I will leave it to others mentioned above to deal with the other issues.

With regard to streamlining the planning approval process, the legislation has as one of its goals the laudable objective of streamlining the planning approval process. Unfortunately, the legislation before you will not do that. Let me provide some examples.

The recommendation that local councils be the final arbiter for committee of adjustment issues will eliminate the right of appeal and simply have projects rejected for shear political reasons instead of planning merit. Such a measure will not reduce the number of appeals at the OMB. It will simply move applications from the committee of adjustment process to the rezoning process, which is a lengthier process and costs more money, will work against affordability and take up more time at the OMB, not less.

1110

Such a situation also runs directly counter to the policy statements contained in the legislation. Development proposals, particularly in urban areas like the metropolitan area, will not be possible to do because of simple political pressure. By removing the committee of adjustment, you remove the simplest possible way to achieve the goal of intensification, and I think this would be really unfortunate. This works against large-scale developments and small-scale, infill developments, and also works against every home owner in the province of Ontario, as zoning legislation in most municipalities is enacted in such a way that forces people to go to committee of adjustment for almost anything they want to do in terms of renovations, or even additions.

The board also believes that the additional requirement for an environmental impact statement for developments will only lengthen the approval process and force applicants to address hypothetical questions and scenarios. This will again add time and cost to development.

Finally, I think it is really important to state, and we have stated this before in many other consultations, that the existing regulations in the planning approval process have to be reviewed. It's unfortunate, since there has been ample opportunity and these could really promote time and cost savings, that these have not been achieved. I think the policies in this bill should make it easier and more economical to plan and build worthwhile projects in communities. As it stands, the initiative will not only not promote good intensification projects and community building but will actually make it more difficult for those who want to proceed in this way to get their projects approved.

I want to touch on economic development and jobs. The six proposed policy statements are, we believe, very broad in their scope and will tip the balance between economic growth and the need to protect our natural environment, which has always been a high priority for the board. On this point, I think it's important for the board to restate its opposition to the proposed change in wording, that local plans "be consistent with" instead of "having regard to" the policy statements. It's sort of like putting a straitjacket on the municipalities and then telling them they can do whatever they want.

It may sound odd coming from a person speaking on behalf of an association based in Metro Toronto, but the rest of the province has always had concerns over Toronto solutions to Toronto problems being imposed province-wide. This is likely to continue with the development of this bill.

To return to the main theme of the policy statements, they lack any clear priority for job creation or economic growth. In fact, they pay lipservice to it and, rather, tend to have stricter guidelines on what developers cannot do. It is the opinion of the board that there will always be impact by development on the environment, but the issue should not be to prevent development but to minimize the impact of the development on the environment.

I want to touch on the competitiveness of development in Ontario. Our members are experienced with the notion of competition for success, so we feel it is important also to draw comparisons between Ontario and other jurisdictions in the planning approval process.

In many jurisdictions approvals happen faster and with minimal delay. Here in Ontario decisions on applications can take months. Ontario is totally uncompetitive in this regard. Investment will, and is, going elsewhere. This legislation will not stop that from happening, and in fact the mayor just before me expressed concerns of the same kind.

Finally, I want to comment on the process of implementation of this proposed legislation. It is a situation in which we are being asked to trust that the concerns the board of trade and others are raising will be dealt with by the guidelines when they are released. Unfortunately, the legislation, with its strict language, will be passed first, before the guidelines are finalized. The process is backwards, especially given our history of the consultation process. It seems strange that the people most affected by this legislation are the constituency least listened to in the development of these guidelines.

Thank you for hearing me. If I can answer any questions, I'll be happy to.

Mr Grandmaître: On the committee of adjustment, I agree with you that this is a major change. Now their decision can't be appealed to the OMB. I was asking the GTA group that appeared just before you if that decision would affect the GTA in its planning and they said no, that they can live with this major change.

My question was, don't you think that developers, to circumvent the committee of adjustment, will simply ask for a zoning change instead of a minor variance so that they can have the opportunity to appeal to the OMB? They seemed to be in favour of this major, major change. I want you to give me your thoughts on this major amendment.

Mr Gabor: I would think it hands a municipality a tremendous power advantage.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, that's why it's called "streamlining the planning process." They want to give municipal governments more power. Excuse me for interrupting.

Mr Gabor: The municipal governments are the ones that write the bylaws, and it's sort of like asking the fox to adjudicate whether it has rights in entering the chicken coop. It's a very undemocratic proposal, I think, and most people aren't aware of the impact that this will have. It goes way beyond the scope that is envisioned by the ministry and by the Legislature.

Let's put it this way: It will be a disincentive. We've seen this in our own practice. Where the regulations get too onerous, people simply refuse to do the best project possible. This will happen more and more and it will affect the quality of construction and it will definitely impact on the intensification of our network of arteries in the urban areas and even in planning extensions to new communities in the greenfield situation.

Mr Grandmaître: Second question: Again, the GTA people were in favour of the new wording in the Planning Act about local plans "shall be consistent with" instead of "having regard for." You seem to not appreciate this kind of change.

Mr Gabor: Well, we have a lot of concern with this simple change in words and we have had discussions with John Sewell about this many, many times. We simply cannot understand how you can think you're empowering municipalities when you're really tying their hands. I know that John Sewell always said that we're setting very strict rules so that everybody knows what the rules are and then they can simply do what they do best.

I think it will limit municipalities to respond to local conditions. They're the best people to take care of those issues, and we can't, in an omniscient way, predict what the problems are going to be, what local sensitivities are going to be.

It's going to be very difficult for any mechanism that involves overseeing the implementation of these guidelines in a central location at the Legislature, no matter how well meaning, to consider and sympathize and understand the problems that are out there in the communities. This is particularly relevant, I think, outside of Metropolitan Toronto.

1120

Mr Grandmaître: Also the provincial government is retaining --

The Chair: Very briefly, Mr Grandmaître, please.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes -- that strong hand when it addresses the provincial interest issue. You know, what is a provincial interest? It could be just about everything that moves in a municipality. They can declare a provincial interest and again block municipal planning. Do you agree with me?

Mr Gabor: They have that right now, unfortunately, and that will be maintained. So if the intent is to streamline the process, they have not achieved it here.

Mr McLean: You indicate in your brief that Toronto problems are being imposed province-wide. I guess that's a concern that's been raised in the public hearings that we've held. Northern Ontario is very concerned. They want the OMB out of the appeals. They want to do the appeals. All the delegations we've heard in southern Ontario want, still, the final appeal to go to the OMB. There is a major difference and you're the first one who's mentioned that, and you're right.

The other area I want to touch on is the environment. You said in your brief, "an overloaded public participation in the process." I'm not so sure that the public participation is overloaded. I think the problem we have is that it's not defined in the legislation what the process is to speed up and streamline the whole system. In the area of the environment, environmental impact studies seem to me to be where there should be some guidelines and some timetables of how we can speed up the process and still have the public participation. How would you see that being done?

Mr Gabor: We're not objecting to public participation but we think there's ample opportunity now; moreover, that if the intent is to streamline the process, one measure, for instance, that would make it much more streamlined is to raise the fee that you have to put in to appeal to the board. Right now it's $100.

I think there are cats and dogs that have that kind of bank account that could appeal, and often it's incredible how frivolous appeals can get to the board and waste its time.

So we're not objecting to legitimate public access to the process. The process is in place now. To add additional layers for notice at the initial stages of a project, when maybe the final determinations haven't even been made, there are discussions and negotiations between an applicant and an authority that will change the project, to bring in the public at a too-early stage will make it more difficult and will mean an even more uncompetitive process.

Mr McLean: A lot of the delegations have indicated opposition, as you have, with regard to "be consistent with." Now, we haven't really had a fine-line definition of "consistent with." Is that consistent with the provincial policies that they have laid out? Is that your interpretation of it?

Mr Gabor: I think it's consistent with the policy guidelines, but rather than apply the guidelines to local conditions, they're saying apply them notwithstanding local conditions.

Mr McLean: Right, okay. "To protect our natural environment is a high priority of the board," and I guess that's what I want to end with. We all realize that and all municipalities speak highly of that, but I'm beginning to find out that the process is not defined nor laid out of how municipalities can go about making sure this is done. Thank you for appearing today.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'll be very brief and just thank you people for bringing your report to us and also congratulate you on talking about this Toronto solution for the concerns of all Ontario. That seems to be a big problem in the rest of Ontario, and until our bureaucrats and planners in Toronto figure that out, we will always have this problem.

But just one question: If this bill is passed, will it help drive more businesses to the States than we're already doing now?

Mr Gabor: If our concerns are right that it takes more time and it takes more money to develop. Already it's taking 10 times as long as it did 20 years ago to get projects under way. If this increases that -- we have projects under way that are promoted by local developers, by foreign developers. We always have a concern that simply by going through the process now, and if we have to go through a new process in addition, we're simply going to drive away business.

The Chair: Ms Haeck, and if there's time, Mr Wiseman.

Ms Haeck: Yes, I'll keep that in mind, Mr Chair.

I appreciate your comments. We obviously have some -- I shouldn't say "obviously," but I will put it on the table: We do have some major differences of opinion. I wanted to not just speak for myself, but I attended a civic meeting last week and I have here "What Kind of City Should We Have?" relating to St Catharines, which a local ratepayers' group has put together. You made mention of the committee of adjustment. Down our way they refer to them as the land division committee, and this is their view of that organization.

"Members appear to lack concern for the interests of our citizens." "What research do they do prior to making a decision?" "It is an arbitrary body with considerable influence but no responsibility to voters." Since you're an architect, some of the concerns they raise, such as aesthetics -- this ratepayers' group would like to see an establishment of a group to be responsible for an overview of what intended development or changes may do to the appearance of our city. "Currently, unrelated projects are allowed to happen wherever they fall." They express concerns about heritage, trees, creek valleys, green spaces, a whole range of other things, and the fact also that one department in the city doesn't necessarily talk to the other, so that you end up having a real hodgepodge of development and decision-making taking place.

So the citizens want involvement. They want to be involved on a fairly regular basis. They have a view of what their city should look like and they don't feel -- I don't think I'm saying anything out of turn here, but they don't feel that your remarks necessarily reflect their concerns as the average resident and taxpayer in the community, and not from Toronto but from someplace like St Catharines.

Mr Gabor: You know, I could support a lot of what you're saying. I don't think we're disagreeing as much as you think. What I would like to see this document do is promote the kind of city that you see as the right way to proceed.

Ms Haeck: Well, then, we're going to have to provide more rules and organization. I think that's one of the issues that Mr Wiseman would probably end up addressing, because the way planning is done currently, it is a hodgepodge and it is not resulting in a city that I think a lot of residents can take pride in.

Mr Gabor: I couldn't agree with you more. I think we can both say we agree on the principles behind Bill 163 and behind the Sewell commission reports. What we have quarrelled with and what I think you will find and all the municipalities will find is that this will not produce the kind of communities you think it will do. I see it as a stick-and-carrot approach, the difference between a stick approach where you tell people, "You must do things this way," rather than a carrot approach, where you can induce people to do things the right way. For instance, there's nothing preventing St Catharines from developing an urban design guideline. There's nothing to prevent St Catharines --

Ms Haeck: Except they're not enforceable.

Mr Gabor: Well, they can be stated goals in the official plan. There are other municipalities that have them, and you can negotiate with the land holders to include them in their development agreement. We're just involved in a project in Markham which is an 11,000-acre development that is going to be doing just that in order to produce probably the finest example in the world of an integrated, environmentally friendly, transit supported, beautiful community offering affordable housing, expensive houses, everything in between, mixed environment: live, work, all the goals that any municipality could possibly require. It is possible to do. It is possible to do under the existing legislation, and I alluded to it in my talk.

I would rather see planning require municipalities to lay out an infrastructure that makes it possible to do intensification and good city building and let it happen when the market forces allow it to happen, because if you force it, it simply will not happen if there's no market.

The Chair: Mr Wiseman. Very briefly, please.

Mr Wiseman: Two very brief comments. First, the businesses in my riding tell me that nothing could be as disastrous to their business opportunities and prospects in the future as the high interest rates, high dollar and the banking policies of the previous government, carried on by the now Liberal government in Ottawa.

In order to do what you have just described, zoning has to mean something. The official plans and what the zonings are in the official plans have to mean something. Currently, they mean nothing at all. They are not worth the paper they're written on, because they can be changed. Developers will come back and request change after change after change until they get what they want, and if they don't get what they want at the council, they'll go to the OMB and the OMB will give them what they want even if the council doesn't like it.

1130

Mr Eddy: That will still happen.

Mr Wiseman: My question here is, how can we put into this legislation, if Mr Eddy is right that it will still happen, some strength to make sure that the residents, the town and the developers all know what the policies mean and we get rid of the maybes and the ambiguities so that policy really means something?

Mr Gabor: This is not a half-hour discussion or a 15-minute discussion.

Mr Wiseman: I think I used up a minute and a half and it's more than I was supposed to have.

Mr Gabor: I wouldn't know where to begin, it's such a complicated question. It's all interrelated. If you've been involved in this process for even a short time, or possibly some of you for a very long time, you know that it is a very complicated process. You look at one aspect of development and it impacts on all the rest. I think there is a way. I think it can be done without draconian changes to policies and legislation, and I think you would be surprised, if you worked with the development community, how interested they are in building a better city. Sometimes they can't help themselves, because the process doesn't promote it. I'm saying develop a process that promotes good city building. This does not do it.

The Chair: Mr Gabor, we thank you and Mr Murphy for coming and for sharing your concerns with this committee.

CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CIVIC AFFAIRS IN NORTH YORK

The Chair: We invite the Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in North York.

Mr Colin Williams: Mr Chairman, is it in order to proceed with only some of the committee members present?

The Chair: Mr Murdoch is here and I suspect he will be joining us very shortly.

Mr Williams: My name is Colin Williams. I'm the president of Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in North York. With me are Mr Timothy Pellew and Mr Gerard Ronan. Both are members of our executive.

Our organization has taken an active interest in municipal affairs since about 1984. In 1988, we commented on the draft Ho_ek-Eakins housing policy. More recently, we made a number of submissions to the Sewell commission and submitted comments on the draft set of comprehensive policies which were promulgated in May.

We support the general intent of Bill 163: streamlining, more open local government and more responsibility for local government. In our view, clear planning policies and also guidelines, both from Queen's Park and in official plans, provide a better vehicle for streamlining than all the proposed deadlines.

We support the two central thrusts of the Sewell report. First, we must in a systematic way pay more attention to our environment; second, planning at all levels is best done if there is a clearly articulated policy base for any plans.

You might wonder whether we are before you to sing hymns of praise. Not exactly. We feel the bill can be improved and we shall be making some proposals for your consideration. Mr Pellew will address you on the minor variance proposal.

Mr Timothy Pellew: Section 45 eliminates appeals to the OMB on minor variance. In the case where the application for the variance is heard by council or committee of adjustment on which one or more members serve, their decision is final and there's no appeal process. In instances where there are no members of council on the committee of adjustment, an appeal to council is allowed, but again there is no provision for appeal to the OMB. We are very disappointed by this change.

To start with, there's difficulty in defining a "minor variance." Some are in fact zoning changes in disguise. Many of them would certainly not be minor matters to the neighbours. Would you call putting up a monster house on an undersized lot next door to you, completely dominating your own house, a minor matter in your life?

The individual does not expect always to get a fair decision at city hall. The developers finance the election costs of many members and expect favours in return. I do not have to go deeper into this, because the saying that the individual cannot fight city hall is only too well known.

This document, Understanding Ontario's Planning Reform, has as a subheading Empowering Municipalities. What about empowering people? What this bill would actually do is to disempower people by taking away their present right of appeal to an impartial body, the OMB. There will be absolutely nothing people will be able to do if they're faced with an injustice, which is bound to happen from time to time. The wealthy may be able to get the matter into the law courts, but the average person would not be able to afford that. I appeal to you to change Bill 163 in respect to this matter.

Mr Gerard Ronan: I'd just like to reiterate what our president, Colin Williams, said, that we endorse the stated goals of this Bill 163. We've read the documentation, very hefty volumes, and we want to compliment the authors on the very lucid language that the comprehensive policies are stated in. They're very sweeping, and if you're interested in the environment, they're very exciting.

The great challenge we see is going to be to have this framework and all these rules and meet the goal of streamlining and reduction in the time lengths. I don't know whether in the regulations you're going to try to lock in some of those stated goals of saving time, but the great benefit of this revision will be lost if any time is exceeded and the obvious goal of trying to shorten those periods is not achieved.

I'm just going to deal with some general planning matters, so of necessity I'll jump from topic to topic, so there's not much continuity.

Under subsection 3(5) on page 5, it implies that not all ministries need to have regard to the policy statements. Only the Minister of Municipal Affairs is referenced. We recommend that all ministries be required to comply with the statements.

In section 16 on page 10, it provides that official plan requirements may be set out in regulations. We support the recommendations by Mr Sewell that rules be in the act itself to provide more certainty.

Another issue is that a major weakness with current planning practices is the proliferation of site-specific plan changes to official plans. The end result is often a travesty of the official plan. We are recommending that amendments to official plans only be permitted after a review of impacts on the community planning area, and not have all this ad hockery associated with changing official plans.

In clause 17(29)(b), page 15, we note that individuals may lose the right to appeal official plans to the OMB if they fail to make oral or written submissions to council. We believe this to be too severe a penalty and recommend reinstating the current policy whereby the OMB will write to an applicant requesting that they provide adequate grounds for holding the hearing, and if they don't, they don't have it. Sometimes there are occasions when people cannot attend formal council meetings.

1140

We also want to recommend that when development proposals are before councils, local citizens and residents' organizations be alerted before, not after, planning staff have made their report. This will help mitigate the degree of shock which currently results when residents hear about development after the fact.

The provision of a sunset clause for approved subdivisions is a useful addition to the revised Planning Act. We recommend this provision be expanded to encompass the sunset clause for site-specific rezonings, thereby freeing up needed land for redevelopment.

Section 52 of the bill contains provisions dealing with fill removal. I listened to the GTA mayors, and we want to reiterate the point they raised. The urban forest is constantly being denuded for want of regulatory safeguards. We recommend that the fill protection provisions be expanded to include tree and vegetation removal.

Another important point to residents, and I know this is not maybe transferrable all over the province in northern Ontario -- again, listening to this other concern of what's tailor-made for large urban areas, our concerns may not fit somewhere in Timmins. But be that as it may, the automobile juggernaut continues to close in on residential communities within large cities. Neither the bill nor the comprehensive policy statements provide any protection against automobile intrusion into residential neighbourhoods. We wish to recommend that this oversight be corrected and that provisions be incorporated into the bill reflecting these concerns.

The final point I wish to make as a representative of Concerned Citizens, as the president of a ratepayers' group, and as a citizen activist in some of the big difficulties we've had in North York over the last six years dealing with monster homes is again this bread-and-butter issue of the appeal of minor variance decisions to the OMB. Mr Pellew raised it, and I wish to again orchestrate that concern a little bit more. We firmly believe that in its efforts to streamline this aspect of the planning process, the government is preparing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. This new provision does not constitute empowerment of the citizen. We feel it reflects the callous stripping away of one of the few remaining defences possessed by citizens when they are negatively impacted by poor planning decisions.

Just as a little example, and I speak because of my personal involvement in this, over the past five years communities in North York and elsewhere suffered the ravages of the monster home syndrome. Good quality, reasonably priced homes were being torn down and replaced by what we call Taj Mahals, three to four times larger and costing two to three times more. Adjacent residents complained that their homes were being totally overshadowed, with loss of privacy and ruined streetscapes. They received little sympathy at committee of adjustment hearings.

The OMB was the important resource for the residents. The OMB listened impartially to the planning issues. It wasn't frivolous; it wasn't vexatious. It was people who felt their whole lives were being ruined by these awful developments. The OMB was the vehicle, somebody who could listen. Nobody had nobbled the horse. We would get a day in court.

North York council was, to put it mildly, very pro-development, and its committee of adjustment reflected that bias in its decisions. Every monster house was perceived as more taxation revenue. By rallying citizens, lobbying councillors, appealing to the OMB, we were able to have modest changes made in the bylaws to modify the worst excesses of the monster homes.

The information we have suggests that for minor variance appeal, the time taken by the OMB is around 2% of its time. If this is the case, why remove the citizen's last line of defence against poor planning, especially when the dice are loaded against the citizen at earlier phases of the planning process? We ask, whose needs are being served by denying this important right to citizens?

My last line is, if we have achieved anything by appearing before this committee, it will be measured by your response to this heartfelt plea: Restore the rights of ordinary citizens to appeal minor variances to the OMB.

Our president, Colin Williams, will close off with a few final recommendations.

Mr Williams: I'd like to move on from planning issues to open government. Page 5 of our brief addresses this issue.

The starting place for open, democratic municipal government should be with the election process. At present, development and other special interests play too large a role in the funding of municipal elections. We therefore urge this committee to adopt the Quebec practice and require that only an elector may contribute to an election fund, from his or her own money. Elections should be for people, not corporations.

Another problem connected with election, or charitable, funding is the fund-raiser. Tickets to fund-raisers are sometimes bought with public or charitable money. Patti Starr wrote the textbook on this subject. It weakens the openness of municipal government.

One aspect of Bill 163 deals with open meetings for municipal bodies. In general, this is a good step. However, a particular concern is the new protection-of-secrecy clause, subsection 55(5) of the Municipal Act, which is section 47 of Bill 163.

Consider two examples: (a) a city is considering an agreement to contract out its garbage collection, and (b) a city's board is considering an agreement for the management of a performing arts centre. For case (a) all committee deliberations are to be in the open. For case (b) another act permits the board to meet in secret. Since the board elects for secrecy, any committee or council meeting considering that same matter may also meet in secret.

For our present purpose, the municipal freedom of information act is intended to protect the deliberations of a secret meeting, not the product of that meeting, the agreement, in our example. Unfortunately, a number of decisions by the privacy commissioner's office appear to treat these as being the same thing.

The introductory booklet, page 4, has, "Final decisions must be made in an open public meeting." This doesn't help much if all we learn is that Councillor Smith voted for the adoption of report 20A. This is not open in any meaningful sense.

We recommend that section 47 of Bill 163 be amended so that:

(1) Clause 55(5)(g) only apply to the specific body identified in the authorizing statute; and

(2) Subsection 55(10) be added to require that as soon as the decision becomes effective -- an agreement comes into force, in case B above -- the product of that decision be a public document.

The disclosure-of-interest rules might be more onerous than those applicable to members of the Legislature, but they seem reasonable in the circumstances.

We recommend that clause 2(3)(e) be added to the disclosure act to provide that the receipt of an election contribution is deemed to create a pecuniary interest for the term of office.

Clause 5(2)(a) is open-ended. If the gift is incidental to the responsibilities of the office, it should either go to the office or be taxable in the hands of the office holder. In either event, the fact that a gift has been received, but not necessarily its value, should be publicly reported.

A gift can perhaps be judged according to whether it is a business or a personal expense to the donor. A lunch provided by a developer to a municipal official is presumably intended to build a relationship. It is a cost of doing business. Louis Charles has successfully developed a number of relationships. Some municipal officials would likely have avoided the slippery slope if all such meals were in the public record.

We therefore recommend that the minimum reportable single gift be prescribed, clause 5(3)(a), as $15 and not the proposed $200.

1150

Mr Murdoch: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly appreciate it, and I have the same concerns as you have with the minor variances, because we've been unable to really get a clear description of what a minor variance is, and as you said, is it a large house beside you or not. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of concerns and problems with this, and some of the people before you mentioned that some people just overstep this process and go through the zoning bylaws and things like that. It won't streamline the situation, so maybe they should be leaving it alone.

It's amazing the amount of people who have come now and said they would like to go to the OMB, because I'm sure before this bill was ever introduced, if we had hearings on the OMB, there'd be a lot of people complain about the OMB. Now the OMB looks good compared to this bill. It's amazing this has happened, but I guess this bill's done that.

The one question I wanted to ask, though, is, a lot of municipalities are concerned with the change in the clause that they won't have to "have regard" for but will have to adhere to the policies of this government. What concerns a lot of them, especially out of Metro Toronto, is that we have planners in Toronto who dream up the plans and then they're enforced upon, say, rural Ontario or northern Ontario. Do you have any ideas or things we could look at in that regard?

Mr Williams: In our view, this is of no great importance. The change is perhaps minimally clearer than the existing rule, but it's no big deal.

Mr Murdoch: In your case, you don't think that would be a problem.

Mr Williams: We have no strong feelings for or against.

Mr Murdoch: Okay. That's really all the questions I have, Mr Chair, if you'd like to go on.

Ms Haeck: I just want to thank you very much for your presentation's comments relating to heritage. I was looking at your recommendation that you identify significant features and requiring, again relating to minor variances, a good definition of what is significant, because obviously that's one of those words that definitely needs a very good example.

In relation to open government, on page 5, particularly at the bottom with your recommendation, would it be your sense that better minutes need to be taken and provided, because I believe myself, in looking at minutes that are made available for public perusal after many meetings, they're really not full. They provide basically a motion and who seconded and the ultimate vote but not necessarily a good reflection of the discussion, so your concern as far as how these decisions were made would probably require much better recordkeeping.

Mr Williams: Unfortunately, that wouldn't help in the case of matters that are held in a secret session. The minutes would then be a description of the deliberations. This is currently and would continue to be secret and therefore not a public document. Yes, I think better minutes would certainly help in general, but it doesn't address the specific problem we're raising in connection with the product of this secret meeting.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): Sir, you mentioned the minor variances percentage, 2% of all the total appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. Where do you get those figures?

Mr Williams: The Sewell report gives a figure of 15%. The municipal board gives a figure of 6%. Now, if we take the savings that are likely to come from the procedures that Dale Martin outlined to you, this should perhaps reduce it to a further one third. So this is a derivation of the 6%.

Mr Rizzo: So 2% does not represent the actual percentage of the work performed at the Ontario Municipal Board as of today.

Mr Williams: Not today, no.

Mr Rizzo: It's an anticipation of what may happen in the future.

Mr Williams: Yes, with the streamlining proposals whereby, instead of having a full hearing, there'll be these preliminary meetings that he claims sorted out 85% of the cases.

Mr Rizzo: So it's just a projection then. It's not a fact as of now.

Mr Williams: Yes.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. I regret there isn't time to explore many of the items that you've dwelt on and explained to us. Unfortunately the bill contains so much it would take considerably longer time and I wish we had that.

Coming to the minor variance appeal situation, it seems to me that by far the majority of Ontario citizens who have come before us feel that the OMB appeal must be continued for minor variance or we must have a very clear description of what a minor variance is and indeed it must be minor, because many of the minor variances are not minor at all. They're variances, but they're not minor. We've got to have either/or: Continue it or have a very clear definition of minor variance. Would you agree with that, and indeed keep it minor?

Mr Ronan: I think it would help very much if there was a clear delineation of what constitutes a minor variance, but I don't think the corollary holds that justice would prevail. The system is so overloaded against the ordinary citizen at their hearing proceedings now in place that the difference between attending a committee of adjustment and going to the OMB -- I've been doing that for 10 years. It's night and day. In one area you're looked upon as somebody who's trying to hold up progress and stop development happening and in the other place you're listened to about what planning rules are, what the guidelines are, what are the true issues involved in the particular development before the board.

It's a whole culture. It's not just the definition. With a definition, you can play all kinds of things that would help. But you need a change of heart, a different perception about whose ox is being gored, that the citizen is not just a malcontent. They're genuine concerns. Their whole investment in a particular home or area is up for grabs, and being able to listen to it in a planning base -- it isn't there because of the nature of how we evolved. So that's why we don't want that taken away. It's a lifeline. It may seem like streamlining, but it's slitting our throat.

Mr Eddy: Thank you. You've certainly proven your point. I also note your concerns about removal of fill, dumping of fill, removal of vegetation, removal of trees, the urban forest, and it seems to me that because many of these things can and do happen prior to a planning application being submitted, what we need is legislation, strong legislation, for municipalities to prevent this action, with fines and forced replanting or whatever is required, rather than putting it in the Planning Act. I'm not opposed to putting it here, but it happens before the planning process commences, and this is where we've got to be alert and make some changes that municipalities have a stronger right to do something, it would seem.

Mr Williams: If I understand the proposal, it is that there be a change in the Municipal Act too.

Mr Eddy: Yes, and there is a Trees Act and a soil preservation act, but they all need to be much stronger and clearer.

The Chair: We want to thank you for the interest you've taken in these hearings and thank you for sharing some of your ideas with us.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

The Chair: We invite the Ministry of Environment and Energy staff, Mr Wilfred Ng and Mr Alexander Campbell.

Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, is this a true depiction of what happens, what's lying in wait for us in the septic system?

The Chair: They'll tell us. Welcome to the committee. Please begin any time.

Mr Wilfred Ng: Good morning and thanks for inviting us here today. To my left is Mr Alex Campbell. Mr Campbell has been involved with the whole septics issue for quite some time, and he'll be able to address some historical issues that I wouldn't be able to.

The issue of reinspection has been raised by Mr Sewell on a number of occasions, and our purpose in being here today is to provide some background information on what the septic program says and what are the factors to be considered before we proceed with a reinspection program.

The package that you have in front of you consists of two documents. The first one is my presentation, entitled Reinspection of Septic Systems. The other one is called Care and Feeding of Your Septic System. This document is written in very simple language and I hoped that this would assist the committee in understanding what a septic tank is, how it works and what are the problems associated with a septic system.

1200

I would like to spend a few minutes on the program mandate, or on the activities of the part VIII system. The legislative basis for the approval for the licensing of contractors and for the licensing of sewage haulers rests with the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The legislative framework also allows the ministry to enter into agreement with its agents to deliver the part VIII programs, and I'll get into who the delivery agents would be in a few minutes.

The legislation also allows the ministry to charge fees for the issuance of a certificate of approval and for the issuance of a use permit and also for land use planning reviews associated with part VIII.

I will note that the current legislative framework does not have any formal mechanism for reinspection, and I guess that is the crux of the whole issue that Mr Sewell has been discussing.

In terms of the agents' delivery of the part VIII program, it is essentially done by local health units in 34 areas. In some areas where the ministry has not been able to enter into agreement with the health units, those will be done either by the ministry, through private contractors or through conservation authorities, and it was even done in one plumbing department in one restructured county, and that is in Scarborough.

Mr Eddy: Is that plumbing inspection department, rather than plumbing department?

Mr Ng: I think it is the plumbing department.

In terms of the program activities, the health units are responsible for the inspection of the proposed lots. They are also responsible for the review of proposals for new systems and alterations to existing systems. They are also responsible for the issuance of certificates of approval and use permits, and also they're responsible for response to complaints or legal matters. I would also note that the C of A process for part VIII is a little bit different than our conventional C of A process. With our conventional C of A process, we don't issue use permits, but for part VIII we issue a C of A first for construction and then follow up by the issuance of a use permit.

In terms of the MOEE's role, our role is essentially one of coordination, and also we're responsible for the establishment of standards and policies for the health units to enforce. The ministry is also involved in the licensing of system installers.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, point of order. The point is this: We've all been anxiously waiting for the ministry officials to be before this committee, because all of us throughout this exercise have developed a great many questions to ask the ministry staff. I'm just wondering if we could cut the presentation a little shorter, because time is limited, which would leave more time to all of the caucuses for questions.

The Chair: Okay. I think the point is clear.

Mr Perruzza: I think all of the members would agree --

The Chair: The point is clear, Mr Perruzza.

Mr Perruzza: -- that we would better deal with many of the concerns in that way.

The Chair: Could you do your best to make it as brief as you can so members can ask you as many questions as possible?

Mr Ng: Sure. Before I leave the program activities, I just want to mention that the MOEE is responsible for the provision of grants to the health units.

With that, I would like to jump into maybe the factors to be considered if one were to proceed with a reinspection program. That would take us to page 11.

A lot of discussion has been focused on the need for inspection and what the program should entail if we were to proceed with one. Before we institute any formal program, there are a number of factors we need to look into.

The first one is on the scope of reinspection. What are we talking about here when we say reinspection? The whole system is underground, and in order to identify any failure or malfunctions, one may have to go into the system itself. A visual inspection may not reveal enough information as to whether the system would fail or not.

The other factor that we need to consider is that the information obtained during a reinspection may not be sufficient enough for prosecution. So before one proceeds with reinspection, one would have to define the scope of reinspection.

In terms of the logistics of reinspection, we have estimated that there are over one million systems in Ontario. Assuming that we have 100 inspection days available during the year, one would have to determine what is the cycle of reinspection and what would be the number of inspectors associated with the cycle of inspection. The shorter the cycle, the more inspectors you would need. One would have to also look at the expertise and the experience of the staff. Also one would have to see how the enforcement aspect is going to be addressed once the inspection is done. Of course the most important factor is who is going to pay: whether the government should pay or the owner should pay.

In terms of cost, if the government were to do the program, the government would have to look at how much it's going to cost to set up the program and at how much money would be expended on the enforcement side. If the system owners were to pay the cost, then we have to look at how the money could be recovered. One of the options is through user fee. We have also estimated that the inspection fees will range from $75 to $2,500. The reason we have such a wide range is because of the degree of inspection. It all depends whether this would be a visual inspection or whether we're going to have in-depth study. The other reason is, a lot of consultants have indicated that if they have to do a more detailed inspection, then they come with additional liability and that's why they're going to charge more.

Another factor to be considered that is associated with a reinspection program is the management of pump-out or what we normally call septage. Right now the infrastructure is at capacity and what we need to do is look at how those pump-outs would be managed if we instituted a formal reinspection program. I've talked a little bit about the liability issue associated with an inspection agency.

The other factor we need to consider is, whom should we be discussing with in order to develop a meaningful reinspection program? Some of the stakeholders we have identified include system owners, municipalities, the On-Site Sewage Advisory Committee, health units, the carriers and, of course, environmental groups. I think those groups would be able to help us define a meaningful reinspection program.

In summary, we conclude that there are a number of benefits with a reinspection program; however, before we proceed with a reinspection program, we need to look at the factors we've identified before. What we would like to see is whether we'll be able to develop some sort of legislative framework at the outset, to allow us to carry out some further discussions on the whole inspection issue. That would conclude our presentation today and we'll be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin with government members.

Mr Wiseman: I will be very quick. I noticed in your technology section you have composting toilets and then you have under class 1, sewage system classes, composting toilets. Why do you have those there? Because they are not allowed in Ontario.

Mr Ng: That is not correct. We have allowed composting toilets to go into certain areas.

Mr Wiseman: They are not allowed in private dwellings without having a complete septic bed in association with them.

Mr Ng: That's not quite correct either. What we're seeing is, if one were to use a composting toilet in, say, a new subdivision, then there would have to be allowance made for the class 4 system in the future. Our concern is if there is a change in ownership, if people don't like a composting system, then they can switch to the class 4 system, but we're not saying we don't accept composting toilets.

Ms Haeck: Just as a supplementary, if I may?

The Chair: Ms Haeck, I'm sorry.

Ms Haeck: Actually, it adds to Mr Wiseman's comment.

Mr Wiseman: It's okay. I was going to have another question but I'll let --

The Chair: The problem is Mr White was next and then Mr Perruzza; that's the problem.

1210

Ms Haeck: The Ministry of Transportation has added double -- basically, they have the composting toilet and then they end up adding the septic system. That is doubling it, and I guess the question I have, which I think reflects Mr Wiseman's comment, is, if that's the process that we're going with, that basically compromises some very good environmental processes that we could follow. My comment is ended.

Mr Wiseman: I guess my question is, why, if you have a composting toilet, especially in the rural areas where septic systems are far more frequently used than they are in the urban, would we not make it a lot easier for composting toilets to be put into cottages or into farms or homes? Because what we're doing now by adding this requirement is making it almost impossible. We know, for example, that the federal government is moving in the direction of licensing and making this kind of a recommendation possible. We know that other provinces have already done it, but we are the ones that are lagging behind and putting the roadblocks in the way of people being able to use this system, which is much cheaper and more efficient than having to put in a huge septic bed.

Mr Ng: As I indicated before, we're not discouraging the use of composting toilets. All I'm saying is there are some limitations with the technology and we just want to build in that allowance in case there is a change in ownership. The bottom line is, the ministry is not discouraging the use of composting toilets.

Mr White: We've been very struck with the amount of discussion over this issue. Obviously from your brief and presentation it has caused some serious thought, I'm sure, within the Ministry of Environment. When you put forth the factors to be considered, I think it's prudent to note you haven't really included the actual costing of the program, because the issues around health and enforcement are much more crucial than monetary concerns alone.

I'm wondering, with the stakeholder consultation and with the programs that you're looking at, how long do you think it will be before we have a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to deal with this problem?

Mr Ng: This is the $64,000 question, and I'll try to respond in a simple way. It all depends on the scope of reinspection. It all depends on what we want out of the reinspection program. This is why we feel it would be useful to enter into some discussion with the stakeholders. I really cannot say how long it's going to take. My guess is, well, it may take six months to come up to a meaningful program. It all depends on the scope and what we want to have in all of the reinspection program.

Mr White: So what you're saying is, within a year you could develop a comprehensive program to address this issue.

Mr Ng: That's what we're hoping for. We're hoping that we would be able to set up some sort of a legislative mechanism at the outset to allow us to do all those things in the future.

Mr Perruzza: I have just a couple of quick, technical questions, because in my mind we have an environmental disaster happening -- right? -- and nobody's prepared to take the gloves off. I think that specifically with this particular issue we need to take the gloves off.

You have a wonderful diagram here that explains a little bit the construction of a septic tank. I think it's important to go through that in order for people to really get an understanding of where the pitfalls are in this process.

You have a pipe coming out of the house. What's that made of? In this diagram here.

Mr Ng: Page 1?

Mr Perruzza: Page 1. What's that pipe, the one that's taking the sewage out of the house, made of?

Mr Alex Campbell: It's generally plastic.

Mr Perruzza: Generally plastic, right? A lot of them are clay. The older ones are clay, yes?

Mr Campbell: That's correct.

Mr Perruzza: Clay pipes abutted to one another, right?

Mr Campbell: Correct.

Mr Perruzza: Okay, not joined. Around that pipe you generally have gravel or fill, right? Okay, so there's a lot of filtration there. What's the tank generally made of?

Mr Campbell: In Ontario they're generally made of concrete.

Mr Perruzza: Concrete. How thick?

Mr Campbell: The minimum thickness for a concrete tank is four inches.

Mr Perruzza: What surrounds that -- generally gravel, correct? -- in terms of fill around it?

Mr Campbell: Generally a sandy backfill.

Mr Perruzza: Okay. So you have a natural filtration system right there, by and large? Yes?

Mr Campbell: I don't follow what you mean by that.

Mr Perruzza: Well, you have gravel or sand around this tank so you have a natural filtration system around it; I mean something that's porous to water, that lets water and guck through very quickly, right?

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Mr Perruzza: Okay. Then you have this leaching ducting, piping, right? And what's that made of?

Mr Campbell: Typically plastic.

Mr Perruzza: How deep is everything below the ground? How deep is the tank below the ground?

Mr Campbell: Minimum burial depth can range anywhere from four inches to one metre.

Mr Perruzza: How deep does the frost grow in most of Ontario? How deep does the ground freeze?

Mr Campbell: About two to three feet.

Mr Perruzza: So everything is within the frost range basically, right? So when the frost sets in and the ground freezes, it expands, it puts all kinds of pressure on the system, right? And then when the frost leaves and the water leaves, the soil expands, right? Now, does concrete crack in those circumstances and does piping crack under those circumstances?

Mr Campbell: No, because you're looking at a different --

Mr Perruzza: I'd like to know how many people have concrete basements that don't have cracks in them.

Mr Campbell: Yes, but your basement is not cracking because of the frost action on it; it's cracking because of the water pressure acting against it.

Mr Perruzza: Does the frost move the whole system around? Does it lift it; does it lower it?

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Mr Perruzza: When you lift concrete and lower concrete, does it have a tendency to crack, and does the piping coming out of the house have a tendency to come apart? Do you get roots in that piping, and what's the frequency?

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, you're asking a lot of questions and it's taking a great deal of time. We're running out of time.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, the point is here that the entire construction of a septic tank is completely conducive to breakage within a year, two years maximum, of its construction, and anything longer than that, it's a failed system. So what you have is a system where 100% of the septic tanks, you can safely say, in the province of Ontario are failing, and all that guck is going into our rivers, lakes and streams, right?

The Chair: We thank you for that opinion. We're running out of time.

Mr Murdoch: You should close down rural Ontario then, eh? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Eddy: Thank you for the presentation. It's very helpful --

Mr Perruzza: No.

Mr Eddy: You're not using my time up, gentlemen.

I still think it'll be the plumbing inspection departments of municipalities that have the program delivery rather than a plumbing department, because I don't know why a municipality would have a plumbing to do plumbing. Anyway, that's a minor thing.

I notice that you state in 4 on page 14, "Septage (Pump-out) Disposal," "Some municipalities prohibiting disposal at treatment plants and within boundaries," and this is something that's always bothered me because many people do on occasion have their tanks pumped out for good maintenance and of course the contents of that septic tank must go someplace.

It would seem that municipal sewage treatment plants would be the logical place for it to go, although I do know in some cases, it seems, and I'll get to that other point, you allow it to be disposed in other ways. Considering that most municipal treatment plants have provincial funding to expand them or to construct them in the first place, why is that happening? What is the reason that municipalities are prohibiting disposal of septage?

Mr Ng: First of all, municipalities are prohibiting the disposal --

Mr Eddy: Oh, and they're run by MOE in a lot of cases.

Mr Ng: My understanding is 60% of the current septage are being land-disposed-of and 30% is being disposed of at the sewage treatment plant. Like I said, not all STPs are not amenable to accepting septage for disposal; only a few. I think their concern is about the implications of what the septage may have on the process. But, like I said, not all municipalities are rejecting the acceptance of septage for disposal.

1220

Mr Eddy: MOE operates many of the sewage treatment plants in Ontario. Does MOE accept it at all the plants they operate? No?

Mr Campbell: No, they do not.

Mr Eddy: What is MOE's reason for not accepting.

Mr Campbell: The criteria being that the septage material is too strong to be disposed of at the facility without upsetting the process and causing their effluent criteria to be out of compliance.

Mr Eddy: But I can't think of any even small-size system that it would be that much volume, so what happens to it? Is it spread on the land?

Mr Campbell: That's correct.

Mr Eddy: It's all right, though, as far as you're concerned, to go on the land?

Mr Campbell: If the material is transported and disposed of in accordance with our guidelines, there should be no problem. If it's disposed of improperly, of course, no matter what you dispose of will cause a problem, but if it's done according to our guidelines, there should be no problem.

Mr Eddy: I understand that in some summer parks, for instance, the material can be disposed of on soil, worked soil, provided it's worked within two hours. Some of those are very small areas and it's the same small piece of property that's used over and over, and it's sometimes upgrade or uphill from the situation. Do you have firm guidelines?

Mr Campbell: Yes, we do. They are published in a manual and again, if it is done properly and the limits that are set out in those guidelines are followed, we don't anticipate there should be a problem with the disposal of the material.

Mr Eddy: MOE is now responsible for the inspection of septic systems throughout the province, but farms it out, contracts it out, to health units etc.

Mr Campbell: That's correct.

Mr Eddy: Do all agencies that contract with MOE follow your guidelines? Do you have very firm guidelines that they must follow across the province?

Mr Campbell: The agreement with the municipality requires them to follow the regulations and to follow our design manual and our policies, and enforce those policies where applicable. It also gives them the authority to introduce their own policies which can strengthen any policy or --

Mr Eddy: Strengthen?

Mr Campbell: Yes. They cannot stipulate a policy that would weaken the position of the ministry at any time.

Mr Eddy: I see, and do the policies for the installation of septic tile systems vary with the type of soil or terrain into which they're being installed?

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Mr Eddy: So you have that all in print and circulated?

Mr Campbell: Yes, the design manual accounts for various limiting factors on the site such as slope, impermeability etc, and it also explains how the system is to be installed.

Mr Eddy: There are many urban-type subdivisions in Ontario that are presently being constructed on septic tanks and septic tile bed systems, I understand.

Mr Campbell: I missed the first part of your question.

Mr Eddy: Subdivisions -- I can understand why you missed the question; there was another speaker -- but that still is happening. There are subdivisions and that's happening in some of our cities as well -- urban subdivisions being installed on septic tank and tile bed systems, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Mr Campbell: That's correct.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for the information.

Mr McLean: I'd like to get clarification: tertiary treatment -- would that then allow that municipality to not have to hire somebody to haul the sludge away?

Mr Campbell: No, all the septic systems will generate some residual material, sludge, that would have to be disposed of independent of the treatment mechanism chosen.

Mr McLean: But I'm talking about a large municipal sewage system when they have the tertiary treatment.

Mr Campbell: Yes. All of the large municipal sewage treatment plants also generate a sludge material that must be disposed of.

Mr McLean: So in every sewage treatment plant in every urban area in Ontario, sludge has to be hauled somewhere?

Mr Campbell: That's correct.

Mr McLean: Normally it would go to -- some I guess would be hauled into a lagoon in the winter and then spread in the summer on to fields?

Mr Campbell: No, the sludge is removed from the sewage treatment plant whether it's a mechanical plant or a lagoon, and then land-applied.

Mr McLean: Is there a time limit that it has to be worked into the land?

Mr Campbell: Yes, there is. It's usually within 24 hours.

Mr McLean: Are the municipalities or the ministry having a problem finding land that's available to put that sludge on?

Mr Campbell: Usually the land that's used for sludge disposal from a municipal sewage treatment plant forms part of the certificate of approval for that sewage treatment plant so it's already available for them.

Mr McLean: The Sewell commission recommended the five-year inspections and since we have you before the committee this morning, have you had any guidance from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or from your ministry to draft some amendments that they may want to look at with regard to this legislation?

Mr Ng: We haven't decided what the inspection or reinspection cycle should be and, like I said earlier, we're looking at some sort of a legal mechanism to allow us to do the reinspection in the future. So our ministry, together with MMA, has been looking at that option. I don't know what stage we are at in terms of directing the legislation.

I need to consult with my legal people, but we're looking into that option now.

Mr McLean: Thank you. Can I ask the parliamentary assistant: Are you planning on bringing some amendments through which would deal with this issue that we're talking about here with regard to the septic systems in Ontario?

Mr Hayes: As you can see, I don't think it's any secret here that this is a real sticky issue. Excuse the pun. As Mr Ng has said here, there are discussions going on between the two different ministries and for me to say we're going to come with amendment immediately -- I cannot assure you of that. As we know, this is not an easy issue to deal with. We're going to do what we can to resolve it.

Mr McLean: But it is your plan to bring an amendment in.

Mr Hayes: I didn't say that, Mr McLean. I said we're looking at working out ways to resolve this problem.

Mr Murdoch: One question: In your expert opinion, if a septic system is installed properly with the proper tilage around and the proper soil, will it work?

Mr Campbell: Yes, I believe it will.

Mr Murdoch: Okay. That's all I want to know.

Ms Haeck: Mr Chair, I wanted to place a question for staff, which doesn't have to be answered now.

The Chair: All right.

Ms Haeck: It's obviously something I'm expecting in writing and it may be that the two groups will have to get together. I would like to get an overview of the regulations relating to -- because I'm not happy with the answers relating to composting toilets.

In particular, I would like to find out across the country what the regulations are relating to composting toilets. I would like to have a clear understanding of what is impeding their ability to be used more broadly in the province of Ontario. I would like to get an understanding of what in fact are the problems relating to grey water at the current time. Obviously, as your last comment to Mr McLean, relating to the spreading of the septage or the compost tea -- what regulations are in place to affect that, be it for composting toilets and other systems? I think that's all for right now. Thank you very much.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to add a question to that. I'd like to see what kind of testing is being done on the sewage with respect to being sure that we don't have PCBs, heavy metals and other contaminants being spread on the agricultural land from the sewage treatment plants.

The Chair: Just as a question to you, do you need these questions in writing or do you have them?

Mr Ng: I think what we'll do is prepare a package for the members' information.

The Chair: Very well. Okay.

Mr Ng: Shall we submit it through yourself?

The Chair: Do all the members want a copy of the answers to those questions?

Mr Curling: Yes, we do.

The Chair: Very well. Give them to the clerk and she'll give them to all the members.

Mr Perruzza: Can I add a question to that as well, since we're on the subject? I appreciate the two gentlemen are here to do a job and I don't mean to pick on them. Obviously, they're in the hot seat. I respect their abilities and the work they do and I can understand the magnitude of the problem and why they would say some of the things they've said.

My question for them to answer is: Could they provide the committee with a technical analysis as to why they believe a system that is installed properly over the years will not fail?

Mr Campbell: I don't believe I said it wouldn't fail. I don't believe I said that.

Mr Perruzza: No, but a system that is installed properly will work properly ever thereafter. I completely disagree with that, because everything I know about this stuff is --

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, I'm sorry, we don't have the time.

Mr Perruzza: But I'd like to have the technical analysis in the form of an answer, Mr Chairman, please.

Mr Ng: Mr Chair, can I offer some of my personal opinion of this issue? We all know that things will fail; it's a question of time. I don't think that is a fair question to us. If you can ask us whether a system will fail in 20 years or 30 years, we may be able to provide some answer to that question. But if the question is, will the system fail? -- I don't believe we'll be able to answer that question.

Mr Perruzza: No, a technical analysis of how the system is installed, the depth that it's installed, the materials that are used and the pressures that come to bear on that system, because I suspect most people would be able to make a fairly accurate assessment for themselves how long a system like that could last, given our weather situation here in Ontario. That's what I'm looking for.

The Chair: If that's clear, that's fine.

Mr Perruzza: It is clear.

The Chair: If not, we would ask the member to write something else --

Mr Perruzza: He knows what I'm talking about.

The Chair: All right. Mr Hayes, anything?

Mr Hayes: Just two quick questions, but mine are quicker than most people's one question. You talk about records not being available. I'm sure each municipality knows how many households it has and I'm also sure it could find out how many people are on the sewage treatment plant and subtract that number to find out how many are on the septic tanks, wouldn't you think?

Mr Ng: We've got very good information since 1982. We know we have issued over 270,000 C of As since 1982. But we don't have a good database prior to that, so all the information may not be there and this is what we refer to when we mentioned records.

Mr Hayes: How widely is this circulated? Do the individual households get this, because I think it's a good booklet and it would certainly help many people understand the system they have when they buy their house especially, because I haven't seen this out in public.

Mr Campbell: The document Care and Feeding of your Septic System -- there were initially 30,000 copies printed up that were distributed to various organizations and district offices of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. There are currently an additional 65,000 copies to be delivered to various organizations again. The health units primarily, our delivery agents, will receive a number of copies available to them that they will distribute with each new applicant. They will be available at their offices, at our offices, at any other government agency offices that wish to use them for free distribution to anyone who requests one.

The Chair: We want to thank the Ministry of Environment and Energy staff for coming and for providing the information to this committee. This committee is recessed until 1:30.

The committee recessed from 1234 to 1340.

GREEN DOOR ALLIANCE

The Acting Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): We are hearing deputations and our next order of business is to call forward Green Door Alliance Inc, Ms Marion Thomas and Mr Lorne Almack.

Mr Lorne Almack: I hope we have a good representation. I appreciate those who have come to the committee meeting and are in attendance. The Green Door Alliance is the successor to People or Planes, POP, an organization which some of the longer-term -- I was going to say older -- members of the Legislature will remember.

POP was supported by the official opposition, which was Stephen Lewis's NDP caucus, and was supported by the Liberal caucus, who opposed a Pickering airport -- the Liberal caucus did, although the federal government was imposing it. Finally, it was Bill Davis who blew the whistle and really cancelled it. So POP has pretty deep roots.

The successor to POP is the Green Door Alliance because, way back in 1979, the last constructive thing that POP did was put out a little booklet called The Last Green Door. This was a challenge to the people who govern us to save this green space on the northeast boundaries of Toronto, including some of Scarborough, and we have done that already with the Rouge Park. That's a good start.

So the Green Door Alliance has continued on, and now that it's pretty certain that there won't be an airport -- Cedarwood city, with 250,000 people, is dead -- we have this huge public asset out there which we want to promote. If the Planning Act were strong enough that it could be planned and saved through zoning and planning, we'd be happy. But we're not really convinced that Bill 163 would do the job.

Now I'll get back to my notes. There's a vital need for reform, and if you read my little booklet, I've got a whole section on reform and in the appendices some statistics from a new publication by the World Watch Institute. This is a very highly respected journal. If you look at these statistics, you will see we are living in a changing world. We cannot plan for the past. There's an old saying that generals always plan for the last war. I suspect the President of the United States is doing that right now. But we've got to plan for the future, and it's going to be a very different future than the past.

That's not going to affect me. I'm 71 years old and I'm comfortably off, thank goodness. I've been a developer, I've been all kinds of things, so I've been able to make a little bit of money. But I have four grandchildren and I fear for their future and for all human beings who are coming after us. My God, we have to have a sustainable future, and this is what we are appealing for you people to ensure, that the people of Ontario have a sustainable future.

Needless to say, we need reform because of the population explosion. But we need reform because we're broke and, if you don't think we're broke, you're kidding yourself. We are so broke -- I have a son who's a high school teacher at Donovan Collegiate. He has three grade 9 science classes. He only has textbooks for one class. That's how tough things are. Everybody's cutting back. But in the meantime, of course, we're building a trunk sewer from Whitby up to Brooklin. Millions and millions in Ajax -- $45 million for a new water treatment plant.

You know, we've got our priorities a little mixed up sometimes. We're broke, and the future is very different than the past. Don't plan for the past. I have one councillor on Pickering council who says his vision for Pickering is that the north be a mirror image of the south. Well, it cannot be. We'll never have enough money for infrastructure. We have to learn to act differently.

Bill 163 started out as a reform when John Sewell in his early commitments came up with very reform inclined ideas. But he's a man who strove for a consensus, and he wanted a consensus between the development industry and the environmentalists. I'm telling you, you can't get it. They have a different perspective. So he diluted his policies and his recommendations considerably. Then the drafters of Bill 163 came along and further diluted it until -- what have we got? This is pretty weak.

The policies themselves are pretty weak. For instance, it says, "Development should be serviced by full municipal sewage and water services wherever feasible." Why throw in a great big loophole, "wherever feasible." Wherever feasible to whom? In whose opinion is it going to be feasible?

"Prime agricultural areas are included in the extension" -- this is an extension to municipal boundaries -- "only if there is no reasonable alternative." Again, reasonable to whom? The guy who owns the land and wants to make a couple of million bucks on flipping it over on rezoning? Reasonable to whom? That kind of vague language has no place in Bill 163.

We conclude that the policies designed to replace the provincial appeals system, and you're delegating huge powers to the municipalities on the basis that you're putting in strong provincial policies to look after our provincial interest, are not strong. Time will tell whether we've really weakened the planning system in Ontario or whether we've strengthened it. It's in doubt.

The goal should be to manage land to ensure the people of Ontario a sustainable future. I think the Ontario Environment Network and CELA have complained that the drafters of the bill ignored Sewell's recommendation on purposes and put their own purposes in, or somebody else's purposes. We need to go back to that and certainly where it says it's got to be economic, I don't know where that word "economic" came from. It's another vague word. It means all things to all people.

The key is reform, and that is what we should be planning for, reform and planning for a sustainable future. Urban sprawl, which is our number one disease that planning should control, is not sustainable; it's not affordable.

Let me wrap this up because I know you have a heavy schedule. I just want to say that our economic future and prosperity and the quality of life of the people in this province depends on conservation of food land. If you look at the statistics, food land per capita in this world has been dropping for the last 10 years. It's down 12%. We're producing less food and more people. Here we have some of the finest agricultural land in the world, the finest climate and we're blowing it. We don't need to.

Urban sprawl is not affordable, I assure you it isn't, and any developer who keeps buying farms and thinking he's going to be able to develop them is not. Economic forces are going to put him out of business. He'll be like the office tower developers were 10 years ago. He's ready to go down the drain, and even if you're a good Tory, like I sometimes am, you would make sure, protect him from himself, because he's going down the tube.

1350

We cannot afford urban sprawl. You are finally going to have to say, "No more grants for regional roads, no more new school busing, no more schools until you utilize the empty schools in the inner city of Scarborough and Oshawa." In Oshawa inner city schools are half full, and we're spending millions building new ones and we're going broke. If you think we're not, boy, you're not reading the budget right. I used to be in the management consulting business with a big financial firm, so I speak with some relish about some of these financial matters.

The future can be healthy. We can have affluence and a humane society. We may live in smaller houses, we may drive smaller cars, we may use more public transit, but we may have purer air, cleaner water to drink and wholesome food grown in Ontario, I hope. We might even feed some of the world's starving children, and there are millions and millions of them.

We could have access to a healthy countryside and benefit from a stronger -- come on -- economy. We cannot build a strong economy with a spendthrift growth. We have to have affordable housing so our workers can demand reasonable compensation. We desperately need to reform our planning system to meet the challenges of the next century.

The Green Door Alliance urges you to support the very modest amendments proposed by CELA and the Ontario Environment Network. In my report I highlight a few of the amendments you should make, but I'm going to leave it to the technical people at CELA to write the legalese to bring this thing back into line and have a true reform.

I thank you very much. I welcome any questions.

Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that any kind of reforms, especially planning reform, should be people oriented. You say that Bill 163 is not really -- well, when I say people oriented, that it should be sustainable for the next three, four, five or six generations. We can't plan 100 years ahead of time, but we should be reasonable enough to manage our land for the next two or three generations. What would you have liked to see in Bill 163, removing all the fancy words, as you call them, the economic and social and so on? What would you like to see in 163?

Mr Almack: Let me just give an example, on the food land issue, which used to be a big priority for the present government, before they were elected --

Mr Hayes: Still is.

Mr Almack: Yeah? Still is. Okay.

Why don't we just say, "Development on Canada land inventory classes 1, 2 and 3 shall not in the future be permitted." Now you've got tens of thousands of acres already in the pipeline, and it's going to be difficult or probably unjust to stop those. But my God, at least way down the line, let's not quit developing our best food land. Our agricultural resource and the Christian Farmers are coming in here this afternoon, and I just switched my membership from OFA to the Christian Farmers because I like what they have to say. They are thinking of the future.

We just say it shouldn't happen, unless there's no reasonable alternative. There is always a reasonable alternative. Scarborough, Oshawa, Whitby, urban Oshawa could accommodate all the growth within their existing boundaries. They don't need to expand. It's going to happen anyway because, as soon as you free up where people can make duplexes and redevelop, the amount of vacant land, when you come on the GO train from Pickering, there are thousands of acres of vacant land.

Why in hell don't we develop that before we sprawl up to Brooklin where there's a pocket of the finest land in Canada, flat loam till, grows 150 bushels to the acre, 40 bushels of soya beans aren't unusual, and we're blowing it. This act should've stopped that but it is not. It has been watered down. Somebody's got to you. There aren't enough environmentalists around. They haven't got enough money.

I published this little report at my own expense. Well, Green Door Alliance inherited $1,400 from POP that was left over from the POP organization, $1,400. You're spending that with your staff here this afternoon.

Mr Grandmaître: Every hour.

Mr Almack: Did I answer your question? What can we do? We can tighten up on food land. We can tighten on the other.

The Chair: He has another question for you.

Mr Grandmaître: When you talk about class 1, 2 and 3, that these lands should not be developed, don't you have any faith in the government when they say if it has a provincial interest, we will step in and put a limit to the development? Don't you have faith in the government to put a stop this?

Mr Almack: I have faith in the law, in the legislation and what the legislation says and, you know, I don't trust any government. Quite frankly I don't. Governments are even better if there are a few watchdogs, old guys like me around complaining. They perform better, don't they?

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, sir. I looked at some of the statistics that you have, where you say 50% of the best farm land in the GTA has been urbanized and in five years from 1981-86 some 50,000 acres were urbanized. That's a staggering statistic. I think you're right. A lot of people are not aware of it. When I drove Highway 2 going to Oshawa a week or so ago, the urban sprawl is tremendous, and I don't see any major new highways that are going to look after that.

Mr Almack: To drive up Yonge Street makes me ill. I've been around long enough to see what Ontario used to look like.

Mr McLean: I want to ask you a question with regard to the mineral aggregate policies. It concerns me and I want a clarification. The supplies of gravel and gravel substitute such as trap-rock which could economically be supplied to southern and central Ontario, you say there is no need to open pit mine southern Ontario for gravel and you're saying there's pre-emptive land over the vast area of the Oak Ridges moraine allocated to gravel to provide enough concrete to pave all the farm land in Ontario. Are you saying there's enough gravel in southern Ontario around Maple and in that area?

Mr Almack: Well, the whole Oak Ridges moraine. Uxbridge is the big area and I happen to be on the board of an organization called the Foundation for Aggregate Studies, which tried to interest people in not open pit mining the whole Oak Ridges moraine. You fly over Uxbridge and along that moraine between Richmond Hill and Omemee, my God, it looks like a moonscape. You know, we don't need to do that.

One of our colleagues on this is Beer Precast Concrete. He used to pour more concrete than any in Toronto. He built on the fascia on the Toronto city hall. He says the best concrete comes from crushed trap-rock. We used to bring a train of it down from Marmora. You know the open pit mine there? It's the stuff off the top that has no iron in it. You crush it up. There's no natural gravel over in Buffalo. They don't have any. It doesn't hurt their economy if they don't have any. They crush rock and you can haul around a unit train. That train that came down from Marmora used to have 85 cars on it.

Mr McLean: Well, the Uhthoff quarry is a perfect example I guess. That's one of them and there are others in Mara township which crush rock, lime, and haul it south. I see we're having a delegation this afternoon, Lake Dalrymple Association for Safe Environment, and I know what that's all about. They're trying to locate a quarry within that area and what you're saying today, there's no need of any more new quarries.

Mr Almack: Well, if we're going to open pit mine iron at Temagami and Marmora and places like that and Steep Rock and we have all this overburden, why waste it? Why not use it for aggregate, wonderful road ballast, better than aggregate A. But mind you that's not what the aggregate producers are going to tell you. They'll give you another story.

Mr Murdoch: One short question. I understand what you're saying about our good farm land being used. I go up home by Hart Lake Road and the big development that's going into Brampton right now, 4,000 acres of the best farm land in Ontario is being developed into housing right now. Would you agree to incentives to move some of our industry to other locations like Owen Sound and maybe further northern Ontario rather than taking up all this good farm land here?

Mr Almack: I think we ought to let the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs and our free enterprise system look after that. We say, "You're not going to build on class 1, 2 and 3 farm land. Now go and find another solution." They'll find another solution. They might even redevelop some of the vacant lands. Markham has a huge industrial area. You look at it. It's got coverage of probably 10%. The vacant land is immense. It has already been ruined and bulldozed up. It's just sitting there. There's no shortage of places to build factories.

Mr Perruzza: Don Cousens is going to fix that though.

Mr McLean: He probably will.

1400

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Lorne, for coming in. I'd just like to talk to you a little bit about how we make sure that everything is clear. Your comment about preserving class 1, 2 and 3 farm land -- I had an interesting discussion with one of the developers in Pickering and he said: "You just tell us what the rules are and we'll follow the rules. But don't put in any wishy-washy words, that maybe I have to follow the rules and maybe I don't, depending on what the council will do."

Let's talk a little bit about zoning and official plans. In your opinion, do we have a strict enough code so that the zonings actually mean anything in terms of development, and also with respect to official plans and official plan amendments? Are we making the official plan strong enough to prevent misdirected official plan amendments?

Mr Almack: The past has been terrible. Anybody could get an official plan amended. But I don't want to be too negative. This act is a gesture in the direction of reform and I think you have diluted Sewell's recommendations on the content of official plans, and that is unfortunate. You're not talking comprehensive planning or watershed planning or any of those things that are not required in the official plan.

Since this debate started, you approved Durham official plan, which I think is a disaster. It urbanizes everything up to Highway 7. There's very little good land north of there. North of the Oak Ridges moraine, there's practically none. There's no class 1 land up there at all. If your planners thought that approving the Durham plan would make it compatible with this new Planning Act, then I am disturbed. It's pretty weak.

The Chair: Ms Haeck, you have one last question?

Ms Haeck: Yes, you raise on the final page of your presentation an interesting point for me, because we've been dealing with this issue locally. We've been talking and we have some sense of where Virgil and some of these places in the Niagara area are. You say, "Do not fund trunk sewers to service prime food land." In putting in some of these water and sewer lines, what has your experience been?

Mr Almack: This one is running from Whitby up to what you've just -- somebody in the government has approved millions of dollars to subsidize it. That is going to cause pressure for subdivisions surrounding this little town of Brooklin. The development follows the sewers. That's why Markham and Vaughan are such a disaster, because years ago we built a 12-foot sewer that goes from Pickering clean up to Newmarket.

If the taxpayers of Ontario are going to pay all the infrastructure costs for urban sprawl, the developers are going to take advantage of it and build the housing. You want to build roads for them, you want to build Highway 407, that's just to service urban sprawl. Now it's already sprawled out in Markham so maybe you've got to build it over to the Pickering town line. But stop the sprawl now. We can't afford it. We can't afford all this automobile travel. We can't afford the pollution it produces. We can't afford that kind of expensive economy.

REGIONAL CHAIRS OF ONTARIO

The Chair: We invite the regional chairs' committee, Chairman Peter Pomeroy.

Mr Peter Pomeroy: I have with me this afternoon Pat Murphy. Pat and I work together in Halton region. He works in the planning department and has had some considerable input into the suggestions that led to the final submission by Mr Sewell, both through the planning commissioners of Ontario and his work with the AMO committee on planning reform. As a matter of fact, I served on that committee as well.

Just to give you that little bit of background, let me address you in this way, to say that the Regional Chairs of Ontario have for some time advocated improvement in the planning process in Ontario. We've provided feedback and input to the province and to the Sewell commission.

On behalf of the other 12 people who serve on the regional chairs' committee, I'm pleased to be here to continue the dialogue with the province. I'm not going to take a whole lot of your time or get into details on the changes that we believe would be helpful in considering Bill 163. Rather than that, you've had, as I mentioned before, submissions both by the regional planning commissioners and by AMO, so you're very familiar with the point of view that most municipalities bring to this table.

But I'm here to address one issue that the regional chairs and myself personally feel is an extremely important point. That issue is the decision of the province to exclude Metropolitan Toronto from receiving assigned lower-tier official plan approval authority. This decision, in our opinion, is in direct conflict with both the spirit and the intent of the planning reforms that we've all worked so hard to develop over these last number of years. So the regional chairs' committee strongly supports the need identified by Mr Sewell to better define the roles and responsibilities of the province, the regions and the local municipalities within the planning process.

It's quite evident from reading Bill 163 that the provincial government has in fact accepted and endorsed the need for a model of planning in which each order of government has clear roles, clear responsibilities, clear authority and, more importantly, accountability. This construct is fundamental to the improvements sought by Sewell and in large measure delivered by Bill 163. When I say it's fundamental, I mean exactly that: It's fundamental to the public's understanding of the planning process in Ontario, it's fundamental to the improved accountability sought by all participants in the planning process and it's fundamental to the effective delivery of public policy by each level of government here in Ontario.

The proposed model suggested by John Sewell and evident in Bill 163 is clear and consistent, and we spent long hours debating that between all of us, along with Mr Sewell. The province provides overall policy formulation through legislation and policy statements, the regions and the other assigned upper tiers prepare official plans that deliver provincial policy in a consistent manner as well as ensuring adequate policy to address all major regional responsibilities and the local municipalities in turn secure their interests by developing their own planning policy in a manner that has been consistent with both the region's official plan and the provincial policy. I think probably you know all of that.

This is a model in which each level of government has a clear role and in which each level of government has the planning mechanisms to ensure that their legitimate roles and responsibilities are delivered. The major purpose of this reformed approach to Ontario's land use planning system is to streamline how planning decisions are made by the various levels of government. The more efficiently this process works, the more quickly good, environmentally appropriate development can proceed and this in turn creates jobs and it stimulates the economy.

This reformed approach also intrinsically recognizes what Mr Sewell, Mr Crombie and others have been telling us for some time now, and that is that planning must be undertaken on a wider and more comprehensive scale if we're to properly protect the environmental systems and, as the gentleman before me spoke to, supply the needed infrastructure in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Given broad provincial planning objectives, the role of regional plans is to provide a localized context for both the regional and the area municipalities while ensuring a more comprehensive view of the whole planning process, and that's in keeping with provincial policy direction.

1410

As Mr Sewell said, upper-tier or regional planning is the most effective method of dealing with such issues as watershed and environmental systems, the provision of water and waste water infrastructure, intermunicipal transportation and the overall distribution of employment and activity centres in order to secure the best possible live-work relationship.

Planning is all about growth, and growth depends on capital investment and the provision of urban services. If I keep referring to regions, and all of you aren't familiar with them, it's the level that I'm most familiar with so I'll use that as an example, but there are other good levels of municipal government that can look after planning as well.

The regional level of government is directly responsible for the majority of costs associated with urban growth, and therefore it is essential that regional municipalities must have the legislated capability to make decisions on the way growth occurs within regional boundaries.

What I've just said is obvious to the members of this committee, and indeed I think you're all in agreement and I'm restating facts that most of you are in agreement with. In fact it's precisely the way Bill 163 is designed to operate, with one notable exception. For some reason, the single largest regional municipality, Metropolitan Toronto, got left out. The logic of this is a complete mystery to our group. The government has carefully considered the whole construct of the planning system and quite properly decided on the appropriate role for upper-tier governments in the reform planning system.

It seems inconceivable that the one regional municipality that is most in need of controlled infrastructure investment, the one municipality that is the heart of the Toronto bioregion and the one regional municipality that is recognized worldwide as a leader in municipal administration somehow has been excluded from receiving the most fundamental of the powers necessary to ensure proper planning.

This decision is also difficult to understand in the context of other recent provincial decisions and actions, notably the province's support, and certainly mine, for directly elected regional councils; the recognition by many of us, not only here in Canada but all around the word, that there are just too many municipal governments for the senior levels to effectively deal with and that there need to be less; the emphasis on broader-scale environmental planning; and the establishment of the whole GTA planning exercise, as examples.

Again, all of these major provincial initiatives seem directly contrary to the decision not to grant approval to Metropolitan Toronto. It's impossible for me to understand how anyone would expect Metro to be a full player in the GTA planning if it does not even have the power to control its destiny within its own boundaries.

In conclusion, your committee members might be curious about the reason that all of the regional governments in Ontario are worried about Metro not getting the same powers as other regions. The answer is quite simple. We feel, collectively as a group, that Metro Toronto is the heart that drives Ontario.

You could get some argument on that from good people like Bill Murdoch and some of the others who sit on this committee from around Ontario, but I don't think you could disregard the fact that how Metropolitan Toronto goes, so goes the rest of the province, as the centre of the most economically productive region in Canada.

It's absolutely crucial to all of us that Metro Toronto continues to grow in an orderly and sustainable fashion. We believe that the power to control that relationship between land use infrastructure and the natural environment is an essential element of our continued economic success in an increasingly competitive world market.

Again, I think we're missing a terrific opportunity to include Metropolitan Toronto in the overall greater Toronto area planning and it would be most regressive, in our opinion, if that did not happen. We believe that if it doesn't happen now, it's just a matter of time, and we're not sure what the reasons are that would lead any government to come to the conclusion that this one has. I'm totally not sure that any other government would have done it either.

Thanks for the time and the attention. I hope you'll carefully consider this narrow point of view on that one single issue that is very important to all of us.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Mr Pomeroy. You are one of the few who has said that the concept of "be consistent with" is a significant improvement over the current alternative of "having regard to." Most of the people we've had before us don't agree with that. They say the opposite.

Mr Wiseman: No, I wouldn't say most.

Mr McLean: Yes, most.

Mr Murdoch: I would agree most, yes.

Mr Wiseman: Most ratepayers --

Mr McLean: You'll have your turn when it comes.

The Chair: Sorry.

Mr Pomeroy: It's okay. I'm used to working in this environment, so I understand it. When we first heard the words "be consistent with," it certainly was counterproductive and counter to what we initially had been used to dealing with. There's no question about it. But as we worked through the process and as we became more comfortable with the explanations that were coming from Mr Sewell, and we worked very closely with him, we became sold, I guess, that there was some basis for the changes and we did our best to try to understand them.

Certainly there isn't a total consensus in the province. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of people who didn't work as closely with the process as we did. I'm happy -- not happy, but I'm supportive -- at this point in time, until it's proven otherwise, that we did the best that we could do given the circumstances and that there was no further room for negotiation on that point and therefore we chose to go with it.

Mr McLean: The other question I have has to do with capital investment and provision of urban services. From reading in your brief it appears to me that you feel that the majority of those costs are paid by the local municipalities or the region. I have a feeling that there's going to be more of that happen as time goes on. There's going to be more of a putback onto the local municipalities, once they get more approval powers. Would that be your observation?

Mr Pomeroy: Yes, absolutely. Let me put it this way. I don't think it's any mystery that the available provincial funds for tremendously large infrastructure programs are there. I mean, quite the opposite has been true, given our experience, over the last 10 or 15 years, except for this little bubble with the infrastructure funding that we now have.

The trend is clearly to allow municipalities to support themselves more and more from a financial point of view, or look for funding partners or whatever it is they have to do. The development industry was the target for a number of years through a lot of the exercises you're familiar with.

We believe that's going to become more and more the way business gets done with respect to development and that one of the reasons that the planning support and approval authority for regional municipalities was even a thought was so that it became a natural progression to support that point of view. I don't think that there's any doubt that we're going to be more directly affected by the responsibility for funding infrastructure.

Mr McLean: Bill has a short question here, then I have one more.

Mr Murdoch: I just want, Al, to clear up a misconception. I agree with you that as long as Toronto grows, the rest of Ontario grows. Where I have the problem sometimes with Toronto and the Toronto mentality is, and that's just what Al happened to mention to you, this phrase "be consistent with" instead of "have regard to."

What I find is a lot of the bureaucrats or the planners in the different ministries live here in Toronto and they have no idea, and Ag and Food is a great one to look at because they have no idea really what farming is all about. They look down Bay Street and that's all they understand, so they get onto this bandwagon where 1, 2 and 3 lands have got to be saved.

If they really went out into the real world and worked some of the number 3 land in areas like mine and some of the areas in rural Ontario and northern Ontario, they'd know that they just can't set a policy that we have to save some of this land, because some of it will never be worked.

If they'd actually done some of the work themselves, they would understand that, but most of them haven't done any in their lives.

That's where the problem comes with Toronto, because we get to the fact and say, "Well, it's the Toronto mentality." But I agree with you that if Toronto grows, it is the engine that drives Ontario. There's no doubt about that.

Mr Pomeroy: I happen to live in an agricultural community and it's under tremendous pressure for growth itself. I guess that's one of the oldest questions ever asked, not only in the province of Ontario but in almost every growing country in the western world. The answer to why we grow where we do is simply that that's where people want to live. All we seem to do is slow it down and drive the costs up by trying to force people into areas that they don't want to go. In Ontario it happens to be along Lake Ontario, which provides the best of the farm land almost, except probably for southwestern Ontario, of anywhere in the province. That isn't going to change.

1420

I guess the point I was trying to make is simply this: If we aren't as planners, all of us, and that's what we are, prepared to look at an integrated planning process for all of the GTA and not leave Metropolitan Toronto out, because that's effectively what you've done, you create a situation whereby your decisions lead you into the same kinds of problems that all of the inner cities in North America have had.

Toronto is not unique. It just happens to have grown in a little bit different fashion. That's what Sewell was saying: If you don't get some integrated planning and stand behind that process, then you're going to create an inner-city problem not unlike you have in New York City or Chicago or all of the other large North American cities.

Make it a true partnership and get on with the planning exercise and make sure they sit down together on a regular basis and make sure that the mentality is one that leads us to the conclusion that this is one big urban centre and it has to be planned as such. Really that's where I was coming from.

Mr McLean: I have another short question. Regional planning approvals have, for the most part, been delegated to senior staff. Do you think that the senior staff should be making the decisions with regard to minor variances?

Mr Pomeroy: It depends on the community, Mr McLean. We don't do minor variances at our level, but I was part of an area municipal government and, quite frankly, those kinds of decisions can only be as good as the people that you assign to do them. We have great confidence in the planning process in our community and we have good people like Pat here and our commissioner, Mr Mohammed, who has done a lot of work with the province. I think we've established a very good working relationship and that in fact they trust this process.

Is it going to work every time? Absolutely not, but it probably is going to add a little bit of speed to the process, and from a politician's point of view, it's a hell of lot better -- excuse my language -- it's an awful lot better to have assigned staff deal with them based on direction from the politicians than to have the politicians do it themselves.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Pomeroy, for coming before us and for your presentation. We had earlier today a number of presentations from the GTA, the GTA mayors' committee, the social planning council. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto actually spoke very highly of your region as including an integrated planning system that included social planning and some of the tools and instruments that they're trying to develop along with Halton region, and I think it's very commendable.

I'm wondering, in regard to your position, you're saying basically you are in support of the delegation of the power to approve local area official plans to the regional municipality and that represents the view of the regional chairs. In your own regional municipality, this would be something where the local municipalities would be in favour of that delegation as well, would it not?

Mr Pomeroy: As a matter of fact, to answer your question, I think the simple answer would be yes. It's tough to qualify an answer like that in just a couple of words, but the region has been doing approval of local official plans for some years now in our community. We've had the delegated authority and it's worked, for the most part, extremely well. I guess the true test of that is the problem that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs might have with it. I think that they would echo those comments.

Mr White: I certainly know that in Durham region the local municipalities are in favour of the regional authority there and I understand from Mayor McCallion's presentation that that's true in Peel region. What if there was a difference, though? Do you think that should throw caution to the province in delegating that authority?

Mr Pomeroy: I think that having differences is healthy as opposed to just being considered as confrontational. There isn't always going to be a consensus on what the area municipalities consider to be Big Brother or Sister looking after their planning issues.

I'll tell you what it has done in our community. It forces the area municipal staff to sit down with the regional planning staff and to work the differences out and, where there are affected constituents, bring them in and make them a part of the process. Eventually, at the end of the day, if that can't be done, the councils then speak and deal with it; and, of course, there's a further adjudicating authority after that.

Pat, could you tell me how many times we've had a conflict between the two plans, where it eventually went to the Ontario Municipal Board?

Mr Pat Murphy: We've never had a conflict between the area municipalities and the regional plans since we got the authority to approve local plans in 1989 that has gone to the Ontario Municipal Board. They've all been adjudicated.

Mr White: I'm certainly glad to hear that. My concern is that we heard this morning that the local municipalities in Metro Toronto wished to have the province remain the approval authority. That was from the GTA mayors obviously, and I'm sure you're aware of that stance. We haven't heard from the municipalities to that effect. We have heard it from the GTA mayors and we've heard the concern from Metro and from yourself and from other folks within the regional perspective. How do you think we should resolve that difficulty?

Mr Pomeroy: Politically it's a very difficult issue, because I think there are 35 municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. It's a large number anyhow -- I'm not sure how many it is -- and there's never going to be total agreement. The solution is that if the province, which is the ultimate provincial planner, decides that it's a more healthy situation that the Metropolitan Toronto situation be consistent with the rest of the greater Toronto area and the rest of the province indeed, then it's got to make that decision and it's not going to be an easy one to make.

That's really why I decided to bring the point to the table on behalf of the regional chairs, if they'd let me. I feel very strongly about one single planning approach to the greater Toronto area. It isn't to the benefit of the regions outside of Metro; it's to the benefit of Metro and the city of Toronto that that happen in fact.

For a number of years -- I know this is kind of a long answer -- I'm a perfect suburban resident in the greater Toronto area. I used all of the amenities that go along with the big city. I came into Toronto for all the sports events, for all the cultural events, for everything that I had to do. All the people who came to visit me, we went to Toronto to use the amenities that were being paid for by somebody else.

That role is changing and there are tremendous pressures on the inner cities now, created because of suburban development -- you heard that before -- and it's time we started to think about paying it back. I believe that it's totally to the detriment of the inner city if there isn't one single planning body in Metropolitan Toronto that works in conjunction for planning purposes with all of the rest of the communities in the greater Toronto area. That's certainly been my strong point of view since the concept of GTA was created.

1430

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Pomeroy, your group, the regional governments in the province of Ontario, represent between 85% and 90% of the population of this province -- maybe over 90%, I'm not too sure -- and you were in the meetings with John Sewell and also with the minister, if I'm not mistaken. How come your plea for Metro to be treated as all the regions are treated was ignored? How come you were ignored? What reasons were given to you?

Mr Pomeroy: Interestingly enough, we weren't really given a reason. We were most surprised when the bill was brought forward and the explanation on how Metro was going to be treated actually was made public. We saw an interesting kind of metamorphosis take place during the discussions and the debate because Mr Sewell -- I remember at the first meeting with AMO that I attended, he and I had some discussion about the value of a regional government in the municipal context in Ontario.

I felt that, just based on what he had said, it was because of his Metro experience that he really didn't know that outside things weren't quite as bad as some people portrayed them to be. In fact the role of regions or upper-tier governments in planning, having delegated authority, didn't work that badly. What we said was: "Go and find out for yourself. Don't take my word for it because obviously I'm so close to it I'm biased, but go and find out."

If you look at the Sewell report as it came back, it very clearly said there's a strong reason for having upper-tier planning, particularly when you're trying to give them all the cost anyway, so why not give them something else to do so that you can do infrastructure planning, infrastructure funding, infrastructure cost and land use planning and social planning and environmental planning all in the same place and let them approve it. If they get out of line, then take the authority back or make it for them, make some sense. He said it, and so I thought, well, at the end of the day we've done a pretty good job here of convincing him what we thought we already knew.

We were totally surprised by the way the announcement came and that they're going to take the idea Ontario-wide, except we're not going to do it in the most important commodity of all, Metropolitan Toronto, which has the most planning problems.

Mr Grandmaître: One short question on the Environmental Assessment Act. You say that your group of people had a paper done on the Environmental Assessment Act, and I read that "the environmental assessment process for municipalities must be fully integrated if there is to be a substantive improvement in these currently separate processes and if we are serious about our objectives to support and promote sustainable development."

Can you explain to me or give me your thoughts on why the Environmental Assessment Act should be incorporated in the development process or in Bill 163?

Mr Pomeroy: I guess I can give you a couple of examples. The first indication that there was a problem with trying to get an approval under the Environmental Assessment Act and then approval under the Planning Act in Halton was when we looked for a new landfill site. Those planning processes took two separate streams, and in the end we had a hearing that basically dealt with all the issues, a consolidated hearing. So we had those two processes, both with a personality of their own, going in separate directions, being adjudicated by different people. It was a horror story, to say the least. I think they're still trying to figure out how to make that one work.

The good example we have right now is that we've just come through a planning exercise in Halton for a new official plan and we've integrated both the planning and environmental planning processes, the land use planning, environmental planning and social planning exercise, into one document. I don't know whether it's been done anywhere else in Ontario, but for the sake of expediency --

Mr Grandmaître: Has it been approved?

Mr Pomeroy: It has been approved by council. It isn't complete yet, but it has been very much supported by the province, both financially and morally, and we think that it's the answer to getting approvals done more quickly. The reason we say that is that no matter how much we're supportive of land use development, if you can't get your mind around the importance or the relevance at least of the environmental approvals at the same time, you're going to continue to be confronted by the groups that are interested in it. You might as well just integrate it, plan it all at the same time, get it approved, and I think the process will be shortened. It has been a difficult process, but it's the way of the future, in my opinion, for sure.

The Chair: Mr Curling, you have a question of staff or the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Curling: Yes, the parliamentary assistant. In their report they agree and support "be consistent with" as an improvement over "have regard for." I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell me what the political motivation is behind subsection 34(2): "In exercising any authority that affects any land use planning matter, Ontario Hydro shall have regard to" more than "be consistent with."

Mr Hayes: It's a very good question --

Mr Curling: I know it is.

Mr Hayes: -- and it's a question that has been raised by many delegations here. It is an issue we are looking at now to address that problem, and it is a problem for all members of this committee. We're looking at a way to resolve that to the benefit of streamlining the system in Ontario.

Mr Curling: Good response.

BLACK CREEK PROJECT

The Chair: We invite Black Creek Project, Mr Tariq Syed, planning coordinator. Welcome.

Mr Tariq Syed: Good afternoon. I think my brief is just being passed around. I'll just go quickly into a little background of Black Creek. Black Creek is an environmental group that has been around since 1982. We've spent a great deal of our time and effort dealing with the actual creek and what's going on in it. Since 1982, various members have joined together to do a lot of tree-planting work. We then became more specialized in the work we did: We started working on stream rehabilitation work and other such matters.

From there, we have had a lot of success. We've been able to build wetlands, we've been able to renaturalize areas and see the habitat start to come back in the area, be improved and enhanced for the community and for wildlife alike.

But a lot of the work we're trying to do is reaching the point where just planting trees, talking to school children, telling them what's out there and how they can help the environment, isn't enough. We're coming across major development now that we're aware of that is occurring throughout the watershed.

These things are directly related to planning, and the criteria being used are insufficient to protect the environment and the processes in place are insufficient for us as part-time stewards of the watershed. We'd like to be there all the time, watching council, trying to make the best recommendations, talking to them and teaching them our knowledge and our awareness of what the creek is and how we can help it and, at times, how we damage it, even in this day and age.

So a lot of the work we've tried to do in the last three years has been focused through the land use caucus. The land use caucus is a caucus of the Ontario Environment Network and it's allowed a number of environmental groups across Ontario to come and meet and talk, discuss what issues we found were important to one another and what problems we had in common. Through that, a lot of our energies and efforts have been directed through the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I'm here today, for the first point, to endorse the work the Canadian Environmental Law Association has done and the brief and submission it made before you, last week I believe. A great deal of the work we've done has been focused through that.

I'll just highlight some of the points that we really believe are important.

Mandatory bylaws in the municipalities: These are the types of things we need. We need these tools, as representatives of our watershed and our municipalities, to help council to make the right decisions at a local level. All these things are directed as your policies through the province, but when it comes down to the municipality, unfortunately they're sometimes not invoked. The tools are defined but they're not at hand, so making these things mandatory would help us a lot in the work we're trying to do in the watershed.

We're concerned with some of the new powers that are being given in regard to due notice and being able to have standing in front of committees and the Ontario Municipal Board. The government's ability to dismiss referrals and appeal requests on the basis of people's failing to write or speak up at early public meetings is something that concerns us, and we believe it's wrong.

If that's really intended to dismiss people's right to have a say and to object to some things later on when they're not informed of the issues or they're just not aware, unfortunately -- a lot of people just don't have the time to follow all the decisions councils are making, and it comes down to a later stage sometimes and they really get concerned; things have proceeded to a stage where they say it's quite far along but nothing's been turned in the ground, nothing's been changed on the ground. So we feel there should be some opportunity for people to have their say still.

1440

Some of the work we've been doing has come across some interesting problems: access to reports. We all work during the daytime and a lot of our work is volunteer in the evenings, so trying to get those reports in the evenings or access to them through the local libraries is just not there.

These types of things are very important to us to allow our members to read through the materials and discuss with us. It's not the work of a few people, it's the work of many people, and to do it properly we need the assistance of our members and they need to get the material.

Though it might be a bit onerous for a municipality to produce 600 copies of a document, making sure they provide it to the local libraries and other agencies, or groups that have shown a considerable experience and effort put forward in their municipalities -- they should be able to receive these documents, at least one or two copies, free of charge.

One other thing we're concerned about is intervenor funding when we have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board. A lot of responsibility is being put to the municipalities. Many people in various groups and local land owners and people who live in the watersheds who are stewards of their areas feel the burden is being placed on them to hold local municipalities accountable. If that's the case, if we have to be going towards the Ontario Municipal Board to challenge some of the decisions made by local municipalities, we feel we should have access to funds to assist us in doing this work.

Particular to the Black Creek, a lot of decisions have been made in the last 20 years. We feel that in terms of some of the things being done, the decisions were made in the past, and as time goes on our awareness changes and we realize we really aren't happy with the decisions being made but it's difficult to turn these things around.

One example is Highway 407. It's a project of the province that's being implemented right now under Jobs Ontario, but there are other documents out there. The Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice, in January 1993 released a report called Our Environment, Our Health. In that report they said you should "immediately begin integrating human service planning and land use planning to promote the development of communities that recognize the relationship between the physical environment and the human environment."

We look at Highway 407 and we see a lot of impacts from building that highway. It can be easily summarized this way. Highway 401 was the highway that was supposed to help Toronto and relieve congestion. Well, Highway 401 is in the middle of the Metro GTA, and Highway 407 is now the next highway to relieve congestion. How long will it do that before urban sprawl reaches into Richmond Hill, into the city of Vaughan, city of Markham and further north? We jokingly asked the Ministry of Transportation, "So when are we going to start planning Highway 489?" They said: "Well, it's something we're considering. It's on the books."

When you consider all the vast agricultural land surrounding the GTA, where is it going to stop, that we say, "Okay, this is the urban limit"? We have agricultural resources that are not limitless, and we have to protect these areas and we have to produce cities that are efficient and sustainable in many, many ways.

We've looked around the world and seen other cities and the problems they've had that are occurring now that have been on the road -- no pun intended -- for the last 10, 20 years, the problems they're having in Mexico City, Los Angeles, cities in the South Pacific rim with transportation. That's because the society's based on a car-dominated culture, and those problems concern us here today. Building highways and having $2 billion in infrastructure capital money spent in that way concerns us, how we're spending that money there now and yet in the future this might not be the best way to be spending our resources.

There's another interesting thing related to cars, and it relates to one of the other recommendations from this report of the Premier's Council. If you look at subdivisions today, about 20% to 25% of the land area in a typical subdivision is devoted to cars: roads, driveways and such. Look at that same subdivision and the surrounding area and maybe less than 5% is devoted to parks. So there's a clear bias that we are a car culture. One of the recommendations in that report that we support is that the park land dedication in the Planning Act should be increased to 10%. We should be protecting our park lands and having areas for kids to play and for people and adults to have as recreational space and open space. It's something we're considering and valuing more and more in today's culture.

I'd like to make some comments about some of the policy statements I've seen. In looking through them, I notice that the only two that really said actively to go forth and identify and protect were the mineral extraction policies and the wetlands policies, which I believe were also goals under policy A. In those, it said actively that you will identify and you will protect these features. That's great for wetlands and it's great for mineral extraction, which is highly supported by the Ministry of Natural Resources, but for the natural heritage and environmental areas that we believe are important it only says they should be protected.

My suggestion to this committee is that we should be actively identifying those areas also and that they should receive equal treatment in that way. We can't protect what we don't know about, and if we don't have the various agencies out there identifying what's out there right now, we won't be aware of them. They could be provincially significant wetlands and we're not aware of these things. So that's one thing there.

In section 1.4 of policy A, a small wording change I believe should be made. "In decisions regarding development, every possible opportunity shall be taken to...." It's one of the few places we really felt strongly that you must have "shall." Again, if you look at the policies for mineral extraction, in almost every case where something significant is said, in every subsection, it says "shall." It's unfortunate that that was the only one that's very strongly worded. The other policy statements don't have that strong support. I think partly it's due to the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources strongly supports the mineral extraction policies and the other ones don't have the support that one receives.

In policy B, regarding economic community development infrastructure policies, in my opinion, the word "economic" in the context of "sustainable economic development" should be deleted. I know what the term "sustainable development" means, but "sustainable economic development" I don't believe is defined in the document, and it should be deleted in that sense and you should use the term "sustainable development."

Again, as I mentioned earlier, delete 8(c)(vi) and 9(b)(vi). Those two relate to extensions of urban uses into rural areas, particularly into class 1 agricultural lands. Such extensions will continue. There are always grounds to extend urban communities areas farther out and farther out. It's interesting, because you can talk to people -- oh, I don't know, I'd call them older than any of us here -- and they'll tell us about the day when all the communities along the lakeshore used to be separate, and we know that's not the case now. You can almost drive from Hamilton all the way out to Oshawa and you can't make a distinguishing feature between all those areas. It's quite unfortunate and it's going to continue to go up north to Barrie and out to the west and out to the east.

It's unfortunate. There are some good municipalities out there that have some really strong policies and are forward thinking to stop this type of sprawl and urban shadow across rural areas, but unfortunately all municipalities aren't thinking that way. Such policies that allow extensions of urban areas into the rural should be deleted.

One last thing: Residential infilling or infilling in rural areas can create strip development. Those types of policies need further definitions and conditions to help people define what is proper infilling. If you're in a designated hamlet, village or town, by all means: If the urban infrastructure's there to support it, those are the areas where you want development. But just anywhere along a country road to say, "We're just going to have some infilling between these two farms" that are maybe three or four miles apart -- I don't think that would be reasonable. I'm not sure what terms or definitions they've put on infilling, but my point is just you have to be careful in what people define as infilling.

1450

Just some final points. The Black Creek Project is looking for your help. We have a number of people and specialists and other people we can call on, but we need the assistance of the municipalities and we need the tools to be in place so that we don't have to worry about various types of destructive uses or practices on properties before there is an approval to a new permitted use. Those types of things where they can go in and fill in a wetland or cut down trees before there's any change of the land use to some other status is quite unfortunate, and those are the things we have to deal with on the ground, in the communities.

We try to work with the developers and the municipalities to develop the best possible community we can, but again it's putting in place the tools that clearly define and articulate those things so that there is no vagueness in them. It's that type of vagueness that becomes very expensive to everybody concerned when they say, "I'm not sure if I can develop or I cannot develop." If development is permitted, clearly say so, that it should be permitted. If it shouldn't be there, the wording has to be clear in that way.

I think that summarizes my points. Again, we have read the submission from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We were very helpful and were there in the creation of that document over the last three years. We were also there with the land use caucus assisting in the consultation with the Sewell commission. The work we see here in Bill 163 is very good, but there are still some things we prefer and are very happy with in the Sewell commission final report, with the consensus of many other groups beyond the environmental community, that we hope could be put back into Bill 163. Thank you.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you very much, Mr Syed, for your presentation. I want to commend your group for all the work you've done as you've laid it out. I don't recall, though, whether you said how big the project is. How many people have you got working with you?

Mr Syed: We have about 100 active members.

Mr Gary Wilson: And how long has it been in existence?

Mr Syed: Since 1982.

Mr Gary Wilson: So you've got a good record. As you are a public group, I'm interested in just how you foresee harnessing that kind of public participation. You do mention here about the growing awareness, as you put it, that cars and trucks are not a sustainable method of transportation yet we continue to spend billions of dollars.

How do you explain that apparent paradox, that there is a growing awareness yet we continue to do that? Is not the public involved in that kind of planning that does spend the billions of dollars? In other words, is this not an outcome of planning of a sort?

Mr Syed: The fact is that everything we have around us today is an outcome of planning, or maybe sometimes the lack of planning. I can sum it up in some ways by saying that people wish they didn't have to take their car sometimes. When they add up their bills at the end of the year and realize how much they spend on a car and yet they live in an urban area, they really wish they didn't have to have a car. But there are no alternatives at times.

Mr Gary Wilson: Can you suggest ways that the public can be brought into the process? As you put it here, you seem to think there is a lack of ways that the public can get involved in planning issues.

Mr Syed: As to planning issues like what we're talking with cars and automobile use in general, it's not something we can solve with Bill 163. It's something we need to deal with in the long term. There are policies and tools you can put into place to facilitate and allow pedestrian-based, and I include biking and other forms of transit use, if you help facilitate those types of uses and make it easier for people to travel by those forms of transportation and build it into the planning process.

I cite the document Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines. That was a document produced about two years ago in a joint effort by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and it laid a lot of good groundwork to help people make a choice and have an alternative besides using their car.

Mr Gary Wilson: So there's a way of developing that kind of participation by presenting alternatives from, I guess, planners. Is that who you've got in mind? Just where do these alternatives come from and how do they get into the process?

Mr Syed: The alternatives would come from many sources. One thing would be to have the opportunity in local planning to present these things, particularly in the new developments that are planned, to identify transportation corridors, where we should have, for instance, street-level rail again. People are opposed to it in certain places, but we know it works quite well where we do have it.

Mr Grandmaître: Your Black Creek project has been quite a success. You've managed to raise $450,000.

Mr Syed: Thank you.

Mr Grandmaître: You also say that a group like yours should receive intervenor funding. How did you raise $450,000?

Mr Syed: A lot of the money that we did raise we were fortunate to receive through the federal government through a program called the environmental partners fund. We've had two projects with them, and those easily total in financial remuneration at least $180,000 to $200,000. We've also had the support of the Environmental Youth Corps, which is a provincial granting fund that allows us to hire students over the summer, and we've been doing that over the last six summers.

The rest was donation-in-kind work from volunteers and various other technical people who would help us with tree-planting work, designing submissions that would go forth to the municipality for massive tree-planting plans that would encompass the three-year periods. All these types of things give us that dollar value of $450,000.

Mr Grandmaître: Who should be receiving intervenor funding, what kind of groups? What would be the criteria to receive intervenor funding?

Mr Syed: It would depend on the ability of the group to raise funds and to be there. If they've shown grounds and reasoning for going forward to the Ontario Municipal Board but they lack the resources to be there in terms of having to provide planners, technical staff and expert witnesses as well as having lawyers, if they don't have the resources to bring all those things forward to the Ontario Municipal Board, then that's the time they should start to sit down and possibly discuss it with the Ontario Municipal Board or the agency or the group that is in charge of the intervenor funding program.

Mr McLean: You've worked on and stabilized the bank erosion of 30 sites. Did you get approval from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for that?

Mr Syed: Yes, we did.

Mr McLean: Have you worked in cooperation with the Metropolitan conservation authority?

Mr Syed: Yes, we have.

Mr McLean: Have you received any funding from them with regard to some of these projects you've done?

Mr Syed: Received funding from the Metro conservation authority? Direct financial contributions have not been received from the Metro conservation authority, but what they do is donate other skills and materials-in-kind for the work we do in the creek and valley.

Mr McLean: I'm well aware of what the conservation authorities across this province do. When I was going through your brief, you didn't mention them, and I was wondering if you were doing much the same work as what they would do with regard to the stream bank erosion. They get good money from the government, they get money from a number of municipalities, and Metro is the largest in Ontario with millions and millions of dollars. I was curious what affiliation you have with them --

Mr Syed: We work very closely with them.

Mr McLean: -- when you're doing a lot of the same work that they're doing.

Mr Syed: That's very true, but I think the only point I would make is that the Metro conservation authority cannot be working on all the streams and rivers it has in its jurisdiction, which covers quite a large area. Our assistance is valued by them, and that of the many other groups that help them in the watershed in identifying sites. They actively work with schools and other groups and any other agency that will assist in monitoring their creeks and helping to clean up the debris in doing stream bank rehabilitation when the group is specialized enough to do it.

The other group that they work with is Trout Unlimited Canada, and they are working on fish hatcheries in the upper Humber and the upper Credit. So agencies and groups like our environmental group are useful to the conservation authorities because we form a partnership and we're able to access funds from either end and work together to achieve a common end.

1500

ONTARIO SEPARATE SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We invite the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association. Welcome to the committee. Perhaps you'll introduce the others.

Mr Patrick Meany: I'm Patrick Meany, president of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association and a trustee on the Dufferin-Peel separate school board. Carol Devine, our first vice-president, is a trustee on the Metropolitan Toronto separate school board. Mary Hendriks, our past president, is from Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Patrick Daly is our second vice-president and trustee on the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

With us as experts on whom we may call to help in answering questions are Mr Ed Gera, a planner with the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board; Patrick Slack, the executive director of our association; Mr Earle McCabe, our deputy director; and Peter Lauwers, our legal counsel. Thank you for having us here.

The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association represents 53 Roman Catholic separate school boards of all sizes and from all regions of Ontario. These boards provide Catholic education programs and services to nearly 600,000 students.

The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association submitted two briefs, March 1993 and March 1994, to the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. OSSTA has reviewed two documents, one titled Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements and published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and Bill 163.

In the context of the policy statements and proposed Planning Act legislation, OSSTA wishes to provide this committee with the following observations and recommendations.

Under the Education Act, RSO 1990, school boards have the authority to select and acquire by purchase, lease or expropriation school sites that are within their areas of jurisdiction. School boards are required by the Education Act to "provide instruction and adequate accommodation during each school year for the pupils who have a right to attend a school under the jurisdiction of the board," subsection 170(6). This obligation is not a matter of discretion.

Capital projects such as the construction of school facilities in growth areas and the purchase of land are funded for the most part by the Ministry of Education and Training. Each school board provides this ministry with a multi-year capital expenditure forecast which outlines the board's capital projects. This is reviewed annually. Most separate school boards rely heavily on funds received from the ministry in order to finance their capital projects.

Often the funding of these projects comes after residential projects are built and occupied. In some cases, this may be more than 10 years later. In the interim, the board must address the problem of accommodating new students in temporary accommodation -- portables -- and/or by transporting them to a facility outside their neighbourhood. In many cases, students have had to spend their entire elementary education in portable classrooms without ever attending their neighbourhood school.

This problem is further exacerbated by increased development. This in turn is compounded by current provincial policy emphasizing intensification and affordable housing. The result is that the school boards are constantly trying to catch up to meet the pace of development, with very little success. Improved cooperation and coordination among the various ministries, local governments and local boards is needed in order to correct the planning problems that now exist.

For this reason, policies and acts pertaining to land use planning have a direct impact on the operations of school board.

In the past, school boards in most jurisdictions have had input in various stages of the planning process, official plans, amendments, zoning bylaws and the plans of subdivision. Urban and rural municipalities consulted with boards on matters that pertained to education. It is our general impression that cooperation between these two local elected bodies and their administrations has for the most part been to the community's benefit.

More recently, this pattern of consultation and cooperation has been broken. In some cases, school boards have not been granted standing to make submissions on zoning bylaw amendments that increase residential density and the need for school facilities. In other cases, municipalities have refused to refer large plans of subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board for review, even though it was clear that no school facilities would be available for the education of future students. This is a disturbing trend which must be stopped.

What accounts for it? Part of the explanation is in the appetite for land development that all municipalities share. The other part of the explanation is found in the fact that the Planning Act has relatively few references to educational matters. For example, an official plan must have regard "to the equitable distribution of educational, health and other facilities." An official plan itself as a document must have "regard to relevant social, economic and environmental matters." Clearly, the legislation intends the provision of education to be part of the planning process.

However, the only direct reference to school boards in the existing Planning Act occurs in section 51, which provides:

"In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the local municipality,

"(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

"(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;...

"(j) the adequacy of school sites."

The cases in section 51 have tended to adopt the view that once school sites are designated in plans of subdivision, development can proceed, whether or not the land is owned by the school board and whether or not the board has the ability to build school facilities on the site. The point was well expressed by the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario in its final report:

"In the past, policies assumed that if a site in a subdivision had been designated for a school, the school would be built. Plans of subdivision were approved on that basis. Such an assumption is no longer valid. The commission proposes that municipalities be required to develop policies in the municipal plan addressing the provision of educational facilities, rather than just sites. This requirement should be set out in both policy and legislation."

The flaw in the current approach to land use planning is that it concentrates on the provision of hard services such as water, storm and sanitary sewers, roads etc. When hard services are available, development usually proceeds. The provision of soft or human services such as health facilities and educational facilities are not usually considered to have the same weight.

The position of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association is that land development is premature where social infrastructure, the soft services, are not available. Where school facilities do not exist to educate students who will reside in the proposed developments, those developments are premature.

Ms Carol Devine: This document summarizes the proposed changes to the various acts and provincial policies. Plans of subdivision will take an average of six months from submission to approval, instead of eighteen months. The decision regarding plans of subdivision can also be made simultaneously with the decisions regarding official plan amendments. This streamlining of the process will create more pressure on school boards and other local public bodies to respond and provide the necessary service.

Local municipalities must take into account the concerns of school boards in approving official plans and their amendments, plans of subdivision and zoning bylaws. The interests of school boards can be safeguarded through clear and concise provincial policies and changes to Bill 163.

The existing act and Bill 163 give the approving authorities the power to consult with the public bodies it feels may have an interest in the application. School boards are an integral part of the planning process. Since local school boards are required by law to provide education to students generated from new development or redevelopment, it is logical that any planning issues or proposals affecting residents or future residents of an area require their input.

1510

Municipalities circulate official plans and their amendments, zoning bylaws and plans of subdivision to their internal departments, for example, traffic, roads, building, engineering, parks and recreation. It should also be mandatory that school boards be consulted on all planning matters. It is through this process that school boards will have input into the process.

Therefore, OSSTA recommends that the following amendments to sections of the Planning Act, as set out in Bill 163, be revised to require that school boards be consulted on all planning issues: subsections 17(14) and (20), 34(15), 45(8), 45.1(3), 51(14) and (16).

When blocks of land are developed or redeveloped, school boards are not necessarily asked for comments. Traditionally, school boards have never been consulted regarding a development under site plan control. However, certain design changes to the layout of the complex could assist school boards in providing better and safer service to the children of ratepayers.

For example, a town house development situated on an arterial road or highway, absent of sidewalks, has an interior road pattern which prevents large school buses from entering the development. Pupils have to wait on the road allowance in order to be transported to and from school. This is an unsafe condition. The stopping of a school bus also serves to slow down the traffic, and depending on the number of stops on the highway, congestion could result. A solution is to provide an interior road pattern to allow for school buses. Lay-bys off the highway could also help. The only avenue to address the situation would be at the site plan stage.

Therefore, OSSTA recommends that school boards be consulted when residential developments under site plan control generate pupils.

When reviewing plans of subdivision, the approving authority should take into account the adequacy of school sites and facilities. As interpreted by some authorities, the current Planning Act provides that where land is designated for a school site, the requirements of the act have been met, plans of subdivision within the area are approved and development proceeds. What must be considered, however, is whether the school board owns the land or whether a neighbourhood school will be constructed and operational when the area is completely developed.

School boards have argued that the availability of school sites and facilities should be taken into account when reviewing plans. The approving authority has the power to stage developments so that growth is orderly and controlled. However, local municipalities do not consider the availability of school facilities when developing their staging plans since they are of the opinion that they have no real legislative obligation to do so.

The focal point of urban neighbourhood plans is the elementary school and parkland. The act has made provision for parkland to be dedicated or cash-in-lieu payments to be made by the applicant as a condition of subdivision approval. Development cannot proceed until that condition has been met. School boards do not have such power, but in lieu of this authority, the adequacy of facilities as well as sites should be a part of the condition when reviewing a plan of subdivision.

When the existing school facilities are inadequate or do not exist, a review of the plan of subdivision must take into account the ability of the local school board to provide the necessary educational service.

Where former commercial or industrial areas are redeveloped for residential use, existing schools which service the area could experience overcrowding. Although the site is adequate, the facilities require upgrading and expansion in order to accommodate the growth from the redevelopment.

OSSTA recommends that clause 51(17)(j) of the Planning Act be further amended to add the words "and facilities" after the phrase "the adequacy of school sites."

Mr Patrick Daly: Although land is designated for school purposes at the secondary plan stage, the Ministry of Education and Training will only fund site purchases after a significant portion of the neighbourhood is developed. The price paid by school boards has ranged from market value to highest and best use. It is not in the public interest for a developer to use the planning process to upzone a required school site and create value which must be then purchased by a school board at the newly inflated price. If a formula for the purchase of school land was part of the act, then the purchase of property would be made easier for all parties. The province, which funds a majority of the purchases, would reduce its cost by paying a more equitable price for the land.

As discussed in the previous section, the Planning Act requires that in approving plans of subdivision, land be set aside for parks. The municipality has the option of obtaining land or cash in lieu of land. If the municipality requests cash in lieu, then the value of the land is determined by the act.

The section of the act or bill states the following:

"For the purpose of determining the amount of any payment required under subsection (3), the value of the land shall be determined as of the day before the day of the approval of the draft plan of subdivision."

In the mid-1970s, a provincial committee known as the Planning Act Review Committee recommended the following change to the Planning Act:

"Where the municipality or local board acquires land zoned for a public purpose, notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, it is entitled to acquire the land at its value determined as of the day before the day of the draft approval of the plan of subdivision or as of the day before the day of the passing of the bylaw, as the case may be."

The wording is very similar to the valuation of land for park purposes. Sites for schools are as important to the planning and development of a neighbourhood as parkland. Therefore, OSSTA recommends that where a school board acquires the land zoned for school use notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, it is entitled to acquire the land at its value determined as of the day before the day of the draft approval of the plan of subdivision or as of the day before the day of the passing of the bylaw, as the case may be.

The 5% dedication of land for parks or cash in lieu is based upon the total area of the plan of subdivision. It does not take into account the possibility that a portion of the land could be designated for school purposes. The act is unclear as to whether or not lands designated for public use should be included in the calculations for the 5% dedication or the cash.

Clarification is required so that applicants, public bodies and municipalities are aware of how the calculations are done.

Ontario Planning and Development Act: The same concerns about consultation by school boards apply to this act as well as the Planning Act. Although Bill 163 does not propose an amendment to subsection 51(2) of the existing Planning Act, OSSTA believes an amendment is required.

1520

Subsection 51(2) outlines the requirements of an applicant in submitting a plan of subdivision. The number of lots and their use is information that is requested. The same requirements should apply to blocks of land. Current practice is to state that the block would be developed at a later date or it is reserved for medium-density development. No information is provided regarding anticipated units. In order for a school board to properly evaluate the need for school accommodation, all information regarding number and types of lots, as well as the intended use and density or unit count of the blocks of land contained in the plan of subdivision, is required.

Therefore, OSSTA recommends that subsection 51(2) of the Planning Act be revised to include a description of the use and density or unit count of land designated as development blocks.

Mrs Mary Hendriks: We offer the following comments on schedule B, the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994: Many of our member boards participated in meetings to discuss the July 1991 report of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Consultation Committee, which had been appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable David Cooke.

The minister then issued a document entitled Open Local Government, in response to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Consultation Committee report. The four school trustee board associations jointly developed a response to the document. A number of our member boards also responded.

In August 1992, the then Minister of Education, Tony Silipo, invited OSSTA to join the provincial-municipal working group to review the draft legislation. The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association participated with representatives of the three other trustee board associations, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. This consultation process afforded the education community the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the proposed legislation. Our considered opinion is as follows:

We support the title of the act; section 1, the purpose; subsection 2(3), the definition of "pecuniary interest"; section 4, the disclosure requirements; and section 5, the restriction on the acceptance of gifts. We object strongly to section 6 in so far as the disclosure statement is to be filed with the secretary of the school board.

We request that these statements be filed with a central registry and handled in a manner similar to the procedures for members of the provincial Legislature under the provincial Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

We support the intent of the draft legislation, but we believe that the registry of disclosure at the local board office could be abused and could constitute an invasion of personal privacy.

We also draw your attention to the fact that a number of small school boards may not have the administrative staff necessary to provide an accessible registry. We reluctantly support the disclosure-of-interest statement. We do support the need to maintain records of declarations of interest. However, we support a process similar to that for provincial members rather than the process outlined in Bill 163.

It is our understanding that members of the provincial Legislature file detailed statements of disclosure with the provincial commission. These more detailed disclosures are kept in a central registry. More generalized reports, deleting specifics, are filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. The public has access only to the general reports. Individuals who wish to review these documents must file a request with the Clerk's office. OSSTA has stated its support of a similar process for locally elected officials, with one central registry of disclosures and a general statement of disclosure available to the public upon request.

Regarding section 7, the bill establishes a new commission which will provide guidelines for administration, set fees, investigate citizen complaints and, after an investigation, determine whether to drop or proceed on an application or refer a matter to the courts. The trustee board associations recommended that rather than create another commission and bureaucracy, the provincial Commission on Conflict of Interest be expanded to include local government.

This is the preferred course of action and is consistent with the above recommendation that the registry of disclosures be a central agency.

The bill does not provide information on the operation or financing of the proposed commission. OSSTA urges consultation with the school trustee associations on the development of regulations to implement the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act.

Therefore, OSSTA recommends that section 6 of the bill be revised to provide for essential registry of local government disclosure of interest at a central agency and a process of public access similar to that of members of provincial Parliament.

OSSTA recommends that section 7 of the bill be amended to delete reference to the establishment of a new local government disclosure commissioner and that the function be added to the mandate of the existing provincial Commission on Conflict of Interest. OSSTA recommends that the province consult with school boards and trustees on the regulations for implementing the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act.

Mr Meany: In conclusion -- that is, in conclusion with the respect to the brief as a whole -- it is the responsibility of our member school boards to deliver education to the communities we serve as required by the Education Act. We have a vital and continuing interest in the issues related to planning and development reform in Ontario, since land use planning will determine the need for, the timing of and the location of educational facilities. The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association appreciates the opportunity to address the committee and to express the views of the 53 Roman Catholic separate school boards in Ontario.

I believe you have a summary of our recommendations and I thank you for allowing us to address you.

The Chair: There are a few moments left, approximately five, so two minutes per caucus.

Mr Curling: Thanks for your presentation. I think you made some excellent comments and recommendations here, especially in regard to conflict of interest.

To start off with -- I know that the parliamentary assistant and the Chair have heard me say this over and over -- here is a large omnibus bill that you have so many fantastic ideas on which I'd like to pursue with you more. We're allowed two minutes in which to do this, which is unfortunate, very undemocratic in a process of open government.

Mr Wiseman: They never did it.

Mr Hayes: Use your time for a question.

Mr Eddy: No, but it isn't adequate.

Mr Curling: I'd like you to comment, very much so, on the policies that have been brought in by the government about intensification and the impact, really, that this has made. While there is an official plan in place in some areas, here, over and above it all, a policy came in about intensification that we have heard horror stories about, students in portables --

Mr Perruzza: Where? In Napanee or at Bay and Bloor, Alvin?

Interjections.

Mr Curling: The fact is, listening is always a problem over there.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Curling: The fact is that many, many students are seeing their school life in portables, and policies are now being put in place for intensification, bringing more people into the community. What impact would something like that have on a school board?

Mr Meany: I would have to speak at more length in order to give a complete view of this because, as you know well, there are very many aspects to it. But from our point of view, we would not, in itself, object to giving more people a place to live. It's that we should be given the opportunity to provide them with the schooling, and this is what we are not given.

Mr Eddy: Planned for schools.

Mr Curling: Yes, and I know you do want to elaborate much more, and as I said, we are being restricted by just the two minutes. How many pupils in portables do you have now?

Mr Meany: Over the whole province, I'm not sure. I know that in our own we have some 15,000 in one school board.

Mr Grandmaître: In one school board?

Mr Meany: Yes, one school board. It's 40%. Now, some of those are in what we call movable buildings. They're still kind of --

Interjection: Portapacs.

Mr Meany: Portapacs. Larger --

Interjections.

Mr Perruzza: Why don't you follow that up with a question on how many schools are half-empty or being used for purposes other than education?

The Chair: Mr Perruzza.

Mr Curling: Why don't you give the gentleman an opportunity to respond?

The Chair: I'm sorry. Please complete your answer.

Mr Meany: -- relocatable buildings, some of those. But in general about 40%, and I think that holds largely for the growth areas and extends into both school systems.

Mr McLean: I want to welcome you to the committee. You raise the issue here with regard to school sites, which has bothered me for a long time. I agree totally with you that when the planning process is in place and subdivisions are being created, there should be input there and there should be sites set aside for schools, and I don't think that there should be a cost to those. I think that should be part of that overall development because they're putting a burden on that whole area, and for you to have to come in and pay an upzone price just doesn't seem right to me.

I agree with what you're saying and I agree with the subsection 51(2) where you want to revise it to have a description of the unit or the count of land designated. I'm not sure just how you would do it, but there's got to be a way that -- and how you would up pick a site. I guess in an overall plan of a municipality, and when it's designated with certain plans, they should have -- it's been a proven fact of how many families there are in a subdivision and how many children are going to be going to school. It shouldn't be hard to determine where you should put a school site, and that should be part of the overall plan. I think it was Dufferin-Peel that was here earlier on and had made that same statement.

Mr Meany: It would be true across --

Mr McLean: Right across the province.

Mr Meany: Right across the province.

Mr McLean: And it should be. I thank you for coming and expressing that because I think the more that we hear about it, some day it will happen.

Mr Perruzza: I'm particularly interested in what Mr McLean was talking about, in having to acquire lands at the expanded zoning price, and I'd be very interested in pursuing that issue with the ministry and with staff and see if we can't find a way to deal with that particular issue.

But I agree with you. A lot of municipalities, and I remember when I was on North York council -- you forward a plan that's before the council to the school board for comment when a site is being intensified or expanded and school boards, their pat answer, by and large, is, "Well, our schools are at capacity in that area, so no, we can't accommodate any more," and the council says, "Well, okay," and the applications generally proceed without much ado.

1530

But in following up on what Mr Curling was saying about how many students are in portables, the question that we also should ask in conjunction with that is: How many good school buildings are half-empty and how many of them, throughout Ontario, are being used for purposes other than education? I think that that particular issue is far more complex than in the simple way that Mr Curling wanted to paint that particular picture.

My question to staff: Is there a way that we could look at that land dedication for school purposes when plans are being developed in communities, when redevelopment or development plans are being considered, and is there a way that we could prevent school boards from having to pay the upzone price for acquiring land for school purposes? Because, at the end of day, it's the same person who is paying here.

Mr McKinstry: I can't give a really complete answer, but just for the information of the committee, the way the parkland dedication works right now, because developers are required to dedicate parkland, the criteria for the price that the municipality is required to pay are specified in the act.

In this case, the school boards are required to be set aside, but there is no requirement for the developer to dedicate them. So we'd have to look a little bit and talk to our legal folks about if there was a mechanism that we could govern the price. We'd have to think about it a bit.

Mr Perruzza: Can you get back to us on that?

Mr McKinstry: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'd like to thank the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association for their brief and for sharing that information with this committee.

Mr Meany: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The bottom line, because of the shortage of time, is that we have said several times in this room that we regard education as quite as important as or more so than sidewalks and other valuable things like parks.

The Chair: We appreciate that; thank you.

LAKE DALRYMPLE ASSOCIATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Chair: We invite the Lake Dalrymple associations for safe environment. Welcome to this committee.

Mr Lorne Hill: My name is Lorne Hill. I'm the co-chair of the steering committee from Lake Dalrymple Associations for Environmental Protection. Mrs Mary-Jean Smith is the secretary of our association, Mr Rodney Northey is our counsel. We thank you very much for allowing us to appear before committee today.

Our report has two sections. We are going to concentrate, in the time allowed, on our major concern. You will find our further recommendations appended to the report.

Some background first: Lake Dalrymple associations is speaking to you about serious environmental concerns with Bill 163 to amend the Planning Act. Lake Dalrymple associations is a coalition of over 500 residents, farmers, cottagers and environmentalists formed in 1990 to protect the local environment around Lake Dalrymple.

(1) Lake Dalrymple is a very shallow lake. It's only five feet deep and it's over 1,300 hectares in size, northeast of Lake Simcoe. The lake is the best warm-water lake for fishing and hunting of the 1,300 lakes in the Minden district and it supports a provincially recognized population of tiger muskies. The lake is used to stock other lakes in the area. It is the southern headwater of a lake and river system that flows to the Severn River and Georgian Bay. Lake Dalrymple is bordered along the whole southwestern corner by a provincial class 1 wetland of over 2,200 hectares, in the middle of which is a knoll of limestone.

(2) Lake Dalrymple associations believes that parts of Bill 163 provide lesser protection for provincially significant wetlands. Since the middle of 1992, proposed developments have been subject to the wetlands policy statement. The wetlands policy provides a number of very important measures to protect provincially significant wetlands, classes 1 to 3, in southern Ontario. Our understanding is that the wetlands policy applies to any decision made under the Planning Act after the policy came into effect in 1992.

We believe this view is supported in the Manual of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetlands Policy Statement issued by the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources in November 1992. These guidelines state that, "As of this date, every planning approval agency, provincial or municipal, shall have regard to the policy statement in making any decision dealing with a land use planning matter."

We believe the wetlands policy now applies to official plans, official plan amendments, subdivisions and consents on zoning and other matters. However, we think the May 1994 Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements issued with Bill 163 says something very different. They change the relevant date for considering the application of provincial policies such as the wetlands policy. Policy G, "Interpretation and Implementation," seems to say that where an application has been made to an approval authority such as a municipality before the effective date of the policy statements, "it must reflect the policy environment in place at the time of application."

We believe Bill 163 follows the same approach on the application of provincial policy statements. Bill 163 provides a number of rules to decide when an application is considered to have commenced. Section 74.1 on page 62 appears to make the important date to be the date of the original application by the applicant or, in some circumstances, the date of a municipal council decision on the application.

If we are correct, any application made prior to June 1992 or accepted by council before 1992 does not have to consider the wetlands policy. The policy will no longer apply. An application made in November 1990, and a wetlands policy approved in June 1992, will not have that policy applied to it.

In our case, this change would affect a proposal to build one of the largest quarries in this province, 550 acres, 80 feet deep, to extract 3 million tonnes of rock each year for 60 years. This quarry may be able to blast rock, excavate and completely remove an island of limestone in the middle of the provincially significant class 1 wetland without considering the wetlands policy, all because the applications needed for the quarry under the Planning Act were filed, and in this case rejected by the local municipal council, before the wetlands policy came into its present force.

We have been in touch with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it is working in conjunction with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to examine the fisheries in the lake. They produced a report in August 1992.

According to the quarry company's own reports, it's quite possible that the water level in the wetlands and the lake will drop eight inches. You will see that there is a map attached to the back of your package. There's a little lake in the middle of the provincially significant wetlands called Kelly Lake. An eight-inch drop will cause that lake to dry up 50%. The Ministry of Natural Resources is afraid that the drop is actually going to be one metre, in which case Kelly Lake will dry up, the wetlands will dry up and Lake Dalrymple, which is five feet deep, will become a puddle.

In addition, we've had four consultants examine the quarry company's proposal and they have told us that the potential exists for an environmental catastrophe.

We do not know how many other development proposals in or near provincially significant wetlands were made prior to June 1992, but if Bill 163 is not changed, those other proposals would also appear to be able to ignore the wetlands policy. I don't have to remind the committee that we have already lost 75% of the wetlands in southern Ontario. So for us, from that point of view, Bill 163 is a disaster.

1540

We do not understand how this approach is consistent with the provincial interest identified in the wetlands policy. We thought this government spent a great deal of time in coming to a cabinet decision to apply the wetlands policy with increased protection to class 1 to 3 wetlands as of June 1992. Why, then, should this protection now be withdrawn?

(3) There appears to be inconsistency in the wording of the bill and the policy statements on the application of presently existing policies. Page 18 of the policy statements does not seem to be consistent with Bill 163. When we read section 74.1 of Bill 163, we find that clause (2)(a) means that an official plan or official plan amendment is considered to be commenced the date it was adopted by the municipality, yet the policy statements say that the applicable date is the date of application. The policy statements appear to be correct only if the official plan or official plan amendment is not adopted by a municipality, as stated in clause (2)(b). According to other parts of section 74.1, the same problem seems to exist for zoning bylaws or amendments.

We support much that is in the bill to streamline the planning process. We have some further recommendations for you to consider and we have appended them. Our major concern is with the difficulty in the applicability of the wetlands policy.

Thank you very much. We will try to answer questions if we can.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I already expressed the concern that you raised earlier on when I was asking some questions to the people from the Green Door Alliance Inc who were here and indicated that there's enough aggregate in southern Ontario to last for 100 years. I thought there probably wasn't any need to be looking at any further extraction north of Highway 7.

I certainly understand where you're coming from and sympathize with the problem that you're having, but I want to find out with regard to the question of the policy statement. I'm not putting my finger on it here, but if they did have our approval and if the council was against it, would that not kill it? I guess my question is more to the ministry staff than anything. They said that if the council was in agreement with it, it could proceed, prior to 1992. But this council was opposed to it. Does that in effect kill it or does it now come under the new guidelines of the wetlands?

Mr McKinstry: It depends what the application was. If it was for a private official plan amendment, then the applicant would have the right under the current act to go on to the board. If it was for a subdivision, then the application would be made directly to the approval authority and the municipality would be commenting.

Mr McLean: It was a zoning change for the land. That's what it was.

Mr McKinstry: If it was a zoning change, then the applicant would have the right to go on to the Ontario Municipal Board and the ministry would not be involved.

Mr McLean: Then this policy wouldn't take effect?

Mr McKinstry: The zoning would not take effect until the board had made an order, if it went to the board.

Mr McLean: Do you have an answer to that or a question to him?

Mr Hill: No.

Mr McLean: Well, they're not so sure.

Mr McKinstry: I don't know what the details are.

Mr McLean: There's been an application made for a rezoning of a parcel of land for aggregate and the municipality has not approved it. They have said no. The people involved, the principals, want to proceed and they're saying that they can proceed. Is that right?

Mr Hill: It's both a rezoning and an official plan amendment.

The Chair: It's both, which happens.

Mr McLean: That's right. So they can now go to the OMB and ask for that to be heard?

Mr McKinstry: If the applicant wants, right now, if they have submitted a private application and the municipality does not act on it within 30 days, it can go to the board, or if they refuse it, it can go to the board.

Mr McLean: The municipality doesn't have much control then, really. Individuals can come along and make an application to have a rezoning, and if the council doesn't approve it, they can continue on and go to the OMB, over the council's head.

Mr McKinstry: That's the existing act. Are we talking here about the existing act?

Mr McLean: Yes, that's what they're working under.

Mr McKinstry: Yes, and that's the system in Ontario, that people have the right to go to the Ontario Municipal Board when they've been turned down.

Mr Murdoch: But under what policy? It's in a wetland. I think that's the concern. It's in a wetland and this policy won't kick in because it was done before June 1992, so what policy will their application be under then? I think that's the question.

Mr McLean: Yes.

Mr McKinstry: The issue was the existing policy environment. The wetlands policy statement came into effect in 1992, so all applications made after that date have to have regard to the existing wetlands policy statement.

Mr Murdoch: That's right.

Mr McKinstry: The wetlands policy statement was in development for a long time before that, so there has been information available for a long time. However, it had no legislative backup in the Planning Act until it came into force.

Mr Murdoch: So they applied before June 1992, so what their policy will --

Mr McKinstry: Therefore, the wetlands policy statement which is currently in effect would not be applicable to that site.

Mr Rodney Northey: If I might just interject, the situation is that if that OMB appeal were held today, the OMB could apply the wetlands policy statement to that decision because it is coming and having to make a decision after the date in 1992. The problem is that if the hearing is following the implementation of this act, the statement set out in this act would appear to suggest that because the policy was not in effect at the time of application, there is no application of that policy.

Mr McKinstry: Maybe I should clarify that. What we were trying to say there was that the existing policy environment should be taken into account. So, for applications made before the date that this policy comes into effect, the existing policy environment, which is the current wetlands policy statement, the mineral aggregates policy statement, the housing policy statement and the floodplains policy statement, the decision-making must have regard to those. Then, once the new policy statements come into effect, decision-makers will be required to be consistent with the new set. As it happens, wetlands is the same in the new set as it is in the old set.

Mr Northey: If I could interject again, policy G appears to suggest that the policy environment is the time of application. According to what you've suggested, the applicable time would be the time immediately prior to the effective date of these new policy statements.

Mr McKinstry: It's when the application is made, the policy that's in effect on that date.

Mr Northey: Yes, and that would mean here that the wetlands policy would not apply.

Mr McKinstry: Because it was made before that date in 1992.

Mr Northey: Right.

Mr McKinstry: Yes, you're right.

Mr Northey: Whereas it now does apply.

Mr McKinstry: Whereas for any applications made now, the wetlands policy statement applies.

Mr Northey: And any board decisions that were to be held today could apply or would apply the wetlands policy statement, whereas if it's in the future they may not.

Mr McKinstry: I guess that's what is not clear to me: the rationale why it wouldn't in the future. I don't understand that. It doesn't seem correct to me. In the future you would either have to apply the old wetlands policy statement, if the application was made before the new policy statements came into effect, or if the application was made after the new policy statements come into effect, then you'd have to be consistent with the new policy statements. I'm not clear. Maybe we could talk about this afterwards.

1550

Mr Wiseman: I'm concerned about that as well. If what I'm hearing is correct, it's that in Bill 163 it changes the date; it changes the wording to say that instead of the wetlands policy applying from June 1992 onward, it now only applies on the date of the application. I think, if I've got it right, your argument is that under the current wetlands policy from June 1992 onward, somehow or other this whole Lake Dalrymple quarry thing would be that the OMB would have to have regard for the wetlands policy as of June 1992, but by changing the wording in Bill 163 it moves it back to the application date. If that's the case, that's a significant difference. I don't have a copy of the wetlands policy, but that's the significant difference, I think, that you're trying to get to. If that's the case, I really think we are going to have to take a look at that section.

Mr McKinstry: Yes, maybe I can talk to you afterwards and clarify the problem and then maybe we can talk about whether we need to fix the problem, because I'm not sure I quite understand.

Mr Wiseman: I guess the other question is that since Lake Dalrymple is a fish hatching area, wouldn't the federal Fisheries Act be a stronger piece of legislation to work on your behalf than this, or have you looked at that?

Mr Northey: I have examined that question and at this point, without getting into federal-provincial relations, the federal approach to fisheries and environmental assessment is extremely complicated and there have been all kinds of court cases, but at this exact moment it would not appear that the federal government could be required to make a decision under that act.

Ms Haeck: I'm just pursuing that, because I thought that basically MNR, the provincial ministry, does a lot of the enforcement under the Fisheries Act, and obviously that's the ministry that's also responsible for aggregates, so that gets to be an interesting quagmire which we probably shouldn't be pursuing because we could be here till midnight, for sure.

Mr Wiseman: How about a year?

Ms Haeck: But within that ministry, have they given you any sense of where the responsibility lies with regard to especially the fisheries question? Mr Wiseman and I have dealt with similar questions in our respective areas and there were some disappointments for both of us.

Mr Grandmaître: Change the government.

Ms Haeck: It didn't help with you guys either, so forget that.

Mr Wiseman: You're the problem, not the solution.

Mr Hill: We've had some difficulties in getting information from the Ministry of Natural Resources. On page 7, you'll see that we have sent four unanswered requests to the Minister of Environment and Energy asking for environmental assessment of the quarry site, and finally we got a hearing. We've received no response to another letter we've sent. We were refused a meeting with the Ministry of Natural Resources until we appealed to the minister and the Premier, and the Premier has been supportive. The MNR has given our material to the developer but gave none of the developer's material to us, and so on. So there's a major communication problem there, we have found. We would like that to be solved somehow, if possible.

Ms Haeck: I have just a quick summation. I'm observing that your comment reflects a number of other comments that have been made before us in relation to the communication between ministries and, shall we say, the lack of timeliness on the part of commenting agencies to deal with requests, and it's on all sides; it's not just on one. Obviously, that's an issue you'd like to see addressed as well.

Mr Hill: Yes, very much so. We understand that it's not just our side that's involved in this. We've talked to the ministry and they're understaffed and so on. We're aware of that.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. This is seemingly a very complicated matter but your concerns are very genuine. I can understand them. On page 6 you talk about provincial priorities, "If local municipalities are to `have regard for' or to `be consistent with' provincial policies," and the new wording in this act is "be consistent with." But the ministries, and I guess it's just the one, Municipal Affairs, "have regard to"; there seems to be a big difference and many people have commented on it.

The other problem I have: You're asking which policy takes precedence, the wetlands policy or the mineral and aggregate resources policy? We need those questions answered, we really do. It's come up before that there are conflicts between some of the policies and who is going to be the arbitrator. I guess the question I have, are you very fearful of this application going on to the OMB and being heard by the OMB when the OMB is not required to follow any of the rules?

Mr Hill: Did you say is that a problem for us?

Mr Eddy: Yes.

Mr Hill: Very much so.

Mr Eddy: The point I'm making about the OMB, the OMB has made decisions that are absolutely in total conflict with a municipality's approved official plan, with its approved zoning and, I would expect, provincial policies. The OMB can and does make some decisions which I've never been able to understand, and that would be the ultimate decision. When the OMB decides, that's it.

Mr Wiseman: It could go to cabinet.

Mr Hill: It can go to cabinet, as I understand, but --

Mr Eddy: This could go to cabinet?

Mr Hill: As I understand, it can.

Mr Eddy: Oh, this would --

Mr Grandmaître: Not any more.

Mr Eddy: I didn't think so. That was eliminated, I thought. But that is a real concern you have, that we have these policies, now there's some question about the date of the application being submitted, which needs clarification. But that's your concern?

Mr Hill: Yes.

Mrs Mary-Jean Smith: There's also the cost that's involved in --

Mr Eddy: Oh, terrible cost.

Mrs Smith: -- the OMB hearings, but also the EAAC hearings that are going on across the province because there are so many questions involved with the policies that are in place now.

Mr Eddy: That's another point that's been made, that the environmental assessment requirements should be integrated with the planning process that's in the Municipal Act.

Mrs Smith: Yes, that's right. There's been a lot of recommendations brought forth from the EAAC hearings that I think should be incorporated in this new planning policy to avoid all this expense of these OMB hearings and these EAAC hearings.

Mr Grandmaître: Duplication.

Mrs Smith: Yes.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation.

The Chair: We thank the association for coming and for communicating your concerns to us.

Mr Hill: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHRISTIAN FARMERS FEDERATION OF ONTARIO

The Chair: We invite the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. Welcome.

Mr Elbert van Donkersgoed: My name is Elbert van Donkersgoed. I'm staff with the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and John Markus, our president, is here as well. I have taken the responsibility of taking you through what we've prepared. Our focus is on the planning reform part of your bill. There's a lot more in your bill that we're not paying a lot of attention to because the planning area is the thing that's most important to us as family farm entrepreneurs across the province and what happens to our agricultural land base.

Christian Farmers Federation is an organization of general farm organizations. It's an organization of family farmers; a little over 3,000 family farmers across the province support us. If you're looking for more information about us, we've attached two appendices: One is a backgrounder, general information about the organization and an appendix on a policy statement that we adopted two years ago. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs did a review of the agricultural lands policies and we made a major submission to that and we've attached that for your information. I've got about five pages that I'd quickly like to read to you as some general comments from our organization.

First of all, some general comments: We are supportive and encouraged by the proposed new framework for doing planning and the renewed commitment to effective provincial policy statements under the Planning Act. We are hopeful they will prove helpful for family farm entrepreneurs in rural communities. We can honestly say that throughout the process of developing the proposed changes, including the work of the Sewell commission, we were given good opportunities to contribute our input.

There are some disappointments for us in this package of reforms, specifically in the content of the policy statements, but we do not doubt that the overall package has a chance to be an improvement on the past.

Specific reforms that have our support: Adoption by the province of a comprehensive set of clearly written policy statements on matters of provincial interest, such as natural heritage -- and we've put a whole list of them in there.

1600

Secondly, establishing a stronger mechanism for implementing provincial policies by requiring that the local planning authorities in their decisions "shall be consistent with" provincial policies rather than the present "shall have regard to."

Using conflict resolution methods before and during the resolution of differences through the Ontario Municipal Board process -- this has already started to happen and we have had some good experiences with it.

The commitment to create time frames for making decisions and the commitment to guarantee better notification of proposals for changes in official plans and zoning bylaws by regulations under the act -- we look forward to some greater consistency across the province.

Reforms that have our support -- with concern: delegating more planning authority to upper-tier municipal governments once their official plans are consistent with provincial policy statements. It has a lot of appeal to us. There are some, however, upper-tier municipal governments who have never been able to develop a strong enough consensus among their member municipalities to create an official plan. The new approach is no guarantee that these upper-tier municipalities will now be able to do so.

Secondly, requiring applications for developments adjacent to significant ecological features to be accompanied by environmental impact statements -- in our original submissions to the Sewell commission, we endorsed this concept, but serious reservations have developed within our federation. These reservations are: (a) We need assurances that only provincially significant features will require this kind of paperwork. (b) The whole atmosphere around environmental stewardship is changing. We are experiencing moving zeros in standards. Many voices bring attitudes of zero tolerance to changes in the environment. Still others support these reports as a way to delay, stall or otherwise sideline development activities. (c) Impact statements are the wrong concept. Documents that are worth doing -- read paperwork -- highlight action plans that will steward the significant ecological feature. We want to spend our time and money on the real work of stewardship, not reports.

Additional reforms that we urge you to add or clarify: Requiring that information about land use changes must be in plain and clear language. We think it should be in the law, not in the regulations.

Starting an intervenor-funding process for Ontario Municipal Board hearings where there are provincial interests at stake -- emphasis on provincial interest, not just anyone's interest. Please note the emphasis on the provincial interest.

Specifying a time period in which municipalities are to rewrite or demonstrate that their official plans are consistent with the new provincial policy statements -- our concern is that it could be a long time before some municipalities get around to it, including the upper-tier ones.

Adding language that makes it clear that provincial policy statements are as binding on government agencies and ministries as private land owners or anyone else -- we're a little cautious about your wording around what the responsibilities of government agencies are.

Two observations: Under the existing planning system, only four upper-tier municipalities have developed an effective approach to planning for agriculture. In the vast majority of municipalities, prime agricultural land has had the status of a holding zone -- waiting for someone to come along and propose to do something else with it. This was the result of the 1978 Food Land Guidelines which amounted to the province saying, "This is how you can protect agricultural land, if you want to." We are hopeful that the new approach will result in a different message coming from the province: "Prime agricultural areas will be protected for agriculture."

Secondly, the success of the new approach will depend in a very big way on the workableness of the comprehensive set of policy statements and how lower-tier planning documents are made consistent with them. Our support for the overall planning framework is, for a great part, based on the fact that we are encouraged by the new agricultural land policies and related policies. If we could not be supportive of them, it would be very difficult to be supportive of the whole process. In our view, an improved process without improvements in provincial policies would not accomplish much.

I think it's important for us to comment on the agricultural land policy and to let you know how we feel about it, the one that cabinet is approving. We endorse the general direction of the agricultural land policies. It is a significant improvement on the existing Food Land Guidelines.

Specifically we endorse: Protecting all prime agricultural areas for agricultural use; including prime agricultural areas in the extension of builtup areas only if there is no other alternative; avoiding the inclusion of specialty crop land in the extension of builtup areas in all cases; not permitting non-agricultural uses, including public service facilities within prime agricultural areas; encouraging the location of non-agricultural uses in existing communities to support community economic development; permitting infrastructure within prime agricultural areas only if it has been approved through an environmental assessment process; generally discouraging the creation of lots in prime agricultural areas; restricting the right of farmers to sever a lot for retirement, for family members or for farm help; requiring new non-farm development and new or expanding livestock facilities to comply with the minimum distance separation formula; defining many of the words and phrases associated with agriculture and the rural environment.

There are some weaknesses in the policies: The creation of lots in prime agricultural areas should be discouraged even more. We do not support severances for residences surplus to farming operations as a result of farm consolidation. In quality agricultural areas, we advise against allowing these severances. Each severed house will cast an urban shadow around it. As the nature and makeup of our rural neighbours change in the years to come, this shadow will grow and increasingly restrict our use of quality agricultural land.

We do not support severances for infilling. A few houses together create a dramatic urban shadow as the families living there immediately become the majority.

We do not support retirement severances under any circumstances. The long-term, negative impact of a residential lot on the business of farming far outweighs the short-term -- three to five years -- benefit of living on the corner of the farm. There is no justification for farmers having a special status among rural land owners.

Finally, we do not support scattered rural severances of any kind. There is not enough development activity across rural Ontario to support both scattered rural residential, industrial and commercial activities and have a healthy redevelopment of our towns and villages. Allowing development to scatter will guarantee a further decline in our towns and villages.

We want to comment on some of the definitions in the policy statement document because there are some weaknesses there. Prime agricultural land -- the definition is excerpted from the statement. This definition is an improvement on the definitions used in the Food Land Guidelines, but we would like to go further. We propose that the definition only include Canada land inventory class 1 and 2 soils and specialty crop lands. CLI class 3 and less productive soils are significant for Ontario agriculture, but they may not need the same level of provincial protection as CLI class 1 and 2. More of their protection can be left to local planning authorities. However, in return for reducing the provincial interest in the medium quality lands, we want stronger protection for the best land -- see our recommendations on no severances above. If the prime lands are not well protected, farm families will inevitably be pushed on to the less productive lands.

CFFO revised its position on this issue during 1992-93. In past statements we have sought full protection for class 3 and most of class 4 food land. We are now willing to consider a lower level of provincial protection, not necessarily lower municipal protection, on less productive soils if we can be guaranteed firmer protection for our best land. By easing up just a little on class 3 and 4 lands, there should be a better chance at firm support from many municipalities for protecting the best food land. If we get firm protection for the best, much of agriculture's long-term interests will be met.

The definition of prime agricultural area -- in our earlier submissions to the Sewell commission, CFFO proposed the following: We recommend that quality agricultural areas be defined as part of a provincial policy statement as provincially significant food lands in farm-size parcels and comprised predominantly of Canada land inventory class 1 and 2 soils, provincially identified specialty crop lands or lands of comparable productive quality as determined by a food land stewardship board; locally significant food lands in farm-size parcels and comprised predominantly of CLI class 3 and 4 soils as identified by regions or counties using provincially developed criteria; and locally significant food lands in partial farm-size parcels when adjacent to provincially significant lands.

1610

The proposed definition goes a long way in this direction. An alternative land evaluation system approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is an acceptable starting point but, clearly, the long-term goal needs to be an independent body that develops credibility on the quality of land for agricultural purposes so that various teams of experts don't need to be hauled at great expense before land use tribunals to establish the quality of the lands in question. The present process usually leaves the hearing officers confused rather than with good insight into the value of the lands for agricultural purposes.

The definition for agricultural use -- I won't read the quote itself. This definition will become problematic for what it does not include. It does not define "agriculture." The family farm is changing across rural Ontario. Marketing and adding value to the primary or raw products are now essential parts of the business of agriculture. The very nature and dynamic of farming now includes these activities. The concepts of secondary agricultural uses or agriculture-related uses no longer capture the reality of today's farm businesses. These phrases were written into planning documents when the first official plans and zoning bylaws were drawn up. They no longer reflect the actual circumstances of agriculture.

The list of definitions should include a modern understanding of agriculture, and we have a suggestion:

"`Agriculture' means the use of land, buildings and structures for the purpose of field crops, market gardening crops, orchards, vineyards, livestock, poultry production, nurseries, greenhouses, apiaries, mushrooms, aquaculture, horticulture, silviculture or other farming activities, including the growing, raising, packing, treating, processing, marketing, selling, sorting or storage of locally grown products, the storage, disposal or use of organic recyclable materials for farm purposes and any similar uses customarily carried on in the field of general agriculture."

There you have our concerns.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm very wary of allowing the members to ask questions because they get very long, but if you'd like to make a comment with respect to the submission, that would be all right.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your direction. Thank you for your presentation. The preservation of prime agricultural land should be the aim of everyone in elected office, as well as the people who use it.

My concern is that the words "be consistent with" have been determined to give flexibility, and this is the explanation by the ministry people, "will give flexibility." I don't know really what that means and I need to be more assured, I think, about the protection of prime agricultural land. Do you feel that when applications are made for non-agricultural use of prime agricultural class 1 and 2 land that if it's in conflict with the agricultural policies, then the application should not proceed?

Mr van Donkersgoed: Under most circumstances, we would want to say the application would not proceed. We're aware that "consistent with" provides some flexibility, but we don't think it's as much as "have regard to."

Mr Eddy: No, it isn't. It isn't, but I don't know -- some people are fearful that it gives no flexibility. Others say it's as wide as a barn door. I'm not sure.

I appreciate your definition of agriculture uses. It's excellent. Thank you.

The Chair: We've run out of time. There is no time for other comments. I will simply thank you for the submission. We found it very informative.

EAST YORK TENANTS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We invite East York Tenants Association. Welcome to this committee.

Ms Mary Jo Donovan: Thank you very much. I'm going to try and be very fast. You'll have time for questions and stuff, but if you don't ask me any, I'm going to use up the rest of the 15 minutes talking some more.

My name's Mary Jo Donovan. I'm the president of East York Tenants Association and we were concerned because, as usual, the things which will have the greatest impact on tenants have not been dealt with. The word "tenant" does not appear anywhere in any of the legislation I read in preparing this brief. The word "ratepayer" was mentioned several times but not "tenant." We would like to see the Planning Act and the Municipal Act amended to include under definitions "`ratepayer' means any property owner or tenant."

Also, there should have been some thought given to existing development and its preservation. The maintenance and repair of affordable housing is absolutely essential. I know Deborah's going to be dealing with that in her half of this time, so I'm not going to go into it further. But it brings me to the main point of our presentation, which is about property standards.

I'm here grasping at straws. We would like to amend section 31 of the Planning Act, but we'd have to amend Bill 163 first to have it include section 31 of the Planning Act, which is not presently in the bill, or else at least deal with it in the regulations. This would involve only minor amendments to the section by adding "as prescribed" in the appropriate places. Our proposal in this regard is on a separate sheet in the package we've provided.

We have also provided you with copies of our deputation to East York council and our proposed amendment to the East York property standards bylaw. These items are only intended as background material to help you better understand what problems we are dealing with. Because this whole thing begins with section 31 of the Planning Act, that's why we decided to start with that. You will note that our suggestions regarding possible regulations are very broad and they're only intended as a guide to the legal department so they'll know what we hope to accomplish.

Our primary focus is on subsections 31(11) and 31(15), which deal with the property standards committee. The members of this committee are appointed by council and have statutory powers of decision as defined in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The decisions made by this committee can have a real impact on tenants. This committee is classified as a tribunal and it is allowed the right to "adopt its own rules of procedure," with some conditions prescribed in the act. There are no regulations currently attached to section 31 and we believe that those which we are proposing are justified.

East York is the most open, democratic and accessible council I have ever encountered. It is only the enforcement of the property standards bylaw which gives us concern, and I feel that if this can happen in East York, it's likely happening elsewhere.

The property standards committee is established to hear appeals from orders issued by the bylaw enforcement officer. This has the effect of making the officer the respondent in the appeal. I don't know if he technically is or not, but that is really the role he ends up playing. But the officer doesn't behave like an ordinary respondent. He meets with the committee prior to the start of the hearing and presents his evidence in private, in the course of which he makes recommendations to the committee with regard to its ultimate decision.

1620

The committee is there to hear evidence and pleadings in opposition to and in favour of the order. These things are meant to take place in a public forum. The appellant should have the right to speak first and provide whatever supporting testimony or documentary evidence he has, the respondent should then speak in support of his order and those who will be directly affected by the decision should then be permitted to speak. If the committee would like to have recommendations from the enforcement officer, those should be asked for publicly. Only the deliberations should be in private.

The way these hearings are being conducted is analogous to a police officer who is testifying in a court case meeting with the judge in chambers ahead of time, giving his testimony in private and trying to persuade the judge to go easy on the defendant.

There are certain democratic principles which are being overlooked in all this. We realize that some of our activity in resolving our concerns must be with the Ministry of the Attorney General, but the Planning Act and the Municipal Act are where we must begin. Along with our proposals for regulations in section 31 we have asked for amendments to Bill 163, part IV, the Municipal Act, sections 55 and 102. These are listed on a separate sheet which you have in front of you. These amendments could help resolve the problems.

The landlords are taking appeals to the property standards committee and receiving repeated extensions of time and the tenants are being deprived of access to the remedies in the Rent Control Act which were intended to resolve these very difficulties. It's essential that we begin now to do something about this. I certainly hope that the Americans don't get wind of it and decide to send the troops up here to restore democracy to the property standards department.

As I said, I kept it as short as I could. I would certainly like to discuss it further with the committee.

The Acting Chair: Before I turn to questions, the clerk has canvassed the room to find out if Ms Wandal is actually here. We have not been able to determine if she will be present. Is she just delayed or --

Ms Donovan: Yes, she'll be here by 4:30. I called and told her about the change in time.

The Acting Chair: Okay, very good. We've lost track of where we left off before. I will turn to Mr Eddy. Basically, it's about two minutes per side, please.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation bringing your concern. There are some hearings that are conducted in this manner. That's unfortunate and it shouldn't happen. You are suggesting changes to prevent that. Those are amendments to the Municipal Act.

Ms Donovan: The Municipal Act and the Planning Act.

Mr Eddy: I realize what you're saying and I know that it does happen in certain other cases. I was thinking of cases under the Trees Act where sometimes hearings are held in a very like manner. Have you discussed it with the council?

Ms Donovan: The real problem is that this has been going on for so long and it's such a standard procedure that nobody can get a handle on the fact that it's not right. The respondent in an appeal is not supposed to talk privately with the judge.

Mr Eddy: Yes, exactly. I agree with you.

Mr Grandmaître: One short question: Doesn't Bill 120 answer some of your concerns concerning the property standards committee?

Ms Donovan: The problem is that if a landlord's ordered to fix the building and he appeals the order, and he's given an extension of time, the order preventing a rent increase which is supposed to take place if he fails to comply with the order is delayed. If he gets a three-month extension and another three-month extension, the remedy in the Rent Control Act never happens, because the OPRI, as it's called, the order preventing a rent increase, cannot be acted upon until the extension is --

Mr Grandmaître: And Bill 120 doesn't answer this?

Ms Donovan: It would if the landlord didn't get an extension. I mean, this committee is like a judge, you know? If they give the guy an extension with the Rent Control Act --

Mr Grandmaître: It can go on and on and on.

Ms Donovan: -- you can't take it away from him.

Mr Murdoch: As I understood, Bill 163 is going to open up some of the meetings and hopefully there are not as many secret meetings and private meetings held with councils and that. Hopefully, some of that would rub off on to some of your problems, but you have some amendments. Maybe I'll just give you a few minutes to explain some of them to us, because you don't have much time, if you want to maybe just explain some of those amendments that you'd like to see happen, get them on the record.

Ms Donovan: Which ones did you want?

Mr Murdoch: Just whatever you think is most important to you.

Ms Donovan: The amendments to the Planning Act: Under "officer" I've got "as prescribed," which is something I would like to put in the regulations because it just says "an officer appointed for this purpose." I can't find anywhere where his duties are defined or his behaviour is controlled in any way in so far as it relates to this committee. There are things in there that say he can go into premises and he has to have a search warrant for certain things and stuff like that, but as far as his relationship with the property standards committee is concerned, that hasn't been dealt with.

The other ones: "Establishment of a property standards committee as prescribed" is because half of that subsection is mandatory and the other half is permissive. They're supposed to establish this committee and they have the right to set the terms and conditions as may be prescribed in the bylaw, but if they don't prescribe anything in the bylaw -- it's too wide open. There's no way of getting anybody to actually do something unless they decide to do it.

The same thing applies to the rules of procedure in the committee. I was on the committee; nobody ever told me what the rules were. I didn't get any documentation, I didn't get any copies of any acts that I was supposed to follow, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or anything. This is just a nice group of people who are volunteers in the community. They get together and volunteer for this committee and they want to do their little bit, but nobody has given them the proper guidance, that's the problem, and it isn't written down anywhere that they have to give them the proper guidance.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe, though, some correspondence with the ministry, and they could send someone in to --

Ms Donovan: That's the next step, but I thought --

The Acting Chair: If you've finished your statement, Mr Murdoch, we will have to turn to the other side. Ms Donovan, if you would just finish your thought there before we get into a longer conversation.

Ms Donovan: That's the next step, to talk to the rules committee of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but if we can get at least these committees into the Municipal Act, add in section 55 "or any committee appointed by local councils or boards, as prescribed." The reason I put "as prescribed" in there is because there are a lot of different kinds of committees and some of them would need far fewer controls, if you'd like to call them that, or direction than others. A committee that doesn't have any power of decision would need more direction than a committee that just met to discuss libraries or whatever. The other one, section 102, should include committees appointed by council.

The Acting Chair: Sorry; I'm a librarian in my other life. We could talk about libraries at great length, but I'm not sure you really want to do that.

Ms Donovan: But you don't have any powers of decision.

The Acting Chair: Oh, some of them do. Anyway, I want to turn to the government side.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much for your presentation. It certainly brings light to one area where more openness might be of help. I know you've submitted some other documents that will help us see exactly what it is you're trying to achieve here. But I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant and maybe the staff of the ministry whether they have a reaction to what is being proposed here, whether they see this as something --

Mr Hayes: The amendment for section 55 is what you're talking about?

Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly, just to see what your response to a meeting of the --

Mr Hayes: You're talking about the officer for the property standards committee, that you wanted to amend that so it would be part of the definition after local boards. That would be included in this here. It says in section 55, "`committee' means any advisory or other committee, subcommittee or similar entity composed of members of one or more councils or local boards," and it goes on that "`local board' means a local board as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, except municipal police services boards, library boards and school boards," so it would be included in there because there are only a couple of exceptions. Am I correct in that?

Interjection: That's correct.

Ms Donovan: These are committees that have councillors on them. Some of these committees don't have any councillors on them; they're just community people.

1630

Mr Peter-John Sidebottom: The Municipal Affairs Act describes a local board as a number of different characteristics, part of which says "or a board or a committee or a like entity appointed under a special act exercising any powers of the municipality." While certainly I want to check with our legal staff as to whether or not it is, it would seem to me that given the general definition, this in fact is a body exercising a power of decision.

It is appointed under a special act, even though it's made up of both council members and community volunteers. It would be covered by this legislation and therefore the rules about open meetings would apply, as would the rules of disclosure and so on.

FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS' ASSOCIATIONS

The Acting Chair: I would at this point like to ask if Ms Wandal is in the room. If you would please come forward, since you have shared your time with Ms Donovan, we've come to the --

Ms Deborah Wandal: Ms Donovan shared with me actually.

The Acting Chair: In any case, we have come to that time on the clock where it is your turn, if you would, once you're comfortable, begin your presentation.

Ms Wandal: I would like to apologize first: I have only seven copies of the deputation, but I believe that you will get a handout that has some graphs or charts looking like this.

The Acting Chair: I think the clerk may be making copies of them as we speak, so we will be getting them.

Ms Wandal: All right. There were 20 of the charts. I will be referring to them as I speak.

I'm here on behalf of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, and for those of you who aren't familiar with us, because we don't frequently come before the standing committees in order to deal with planning issues -- we come usually on other matters -- we're a membership-based tenants' organization and we do a lot of work with tenants to help them secure and expand their rights. We work to help tenants organize their own associations in their buildings in order that they might deal more effectively and in a more coordinated manner with their problems and organize themselves to assert their rights more effectively.

We've done a lot of work in the area of legalizing apartments in houses, we did a lot of work on Bill 120 around the care home issue and we are now working on the issue of inequitable assessment of rental residential buildings, which results in tenants being overtaxed. We have a lot of experience; we've been around for 20 years.

We're here today because there are amendments to the Planning Act which cause us considerable concern and we believe that these amendments will have a major impact on the lives of tenants in the Metro area.

We are not an expert, and we don't pretend to be, in the area of planning and development. We don't really know the intricacies of the entire development approval process. But in some respects in our ignorance we're perhaps representative of most of your constituents who have little understanding of how planning decisions get made or of their long-term and extensive impact on our daily lives and our environment.

For this reason, in some ways we're precisely the sort of people whom I think you need to hear from and who should be included in this process, because we're the ones who will live with the effects of this legislation for many years to come.

In our dealings with tenants, the primary concern that we hear tenants voice -- and we speak to over 6,000 of them a year on our telephone line; we talk to over 100 tenant groups a year -- and what we hear from them is the ongoing central concern with affordable housing, and in fact the lack of affordable housing. The major concern for tenants is always economic evictions and living with the threat of the ever-increasing rents and whether or not they can meet those increases. Tenants have been particularly affected by all the recent cutbacks in UI, social assistance, because while all tenants are not low-income by any means virtually every low-income person is a tenant.

What we also would like to stress here is that tenants are not an insignificant part of your constituency. They form over 36% of the Ontario population, but in centres like Metro Toronto they're well over 42%, and in many of the municipalities in Metro they're over 50% of the population. Our concern that's central to us today is, where are all these tenants going to live, and who's going to build affordable housing for them? Now, our concern stems from the fact that the ministry has defined "affordable" in its policy statements in such a way that the very problem of affordable housing seems, to some extent, to disappear or at least shrink to manageable proportions.

I'd like to look at some of the statistics that I handed out. For 1994, the estimated income at the sixth decile, which is the 60th percentile of income distribution, is about $63,000. That means 60% of people earn under $63,000. This sixth decile is what the ministry uses to determine what is affordable. "Affordable" means that people with incomes in the lowest 60% of income distribution have to be able to afford the housing. To be clear, this doesn't mean that everybody in this lowest 60% has to afford the housing; it just means that people at the 60th percentile need to be able to afford this housing.

It's our opinion that while 30% of all new units are supposed to be affordable according to this criteria, we believe that private developers using this particular criterion of 60th percentile will be able to meet their quota by creating more condominiums and/or smaller homes on smaller lots. This will substantially increase the possibility of home ownership for those whose incomes fall between the 50th and 60th percentile.

But what will such housing do for the vast majority of tenants? We believe it will do absolutely nothing, because if you look at the data, instead of taking all households, if you just take the universe of tenant households, at the 60th percentile the average income for tenants is only $43,000, not $63,000. So that means if housing is built to even meet the needs of people at the fifth or sixth decile, or 50th or 60th percentile, the housing that will be provided will be accessible to those who earn between $53,000 and $63,000; it will not be accessible to tenants who are earning $43,000, and 60% of tenants earn less than $43,000.

By using this larger universe of all households and including the incomes of very wealthy individuals in this group, the province has created a test for affordability that we believe bears no relation to the ability to pay rent of those households which actually need affordable housing.

So our first recommendation is that the affordable housing target, which municipalities should be obliged to meet, should refer to the sixth decile of all tenant households as the benchmark.

Now, there is another affordable housing target that the government sets in its policy statements, and that is that one half of all these affordable housing units be affordable to the lowest 30% of the household income distribution; that is, in those cases where the municipalities find that this is feasible, and "feasible" is not defined.

When we look at the statistics again and the charts here, we see that at the third decile for all households we're now at an income level of $34,000. But again the reality is that 50% of tenants earn less than $35,000, 50% of the tenant population. So using this non-mandatory directive on the part of the province is just beginning to address the real needs of tenants for affordable housing.

1640

The question here for us is, who decides what is feasible? Are municipalities required to put any effort into making a project feasible? Where does their obligation lie? We see no mechanisms that give municipalities a clear role to play in furthering the affordable housing goal. We'll refer later to some of the ideas that are recommended in the policy statement and how those will work out through the practice of the Planning Act.

If we're looking, then, at who is going to build this affordable housing, it's pretty clear that the private sector simply cannot afford to. In Metro, there has been virtually no rental residential building that's gone on in the past 15 years. Realistically, the private sector cannot afford to build rental housing that is affordable to most tenants. There is simply no profit to be derived from that level of rental revenue. To us, the ministry's affordability test is really an exercise in redundancy because developers and municipalities don't need to be told to build houses for households with $63,000 incomes. They're already doing that. It's a viable market. They'll continue to address that need.

If we look at the provincial priorities, unfortunately we have to discount the possibility of a lot of contribution from the province. In dealing with the city of Toronto's official plan, the ministry made it quite clear that cities could not expect a lot of provincial funding for non-profit housing. The ministry wanted Toronto to stress providing housing to a much broader range of households rather than the historical tendency of Toronto to concentrate on housing for low-income households. The Ministry of Housing found that somewhat unrealistic, given the fact that there wasn't going to be funding for non-profits.

The ministry has clearly stated in its materials that it's not interested in how the municipalities will meet the provincial policy directives; the focus is on achieving these policy objectives. We think that this is irresponsible of the ministry. Knowing that the municipalities can no longer rely on provincial funding for non-profits, the province has not given the municipalities any effective binding mechanisms to strengthen their bargaining power with private sector developers.

Municipalities need to be able to secure affordable prices and rents and regulate resale prices and obtain contributions of land and units in return for rezoning agreements. The city of Toronto is anticipating those kinds of problems now that it has to develop a new municipal-private sector relationship. We recommend that the municipalities be given such legislative power to apply legal pressures to private developers.

The third option, given that the province is out and the private sector and large-scale development is out, is small-scale intensification. That is what in fact the policy statement recommends, that this is what the municipalities look to in order to meet their affordability quota. The housing created through intensification can now be included in the affordable housing quota. It wasn't included under the old Land Use Planning for Housing policy statement.

Our problem here is that virtually all affordable housing that will be approved through the process of small-scale intensification will have to go through the process of minor variances, and owners who apply for such variances will only get to deal with the municipality, whether it be the council itself or first the committee of adjustment and then an appeal to council as a last resort. There is no mechanism to go beyond the municipality.

Our question is, where are the practical mechanisms that will ensure that in all these applications for minor variances the municipality's decisions are in fact consistent with, as they are supposed to be, the provincial direction and achieve the province's objectives? We don't see the checks and balances.

We think that the ministry needs to consider what home owners can do when the municipality consistently flouts the policy statement by refusing to allow minor variances that would permit small-scale intensification.

The Acting Chair: Excuse me, you've actually exhausted your time, but what I would like you to do is -- I realize you have two pages left -- if you could just do a really quick synopsis of the highlights of those last two pages. I believe Mr Wilson might have one clarification relating to some statement on housing. Please continue.

Mr Perruzza: Perhaps you could concentrate on why small-scale intensification would require minor variance, go through the minor variance process; I can't see that, but if you could speak to that, that would be good.

The Acting Chair: Mr Perruzza, I think it really would be wise if she's allowed to finish making her summation for all of us, and if you wish to question her about this, I would suggest maybe having a quiet conversation with her in the hall.

Mr Perruzza: But that answer would be good for the record, because that's a serious issue if that's the case.

The Acting Chair: But we haven't heard the complete deputation.

Ms Wandal: Small-scale intensification is to be permitted except where infrastructure is inadequate and where there might be significant physical constraints. Given that in the past year we've been dealing with many concerns from municipalities which were furious at the notion of even adding one unit to a house, we're very concerned that most municipalities will find their infrastructures to be inadequate. They will say that there are physical constraints that make it impossible to allow small-scale intensification. We have heard constantly about overload of all kinds of systems, and we're not quite sure how and if the municipalities are going to be ready to approach this in a progressive way.

Small-scale intensification can involve minor variances because in many cases people need to change a façade, add a door, add small additions to their house; they might want to add another storey. Those are the sorts of things for which minor variances apply.

Our recommendation is that if in fact, as the ministry says, a lot of this is going to be worked out at the official plan stage and all these disputes about appropriate land use are going to be solved in the process of developing an official plan, we want to make sure that it's not just, as I say here, the usual suspects who get invited to participate in the official plan, that notification gets sent out to supposedly interested parties. The implications of these official plans are going to be so broad that we would like to make sure that as many different interest groups as possible are involved, and we would certainly like tenant advocacy groups to be involved.

Our very last point has to do with the existing housing stock, and it's really to follow up on what Mary Jo Donovan was talking about. That is probably our greatest resource, the existing stock. It's recognized that it is in danger of deteriorating; in fact, it is now. There isn't sufficient accountability, we believe, at the municipal level to ensure that proper inspections are done, that in fact work orders are enforced. What this means is that what is likely to be the most affordable housing, that is, older housing, is going to slip off the market if it deteriorates so seriously. There are many surveys that have estimated that in 10 or 20 years, unless major renovations and repairs are done, we're going to be without that housing.

The province has talked a lot about power and accountability and the balance between them in these amendments. We'd like to see the municipalities being more accountable for enforcing their own standards, given that they have all the power to do so and there's no provincial interference in that area; that's their domain, essentially.

The Acting Chair: Ms Wandal, I thank you. I'm going to ask Mr Wilson to likewise have a chat with you about one or two of your comments relating to the Ministry of Housing.

1650

SAVE THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE COALITION

The Acting Chair: At this point, I would like to call Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, David McQueen and Dorothy Izzard, to come forward.

Mr David McQueen: The Oak Ridges moraine is 160 kilometres long, but I think we represent it fairly well. On my left is Niva Rowan of SAGA, Save the Ganaraska Again. She's from the east end of the moraine. I live near Uxbridge, so I'm sort of central. On my right is Dorothy Izzard, who is in King township, a member of Concerned Citizens of King Township. We propose to split the presentation so that you'll get a little variation in the voices that you hear. I'd like to ask Dorothy Izzard just to say a couple of words on what STORM is.

Mrs Dorothy Izzard: I believe that you could reference the very back page of our document. You will see that even though I was described as being in the west, the Oak Ridges moraine goes much further.

STORM Coalition is made up of groups which realized that they could not achieve individually what was needed for the entire length of the moraine, that it had to be a provincial matter. From the outset, we have sought legislated protection, but from the beginning it was soon apparent that what we needed in Ontario to help with this was integrated and comprehensive land use planning. By "integrated" I particularly mean at an interministerial level.

We corresponded with Premier Bob Rae about this issue almost at the very second that he was appointing John Sewell to head the commission on land use planning. The Premier urged us just to be patient and that this commission and the resulting legislation would solve our problems; we are hoping so.

STORM Coalition has also been very active with membership on the technical working committee of the Oak Ridges moraine study, which was a provincial initiative. The resulting strategy is presently being finalized and must be brought to fruition within the framework of this legislation we're looking at today. This background should make it clear to you why Bill 163 is so important to STORM.

Mr McQueen: Thanks very much, Dorothy. From an environmental standpoint, Bill 163, as we read it, represents, at least in its potential, an advance on the status quo in planning in Ontario. But it does, as it stands, offer less environmental protection than did John Sewell's recommendations. For example, one of Sewell's key recommendations was that the environmental assessment process be incorporated into the process of planned development and assessment and evaluation. This has not been done, and we'd like to see some strengthening on that score.

While the bill does assign more planning responsibilities to municipalities -- and in many ways we thoroughly agree with that -- there still remains -- this must be emphasized -- a very important role for the province. When the province, for example, makes policy statements in this area, those policy statements are important, and the province must see that they are in fact observed. It cannot just make them and then walk away from the situation.

As it stands, too -- and of course there may be some corrections in the pipeline for this -- the bill does suffer from vagueness and lack of clarity in many of its passages. Any of you who've had anything to do with planning and planning legislation will know how crippling that can be. When you have legislation affecting municipalities and other agencies across the length and breadth of the province, it must be clear what the directives, what the policy statements are, and this is not wholly the case at the present time. Maybe this will be corrected to some degree by the promulgation of regulations under the act.

One thing -- due to some mess with my word processor we have left out here a point we wanted very, very much to make to you -- is that the vital phrase "consistent with," meaning consistent with provincial policy in this area, should apply not only to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and to municipalities but to all the ministries, agencies, crown corporations of the Ontario government, including not least Ontario Hydro. It is not logical, it is not right that they should be exempted from the "consistent with" provision. Everybody should be treated alike in that respect.

There is a reference in the bill to "sustainable economic development," but development has more aspects than just economic aspects. It also refers to community development and other such dimensions of progress in our society. The original phrase "sustainable development" comes from the UN's Brundtland commission, and they just said "sustainable development" without putting in the word "economic." Putting in "economic" suggests that the economic side has some kind of precedence over everything else. That's wrong, that's not even good economics, and that should be corrected.

I'd like to hand you over to Dorothy Izzard at this point on the subject of watershed and subwatershed planning.

Mrs Izzard: This brings me back to the issue of integrated interministerial communication within the government. It's interesting that Bill 163 does not address watershed and subwatershed planning, and yet in June 1993, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the MOEE released three interim documents establishing directions in regard to watershed planning.

One still wonders why this has not been reflected in Bill 163. You have many other recommendations, including David Crombie's, but here it is, recommended by two other ministries and it's a crucial part of planning, and yet it's not in Bill 163.

Mr McQueen: I might just add to what Dorothy said that watershed planning isn't a blue-sky idea up there; it's actually being practised in this province and with some success, notably in the Credit River watershed and again in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It's there; it operates; it works.

Another problem we'd like to draw to your attention is the proliferation of official plan amendments, which is something we run up against and perhaps some of you have also. A municipality promulgates some kind of official plan, but is there any part of it you can hang your hat on? Not if there are going to be over 100 -- and I am not exaggerating; there are cases of this kind -- official plan amendments within three or four years after the promulgation of the plan. You can't really call that planning. It offers the public no sort of reliability, no sort of stability in the situation.

Sewell's report dealt with this very effectively. It recommended that comprehensive planning by a municipality be limited to official plans and general plan reviews. As other people came along wanting alterations in the plan, they would have to wait for these until the next general plan review. This provision of Sewell's would give planning some real stability, some meaning, which it does not have in a number of our municipalities in Ontario at the present time.

1700

I'd like to draw your attention also to the matter of pre-approval site alterations. Where somebody proceeds to drastically alter land form, take out trees and so forth before receiving any official approval to do this, under whatever plan may be in effect -- he just sends in his equipment and does it -- it becomes a fait accompli, without reference to the plan or to any provincial policy statements that may be in effect. I think you have to build into this act some protection against that.

If you go now to section 10 of your bill, which is on page 10 and amends section 17 of the Planning Act, what you have there is a series of protections of the Ontario Municipal Board against trivial, insignificant referrals to it. Among these protections is a provision which says: "the person requesting the referral did not make oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council before the plan was adopted."

If you're in that position, apparently you're supposed to be out of luck. That overlooks the way things happen in a lot of municipalities and the difficulty that people who have to put in a full working day have in discovering in a timely way what the hell is going on in their municipalities and what the new plan is going to be. Sometimes this goes through well after midnight on a municipal agenda. I don't think you need this provision in the bill. You've got all sorts of other protection against trivial and bad-faith referrals to the OMB. I'd take this one out.

There's another matter of public access to our planning system that to us is of even greater importance, and that is intervenor funding. The typical situation when a citizen group wants to appeal a planning decision, or even just participate in it, is that it finds itself up against developer and municipal interests that have awfully deeper pockets than any group of citizens can be expected to have and a much more formidable phalanx of lawyers to plead their case. If you're going to have true citizen access to a planning system, you really have to improve those odds a bit, and that is why we think a provision for some reasonable amount of intervenor funding is a vital part of any reform of planning in Ontario.

One final point that I'd like to make before handing you over to my colleague here is that in looking over Bill 163 it's apparent that much of the Planning Act is being brought more into accord with modern ideas about the environment and its protection but not nearly as much attention has been devoted to doing the same thing to the Ontario Planning and Development Act, and that unevenness needs to be corrected. The same pro-environment standards should apply to the planning and development act as apply to the Planning Act itself.

The last part of our submission has to do much more specifically with legislation affecting the Oak Ridges moraine, and for that I'd like to turn you over to Niva Rowan.

Mrs Niva Rowan: As Dorothy observed, where she is living in King township is to the west, but the moraine goes much farther west. Where I live, to the east, the moraine goes much farther east; in fact, it goes to Trenton. If you're aware of the size of this land form, it is a crucial land form in southern Ontario feeding all of our headwaters and river systems in the south.

As we observed earlier, sound and general planning legislation in Ontario is a highly necessary condition for safeguarding this moraine. It is not, however, a sufficient condition; more is required. Even with the best possible general planning legislation in place, the moraine will still require an important element of special treatment and special legislation, much the same as the Niagara Escarpment legislation.

In the case of the moraine, one major reason for special treatment is that its underground aquifers and related features cross many municipal boundaries. In fact, there are 15 municipal boundaries across the moraine only within the GTA, and they have to be treated holistically. Watersheds, too, have to be looked at as a whole, as Dorothy was mentioning in the area of watershed planning. As the saying has it, there is always somebody downstream.

The need for special treatment of the moraine has effectively been recognized by the province in its initial expression of provincial interest, in its promulgation of guidelines for the moraine and in its appointment of the technical working committee and citizens' advisory committee to work out an implementation strategy for these guidelines. That strategy, though not finalized at this point, will be before you in the Legislature quite soon.

The technical working committee is considering three basic implementation strategies. These are a provincial policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act, a provincial plan under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, and a provincial plan under new legislation.

Out of our considerable experience in fighting many local battles to try to safeguard the integrity of particular pieces of the moraine, and we have all been involved in that at this table, we strongly favour option 3. We need strong, legislated protection for the moraine and not a policy statement. It has the strongest legal teeth and offers the most important permanent protection for the moraine. It can utilize many institutions and practices already in place and so need not involve heavy new overheads and expenditures.

We should also like to mention some particular concerns we have about aggregate extraction. This is a thorny issue in this province. By dint of much work and expert consulting input, the technical working committee has designated 26.2% of the greater Toronto area portion of the moraine as environmentally sensitive core and corridor areas. That means they are to be left alone; passive recreation uses only. The aggregate industry, however, insists that it must have the right to extract its product in these core and corridor areas as well as in the remaining 74% of the GTA moraine, and this position appears to enjoy support in some quarters in the Ministry of Natural Resources. In fact, it's their mandate.

STORM fully recognizes the importance of aggregates in the Ontario economy. We need it for roads and we need it for houses, but we cannot accept -- and many other groups and individuals are with us on this, including the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Conservation Council of Ontario -- that the industry should enjoy an absolute priority over every other land use and environmental consideration. We cannot accept that. That is bad economics, it's bad ecology and it's bad planning. We urge you, when this matter comes before you, to insist on a more balanced and reasonable position between contending visions of future land use on the moraine.

The aggregate industry already enjoys extraordinary overriding powers under the Aggregate Resources Act, powers that might well surprise some of you at this table and would certainly surprise most of the Ontario public. It is a piece of legislation worth your looking up if you have not recently done so.

1710

Mr McLean: I want to thank you for coming forward and bringing your concerns to us with regard to the Oak Ridges moraine. There have been other people who have spoken on that very issue and the importance of the stretch of kilometres that it covers. I have no particular question because you made it very clear, so I thank you for coming.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you also for coming. One of the concerns that I have when dealing with issues in local councils is that there isn't any really clear definition of what can and cannot take place in a municipality; that the zonings and the official plans are far too fluid in terms of what's in them. I agree with you in terms of -- and I've said it more than once and it won't come as any surprise here -- I don't think they're worth the paper they're written on, because councils don't pay any heed to them. Durham region, for example, has an official plan. They already have at least five major official plan amendments to the plan that is not even a year old. So why bother spending all this time on official plans and planners and people at this level if all the councillors are going to do is ignore them anyway?

We've heard from others saying that "shall be consistent with" must stay as the very minimum in terms of the requirements and that we need to get rid of all the rest of the "maybes" that are in some of the statements and in the legislation. How do you feel in terms of it being more rigid? Can you give us some ideas on the wording that we could look at changing in terms of making this far more accessible to you as an environmental group trying to protect the environment?

Mr McQueen: Yes, I think we could, and I'll invite my colleagues to chime in on this one. I would say one thing first, though. There's a great deal of variation between municipalities in their planning performance. One can identify certain municipalities that by and large have done a pretty good planning job. King township, for example, ranks high on our scale, Halton region has done some good things, and we're also very impressed with some of the planning that's gone on in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

But you're quite right. I think a lot of the difficulty lies in the language that is used in planning at the present time: too many fuzzy words; too many words that are capable of umpteen different meanings. I understand that you have received, or will receive, some representations from the Canadian Bar Association on this. They come quite heavily on this matter. If we're going to have firmer provincial statements of policy with which municipalities are required to conform, then, for starters, the language has to be a whole lot clearer than anything we've had up to this point. You can't have a draconian, dictatorial, day-to-day supervision of municipalities by the province. It's got to be a more broad thing, which leaves some room to move around.

I guess I come mainly strongly on better clarity of language and also something to stem the tide of numerous official plan amendments. I like Sewell's idea on that and I think that could improve matters a good deal.

Mr Curling: I think your presentation raised some extremely important points. I'm going to have to agree with Mr Wiseman in saying that they're not worth the paper they're written on, some of the plans that they have. I have some sort of respect for those people who have put a lot of thought in it, but I just hope that when these plans are being reviewed, they pay that kind of respect to some of the people who have put some deep thought into it.

I fully agree with you. You're expressing some of the thoughts expressed around the province that the bill is vague. That's not surprising to us, because people have articulated that after spending I think $3 million and two years with Sewell, who has expressed to us he has learned a tremendous amount about this province and how it should be planned and the sensitivity of each group that appeared before him, a policy came out that was completely off-focus from what he had recommended.

As you said, the bill should incorporate Sewell's recommendations to guard against some of the proliferation that you see there, and the government is not listening to what the $3 million and two years of hearings stated. Of course, Sewell also recommended about intervenor funding, which they did not listen to.

Mr Hayes: Do you support it?

Mr Curling: Whether or not I support it is quite irrelevant.

Mr Hayes: We want to know.

Mr Wiseman: You are ready to make a speech, but don't take a stand.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr Curling, please finish.

Mr Perruzza: About the only meaningful thing you said, Alvin, is that whatever you think is irrelevant.

Mr Curling: As soon as you touch the cage, they all come out rattling.

Mr Perruzza: Then don't rattle it, Alvin.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr Curling's about to finish. We're running out of time.

Mr Curling: We're saying that these hearings are really a follow-up of what had been done by Sewell and the legislation.

Tell me, do you have enough faith to think, after this vague legislation, that this regulation which we'll never see, that implementation guideline, will somehow bring some credibility to this vague legislation?

Mr McQueen: There is a pretty impressive committee appointed, with representatives from various groups, to promulgate some of the regulations that are to be brought forward under the aegis of this act. If that committee does its work well and is listened to by the Legislature, it may be able to bring into the situation some of the clarity which I gather we all desire here.

I think its work is extremely important. You cannot put everything into a piece of legislation. We have made our criticism of the legislation as it stands, but even if it's improved, you can't put everything in there. The regulations are terribly important, especially in an area like this.

Mr Curling: Do you think we should see the regulations before?

The Chair: Mr Curling, I'm sorry, we've run out of time for other questions.

Mr Curling: That's the problem with these omnibus bills.

The Chair: Thank you for the interest you've shown on this particular bill and thank you for sharing a lot of the concerns with this committee.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS' ASSOCIATION;
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS

The Chair: We invite the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Donna Cansfield: My name is Donna Cansfield. I'm the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, and with me today is David Burnham, who is president of the Ontario Association of School Business Officials, representing both public and separate school business officials. Also with me is Shawn Callon, who is the principal planner with the Waterloo board of education and the chair of the planning committee for the Ontario Association of School Business Officials.

As an introduction, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association represents over 90 public boards of education from all regions of the province serving over 1.7 million students and adult learners. As a local government association we speak for public school trustees and for public education.

The association supports the principle of open local government, as in the proposed new Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994. We recognize that the current Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is less than perfect legislation and has not provided clear guidelines for elected officials or for our citizens.

The association participated in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs advisory committee on open local government and municipal conflict of interest in 1992-93, and we are pleased to see that many of our recommendations have been included in the draft legislation.

In 1992, in a report of the four trustee associations, we requested that the legislation be renamed local government conflict of interest, and we're pleased to see that local government is recognized as both municipal and school boards for government.

Dealing with subsection 2(3), pecuniary interest, we support the bill's clearer definition of "pecuniary interest" as matters that are of financial interest or benefit to oneself, one's spouse as defined under the Family Law Act, and to one's child. We agree that when reporting a financial interest a member must avoid joining in the discussion, voting or attempting to influence the outcome, and should leave the meeting and remain absent from the meeting until the matter is no longer under consideration.

For section 4, disclosure requirements, the concept of disclosure is supported. In 1992 the school board association strongly opposed previous recommendations calling for complex lists of detailed financial information listing the amounts of assets and liabilities, and we are pleased to see that this has been changed. Also, some protection must be provided for references to the name of a member's spouse and/or child that can and should be kept confidential.

1720

For section 6, filing disclosure statements, the school boards' association does not support this section of Bill 163. In 1992 the association stated that "disclosures not be submitted to or filed with the secretary of the board, but rather that such disclosures be sent to a central registry and handled in a manner similar to that for members of the provincial Legislature under the provincial Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

I give you as an example isolate boards in the north, who would have one more piece of legislation demanding them to set up another structure they're ill prepared either to perform or have the money for.

Many public school trustees believe that the registry of disclosure at the local board office could also be abused and an invasion of personal privacy as well. Our association supports a process similar to provincial members' rather than the processes outlined in the bill. It is our understanding that members of provincial Parliament file detailed statements of disclosure with the province, then more generalized reports, deleting specifics, are filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, with public access only to the general reports, and individuals who wish to receive these documents must file a request with the Clerk's office.

We would like a similar process for locally elected officials, with one central registry of disclosures and a general statement of disclosure available to the public upon request.

We also would ask that the courtesy be extended that the elected official be told if in fact there is a request.

Under section 7, the local government disclosure commission, we recommended in 1992, rather than create another commission and bureaucracy, that the provincial commission responsible for provincial conflict of interest be expanded to include local government. This continues to be the preferred course of action and is consistent with the above recommendation that the registry of disclosures be a central agency. The bill does not provide information on the operation or financing of the proposed commission, and we urge consultation with the school trustee associations on these regulations for implementing the local government disclosure of interest act and the local government disclosure of interest commission.

As you can see, in general we're very supportive of this portion of the bill. We do have our reservations, and we make these following recommendations:

(1) We recommend that section 6 of the bill be revised to provide for a central registry of local government disclosure of interest at a central agency, and a process of public access similar to that of members of provincial Parliament.

(2) We recommend that section 7 of the bill be amended to delete reference to establishing a new local government disclosure commissioner and that the function be added to the mandate of the existing provincial commission for provincial elected officials.

(3) We recommend that the province include public school boards and trustees as an integral part of the process for drafting the recommendations for implementing the local government disclosure of interest act.

Mr David Burnham: My comments are both on behalf of OPSBA and on behalf of the Ontario Association of School Business Officials.

OPSBA supports the general directions for planning in Ontario contained in Bill 163. However, the association recommends that the bill be strengthened to ensure that the educational concerns are recognized in the planning process. As you undoubtedly know, OPSBA and OASBO participated in the Sewell commission's consultation process. Two briefs were prepared in response to the commission's request for input and a meeting was held with the commission. These briefs contained a large number of recommendations for improving the Planning Act, provincial policy statements, and the planning process procedures. Today OPSBA will present only three of the recommendations relating to the Planning Act, which the association views as most important for school boards.

As you may know, education is a critical aspect of community life, and its neglect in the land use planning process is a serious issue to school boards. The Metro school board, for example, has noted that "availability of educational facilities is an important factor in good planning, just as the availability of municipal services such as roads, water and sewers are important factors. The Planning Act should ensure that all approval authorities, in considering development applications of a residential nature, give consideration to the availability of school sites and student accommodation as important criteria in reviewing those applications."

More recently, as the Peel Board of Education has noted in a recent resolution before the Ontario Municipal Board, "The courts and the Ontario Municipal Board have interpreted the Planning Act in such a manner as to restrict the rights of the board to object to new housing developments." School boards in growth areas have supported amendments to the Planning Act to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that housing developments proceed only where school sites and school accommodation are available.

As you may also know, the accommodation needs of Ontario's public school boards have been rapidly escalating over the last few years. There remains a significant backlog of unfunded requests for new schools to meet the needs of growth, additions, and permanent classrooms to replace portables, as well as renovations.

To give you just one local example of the backlog in school facilities, the Durham public board of education has 12,500 students in some 520 portables, and this isn't atypical.

Many school boards participated, as I mentioned, in the Sewell commission's consultation process. The key recommendations made by public school boards included:

-- That the Planning Act be amended to include as matters of provincial interest the adequate provision and equitable distribution of educational, health, social and recreational facilities and programs.

-- That municipalities be required to develop policies in municipal plans to address the provision of educational facilities rather than just sites, and that this requirement be set out in policy and legislation.

-- Furthermore, that school boards should be notified of plans and development proposals for comment. This is not always happening.

-- Finally, that the Planning Act be amended to require the preparation and adoption of municipal plans containing goals and policies therein to assist with the planning of educational facilities across the province.

The association is pleased to see that some of the recommendations have been incorporated into the government's proposed planning policy statements, for example the issue under provincial interest. The bill suggests that the following matters have merit to be considered as provincial interests, and these are, for example, "the orderly development of a safe and healthy communities," and, second, "the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities." With the addition of adequate provision and distribution certainly OPSBA supports these recommendations.

OPSBA also supports the issue of a mandatory official plan. In the past, a number of jurisdictions did not have a plan, and school boards were left, as were other public agencies, not knowing what the goals were of the municipality. In this context, OPSBA supports this amendment.

The adequacy of school sites: OPSBA supported the Commission on Planning and Development Reform's recommendation that legislation require municipalities to have policies in their municipal plan addressing the provision of educational facilities and not just sites. Such a requirement would ensure that reasonable consideration is given to providing schools -- and again I say this -- and not just sites, in areas designated for development or redevelopment.

In section 28 of Bill 163, the issue of adequacy of school sites is listed in regard to subdivision approvals. I've referenced clause 51(17)(j) of the Planning Act, "the adequacy of school sites." However, the more pertinent issue with regard to school accommodation, that is, that a school building is present, is not addressed with regard to subdivision approvals.

As noted in a subsequent paper that you will be receiving, or may have received today, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association also argued that the availability of school sites and facilities should be taken into account when reviewing plans. The approving authority has the power to stage developments so that growth is orderly and controlled. However, local municipalities do not consider the availability of school facilities when developing their staging plans, as they are of the opinion that they have no real legislative authority to do so.

The most important issue I bring before you, then, is that the adequacy of school sites and facilities must be taken into account when reviewing plans of subdivision.

OPSBA also recommends that clause 51(17)(j) of the Planning Act be amended to replace the term "the adequacy of school sites" with the term "the adequacy of school sites and facilities."

A final point: notification of school boards. As I mentioned, school boards are an integral part of the municipal planning process. We feel it is appropriate that school boards be involved in any planning issues or proposals affecting residents or future residents. With this in mind, OPSBA recommends that Bill 163 be amended to ensure that school boards be circulated on all planning matters, such that the Ontario Public School Boards' Association recommends that the following sections of Bill 163 be revised to require that school boards be an integral part of the consultation on all planning issues: subsections 17(14) and (20), subsection 34(15), subsection 45(8), subsection 45.1(8), and subsections 51(14) and (16). All of those sections deal with the approvals process and the ability to comment on the adequacy of the school site issue.

1730

Finally, in addition to the OPSBA position, I'd quickly direct you to the OASBO comments, under additional concerns. There are five or six concerns that the technical planners within school boards would raise for you, again having commented to the Sewell commission:

-- The possible removal of, or revision to, the provisions of the revised act pertaining to the planning with educational facilities in mind. Further consultation on any amendments is an imperative. We feel the consultation process has not been fully adequate.

-- The weakness and inability of the Planning Act and provincial policy statement B1 to force municipalities to plan with school boards. Again we think there's room for improvement.

-- The lack of amending legislation dealing with the dedication of school sites, or the fixing of prices for purchase of school lands. Again this goes back to the issue of sites. If the sites are available through the plan-of-subdivision process, we normally end up buying them at a market value that is much greater than what one would expect to pay if the sites were acquired prior to the approval of the plan of subdivision.

-- The lack of recognition that school boards have become part of the community infrastructure.

-- The need for a clearer distinction in the act that municipalities consider the adequacy of school accommodation to serve planned growth.

-- Finally, the need for added amendments to the Planning Act to provide more specific guidance for the evaluation of residential development applications relative to the availability of adequate school facilities.

Ms Cansfield: We'd be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. You certainly draw attention to a matter that's been brought before the committee on several occasions, and that's the adequacy of not only school sites but facilities. We've been shocked to hear some of the figures, not only the number of pupils in the additional facilities but also the length of time. It's quite enlightening.

I'm really struggling with how we guarantee the adequacy of school sites and facilities. Realizing the shortage of funding at all levels, how should we deal with it? In cases where we can't provide them, should major residential developments be held up until the schools can be provided? Usually the houses are there and then we try to find accommodation for the pupils. It means, in my experience, many changes in transportation routes, in the schools pupils go to, simply because of a very large increase in the pupil numbers.

You've made some recommendations. Do you really feel they will provide the guarantees you're looking for?

Ms Cansfield: What we're hoping is that it's the beginning of the answer to some of those questions; certainly, it's an ongoing process. But to exclude school boards from the planning seems to be inconsistent with trying to do the things in the best interests of a community, because of course the children are part of the community.

When you look at such things as intensification -- that's an excellent example. Look at East York: Its student population has increased over 11% because of the issue of intensification. Where do they put the children? The law requires that they be educated, but we must work somehow to put the children into a school.

What we're suggesting is that there has to be a better process put in place. We're prepared to work with you. We're not just a service, we're not just there because of a whim -- you know: Put in 5,000 housing and the school site will materialize. It isn't that easy and it's also very expensive when you look at the cost of obtaining the school site, much less building a school. You're looking at $3 million or $4 million for a site, maybe $6 million to $12 million to build a school. That also doesn't come just out of thin air; there's no magic wand in my pocket, certainly, when it comes to the local tax base.

What we're asking is an opportunity to find a planning process that will work where we can work together, because we have the best interests of the children and hopefully municipalities have the best interests of their broader community. It just makes sense to work together. Don't exclude one or the other.

What you're not looking at either, and I think it's really important, is the issue of immigration and the significant impact immigration has had in terms of school facilities. I can give you a personal example. I now have a school in my ward which has 830 children in a school planned for 500. Would you like to talk intensification and other kinds of cultural issues? If there had been a better planning process between the municipality, because a lot of them are refugees, and Immigration Canada, we wouldn't be in the kind of situation we are in. If only we would talk to one another: In essence that's what we're suggesting. It's sort of common sense to me.

Mr Eddy: Did you encourage your school board members to respond to circulations of subdivisions? It's been my experience in one area that the school board did not take advantage of its opportunity to respond to notification, to the shock of the municipal council. I could never understand why that didn't happen because I think it's awfully important that it does happen.

Ms Cansfield: I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately what has happened in the past is they haven't been asked, and all of a sudden the subdivision goes in and then someone says, "By the way, we need a school." So now what we're asking, especially if you put a municipal plan in place, is that it gives us an opportunity to review it and demand that school sites and facilities be a part of that process.

But, you see, before we weren't there, we were just considered the service, and what "small" impact did we have on the local taxpayer? Well, it's a new ball game out there.

Mr Eddy: It's an important matter.

Mr McLean: I hope the ministry staff is listening, because what you say is so true. I've often thought that when any plans of subdivision are put on, that should be one of the key consulting procedures: What is going to be the number of units? How many new children are going to be in the community? What is the proposed supplementary plan that could be put on which would dictate for a mile around? What you're saying is just commonsense, and we've heard it before.

One of the questions I wanted to ask you was with regard to the local disclosure commissioner. When you say that that function should be added to the mandate of the existing provincial commission for provincial elected officials, I find that would be hard to do because he has about 130 members he looks at. When we get into the school boards and councils, we have probably 7,500 or so, in that range.

There's a model that's been called the Manitoba model. I kind of like that and want to look further at that. You disclose it but it's in an envelope, and until somebody really wants to see it, it's covered up. It takes away the frivolous complaints, that people just walk in and say, "What are so-and-so's assets?" You won't find out what they are, but it'll be in there, say, where they have their assets, in mortgages or what.

I have trouble with that disclosure commissioner.

Ms Cansfield: That's fair. We would also be prepared to look at alternatives. That's what we're saying to you. Obviously, we would prefer that it not be laid on, and I'll give you a good reason why. If you go into some school boards and ask how many people are working on employment equity, there are eight, and yet there'll be two people working on English. You know what I'm saying? What's happening is that we're ending up being bureaucratized with all the things we have to do. That's taking more dollars out of the classroom, and we would like to keep those dollars in the classroom. The less impact we can have in terms of administration, the better it is for us because we can redirect our resources where they belong. We'd certainly be prepared to look at alternatives.

Mr McLean: I like the recommendations you have put forward. I hope the ministry staff would take that specific one with regard to sites under consideration because I think there should be some amendments put in place for that. Thank you for appearing.

The Chair: We thank the Ontario Public School Boards' Association for participating and for making its submission today. Mr Hayes has something to say before you leave.

Mr Hayes: I'm not sure whether you have a copy of the draft regulations or if you've had the disclosure forms, if you've seen those. If you haven't, we will send them to you, if you like.

Ms Cansfield: Are these the new forms? I saw one form and -- a little tongue in cheek -- there was no place for your name. I found that rather amusing. I mean, it's fine with me.

Mr Hayes: We'll make space for your name. But we'll send them to you, if you like.

Ms Cansfield: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Two quick things: If there are amendments to be given to this committee by the various caucuses, we would like those amendments to be in the clerk's office by -- normally, we say 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock in the morning on Monday, at least two hours before we start. So Monday morning as early as possible. We appreciate that.

Interjection.

The Chair: If they are two hours before we begin, it makes it much easier for us to circulate around. If not, it complicates it.

Mr McLean: It would be nice if we could have the government amendments this week. If we have some we're drafting and the government's are the same, there would be no point in us drafting ours. But if they have what they have, we could do something different if we need to.

The Chair: I think Mr Hayes has heard.

Mr Hayes: Hopefully, we can get them very soon. I would actually like to sit down and compare them and see if we can do away with some duplication, and then get on with it.

Mr McLean: I really thought we would have got them about a minute after we adjourned.

Mr Wiseman: I know staff has been compiling all the recommendations that have been made by the various groups. Is there any anticipation of when we could see a copy of that?

The Chair: Mr McNaught, do we have a sense of that?

Mr Andrew McNaught: I hope by Thursday afternoon, certainly by Friday.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned until 2 o'clock, Monday, September 26.

The committee adjourned at 1743.