CONCERNED CITIZENS OF KING TOWNSHIP
RICHARD JONES PLANNING CONSULTANTS
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF COMMITTEES OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONSENT AUTHORITIES
MCNAIR AND MARSHALL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
GREY ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER PLANNING
CONTENTS
Tuesday 6 September 1994
Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 163, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l'aménagement du territoire et les municipalités, projet de loi 163, M. Philip
County of Simcoe
David Caldwell, chair, planning committee
Ian Bender, planner
Concerned Citizens of King Township
Margaret Coburn, co-chair
Victor Wilcox
County of Bruce
Milton McIvor, warden
Malcolm McIntosh, director, planning and economic development
Richard Jones Planning Consultants
Angela Baldwin, planning consultant
County of Grey
Dr Gerald Rogers, warden
Al Bye, chair, finance committee
Howard Greig, member, planning advisory committee and past warden
Township of Erin
Murray Clarke, clerk-administrator
John Holder, deputy reeve
Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities
David Cowtan, chair
McNair and Marshall, Planning and Development Consultants
Barbara Marshall, partner
Alan McNair, partner
Environmental Action Barrie
Alan McNair, representative
Town of Caledon
Heather Konefat, assistant director, planning
Peter Russell, planner
Grey Association for Better Planning
Peter Ferguson, president
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary, (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Murphy
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Chiarelli
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Malkowski
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Harnick
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Ms Haeck
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Bisson
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister
Jones, Paul, manager, local government policyMcKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal planning policy branch
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Stobo, Carolyn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0933 in the County of Simcoe Administration Centre, Midhurst.
PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DES MUNICIPALITÉS
Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We apologize for being a few moments late, but we're here and we're ready to go. We invite the county of Simcoe, Mr Ian Bender and Mr David Caldwell, to begin. Welcome to this committee. You have half an hour. What we try to remind people is that if you want the members to ask you questions, please leave as much time as you can within that half-hour for the members to do that.
Mr David Caldwell: Mr Chairman and committee members, it's my pleasure to make a presentation on behalf of the planning committee for the county of Simcoe. Have copies of our presentation been distributed?
The Chair: Yes, they have.
Mr Caldwell: Okay. The submission we're making today has not been presented to the county council floor. The planning committee recently had the opportunity to review what we're presenting. It will be presented to the county floor at its next regular meeting in September.
The county of Simcoe welcomes the opportunity to provide comments to your committee regarding Bill 163. We believe it's a very important component of Ontario's legislative framework.
Our comments will relate to the Planning Act portions of Bill 163. Planning Act reform is due and should reflect the objectives of streamlining the decision process, providing clear provincial guidelines for planning decisions and recognizing the growing sophistication of municipal planning by granting autonomy to municipal decision-makers.
The importance of the Planning Act is not only that it sets out procedures but that it establishes a provincial-municipal relationship; it sets the tone. Planning decisions invariably bring municipalities face to face with the province, if only through the OMB. Our specific comments on Bill 163 will relate to items which we believe can be improved in this context. Most of the changes the county either supports or takes a neutral stand on. We tried not to nitpick.
The bill: Provincial policy statements: Provincial policy statements provide the guidelines to achieve planning objectives endorsed by the province and, for the most part, by municipalities. Presently municipalities and other local agencies must have regard to the policy statements. The objectives of the policy statements must be included in planning documents such as official plans. Planning decisions, including those made at the OMB, take them into account. In other words, the system is working well now to achieve the planning objectives.
The proposal is to change "shall have regard to" to "shall be consistent with." That would probably make little difference in the day-to-day application of the policy statements. However, if the interpretation is that "consistency" requires unthinking adherence to the letter of the policy statement, then it could have two bad side-effects: unwise decisions in light of all facts and evidence and further slowing the planning decision-making process, possibly through unnecessary, costly OMB hearings.
Application of policy statements should be like the application of photo-radar: The decision to issue tickets is based on factors such as average speed, road conditions and others. We understand it is not to force all traffic on the 401 to travel at 100 kilometres per hour or less at all times.
We recommend that the proposed new section 3(5) of Bill 163 be deleted and that section 3(5) of the present act be retained.
Delegation of official plan approvals: It is well known that the province has for a few years been anxious to rationalize a planning approvals process that has been highly centralized with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. However, to this point it has taken a go-slow approach to decentralization, pending the establishment of a clear and comprehensive set of provincial planning policies. In addition, it would seem reasonable that before an upper-tier municipality could be delegated approval authority for lower-tier plans, it should have its own official plan in place.
The provincial policy statements satisfy the first condition. Upper-tier official plans, not whether the upper tier is called a county or region, should be the other condition to delegation of the authority. We believe there is no evidence to justify treating counties and regions differently regarding approvals authority.
We recommend that the proposed sections 17(2) and 17(3) be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"17(2) Despite subsection (1), the regional council, the district council or the county council, as the case may be, is the approval authority in respect of the approval of an official plan of a local municipality in the regional municipality of Durham, the regional municipality of Halton, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, the regional municipality of Niagara, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the regional municipality of Waterloo, the district of Muskoka, the county of Bruce, the county of Grey, the county of Hastings, the county of Lambton, the county of Oxford, the county of Prince Edward, the county of Victoria and the county of Wellington for the purpose of this section and section 22.
"(3) Despite subsection (1), on the day the minister approves all or part of an official plan of the regional municipality of Peel, the regional municipality of York, the county of Peterborough or any other county, the regional council or the county council, as the case may be, is the approval authority in respect of the approval of an official plan of a local municipality in the regional municipality or the county."
Delegation of subdivision approval: The same arguments can be made for subdivision approval authority as for official plan amendment approval authority. The decision to delegate the approval authority should be based on the ability of the upper-tier municipality to meet criteria, such as having its own approved official plan, rather than the arbitrary title of "county" or "region."
In the case of the county of Simcoe, subdivision approval authority was identified by the province for delegation at the time of restructuring and the passage of Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe. We believe that all upper-tier municipalities should receive equal treatment. If they meet the criteria, delegation should occur.
0940
We recommend the following wording for section 51:
"51(1) If the land is in a local municipality that is in a county, other than a city, and that forms part of a county for municipal purposes,
"(a) The county council is the approval authority for the county of Bruce, the county of Grey, the county of Hastings, the county of Huron, the county of Lambton, the county of Oxford, the county of Prince Edward, the county of Victoria and the county of Wellington.
"(b) The county council is the approval authority on the day the minister approves all or part of an official plan for the county of Peterborough or any other county.
"(c) The minister is the approval authority in all counties without approved official plans for the purposes of this section and section 51(1)."
Note: References to county of Oxford in section 51(5) could be removed if this amendment is approved.
Municipal planning authorities: Sections 14.1 to 14.9 provide perhaps the most serious threat to the achievement of the province's own objectives.
While municipal planning authorities may be seen as a positive force to achieve planning in certain circumstances, the possibility of their formation creates a disincentive to the efforts to plan at a county-wide level. The situation could become ludicrous where a county is prescribed or told that a county plan is necessary. Sections 14.1 to 14.9 would enable sceptical local municipalities to thwart or at least cause confusion and delay in the preparation of a plan that the province wants to see.
We propose that the province recognize its own preferences for a county plan by bringing in the following changes to Bill 163.
Section 14.1(2) is deleted and replaced as follows:
"14.1(2) The council of a municipality shall not pass a bylaw under subsection (1):
"(a) If that municipality forms part of a county for municipal purposes which has an approved county official plan or which has been prescribed under section 17(7); or
"(b) Unless the proposed bylaw is approved by the minister."
Delete section 14.3(5).
Rationale: Existing county official plans evolved in those counties which first established planning departments through the use of the county levy. This provision will discourage the formation of planning departments in counties and will prevent new county official plans from evolving.
Conclusion: The above changes will, we believe, clarify the objectives of both the province and the municipalities to streamline, to provide realistic planning guidelines and to solidify the role of upper-tier municipalities in the planning process. In other words, counties can and should plan.
There's an addendum. As noted, the main concern of the county of Simcoe with Bill 163 is sections 14.1 to 14.9 dealing with the creation of municipal planning authorities. We make the argument that the threat of municipal planning authorities is as much a problem as their establishment.
In the case of the county of Simcoe, we have gone through a major restructuring program since 1990. During that period and at the passage of Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe, the county was encouraged to plan and to prepare a county official plan. We are told that the county will be prescribed to prepare an official plan. The program to prepare it is under way. The province has supplemented our budget by many thousands of dollars in order to prepare the plan. The momentum is clearly there.
At the same time there are voices within the county who do not want to see county planning and would like to separate for planning purposes. The potential to do so by sections 14.1 to 14.9 may give incentive to try to separate, even though the minister would be unlikely to approve the scheme. The attempt could create delay, confusion and generally cause problems for the province's own desire for the county.
Thank you. We'll be happy to entertain questions.
The Chair: Very well. We'll begin with the Liberal caucus. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Do you believe that if Bill 163 is not amended to suit your needs, especially, first of all, to be prescribed, and also to give you the real power of planning in your own county, the objective of the government will not be met? In other words, the old system will still be in place and it won't be streamlined to the needs of county government. Do you agree with me or not?
Mr Caldwell: Well, I believe that we're dealing only with certain sections here of Bill 163. The concern is that we're in the process of doing a county official plan, and particularly the last item that I reviewed, which was pertaining to the municipal planning authorities, is probably our biggest concern in that we've tried to play the devil's advocate and imagine what might happen, for example, if one of the local municipalities in our county were to marry up with a local municipality in an adjacent county to perform what is set out in this section. They could not only thwart the county setting up its plan, or make it very difficult, but also do it for another county as well. That was our concern.
Mr Grandmaître: It makes it a complicated system. Also, in your closing remarks you say that the county will be prescribed. The ministry told you or the minister told you that you would be prescribed?
Mr Caldwell: Ian, would you like to respond to that?
Mr Ian Bender: Yes. Officials from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs gave us that indication that in all likelihood we would be prescribed.
Mr Grandmaître: In all likelihood? It's not assured?
Mr Bender: No, it's not assured.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think this is fair when we're going through such a very important bill that you're not prescribed, you'll have to wait and see?
Mr Bender: I don't know whether it has us on pins and needles, but there is some uncertainty involved.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think this is fair?
Mr Bender: No.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning and presenting your brief here. I want to start off by asking you about the approval authority. The regions and Oxford county have been delegated that authority. You're asking for these other counties to be delegated the same authority. Is that after their official plan of the county has been approved by the minister? Is that what your concern is?
Mr Bender: That's correct. We've indicated clearly here that obviously certain conditions have to be met before you can safely delegate those approval authorities, but those conditions, once the regions have them in place, are automatic. Why not the county?
Mr McLean: As it is now it says the minister may delegate that authority, but there's nothing that says that, once you have met certain criteria, you're going to be granted that authority, is there?
The other question I have is with regard to the planning, official plans. In your opinion, do you believe that a county official plan would be appropriate enough without planning at the lower level, or do you think both levels should plan, the lower tier and the county?
Mr Caldwell: I suppose if there weren't plans already in place at the local level, it might have been simpler to have one plan for the whole county. But I think that now that we have local plans, many of the local municipalities, for lack of better words, guard those local plans very jealously because they give them certain things they can do in their municipality that maybe a neighbouring one doesn't. There was certainly some resistance to the county taking over the official plan process because the concern was that they would all be shaped into the same mould.
Mr McLean: But the bottom line is that nothing can be improved unless the upper tier approves it anyway. So if you have an official plan for your municipality and it doesn't coincide with the county official plan, then what good is it, in essence, because the upper tier is going to take precedence anyway.
Mr Caldwell: You're correct. There may be some things that could be in our local plan that might vary slightly but not upset the county's position on its official plan.
0950
Mr McLean: You didn't touch anything at all with regard to conflict of interest. There are three sections to this act: the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the conflict and disclosure act. You didn't touch on that disclosure act. Do you think it's appropriate that all members elected to municipal councils, school boards and so on, file a disclosure with the clerk?
Mr Caldwell: The planning committee did not take a position on any section other than the planning issues. I have my own personal feelings on the conflict-of-interest legislation, but I don't know if this is the time and place to bring that forward.
Mr McLean: You don't have to if you don't want to.
Mr Caldwell: One of the concerns I had with the conflict-of-interest legislation is that it does require revealing all this information and providing it to the clerk. That's fine. But all incumbents this election -- I gather the legislation won't be in place -- will have had to do so prior the next election. All new candidates don't appear to be required to do the same thing.
One of the concerns I have is that new candidates can get elected to public office without having provided this information. Now the argument can be made that's the case this time around, but I think if we're going to play on a level playing field, once this legislation is in place, all candidates should be required to do it as part of their submission when they file for public office.
Mr McLean: How much time have I got, Mr Chair? Just one minute? Getting pretty tight here.
The other day we were in London and Chatham, and the county of Lambton indicated -- I believe it was the county of Lambton -- that they had an official plan and they were looking for approvals also. There was another county also. I see you have the county of Lambton named in here.
I was wondering if there were any other counties that you didn't name here that were in the process, as the county of Simcoe is, of proceeding with an official plan and looking for planning approval. Why are there only about eight or 10? That'll be the question somebody will want to know.
Mr Bender: That is because those are the counties that have official plans in place approved by the ministry. We feel it's a criterion, one of the conditions, of delegating the approval authorities that the upper tier have an official plan in place. So we've named those counties where an official plan is in place or, in the case of the county of Peterborough, where one is pending.
Mr McLean: These are the only ones that have the county official plans and you're putting one on. What hope have you got of ever having yours approved when these are not being approved?
Mr Bender: We did add to the list "or any other county that has an official plan," not knowing which ones will be next.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I was quite interested in some of your submissions with respect to delegation of planning authority. One thing I would just like to ask with respect to this aspect of delegation, how would we ensure that the county has had in place what we call the planning expertise and planning experience to deal with matters of subdivision approval and official plan approvals of lower-tier municipalities?
I'm just asking. The mere aspect of having an official plan approved would not guarantee that the upper-tier municipality would have that planning infrastructure in place, and I'm wondering, shouldn't there be some sort of criteria to ensure that an upper-tier municipality does have that infrastructure in place?
Mr Bender: Our comments simply reflect inequality between the regions and the counties as far as the planning criteria are concerned. Yes, the ministry would want to ensure that either the county or the region has the staff and the expertise available to deal with those approvals, but none is stated in the act. It's assumed, I guess, that that's something that the administration would look after.
We're simply stating the same thing for the counties as is stated for the regions, because there's no statement in Bill 163 as to the region's requirements for planning expertise. So we haven't done the same non-statement for counties as is done for regions in the bill.
Mr Wessenger: You think there should be such criteria established then?
Mr Bender: I think it can handled administratively.
Mr Wessenger: The other question just following up on that, just another question, it appears that counties vary greatly in their size and capacity throughout the province. Should it really be an obligation for a county to assume this responsibility? There may be some counties, for instance, that would prefer to leave the responsibility at the provincial level. Should not that option be there?
Mr Bender: Yes, and we've stated that clearly in here, that where a county does not have an official plan, the minister is the approval authority.
Mr Wessenger: I think the county still might have an official plan but not wish to develop the planning infrastructure. An official plan could be developed, for instance -- a planning consultant could prepare an official plan for a county and they would not have developed their infrastructure.
Mr Bender: Yes. It still has to be a decision of the minister, and the county council could communicate that wish to the minister.
Mr Wessenger: Right. Thank you very much.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you, Mr Caldwell, for a very good brief. I like the positive tone. And it's nice to see Mr Bender again. He's from our area.
On your first page you talk about setting the tone of a provincial-municipal relationship, and I think that's a good way of looking at this. Certainly we want a less confrontational style than has been seen in the past with the usual planning meetings at city councils.
The one item that you bring up is the option of a municipal planning authority and you certainly question that option being available. I would like to ask our staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to explain to you the rationale behind putting this option forward.
Mr Philip McKinstry: My name is Philip McKinstry and I'm with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We put forward the option of a municipal planning authority in the legislation for the specific purpose of allowing those areas, usually urbanizing areas that have some fairly significant differences planning-wise from the counties, to in fact do some planning on their own, where the counties probably weren't interested in planning.
In terms of your suggestions, one of your suggestions was that the planning authority not be able to pass a bylaw constituting itself without the approval of the minister, and that is in fact in the legislation. Just to go a little further, in terms of being prescribed to have an official plan, our commitment there is that we will consult with counties before we prescribe them to have an official plan, and I expect what we're hearing is that there has been some discussion with the county of Simcoe before.
I think the minister would take any representations from counties that were concerned about municipal planning authorities being set up quite seriously and would like to discuss with the county before they were set up. But I will be interested in hearing from the committee any suggestions for changes to that section.
Mr Caldwell: One of the thoughts we had with respect to that section was perhaps it was brought forward by staff because of areas where counties weren't planning on setting up an official plan, and there may be an urban area with one or two surrounding townships that wanted to set up. We don't see a problem with that. That provision is still in there the way we have suggested the wording so that it doesn't inhibit it. What we were concerned about is if it was used to fracture the process, particularly while the county of Simcoe is in the process, and any other county that might be in the process. So what we're trying to do, as I suggested earlier, is play devil's advocate and let's see how this thing could go wrong and see if we can't catch it in the legislation rather than have it slip through the cracks.
Ms Harrington: I thank you for your concerns. We will look at those.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, do you have a comment?
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I just have three points of information.
The Chair: I'm sorry, we don't bank time in committee. Three points may be very long. Do you have a question or a point of clarification or anything like that?
Mr Eddy: Yes, I do. The first one is, joint planning boards were very common in Ontario and were dissolved by the Planning Act of 1983 simply because they didn't work. They were a mess and it took authority away from the municipal councils. The point here is, the minister may or may not hear deputations; probably would, but it's not certain. I think the authority to allow a municipality to opt out of county planning should be up to the upper tier and voted on by them.
The point of information I had was, the list isn't quite complete because the county of Middlesex does have an official plan. If you will remember, the deputation from the County Planning Directors of Ontario corrected that list the other day.
1000
The other point of information I just wanted to be confirmed by the ministry is simply that at the present time the Planning Act requires, I believe, that local official plans be in conformity with the upper-tier official plan, if there is one. Is that still required by the new act? I think that's an awfully important point.
If there is an upper-tier plan, it takes precedence and the lower-tier official plan must be in conformance with the upper-tier. I just want that confirmed. I think that's the case.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to this or to other comments?
Mr McKinstry: I think just that one.
The Chair: All right, please do.
Mr McKinstry: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, that is true. We did not in the bill change a section that said lower-tier plans must be in conformity with upper-tier plans.
Mr McLean: They do not have to be?
Mr McKinstry: They do have to be in conformity. It's not changed.
The Chair: Do you want to make some kind of comment with respect to all of this?
Mr Caldwell: I want to thank the committee for hearing our presentation. I think that the questions that came forward indicate the same concerns that we had, so thank you very much.
The Chair: We thank you for the time that you have taken to come before this committee and for your submission.
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF KING TOWNSHIP
The Chair: We invite Concerned Citizens of King Township, Ms Margaret Coburn, co-chair.
Ms Margaret Coburn: My name is Margaret Coburn and I am co-chairman of the Concerned Citizens of King Township, a volunteer citizen organization with representatives throughout the township. My companion today is Fay Stonehouse, who is a member of our organization and a leader of a local group fighting to preserve a wetland in one of our villages.
I'd just like to say that we've had a little difficulty reviewing this act. It's a very important act and it's not only the summertime, but we've been involved in a lot of new things coming out, such as our new regional official plan in York region, which is where I come from, King City village going through a community plan, the Oak Ridges moraine strategy. We've been responding to all of those, and as a citizen group we don't have quite the ability to do as much work as we'd like to. However, we feel this is important and we'd like to be here today.
I should point out that what I've given you is a summary. I'm sorry, I really wasn't able to get what I'm going to say totally, but certainly at a future time I can give it to you, if you'd like to have it. The summary that you have is roughly the outline of what I am going to talk about.
The Concerned Citizens was started over 25 years ago in response to some deeply felt concerns by residents that the rural characteristics of the township, which had drawn them to live in the township, were in jeopardy. King township now has a population of approximately 17,000 people living in three villages and seven hamlets, and there are 130 square miles of largely rural land. It is one of the nine municipalities that make up the region of York. It is surrounded on three sides by urbanized communities and is within commuting range of Metro Toronto. We are looking at the ability to allow a rural area that's surrounded by the urban area to do something rather than the other comments that were made about the urban areas being allowed to do things within a rural community.
We were pleased when the Sewell commission was appointed to study land use planning and development reform in Ontario. Mr Sewell was our guest speaker at our annual meeting in April 1992, and subsequently we made three submissions to that commission on October 14, 1992, February 16, 1993, and March 26, 1993. We also responded to the consultation paper of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, A New Approach to Land Use Planning, on March 8, 1994.
We have been pleased with the opportunities given to us during the life of the commission and now by the government. Bill 163 is now before you and it's our opinion that this is an extremely important bill that will do much to determine how Ontario will develop in the future.
We applaud the government's proposal that planning decisions will be driven by clear policies rather than by reactions to development proposals; and by "clear," we want them to be extremely clear and definite in the suggestions that are in them. This is from a citizen point of view. We find it very frustrating when words can be abused or flexed around. We were happy to hear that you are proposing to have these clear proposals and we've seen some of the policies that you have.
We are pleased with the declaration that planning authorities must be consistent with approved policies. We support the goal of sustainable economic development with all its implications as a significant step forward in planning concepts.
We are supportive of the notion that planning decision-making should be at the local level, and the delegation of responsibility for it to the regional council appears to be a positive move. But we have consistently throughout this exercise presented the view that decision-making should in some instances go even further to the local municipal level, or Ontario will proceed to become a province developing along homogenized lines with no opportunity for different kinds of communities.
The idea of diversity among communities may be difficult to have happen, and I'll explain why. The urban development will uniformly overtake communities inch by inch or yard by yard, whatever you like, regardless of the wishes of the community, in a relentless, unimaginative pattern.
We have a suggestion as to how this may be done, and it would have to of course be studied, but we feel that a community that has planning capacity on staff -- they obviously have to be wealthy enough or organized enough to have that. There should be a certain population level, and number (c) has expressed electorally that it wishes to reserve its character as a rural community. It will be difficult to do so under the present regional system.
Using our municipality to demonstrate, we have one representative on our 18-member regional council. That member, our mayor, has no alternate. If she can't get to a meeting, nobody is there. Six of the nine municipalities are urban bound by choice. Two of the other three more rural municipalities seem to also be interested in developing a more urban lifestyle.
A rural community by nature remains limited in its population growth, which is obvious, so it is politically limited. The issue of moving boundaries to accommodate urban sprawl has not in the past taken into account the wishes of our rural community. We have had the boundaries moved over and we don't know how often that's going to happen and what control we have over that. As far as we know, this is going to be a decision of the region. We are disappointed as a community that this has not been addressed.
I want to comment on some other statements concerning the environmental impact, mitigating factors and monitoring. We question the validity of the environmental impact statement. Is it necessary really to add this additional level? We assume that it will be prepared by the proposer of the development and will not therefore be objective.
We are also concerned about the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors on paper before the fact appear to be convincing. The point is that we won't know until some years down the road whether or not they prove to be accurate. It seems to me that the idea of mitigating factors is getting a great deal of use along the way in places where really no should be no, and it would be helpful to us if in fact when they're based on planning principles, no remains no.
1010
Monitoring provisions are certainly welcome and we have urged this to happen. We feel that the monitoring is absolutely essential in the planning process. We have pointed that out in the past, but it seems a lot to expect that money and the expertise will be available to carry it out. We wonder whether the government is prepared to look into that and see that it can be carried out. It will be a huge job to do. It should be done, but can it be provided for?
The streamlining of the decision-making is certainly desirable. We share the developers' views and everybody's views on this, I think, that streamlining would help. As I said before, if no could mean no, it might save a bit of time as well. But I think the strong policies will help. Having very clear policies that must be followed will help.
There are two policies that I'd like to comment on, and one is the housing policy. We understand the desire to discourage urban sprawl and the proposal to intensify development. We have now encountered the affordable housing policy which requires the only village in our township with limited full services to absorb the affordable housing requirement for the whole township.
The effect is for the owners of development properties to design intense subdivisions which are totally inappropriate in a village and will alter the village character unnecessarily in order to accommodate a provincial policy which, if applied in an urban community, would have little or no impact. The impact in a village is quite different.
The agricultural policy: This bill continues to protect areas classes 1 to 3 soils and disregards the fact that active, viable beef and dairy cattle operations, apple orchards and berry farms are flourishing on lower-class agricultural lands. We have addressed this issue before but we have had no success so far. We would like to see the lower classes identified and protected.
In general, we have consistently expressed concern that terminology should be clear, definite and unequivocal, such that there's no room for doubt about what the government intends to occur. We have been specific about these concerns in our presentations in the past.
In conclusion, it seems to us important to point out that the objectives of developers are not the same as the objectives of the government. The government needs to make its intentions very clear in order to avoid unnecessary and costly conflicts over what may or may not occur in land use planning.
Those are my comments.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee this morning and thank you for your brief. The clear policy statements of the government, do you believe that they're clear in these policy statements that we have now? Have you seen the new act or have you seen the policy statement that the ministry has put out?
Ms Coburn: I believe I have, if it's the same one that you have that came out with the bill.
Mr McLean: It's a comprehensive set of policy statements. You have no problem with those policy statements?
Ms Coburn: I can't be specific with you here on this but I guess we're just saying to you that we want the wording to be so that it is clear what is meant. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question specifically.
But if I can just make sure that whoever is making the final decision makes sure that those words are -- the terminology such as "may do this," of course, and "shall do this," I know that's an old chestnut politically, but there are terminologies like that that we would like to see examined very carefully. In the words "should be discouraged," we don't think the word "discouraged" does anything. Nobody needs to act on a word like "discouraged." It's those kind of soft words that we are really concerned about.
Mr McLean: The housing policy with regard to villages, you indicated that you have some concern there. The village does not have water and sewers. What do you believe the housing policy should be? I know there's not allowing for subdivisions, but do you believe there should be room for infill or severances around that hamlet or village? What do you think should take place?
Ms Coburn: You mean in the village that I was speaking about?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Coburn: The reason we're getting the affordable housing applied to us is because we have water and sewage. We had a health problem in Schomberg, as you may know, and it was put in, but it's a village of 900. No other village in the township -- this is the point I'm trying to make -- has full services. Therefore, in the municipality of King, with its requirement for affordable housing, the only place they can put affordable housing to represent the part for the whole township is in Schomberg. We just feel that the application, generally speaking, in a village of this plan is not practical and not workable.
Mr McLean: It calls for 30%.
Ms Coburn: We have got a senior citizens' residence, we have got group homes, we have got the ability -- and if you insist that this affordable housing component be carried out there, the developers in many cases just want to conform and so they are going to propose plans that really and truly are not in the best interests of the village.
Mr McLean: I have some problem with regard to the farm policy, and it's the same all over Ontario. It seems one policy's got to cover all of Ontario, and there's a lot of rural Ontario that's a lot different than what King is.
Ms Coburn: Exactly.
Mr McLean: In this policy it says there's to be one severance for farm operation of a full-time farmer of retirement age. I don't know whether that's very clear. It's not clear to me who's going to determine the retirement age of a farmer, but that's what's in this bill.
Ms Coburn: That's a good point.
Mr McLean: What do you think about the severances in King township? I presume you would not want any.
Ms Coburn: No. We've been after the local government for a long time to come out with a clear rural policy which would contain the severances, and there's a difference of opinion, of course, within the public. So far we haven't found the political will on the council to go ahead and bite the bullet and make the decisions, but certainly, unless they come out with a very clear restrictive policy on it, we will be like everybody else.
Mr McLean: Class 1 to 3 farm land, you indicated you'd like to see that maintained and that farmers are farming it. Would you define that separately in legislation or would you have a clear policy with regard to 1 and 3, and who's going to determine whether it's class 1 or 3 farm land?
Ms Coburn: Well, who's going to determine it, I assume that's determined by the Agriculture ministry as to the type of soil that's there.
Mr McLean: That would have to be, I guess, by the official plan of the municipality would have to try and determine what they would allow to take place on class 1 to 3. It should be identified as valuable.
The environmental impact statements, there has been a lot of discussion with regard to people getting minor variances and with regard to additions. Maybe I could ask you, there's going to be no appeal to the OMB with regard to minor variances. Do you agree with that?
Ms Coburn: My first comment is, what is a minor variance? We've had a lot of trouble with that, because I think in the description we got of what it was supposed to be, there were examples given, and I think I read in here too, there are some examples. For example, it may be this or that. But "for example" isn't enough, and we feel that issues do come before the committee of adjustment that we have that in our view are not minor variances. The impact of the decision is far bigger than just where it's sitting. I think it's very tempting for people to come before the committee of adjustment rather than take it up further if in fact they can get it to happen.
My first comment really on that is that I'd like to know -- if a minor variance really is a really minor variance that doesn't have any impact on the rest of the township, I would say why waste the time of the OMB? But until such time as that's very, very clear, I have trouble with it.
Mr McLean: The first day of the hearings I asked the minister what a minor variance was and he didn't know what it was either, so we're all in the same boat now.
Ms Coburn: I'm in good company, is that it?
1020
Mr Wessenger: Thank you very much for your presentation. As I understand, you're satisfied with the concept of the policy statements determining the preservation of rural areas, but you want to ensure that those policy statements are sufficiently strong.
Ms Coburn: Yes.
Mr Wessenger: Just going to the whole question of your comments on housing policy, you indicated you have some concerns about your municipality being a primary rural area having to adhere to the targets. I was wondering and I'd like to ask ministry staff or the parliamentary assistant to elaborate on that, I was under the apprehension that the targets were to be regionally based, in which case of course the whole area of York would have to fulfil the target and individual municipalities could fit different criteria than that. If I could ask the ministry to comment on that.
Mr McKinstry: In fact what the policy statement says is that 30% of the housing should be affordable, but in terms of distribution it will be up to the region through its regional official plan exercise to allocate the actual numbers to different municipalities. So it's in discussion between the local municipality and the region to where it exactly goes.
Ms Coburn: I guess my problem with this is that the Schomberg community plan has gone through, and it's being held up at present, as I understand, down at Queen's Park. The reason is because we haven't recognized enough density to accommodate the affordable housing policy. That's what I understand, and that's why I've taken this position. I'm not down there, so I don't know what the thinking is, but it's being held up, and we understand that's why it's being held up, because it hasn't got enough of the necessary requirements to meet the affordable housing policy.
Mr McKinstry: I'm not familiar with that exact official plan, so I can't comment on what its status is.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, please continue.
Mr Wessenger: I just have one further question. Being a former lawyer, I share with you your concern over minor variances. It appears to me the whole scheme of the act of course, the question of minor variance, will be determined by the court. Would you prefer that that be reconsidered and to take a look to see whether the matter of whether it's a minor variance be considered by the OMB, the issue to be determined by them rather than by the courts. Would you prefer that?
Ms Coburn: I'm sorry?
Mr Wessenger: Would you prefer that the Ontario Municipal Board determine whether a decision was a minor variance or not rather than have the courts determine it?
Ms Coburn: I think that would be preferable.
Mr Wessenger: Have you any suggestions? It obviously would have to have some sort of screening process, because at the present time many appeals of minor variances are on the basis of it isn't a minor variance. I guess there would have to be some sort of scheme to try to --
Ms Coburn: Unless there are very clear rules or perhaps a screening process, as you say, to determine it. But as I understand it now, it's the committee itself that determines whether it's a minor variance.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, it is.
Ms Coburn: I find that's not working. I don't think that's satisfactory.
Mr Wessenger: No. I know major developments have been built on the basis of minor variance. I've seen that happen.
The Chair: Ms Harrington, not much time left.
Ms Harrington: With regard to your concern about the status of your official plan and why it has been delayed, our staff person is just making a phone call now. I hope they will be able to speak with you before you leave today.
Ms Coburn: Thank you.
Mr Eddy: I'd like to know too.
Ms Harrington: I wanted to ask you, there has been a fair amount of concern over the last week or so when we have had people come to us with regard to the change from "shall have regard to" to "shall be consistent with," with regard to the provincial policy statements. Are you in favour of this new wording?
Ms Coburn: Yes.
Ms Harrington: Good. I do believe that we have to have strong, clear policies as you have stated.
You also bring up a very interesting idea about the diversity and uniqueness of different towns and villages across Ontario, and we do have a very rich history. That is very important to the communities, plus to the whole of Ontario.
You were bringing up how do we make sure that this is continued. I would just throw one suggestion forward for the record, and that is the new accessibility of individuals such as yourselves and the encouragement of ordinary people to be involved in the planning process I hope will strengthen that uniqueness of communities. But I would certainly look to other avenues as well to try to strengthen that.
Ms Coburn: Thank you very much, we will, and I hope other people will.
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for coming before the committee with your views and thoughts of your association, the Concerned Citizens of King Township. You've raised some very important points, and I look forward to seeing your full brief, to have the opportunity to study it. I think you pointed out very strongly the difference between urban and rural and that the rurals developed, which is the most case for planning, shouldn't be imposed on rural Ontario, and you're a case in point.
It almost seems to me that those rural municipalities that want, and I know there's another member here on the committee who's had the experience of wanting growth development, intensification, it's not being allowed and, on the other hand, perhaps because where your municipality is situated, it's almost being forced on you, and that's very irksome.
I happen to live in a rural municipality myself where just the other day there was approved by the OMB a very, very large subdivision in a completely rural area with no services of any kind whatsoever. Well, there are hydro lines, of course. We're electrified, so to speak. But I know your concern and I sympathize with you.
I want to ask you a question. You mentioned your concern about wetlands and, of course, they are very important because so many wetlands have been eliminated by our urban municipalities; they no longer exist. But you mentioned a King City plan, I believe, a local plan for your local community, the municipal plan for the municipality, and now because York does not have a regional plan, an upper-tier plan, the region is proceeding with an upper-tier plan now.
I'd like your view as to whether you think having more than one plan is going to be better from your perspective for a rural municipality or not as good. They're costly, of course, to prepare, official plans, but the minister is requiring, I believe, upper-tier, that's in your case a regional land use official plan, which is very complicated; it takes precedence over the local. I'd like you just to comment on that if you would, is the first question. Do you see it strengthening your case, or do you think an upper-tier plan will --
Ms Coburn: The planning staff from the upper level, we believe that they are, you know, dealing with things objectively and recognizing, but with the political structure that there is there, unless either the regional municipality act is changed to have one representative for one municipality, which I think would be fine, or they have to recognize within this plan that under certain specified conditions a local plan is acceptable. I mean, that is the alternative idea to me.
I think in the regional context it would have a better chance if the divisions -- we have five people. I think it's five from Markham and, you know, one from King, three from Richmond Hill. It's not the way the province does it, and I don't really understand why the region -- it certainly doesn't help us because the votes are just not there in terms of making things happen.
With even the best intentions of the planners they have to present to a political body that's kind of biased in one direction. So either the regional municipality act should be changed or there should be a provision in it for a municipality to opt to go a different way from the other municipalities, which may indeed all want to be going in the same direction.
Mr Eddy: I think that's a good point because the trend on representation at the upper tier is not the way you're looking at it. In fact it's going the other way. In Ottawa-Carleton the mayors will no longer be -- there will be no representative from the municipal council on the upper tier with the new act, and indeed municipalities may find themselves sharing a representative with some other municipality or part thereof.
I think the second part of what you're saying is much better. Where a rural municipality in an upper tier wishes to remain rural or mostly rural, it should have that option, and I guess the question is, how do you get the upper tier to recognize that and incorporate it in the plan if indeed they don't see it that way? Otherwise, you're almost voiceless and it'll be imposed on you.
The other question --
The Chair: Sorry. We ran out of time. We thank you both for sharing some of your concerns and some of your ideas with this committee.
Ms Coburn: Thank you very much for listening to us.
1030
VICTOR WILCOX
The Chair: We invite Mr Victor Wilcox. Welcome to this committee. Just as a reminder, if you want the members to ask you some questions, please leave plenty of time. Otherwise there won't be much time for anything other than your presentation, which will be just fine as well.
Mr Victor Wilcox: I understand that. I come here having checked with your office in Toronto before this thing got going, and I found out that indeed a lot of the presentations to this committee have been sort of critical. I'm here, I hope, to present some sort of constructive suggestions that will facilitate the efforts of this province to function correctly in planning.
Before I get started, I have a brief that I presume has been distributed now. But I certainly just wanted to comment on one of the thrusts of Bill 163, which is its determination to intensify. I've recently been re-reading a book that I had in my library many years ago by a guy named Desmond Morris, who points out that we have serious social consequences when we squeeze people into tight surroundings. The thrust of Bill 163, which is intensification, I think should be reviewed from the point of view that maybe, because of its social consequences, we shouldn't be forcing intensification in this planning process.
The brief I have is going to take me probably 10 minutes to go through. I'd like to introduce my comments, however, a little bit with some of my personal experiences. I have a consulting engineering practice, a small practice that not always but often is dealing with people who are in the development industry. Some of the experiences that have come to me I think are pertinent to the things that I'm going to say, so I'd like to share a couple of them with you.
I have a client, for instance, who is a new Canadian. He grew up in Greece and came to Canada and managed to get himself, through his own energy, well enough endowed that he bought a piece of land, had it rezoned from agricultural to residential, and that was within the official plan. He decided that a piece of it could better be developed as highway commercial, because in his community there was a need for that kind of development, where there wasn't so much of a need for residential development.
To get the rezoning to highway commercial, he now had to have the official plan changed. To get his official plan changed, he had to have a hydrogeological study done to support his application for the official plan change. When he did that, he ran into bureaucratic problems that I fought through with him for two years.
During the period in which this was all going on, we had a speech from our Premier of the province. This was in 1992 when the Premier said in one of his speeches that he would like to have the private sector share with him in the problems of getting this province going again. This was at the height of our recession.
I said to the people who were obstructing the passage of my submission for hydrogeological assessment that we needed now to have some assistance from the public sector, but we didn't get that. The guy who wanted to do that has not done it. He got so ticked off by the inappropriate resistance we were getting to his proposal to do that small development that he has not invested in that sort of thing. This is part of the reason why this province is not getting investment from the private sector. It runs into too much interference from the public sector when it tries to get approvals.
Back to my brief: The real intent of my being here is to talk about the manner in which provincial civil servants are remunerated. I intend to draw a comparison between wage payment systems based on job descriptions as these systems function in the private sector and in the public sector.
In both sectors remuneration levels normally are based on the requirements of the job being performed in terms of the many factors such as education or training and the experience requirements of the job, the physical ability requirements, the human relations skills, the leadership qualities or the supervisory skills, and many others.
In the private sector, where the profit motive is strong, human resources are utilized like all other resources, to maximize profit on invested capital. Individuals as well as groups with good work output get performance bonuses but only individuals who have supervisory skills and can provide leadership get promoted into supervisory or management positions, and they remain there only if performance is better than that of the others who may be competing for those jobs.
Supervisory responsibility traditionally is recognized with a remuneration level that is higher than that for those being supervised. This is justified on the grounds that people with good leadership qualities are scarce and much in demand. Those who can lead contribute in various ways more to the profit of their enterprise than those who work but don't lead.
In the private sector workers who don't perform well are let go, supervisors who don't earn profit are demoted. These are the realities in the private sector where competition dictates that efficiency and profit are imperatives for the survival of the organization.
In the public sector neither competition nor the profit motive exists. Remuneration, however, does tend to be based on systems that were developed in the private sector and subsequently were adopted into the public sector because they seemed to work so well. In the public sector remuneration levels tend to be established by defining the jobs and then setting the remuneration to equal that for jobs of similar description in the private sector. In this process supervisory and management people almost automatically get remunerated at higher levels than those that they supervise.
All this seems quite logical on the surface, except that what is missing is that in the private sector performance is vital and therefore carefully monitored. Poor performance from either the workers or their supervisors leads to loss of job opportunities, a reality that is entirely absent in the public sector. In the government offices a person can get fired if he steals something but he rarely gets fired if his work gets behind, and that's the difference between the public sector and the private sector, in my view.
In the public sector superior quality and quantity of work can't lead to profit-sharing or bonuses because there is no profit. Civil servants know that and know also that if they can get their job description rewritten to reflect a component of supervisory responsibility, their remuneration level will dramatically increase.
The most direct approach to causing that to happen is to get so far behind with their work that they can get themselves assigned a helper, and that brings with it the possibility of having their job description revised to reflect the fact that they are now supervising and that's the key to this whole thing. The supervisor who doesn't encourage this is cheating himself out of an opportunity to get his job description rewritten because then that would reflect the fact that he is now supervising a supervisor and that makes him a manager, and hence his remuneration should go up.
Within the civil service, at all levels of administrative responsibilities, the imperatives of self-interest dictate they must encourage low levels of performance throughout their organization and encourage proliferation of staff at every opportunity.
Gentlemen, the current grossness of our civil service is thus explained, I submit, and cries out for some kind of fundamental change. I propose that a logical change would be to develop a new pay system for employees in the public sector that recognizes the absence of profit as a performance motivator, a system developed uniquely for the public service that provides reward for superior quantity and quality of work. It's important that we start paying better for performance rather than for lack of performance, rather than rewarding a staff proliferation which we should be really worried about.
I suggest to you that the task of devising and implementing such a system must not be assigned to present public sector employees. They would be influenced by self-interest. The system would just be tinkered with because, for them, it is a good system. The task must be farmed out to private sector consultants who would be fully objective. Their terms of reference could, of course, cover how to alleviate the hardships when somebody has to get laid off, as I'm sure that would happen. The basic thrust, however, of this exercise must be to create a civil service of a size just sufficient to accomplish things necessary for good government.
I'd like to suggest that I have had the kind of experience that brings these facts to my notice. I have been in the private sector early on as a factory manager and this was at the time when job descriptions were beginning to be used as a tool for rationalizing remuneration levels in the industrial workplace. Industry at that time was rapidly expanding. The baby boom was on. Soldiers from war duty were re-entering the workforce, usually to command wages that were higher than those being paid to workers who hadn't gone to war.
There was a morale problem emanating from wage inequities that had to be resolved, and this was largely accomplished by industry's adoption of the tool of job descriptions. When we tried job descriptions as ways of rationalizing wages in our offices, it worked there too. It was tried in the public sector and it has created more problems, I submit, than it has ever resolved and for reasons that I have now explained.
1040
I should tell you that I have worked briefly in the public sector. I have, however, for many years managed a consulting practice which offers engineering expertise, often to the development industry, and have had experience with development projects, personal experience therefore of the frustrating delays and escalating costs that constantly accompany development proposals as these proposals pass through the hands of civil servants at each step of the approvals process. Civil servants clearly are acting out of self-interest based on their perceived imperative to make all of their work take as long as is necessary to be granted a helper.
The development industry is in crisis, which will not be alleviated in any real lasting way by the ending of our current recession. The stranglehold that regulatory zealots and our inappropriately motivated public servants has in the past created, and soon will again, create the shortages and high prices and low quality that is characteristic of products from our industry, from the development industry.
It is an easily demonstrable fact that quality of product varies inversely with its scarcity, and our planning controls are creating an arbitrary scarcity generally. The consequence is that consumers of development products are plagued in this province with high prices and marginal quality. This is serious when the product is housing, but it is disastrous when the product is industrial or commercial space.
Our manufacturing and service industries have leaders who are hardheaded businessmen and they are being forced by international competition to demand value when shopping for factory or office space. If they don't get it in Ontario, they will shop elsewhere, as they already are doing. The current and continuing outflow of capital and jobs is a matter that Ontario government decision-makers can and must address. Our development industry clearly must be allowed to be competitive in what is increasingly for it a world market.
We cannot do much about the zealots who demand more regulation of the industry unless, of course, those zealots are, as all too often they are, our own government employees. But what we can do is implement what has been suggested by me, which is a fundamental attack on the manner in which we derive our payments for our civil service workers.
Did I make it?
The Chair: Yes, you did, but unfortunately there's no time left for questions. Thank you for the presentation.
COUNTY OF BRUCE
The Chair: We invite Warden Milton McIvor and Mr Malcolm McIntosh.
Mr Milton McIvor: Thank you for the opportunity. As you said, my name is Milton McIvor, warden of Bruce. Accompanying me is Malcolm McIntosh, our planning director. We are here to discuss the planning aspects of Bill 163. I'm going to let our planning director proceed.
Mr Malcolm McIntosh: We have submitted a written brief to you. As you know, on Bill 163 we also did a comprehensive brief with a number of recommendations. I'm just going to read to you this morning the brief that we have submitted today. It synopsizes all the submissions we've made so far.
The county of Bruce has a long tradition of undertaking comprehensive long-term county planning for its member municipalities. This is generally reflective of the positive and forward-thinking attitude of the residents of Bruce county. In many respects Bruce county is considered one of the forefathers of county planning in Ontario.
The county of Bruce is vitally concerned that its many significant natural features and unique community characteristics are maintained and enhanced. One powerful tool available to Bruce county in ensuring these features and characteristics are maintained has been an effective county planning structure.
In consideration of Bill 163, the county of Bruce believes the effect of this legislation will be the ultimate demise of effective county planning in Bruce county. The result will be significant degradation of the natural environment, destruction of the unique community characteristics and loss of Bruce county way of life, which is so important to the residents of Bruce county.
The following outlines our major areas of concern, which are taken from the county of Bruce submission on Bill 163 dated August 1994.
First issue, the demise of effective county-wide planning: The requirement that municipal decisions on all new planning applications "shall be consistent with" the proposed provincial policy statement has the effect of eliminating meaningful local input into decision-making. The county of Bruce prefers the current reference of "shall have regard to," which indicates some flexibility in applying provincial policy statements to local decision-making.
The county of Bruce does support the concept of clearly articulated provincial policy statements in matters of provincial interest. It would seem absurd to propose that the province has an interest in all new planning applications as the proposed legislation implies. To do so would require considerably more unnecessary red tape and time delays.
As an alternative, provincial policy statements should only apply to clearly identified areas of provincial interest. Additionally, sections 14.1 and 14.3 of Bill 163 would enable two or more local municipalities in one or more counties to create municipal planning areas not subject to county official plan and also not subject to any county levy for planning services. The legislation does not even require that these local municipalities be abutting one another.
The county of Bruce does not believe that opting out of county-wide planning by local municipalities and the associated loss of county levy is in the best interests of county level of government or county-wide comprehensive planning. The opting-out provisions of Bill 163 will guarantee that county-wide planning will not survive and may spell the death of other county services.
Second, more provincial control over local planning: The proposed set of comprehensive provincial policy statements are so encompassing that there is little left for local councils to make decisions upon. The county of Bruce feels that the effect of imposing all of the proposed provincial policy statements will be to shut down development and economic opportunities in rural areas of Ontario.
The county of Bruce agrees with ensuring environmentally sustainable development. The county does not agree that environmental considerations should overwhelm other considerations when making decisions on development. There's a need for effective balancing of considerations to ensure proper development does occur in rural Ontario.
The county of Bruce believes that the most appropriate mechanism for making decisions on local planning matters is through the local municipal council with effective public input.
The extent of the proposed policy statements and the intended application of these to all new planning applications will also result in local residents having no meaningful input and participation in decisions on local planning. The county of Bruce believes the provincial government should encourage public participation and community planning by ensuring some flexibility to provincial policy statements for local needs.
Third, lessening of local council's ability to make independent decisions: The county of Bruce has a concern that the proposed legislative changes may affect the ability of local councils to make independent decisions. The county of Bruce also feels that meaningful public dialogue is a necessity for effective decision-making in community planning. However, a number of proposed changes will result in greater time delays in the review and approval process and also open up more issues which may become subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. At the same time, the legislation limits the right to appeal under questionable circumstances.
An example of this is the proposed legislative change in Bill 163 which would make decisions on subdivision approval subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Currently the legislation allows the minister to consider referring a matter to the board. The ability to appeal will now exist even when the property is designated and zoned for the intended use and the principle of development has been established. There would seem to be little to be gained by this new appeal opportunity.
Another example relates to the approval of planning policy by approval authorities, including the provincial government. The legislation would enable the province not to refer an official plan amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board if this authority is not satisfied with the information in support of the amendment or if this authority feels there is no apparent land use planning ground. In such cases the applicant has no right of appeal. There would seem to be a need to have an appeal mechanism when an approval authority refuses to even consider the policy amendment. It is not acceptable to leave these decisions to the provincial bureaucracy alone.
The county of Bruce encourages applicants to provide sufficient upfront information in support of proposed policy changes. Nevertheless, the county recognizes that persons should have the right of appeal when they do not agree with the decision of an approval authority, especially when considering matters dealing with the principle of development.
1050
Additionally, in reviewing the proposed changes to the Ontario Planning and Development Act, it is noted that this legislation would enable the ministry to prepare a plan with many of the environmental, economic, social and physical elements of an official plan for community planning purposes under the Planning Act.
This plan prepared by the minister and amendments thereto are appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board only if referred by the minister. In such cases, a board only makes recommendations to the minister but does not have binding decision-making powers. This same legislation affects all municipal public works, improvements and undertakings in that these must not conflict with the plan. Also, no municipality or planning board may pass a bylaw which conflicts with the minister's plan.
The county of Bruce can accept that the provincial government may need legislation to effectively implement provincial interests. In planning matters, this should occur through the Planning Act and not through separate, all-encompassing legislation.
Additionally, the legislation as proposed would apply to a great many municipal actions which are also subject to the Planning Act and may not be considered of provincial interest. The county of Bruce does not feel the provincial government should have this additional control over local decision-making.
Lastly, unequal treatment of counties versus regions: The county of Bruce is also concerned by the legislation's differential treatment of county-level government as opposed to that for regional governments. There is an apparent attempt to provide approval powers to regional governments which are not extended to county governments and at the same time to reduce the existing powers of county government on planning matters.
The county of Bruce is convinced that strong county-level government is a necessity for long-term comprehensive community planning purposes. The provincial government should be looking for ways to support county government by extending the same planning approval powers to counties and regions.
The proposed legislation would require that all prescribed counties prepare an official plan. The same requirement extends to regional governments. However, section 14 has the effect of dismantling county-level planning by the opting out by municipal planning authorities and having county official plans not apply to these municipal planning authorities. Interestingly, section 14 does not apply to regions but only to municipalities within counties. The only apparent rationalization of this discrepancy is to implement restructuring of counties through the Planning Act. The provincial government should understand that imposed top-down restructuring does not work.
In summary, the county of Bruce does not support the proposed legislative changes to the planning system in Ontario as proposed under Bill 163. The county of Bruce was heartened by some of the recommendations proposed by the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, the Sewell commission. The county of Bruce does not feel that Bill 163 is reflective of the positive recommendations of Sewell regarding streamlining, accountability and an open and fair process within the Planning Act.
The Chair: There are two minutes, more or less, per caucus. We'll begin with Ms Harrington.
Ms Harrington: Thank you for coming forward this morning and presenting, Mr McIntosh. I found, as you went through your brief, that it was negative. On page 4 it says that local residents have no meaningful input, and then on page 3 you say, "County-wide planning will not survive, and may spell the death of other county services." I find that rather morbid.
The purpose and effect of this legislation is to give more power to the lower-tier governments and open government to ensure that this power will be used effectively on behalf of the people. So we want accessibility of the public to planning matters and to have their input and also to streamline the process so the development may proceed without undue lengthening of time and therefore costing of money to the private sector.
I believe, and I think all parties would agree, that this reform of the Planning Act has been a necessity for quite some time, even decades, and that there certainly is a lot of positive approach to this in working with other levels of government. Now, there may be some hitches. We've certainly heard different points of view. But I would ask you to consider that this is a positive move forward for everyone in Ontario, including Grey county.
Interjections.
Ms Harrington: I'm sorry, Bruce county.
So we will certainly listen to the suggestions that you have put forward, but I would like you to try to put them in a positive light. If my colleagues have any questions --
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much. I appreciate your brief and pointing out the important matters that you do, because there are changes required if we're going to have fair and equal treatment. I think what you're asking for is to have the government treat all upper tiers equally and fairly.
I am particularly interested in the first page, "the ultimate demise of effective county planning in Bruce county," realizing that Bruce county has no separated municipalities and that you're surrounded by water on three sides almost, bordered by water, so maybe there isn't quite the need to extract municipalities from Bruce county and let them go with others. I originally thought that maybe this was to facilitate planning between separated urban municipalities and adjoining rural townships maybe in other counties. I'm not sure, but I certainly see the point that you're making.
My view on it would be that a municipality could only withdraw from a county planning operation upon approval of the county council in the municipality in which that municipality is situated, to safeguard county planning, which seems to be an aim of the government, that strong planning at the upper tier.
One of the members just said they're going to have a stronger planning voice at the local level, but if you have a county official plan which takes precedence over and directs the local municipalities, even if a local municipal council wishes to plan differently, the upper-tier plan of course takes precedence; so if you have any comments on those matters.
There are some other things that I noted, and that was the Ontario Planning and Development Act, the importance of having the municipality be able to appeal and not rely just on the minister appealing it if that particular minister has a whim to do it, so to speak.
Mr McIntosh: I think principally when we look at section 14 it does allow the opting out, and it also allows the opting out plus you don't have to pay the county levy. What that has the effect of is, we're not operating on a lot of dollars in our county anyway, in terms of supporting the county planning system we have. As you know, most government operations feel underfunded and under pressure, and we're certainly that way. We're fairly critical. If we lose that, our ability to do county-wide planning is greatly affected, because we rely heavily upon having those municipalities in our system.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Eddy: Would you agree with my suggestion, then?
The Chair: Mr Eddy, I'm sorry, there are only two minutes per caucus. We're running out of time. Sorry. Mr McLean or Mr Murdoch.
Mr McLean: I'll just ask one quick question. It says, "No municipality or planning board may pass a bylaw which conflicts with the minister's plan." Well, there's not much point in the county planning. You might as well tell the minister to put the plan on: "What are your guidelines? What do you want? This is what we'll do if you'll accept it." There's something funny here.
The other one, Bruce doesn't feel the provincial government should have this additional power over local decision-making, it sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Bill, go ahead.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Just one comment. I just want to thank the county of Bruce for coming here today. I appreciate that, and I know you'd have a good trip through Grey to get here. Just the one thing you mentioned is it looks like Municipal Affairs and the staff down there have been trying to restructure all the counties and I think maybe even get rid of them. Do you think this is just part of the back-door approach?
Mr McIntosh: There's always that concern. The legislation is there; it allows the opting out in terms of county-wide planning. That's our basic, our biggest concern.
The Chair: We thank you for coming and for the brief. Mr Hayes wants to make some clarifying point.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Just really quickly, Mr Chair: I understand that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has seen, in Bruce county, the good planning that you have done and the process that you're in, trying to improve that, update it. I understand the Ministry of Municipal Affairs offered Bruce county the delegation for subdivisions. What is happening on that? Is discussion still going on, on that particular issue?
1100
Mr McIntosh: There are no discussions right now. That offer was made informally with staff. We said we would look at that. We were concerned, obviously, with the things that were happening with Sewell and Bill 163, so we sort of put that on the back burner right now.
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: We do consult a lot, Bill; this government does.
Mr Murdoch: But you don't listen; that's the problem.
The Chair: Thank you again for coming.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, please.
RICHARD JONES PLANNING CONSULTANTS
The Chair: We invite Richard Jones Planning Consultants, Ms Angela Baldwin.
Mr Eddy: The honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound is being docile.
The Chair: Order, please. We were doing fine last week.
You have half an hour for your presentation. Leave as much time as you can for questions, please.
Ms Angela Baldwin: I apologize I don't have anything written to distribute to the committee. However, I understand the presentation is being taped, so you'll certainly have a permanent record of it.
My name is Angela Baldwin. I'm a planning consultant with the firm Richard Jones Planning Consultants in Barrie. We primarily represent private sector clients; however, we have a number of public sector municipalities which we do represent also. I'd like to make some comments and observations that would reflect, I think, the concerns of both sides.
First off, just some general observations: We certainly appreciate the fact that Bill 163 is intended to streamline and shorten the planning process. Obviously, it's been a concern to planners for a long time that the process is very lengthy, is confusing, there are conflicting policy objectives and it seems sometimes that certain public agencies don't get together to consult each other on what their own specific policy objectives are, so that you get a little bit of, it seems almost, in-fighting between the public sector agencies. So we're very, very supportive of the fact that it is intended to streamline. However, we do have some concerns relating to that.
Starting with the fact that the province seems to be strengthening its policy direction, as a result I believe that the ability of the local municipal authority to make decisions is being constrained by the province's new and increased power. Specifically, proposed subsection 51(14) of the new act suggests that public meetings for plans of subdivisions be held even though in our opinion the public already has ample opportunity to comment at both the official-plan-amendment and at the zoning-bylaw-amendment stage.
It's been our experience in the past that usually when a public meeting is held for an official plan amendment or a zoning bylaw, what you normally tend to present to the public is the plan of subdivision, if that is the specific application, and comments from the public generally are more related to the plan of subdivision than the official plan amendment or the zoning bylaw amendment, because the plan presents something for the public to review that they can actually see, whereas they may not understand the implications or the policies relating to an official plan amendment. So in my opinion, adding another meeting just lengthens a process that is already quite lengthy. I don't really believe you'd receive any new comments that you don't already get at an official-plan-amendment or a zoning-bylaw-amendment public meeting.
Certainly, there are some municipalities that hold separate meetings for official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments. If you add another one, the process could go on inevitably and you could get objections at each stage of the process, thereby just extending the planning process for years and years, almost indefinitely it seems sometimes.
Another point under streamlining is that under the current Planning Act applicants are allowed to request referrals of official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments to the board within 30 days of applying if the municipality has not dealt with the application. Bill 163 suggests that municipalities have 180 days, or six months, to review applications before the applicant is allowed to request a referral to the approval authority, and 90 days for a zoning bylaw amendment.
The request to the approval authority takes 15 days itself, and then finally the approval authority can take up to 150 additional days to make a decision before the applicant is actually allowed to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. So essentially, for an official plan amendment, for a process that now can take 30 days, under the new bill it could take actually one year. I don't believe that is really assisting in the streamlining, just relating to official plan amendments.
Further, Bill 163 allows public bodies to file objections to official plans and official plan amendments I believe fairly late in the decision-making process instead of at the public meetings. For example, with official plans they're allowed 150 days, official plan amendments 180 days and subdivisions 180 days to make an appeal.
It's been our experience that most approval authorities have an idea if they're going to object fairly early on. If it appears that the plan is truly contrary to one of their objectives, they seem to know earlier rather than later, and what we'd actually be looking for is to see if there could be some change in wording that would encourage those agencies that do know they're going to appeal to let it be known earlier on in the process so that some consultation can be initiated, that you can have some round table discussions, because it really can expedite and it can really assist the process. If you allow them to wait until the very last day to appeal, six months has already elapsed, and then you get into the OMB hearing, which is another six months from there, and I think you've lost the opportunity to perhaps even resolve that objection earlier on.
We have concerns relating to plans of subdivision. Certainly, our firm is very much involved in the land use planning process, primarily residential, industrial and commercial subdivisions. A concern we do have is that new subsection 51(21) of the bill sets a lapse period of two years inside which conditions must be clear for plans of subdivision. So if you have an approved plan and you do not register within two years, your approval will lapse.
Now, my understanding was that this was removed from the 1986 Planning Act in 1993, but it's proposed to be reinstated again. Although generally we support the idea of making developers move ahead if they are sitting on draft plan approval or if they are sitting on capacity, two years is not really a long period of time, and I think what could happen is that if owners do lose their draft plan approval they'd be forced to reapply again to satisfy new and potentially even more stringent conditions and go through the lengthy approval process once again.
What we've found that does work in some municipalities is that they set a lapse period of three years, but they allow you to have three appeals, if you will, to extend the conditions, three extensions of up to three years in total. So you end up with about six years. Now you have to justify why you want an extension each time, and I do understand the act allows for extensions, but it doesn't specify how many the developer would be allowed. So maybe that is something for consideration. It has worked fairly well; specifically in the city of Barrie is where they have instigated that process.
Currently as well, on another point, this relates to a fairly major point in the bill, the Planning Act requires that the minister "shall have regard to" matters of provincial interest when carrying out his responsibilities. The proposed amendment to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ontario Municipal Board and councils and boards that are involved in planning decisions make decisions that are "consistent with" provincial policy statements.
My concern with the words "consistent with" is that they don't really provide a mechanism for local authorities to respond to local situations or even to realize that these mechanisms are indeed necessary. I think it would result in the discretion of local planning authorities being diminished. It also seems to imply that provincial policy will govern local decision-making rather than local issues.
While we all recognize that provincial policy statements are very important and that provincial matters should definitely be reviewed when making a decision, I don't think we can say at all that every municipality is indeed similar and that they can't look at their own local situations to make planning decisions. I think that's something fairly important, and it may be my interpretation, but it seems that this is being removed from their decision-making, and it seems they're losing some of their autonomy rather than being given more control over the process, which was my understanding of the direction of the province.
I have some concerns relating specifically to the Ontario Municipal Board; one of them is its interpretation of the words "be consistent with." Certainly, I think it's taken the board quite a while to resolve the interpretation of "shall have regard to," which was the wording in the previous Planning Act, and I think it may be some time before the interpretation of "shall be consistent with" will really be resolved. I don't know whether the committee has gone through that discussion yet, but I think it is something to be considered because it's a long process. You never know what's going to happen at the board. It's always a bit of a crap shoot, let's say, and to come up with new terminology that they're going to have to interpret I believe is going to result in some serious delays, and misunderstanding perhaps for a while also.
1110
Other concerns I have relating to the board is that subsection 34(25) of the proposed new act will allow the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss appeals "without holding a hearing" if, among other matters, "the bylaw or...amendment to the bylaw" is determined to be premature. However, the term "premature" is not defined.
What we'd like to know is who decides if the application is premature and on what grounds the prematurity is determined. Further, is there any recourse for an applicant to challenge the decision of the board if it determines that it is premature?
Further, proposed subsections 17(45) to (47) of the new act would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs, up to 30 days prior to a hearing, to inform the OMB that the matter to be decided is of provincial interest. If that's the case, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is required to confirm whether the matter is of provincial interest prior to the board's decision being made final.
Our concern with this is that because areas of provincial interest are so broadly defined that it could almost mean anything, it seems that the province could intervene in any OMB hearing and override the board's decision. As the board is intended to be an independent and objective tribunal, I'm concerned that it would interfere with due process to the applicant.
There's certainly a lot of discussion in the new bill about prohibiting buildings or prohibiting any kind of construction on lands that are environmentally sensitive, let's say, and that involves significant wildlife habitat, wetlands, woodlots, ravines, valleys, areas of natural and scientific interest -- ANSI lands -- or significant corridors or shoreline areas of lakes, rivers, streams, or lands that are deemed to be a significant natural area or corridor. Under these terms, I think a significant amount of land is going to be frozen without compensation to land owners. I know that in the past certainly a lot of municipalities have been willing to take the land and preserve it themselves, but there are some that aren't willing to do that.
We've been involved in a number of situations where, let's say, a conservation authority wants the developer to preserve a ravine or lands below the top of bank. However, the municipality is not willing to take that land and the conservation authority doesn't want to take the land. So I think you may have a problem where nobody wants the land because of the maintenance responsibilities and the liability, and in the conservation authority's case it's often the taxes. So who's going to take the land? And if it's being taken from the developer, is there going to be any compensation at all in terms of either extra density in the development or monetary compensation? Certainly, we're not trying to support development on wetlands or anything like that, but I think it is something you should be concerned about, because we've run into this situation time and time again where nobody wants the land.
Another issue relating perhaps to compensation is section 41 of the site plan policies. It's required that the applicant provide "land...to the municipality for a public transit right of way." Again, that definition of "public transit right of way" is not provided and it doesn't appear that there be any compensation to the developer for providing this land. We'd like to know what is being implied by that wording, "public transit right of way." Is it a bicycle path or a pedestrian walkway or is it something much broader than that? I think additional clarification would be required to be able to determine the amount of land that might be affected by that wording.
With relation to parkland, we firmly support the changes being made to the parkland dedication requirements; specifically, a section under 41 which states that parkland dedication or cash in lieu can only be taken once unless density increases occur or the land use changes from commercial or industrial to residential. I know that some municipalities have been trying to what we call double-dip or take a parkland dedication twice, which is extremely unfair. I understand there's been a consultation committee made up of members of the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, the facilitator's office and a number of other representatives of, I guess, parks and recreation interests who have supported the fact that you can only take a dedication at one time.
The question I have though is, I'm interested in the committee's interpretation of parkland dedication requirements under section 51 of the Planning Act, which relates to subdivisions. My understanding, and I've been given the same interpretation from a lawyer at Municipal Affairs, is that municipalities are only entitled to one of the two formulas, either the 5%-2% formula or the one-hectare-per-300-unit formula, not a combination of the two.
We've had a real concern that some municipalities are doing this. They're combining the two formulas and taking the higher of the two numbers. Again, if it can be at all resolved or at all clarified in the new bill, we certainly would appreciate that. Our understanding is that you take one or the other, that you don't take both. I don't know if that ever came up in discussion, but it's certainly an issue that we've run into time and time again.
If the bill is to be applied fairly to everybody, then I think everyone agrees that that's all developers or municipalities are ever looking for, but it appears that public bodies are being excluded from certain requirements, let's say. Sections 17 and 19 of the new act, relating to official plans and amendments, give approval authorities the right to refuse to forward a referral request on official plans or official plan amendments to the OMB if written or verbal submissions were not made at public meetings or before the plan was approved. So what this would do is preclude after-the-fact objectors by the public, but this does not apply to public bodies.
Why is there a discrepancy between members of the public and the public bodies on that issue? Shouldn't public bodies also be required to declare their interests at the public meeting or just before the public meeting? I think if that were changed it would be fair to everyone and it would require both the public bodies to get involved in the process a little earlier on, as I think you're requesting or requiring the public to. We would definitely support that.
Overall, anything that assists in clarifying the planning process and assists in streamlining is I think supported by most planners you'll certainly be involved with. Some of my points are questions, some are requests for maybe clarification of wording. I'm not trying to be negative. I'm trying to be objective and I certainly appreciate your understanding and your listening to our concerns.
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. We're pleased to have you comment on the act because of your experience in both the public and the private sectors. You make some very good points. You stress that streamlining and shortening the planning process is indeed good. This has been questioned, and I think you did go on to question it in some areas yourself, because although there are time frames established in many areas, there are other areas where there are no time frames, so that continues to be a concern.
Regarding the OMB and the infighting among boards etc and continuing that, I think you're being a little overpolite, personally, and realizing that the terminology "to be consistent with" is going to take a great deal of time to be interpreted by the board, and we've been told that. The ministry says those words give municipalities flexibility. Whether the OMB will agree with that is a very important question, and I think you pinned that one down. It's going to take a long time.
The OMB certainly doesn't agree with anyone on occasion. As we have seen, in spite of municipal official plan zoning, whatever you've got, the OMB will make its own decision at some time, and the tremendous delays are unconscionable. Even with a severance application for a retirement lot, to wait two and a half years for a hearing and then to have to wait, from the time of the hearing to rendering the decision, another nine months in one case here, is just terrible. The time for a hearing by the OMB is nailed down, but is the time of the decision nailed down, from your point of view?
Ms Baldwin: The decision relating to any type of application?
Mr Eddy: Yes. Once the hearing has been held, that's one thing, but the rendering of the decision can be another time delay.
Ms Baldwin: Thank you for raising that point. Actually, that is something we do have serious concerns with. We had a board hearing that happened fairly recently, in March, fairly recently I guess by the board's standards, but that's still six months ago and we don't have a decision. It was a fairly lengthy hearing with a lot of complicated issues.
I don't know if this committee can make those recommendations, but we would really like to see the board make a decision within -- give them an extra week or so after the hearing to make that decision. Don't let them carry on for six or nine months and then make a decision, where they've lost all the information potentially because, how can one person possibly remember information from six to nine months ago when they have had so many other board hearings in between? Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
1120
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing this morning. You've brought some issues that a lot of people are not aware of with regard to this piece of legislation. You talk about "consistent with" -- with what; "dismiss appeal if premature" -- who determines that? That's an awfully good question. I'm sure the ministry is listening. The minister could intervene and disrupt OMB hearings. Can the minister intervene and stop the OMB hearing if he deems it premature?
Ms Baldwin: That appears to be the way it's worded.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is, do you think this process will speed up or slow down what we're already doing now?
Ms Baldwin: I really don't think it's going to speed it up, certainly in the short term, because there's going to be so much of a learning curve, let's say; in terms of the local government, the OMB becoming comfortable with the wording "shall be consistent with," I think that's going to be the biggest problem of all.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the comprehensive set of policy statements that the ministry has set out?
Ms Baldwin: Yes, I'm familiar with them. I couldn't read them verbatim for you but --
Mr McLean: No, but could I have your views with regard to the mineral aggregate, mineral and petroleum resources policies? Looking at that, do you believe that aggregate resources could be activated more quickly with this new policy statement or do you believe it would be more of a slower process? What's your opinion with regard to the aggregate section of this comprehensive set of policy statements?
Ms Baldwin: Do you mean the mining -- the aggregate could be --
Mr McLean: That's right.
Ms Baldwin: Sorry, could you say that once again? Could the mining be initiated more quickly?
Mr McLean: That's what some people are going to be asking. Some people do want to know because it says in here, "Legally existing pits and quarries shall be identified and protected from incompatible land use," so those operations are permitted activity. They can continue. But then it goes on, "In recognition of continuing local, regional and provincial need for mineral aggregate, as much of the mineral aggregate resources as is reasonably possible in the context of other planning agendas shall be identified and protected from land uses which are incompatible with possible future extraction." What's your definition of what I just read? Do you think it's going to be more difficult to have a pit approved, or easier?
Ms Baldwin: I cannot see it being easier for a pit to be approved. I think right now there are two things in planning that every resident hates to be beside: One is a landfill site and one is an aggregate site, it seems. Those raise the majority of concerns at every public meeting I've ever been to on those issues. I think the series of studies that aggregate producers have to do are very considerable and I can't see any way that the process would be shortened, for a pit operator, with the new policies.
Mr McLean: Since now the conservation authority is paying land tax, there are a lot of conservation authorities that would like to get rid of some of the land they've got. Who's going to take that land and what's going to happen with it? There are a lot of cases now where they can't maintain what they have got.
Ms Baldwin: Exactly one of the points I raised. It's a serious problem we run into time and time again, where they want us to protect the land but they don't want it because of the taxes they'd have to pay and the maintenance and liability. We ask that question, who's going to take it?
Mr McLean: Maybe the parliamentary assistant could give us the answer to that.
Mr Hayes: I was trying to get an answer to the one previous. Maybe you can repeat it.
The Chair: Do you want to repeat that question?
Mr McLean: Who's going to pay for the land? If the municipalities want to return their conservation authorities, who are they going to return them to: the municipality, or is the government going to take them over?
Mr McKinstry: I don't think that the government would plan to take over any lands from conservation authorities. I don't think it would be the government's view that there would be necessarily any intention to acquire lands.
Mr McLean: Governments tax them. Just put the tax on.
Mr Grandmaître: Will the assessment change?
Mr Wessenger: Thank you for your presentation. First of all, I'd like you to perhaps elaborate on your comments with respect to the separate approval for a plan of subdivision. Are you recommending basically that the approval process be combined, for instance, with the zoning approval, one meeting and one process?
Ms Baldwin: Yes. What I was saying was, presently when we go to public meetings on official plan amendments and plans of subdivision, many times, more often than not, they're relating to plans of subdivision. That is what the public really wants to see. So when we come to a public meeting, even though it may be on an official plan amendment and zoning, what we present to the public is the plan of subdivision to show them how it's going to be zoned and how it's going to be designated. I think, to be fair to the public, they really want to look at the plan. They don't really get involved with the other issues. So what I'm saying is, I think we do that already without having to have the need for a separate public meeting.
Mr Wessenger: Could I just ask ministry staff whether it would be possible legally to have a joint meeting on the zoning and plan of subdivision?
Mr McKinstry: Yes, indeed, it would be. There could be a joint meeting on the official plan, the subdivision and the zoning, and as you said, the public is most interested in the subdivision, so it's a probably a good idea to have some kind of public forum on the subdivision.
Mr Wessenger: My second question relates to your comments with respect to the whole question of policy statements. You've probably lived in this area a fair length of time and you've probably made some observation on some of the development that's occurred in this area and in many parts of the province. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of inappropriate development has occurred in the past. Sometimes subdivisions have been developed on lands that may not be appropriate for them or properly engineered for them. We had problems of transportation; difficulties with overcommercialization; we've had competition for assessment; we've had municipalities go with all residential development and no balanced assessment on the industry. We certainly don't have a good planning history in the province.
I think it's also fair to say that many municipalities, I would suggest, have been somewhat biased in favour of development, whether that development was good or bad. Would you not agree that it's important that you have a provincial policy to ensure that development is appropriate and that municipalities stay within the policy guidelines?
Ms Baldwin: Certainly. As a planner I think I'd have to say we all want to ensure that development is appropriate or that it's "good planning." But my concern always is, who defines what good planning is and who defines what the public interest is?
Obviously, it's the province that's doing that, but I really do have to wonder if the province is best able to understand the local issues. A lot of times they are not able to get out to the local municipalities and find out about the issues or take a drive around and see what type of development is occurring and see whether it is truly good or bad. It's not the fault of the province. It's just that it doesn't have the resources to be able to do it. But I still wonder if they are best able to define public interest and good planning.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, I'm sorry. We're running out of time and Mr Hayes has to make another comment.
Mr Hayes: On the issue about the minister intervening or interfering with the OMB, this legislation does not give him that authority to do so. The only time the minister can declare a provincial interest, he'd have to do that before the hearing, just to make that clear.
Ms Baldwin: Right, 30 days prior to the hearing. But what I'm suggesting is that because the matter of provincial interest is so broad, it could really allow them to intervene in every single hearing. I'm just wondering how much discretion the minister is going to use, or are they going to take that policy --
Mr Hayes: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but actually that part hasn't changed from the act that's already there.
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: Well, no, it hasn't -- well.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, anything further?
Mr Hayes: No, that's fine, thank you.
The Chair: Very well. Ms Baldwin, thank you for taking the time to come before this committee and thank you for your comments and ideas.
Ms Baldwin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We invite the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities, Mr David Cowtan, who is the chair, but he's not here, I understand. Anyone here from that association? We'll check to see if somebody is somewhere outside this assembly.
Mr Murdoch: Somebody else then? Is anybody else here?
The Chair: There might be, but I'd rather wait a few minutes.
The committee recessed from 1132 to 1137.
COUNTY OF GREY
The Chair: If the association of committees of adjustment people are not here, is the county of Grey prepared to make a submission? Okay. We invite the county of Grey to make its submission.
Dr Gerald Rogers: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and good morning, everybody. As warden of the county of Grey, I wish to extend my thanks to the government of Ontario for providing us with the opportunity to address the committee on this extremely far-reaching piece of legislation, known as Bill 163. My name is Dr Gerald Rogers, and I appreciate the opportunity to express the opinions and concerns of Grey county, which will be both positive and negative.
Our presentation will consist of two parts. Mr Al Bye, chairman of the finance committee, will address matters of interest and concern dealing with that section of the bill relating to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and Municipal Act. Mr Howard Greig, past warden and member of the planning advisory committee of Grey, will address issues related to the Planning Act which we feel are important to Grey county. Once these presentations are completed, we will gladly entertain any questions raised by the committee members.
Mr Al Bye: On behalf of the county of Grey, I would like to respond to the proposals set out in part II of Bill 163, the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, as well as to respond to the amendments to the Municipal Act on the issues of open meetings and the disposal of real property. This report is a synopsis of a detailed report approved by Grey county council and will be submitted along with this summary to the Legislative Assembly.
For the most part, the county of Grey supports the purported amendments concerning open meetings. We have had a procedural bylaw in place since 1856 and certainly advocate open council meetings. The county does not, however, support the need for committee meetings to be open to the public. Committee decisions are ratified by council, and in this regard the public is then given the opportunity to review committee happenings. In fact, in our municipality, committee minutes are submitted to council in their entirety for approval.
The county of Grey supports the enactment of section 193 regarding the disposal of surplus land. We are, however, concerned with the additional recording and advertising costs. We feel it is important that clarification be obtained on which land disposals will not require appraisals, for example, strips of excess road widening and so forth.
In terms of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, the county of Grey is very concerned that the onerous requirements imposed by the legislation will discourage people from running for municipal office or volunteering for appointments to local boards and agencies.
The new wording of the clause prohibiting a member from influencing the vote appears to restrict and inhibit the personal rights of a member being represented by including the phrase "by or through another person." We strongly object to this amendment on this basis.
We are ardently opposed to the requirement to file financial disclosure statements. It is our opinion that the disclosure of interest by members is adequate. Subsection 14(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act notes that the disclosure of personal information describing "an individual's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness" is an "unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy." We question why members of council and local boards do not receive the same consideration which is extended to other citizens of the province of Ontario by this act.
We agree with the act's position on the appropriateness of members receiving gifts. As indicated previously, however, we do not support the disclosure of this information through financial disclosure statements.
We also question why when the legislation was drafted all candidates seeking municipal office were not required to file disclosure statements. We also note that while members of the Legislative Assembly must file disclosure statements, these statements are filed in Queen's Park, not in local riding offices. Disclosure statements of municipal politicians should be filed and made available to the public in the same manner as the statements of their provincial counterparts.
In addition to our objection to the filing of financial disclosure statements, we are concerned that this provision increases the administrative workload in municipalities. The county of Grey opposes the appointment of a commissioner as an unnecessary added quasi-judicial level of bureaucracy. We disagree that it is necessary to obligate penalties under the act. It is our preference to allow a judge discretion when meting out a penalty.
We agree in general with the provisions concerning how applications are made under the act. We would, however, suggest that the time frame for applications be limited to one year rather than two years, as proposed by the legislation.
We disagree that the penalties for insider information be channelled through the Provincial Offences Act. While we do not endorse the appointment of a commissioner, we feel that if a commissioner is appointed, it would be more logical to enforce this provision through him or her.
While we recognize the need for regulations, we hope the Lieutenant Governor would recognize the term of office of municipal councils when making revisions.
We appreciate the good intentions behind the drafting of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act and the provisions concerning open meetings in the Municipal Act. It must be recognized that the vast majority of municipal politicians are honest, dedicated individuals who give of themselves for the betterment of their communities, not financial gain. Extensive disclosure requirements will only serve to deter many qualified individuals from coming forward as candidates for election. We disagree with the overregulation being imposed by the legislation. In our opinion, the prevailing legislation can adequately address any problems.
We sincerely hope that the legislative committee takes into consideration the concerns of the county of Grey and other municipalities and that acceptable amendments will be made to the bill.
Mr Howard Greig: Mr Chairman, I also thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee this morning, to yourself and the committee members. On behalf of the county of Grey, I am here to relay our concerns over certain provisions of part III of Bill 163, which if left unchallenged and unchanged, would have a significant negative impact on county planning and development in the province of Ontario.
It is our belief that the existing planning system has broken down because of the degree of provincial involvement required to permit, license or approve virtually all municipal actions. The county would question whether the province possesses the staff or the financial resources to continue this level of unnecessary involvement. If the provincial goal of streamlining the planning process is to be realized, responsible planning and decision-making from an economic and efficiency perspective must be at the municipal level, where the public has the greatest opportunity to participate.
Grey county responded to the Sewell commission and to the minister on the final report of the Sewell commission. The county expressed the view that the recommendations did not add to local decision-making, which was stated to be one of the goals of the commission. A copy of Grey county's submission is attached to this report.
We are concerned that part III of Bill 163 and the overall reform package diminishes the ability of local people to make important decisions about their own communities. As examples, we would suggest:
-- The provincial policy statements go too far in setting local policy.
-- Changing the current requirements to "have regard for" provincial policy to "be consistent with" prevents communities from tailoring provincial policy to suit local conditions.
-- The failure to empower counties in the same manner as regions makes it appear that the province does not believe the counties are capable of carrying out the same responsibilities as the regions.
Our first issue, provincial policy statements: With respect to the set of comprehensive provincial policy statements which have also been released and are to become effective upon the proclamation of Bill 163, we have concerns with the form in which they have been released. Neither the Planning Act nor the comprehensive set of policy statements acknowledges an understanding of the appropriate role of the provincial policies in guiding land use decision-making at the local level. The rigidity of the form and content of the policy statements in our opinion will allow little or no ability to tailor the policies to local circumstances.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the bill which would suggest that the policy statements must be reviewed at any given time. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the minister to determine if a policy statement or portions of a policy statement are inappropriate or need to be reconsidered. At the very least, the bill should require a complete review of the policy statements no later than five years after proclamation, similar to the review requirements for an official plan.
Our second issue: Subsection 6(2) of Bill 163 repeals subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act and replaces it with a new subsection which changes the enabling clause for the policy statements from "shall have regard to" to "shall be consistent with." This matter was argued throughout the Sewell commission's exercise and we are disappointed to see that Bill 163 has included "shall be consistent with." In our opinion, "shall be consistent with" will leave municipalities with no opportunity to interpret provincial policy to the local circumstance and in fact will require nothing more than straight regurgitation of the provincial policies into local planning documents.
The bill and the policy statements must be revised to only require that councils "have regard for" provincial policy. We do not see that the current wording needs to be changed. The reasonable implementation of provincial policy should be determined by the Ontario Municipal Board in times of conflict. Bill 163 will prevent the OMB from being reasonable. The board will have to implement provincial policy regardless of whether it makes sense in a local area or is accepted by the local people.
Issue 3: Section 8 of Bill 163 adds sections 14.1 to 14.8 to the Planning Act to enable municipalities in one or more counties, with the approval of the minister, to establish a municipal planning authority for joint planning to address common issues on managing growth and providing services. The bill states that the municipal planning authority shall prepare and adopt an official plan, which would have the same status as a county official plan. A new subsection 14.3(5) would exempt a local municipality that is part of a municipal planning authority from paying the county levy for land use planning purposes.
This approach is totally unacceptable, not only because it could wreak havoc in a number of counties, but it would set a precedent for provincial government intervention into the essential power of a county council to set the levy to cover expenses of the county. This is a huge intrusion into the integrity of county government decision-making. This is a direct attack on a county's ability to provide standardized service levels.
Providing the legal mechanism to let municipalities opt out of paying for county planning could be followed by similar mechanisms being introduced to opt out of other county programs, such as roads programs and county homes. It is interesting to note that municipal planning authorities could only be considered for municipalities within counties and separated cities. They are prohibited from forming in regional municipalities.
1150
Issue 4, imbalance of power between counties and regions: Bill 163 has created an imbalance between counties and regions in relation to the official plan approvals for local municipalities. While regions are given approval authority for local official plans and subdivision approvals, counties "may" be given approval authorities if delegated by the minister. If counties fail to plan or if they do not receive delegated approvals, they will face financial penalties for having the province remain as the approval authority.
For those counties with approved official plans, they should be given the authority to approve local official plans under subsections 17(2) and (3) of the Planning Act. Similarly, subsection 51(1) of the Planning Act should be replaced to include provisions for counties with approved official plans to be the approval authority for subdivisions. These authorities should also be extended to the other counties in the province as they prepare and receive approval for their official plans.
Issue 5, streamlining: The province has stressed the importance of making the planning process more timely and efficient and, as such, through Bill 163, has put forward a number of time frames under the guise of streamlining the planning process. These time frames, in our opinion, will in fact lengthen associated planning processes. For example, in dealing with official plan amendments, subsection 17(16) specifies that after the required 30 days' notification and the holding of a public meeting has occurred, council would now be required to wait an additional 30 days before making its formal decision.
Depending upon the timing of council meetings, this could add four to six weeks on to the amendment process. The additional time between a public meeting and council adoption may be appropriate in the case of major amendments, but to delay the process for minor, straightforward amendments would not seem appropriate. Once the time frames are established in the Planning Act, there will be no flexibility in their application and therefore further consideration of a number of the time frames should be undertaken.
After reviewing part III of Bill 163, one cannot help feeling that county government is being unjustly penalized. This is evident by the lack of support for maintaining the county planning structure and the authority of the county to set its own levies and finances as they relate to planning services. Additionally, counties are not gaining any additional power or authority through Bill 163 and in fact could be losing by the new provisions. It is believed that Bill 163 treats counties in an unacceptable fashion and that development in rural Ontario, by virtue of the comprehensive provincial policy statements and their implementation guidelines will be severely curtailed. What the government will accomplish by Bill 163 is the establishment of a top-down planning system for Ontario.
AMO has also prepared a detailed response, entitled Municipal Empowerment in Land Use Planning? -- and that's with a large question mark -- AMO's response to Bill 163. Grey county would like to go on record as supporting that submission and its recommendations.
Grey county is committed to strong community-based planning and has had an established county planning system since the early 1970s. The county has had numerous official plan documents to provide policy direction and is currently undertaking the development of a new county official plan. The county wishes to continue with a meaningful planning program for its constituent municipalities, but this will be threatened if Bill 163 proceeds in its present form.
Grey county agrees that planning reform is necessary in the province, but not in the form of part III of Bill 163. We do not agree that the proposed reforms will actually result in municipal control and increased decision-making authority at the local level, or lead to a more timely planning and approvals process.
We would respectfully request that the standing committee recognize our very serious objection to the legislation in its present form and delay passage of Bill 163 until acceptable amendments are put forward to address the concerns of the counties and AMO.
The Chair: There are about 12 minutes remaining. Mr Hayes has some remarks and then we will circulate the time among the committee members.
Mr Hayes: Just very briefly, I'd like to clarify a few issues, especially at the top of page 3 when you're talking about the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, all of the things you're talking about in here about the individual's finances, the income, assets and liabilities. This is something that we have to do provincially, but this act does not require municipal politicians to do that. I just wanted to make that clear.
There's another area here, down in your fourth paragraph: "The county of Grey opposes the appointment of a commissioner as...unnecessary," and "We disagree that it is necessary to obligate penalties under the act." Of course you're saying that it should go to a judge and the judge should use their discretion. But if you have acts or laws, don't you feel that there has to be some way of enforcing that and sometimes you have to do it with penalties? That's one question.
Mr Bye: We don't oppose the penalties as such. I don't have the page here particularly, but we thought that the judge should have discretion in the penalties he issues. If I recall correctly, there are four distinct penalties and the first one was "shall" impose -- and I'm doing this by memory. Yes, the first part is "shall suspend the member without pay and benefits for a period of not more than 90 days." The next three are "may" clauses which leave some option for the person who is imposing the penalty.
We think that "shall" in the first clause is not fair and that these penalties should be left to the judgment of a judge, rather than be mandated as they are, particularly that clause (a).
Mr Hayes: Can we get further clarification from the staff on that?
Mr Paul Jones: My name is Paul Jones. I'm manager of local government policy with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to agree with your statement to the extent that the legislation as proposed gives discretion to a judge. If a member is found guilty of contravening the act, the judge shall suspend the member. He has discretion to suspend the member from one to 90 days.
Mr Grandmaître: Not the commissioner?
Mr Jones: No, a judge; not the commissioner. The commission is established to determine whether or not public moneys should be used to finance a prosecution. That's the role of the commission.
The other provisions are that he may also suspend a member from serving for up to seven years, he may declare the seat vacant, he may require restitution. So the penalty provisions are written exactly as you would suggest, that the judge be given discretion, a wide range of discretion, where a member is found guilty.
Mr Bye: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: We're going to rotate here so that the members have an opportunity to ask questions. Mr Murdoch, three minutes, please.
Mr Murdoch: I just want to thank Grey county for bringing such a prepared brief. I hope that the committee and the government will listen to it and make some amendments and act on it. They have some very good information in there. When the member, Mr Hayes, mentioned that they do consult, well, I hope you'll listen to this now and maybe do something about it.
Al has a few questions.
Mr McLean: Thank you. Mr Hayes hasn't told us whether the municipalities or the province is going to pay for the commissioner yet either.
You say a local municipality that is part of the municipal planning authority should be exempt from paying the county levy. Do you have a feeling that perhaps they're looking for more county government and county planning and the little municipalities are going to be done away with? When you say here that the local municipality would be exempt from paying, somebody's got to pay.
Mr Greig: No, it's an opportunity to dismantle local government as we see it presently, because you start to take your county system of government apart when you start letting individual municipalities -- they can be from a separated city, they can be from adjoining counties -- form their own planning authority. At that time then, you've started to dismantle. If they ask for their levy for planning purposes back, you've started to dismantle local government as we know it.
Mr McLean: So Bill 163 is a step in the direction of county governments, in your opinion.
Mr Greig: Well, it's a step in the direction of a restructured county government, sure. It's an opportunity to open the door for that. There are counties where that's fine and there are counties where it's completely unnecessary. The county government is operating quite adequately at present.
1200
Mr McLean: Every place we've been, most of the wardens of municipalities that made presentations have been hoping that they would get approval to make decisions after they have their official plans approved by the minister. There is none of them yet, other than the regions and the county of Oxford, I guess, that has that approval. Why do you think there's been a holdup with this very process that's important for the local people to have their say?
Mr Greig: Absolutely. It's discrimination against the counties. What's behind it? I have no idea what has caused that, because the county planning system that has been in place in many cases was in place before there was regional government and has been very adequate. They have professional planners on staff, they have very adequate planning departments, and yet here they're saying that the system there isn't adequate.
Mr McLean: You never touched on -- and Grey is a large agricultural municipality -- the residential severances that they're allowing. The policy is one lot for a farm operation for a full-time farmer of retirement age who is retiring from active farming. It doesn't say who's going to determine what that retirement age is. What is your policy now in Grey county with regard to severances?
Mr Greig: In regard to severances, it's the same process I believe is followed in other counties where it's circulated, all adjoining property owners are notified, all the agencies are notified and then there's a planning approval committee.
Mr McLean: Is it one per 100 acres?
Mr Greig: In the Grey county official plan? Yes, you're allowed a retirement lot as a farmer.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, and if there is time for another, we'll go to Ms Harrington.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Just to come back to your earlier point about financial disclosure, do I understand your position correctly? You're opposed to municipal politicians making financial disclosure in the manner suggested by the act. But if there is to be financial disclosure, you would prefer that the statements be filed in Toronto rather than locally, and that there be no commissioner because that would be excess bureaucracy. Is that correct?
Mr Bye: That's most of the import of what I was trying to put across to you.
Mr Winninger: It seemed to me that your main argument against financial disclosure would be that it would deter people from seeking municipal office. Is that correct?
Mr Bye: That's a major part of it. The extra workload and so forth on the municipality if the records were to be kept there is also a problem. But the main one is that people would be discouraged.
Mr Winninger: And you understand we're talking about pretty basic information here, such as whether you have a house, whether you have a mortgage, whether you have a business interest, not all of the detailed information that many people would seek to keep private.
Mr Bye: Yes, I understand that. I suppose we should go down to the last point I made though, which was that we do not see that this is necessary at all.
Mr Winninger: I agree with you that the vast majority of municipal politicians are fine, upstanding, altruistic and committed to the public. But there are, unfortunately, some cases across the province where people have been in a conflict-of-interest situation, haven't disclosed it, and it was only discovered through an investigation and subsequent charges.
Do you agree that there has to be some vehicle by which to ensure that politicians can withstand the closest possible public scrutiny and that there has to be some regime in place that will allow them to make disclosure in advance so that people won't conclude that they're making decisions based on their own financial and economic self-interest?
Mr Bye: I guess, going back to the first point, we still believe that probably the upfront policy that people are honest, and dealing with it that way, is the best. If in your wisdom you see that there has to be a change, there must be a change, we do not think the place for the information that you're asking for is at the municipal offices.
Mr Winninger: Shouldn't it be accessible to the people who have the most interest locally in the status of their politicians?
Mr Bye: It should be accessible, but it shouldn't be so accessible that it becomes common knowledge.
Mr Winninger: I believe one of my colleagues has a question.
The Chair: I'm sorry, there's no more time. Mr Eddy.
Mr Eddy: I regret that we're dealing with so many different subjects in this bill that we don't have the opportunity to deal with each of them specifically.
Thank you for your brief. It's excellent. You raise some very good points that I'd like to talk about, but there really isn't time. I wanted to get your reasoning about committee meetings, not to have the need for them to be open, but there isn't time. And I notice the comments about disposal of property you've made.
But I guess a couple of specifics: One is, I agree with your suggestion that if you're going to be required to do this, provincial members should be required to have our disclosure statements available locally in the office where, as the point was made, the people who are interested can get it the most easily. Let's be fair. So I agree with that, but we'll look at the other thing.
I also agree with your statement on the provincial policy statements that a requirement should be there that they be reviewed within five years, the same as an official plan, because they can be way off base, and things change. So the ministry should be required to review them, and I'd like to see that happen.
I did want to ask, do you have two-tier planning in Grey county? Do you have a county official plan or do you have a county official plan for the locals?
Mr Greig: Yes, there is some two-tiered planning in Grey county.
Mr Eddy: So you have some local municipalities that have their own official plans and then you have a county official plan.
Mr Greig: That's correct.
Mr Eddy: And the locals must agree with that as well. Well, this looks like two-tier planning being required.
Thank you for your views and especially the one on allowing municipalities to opt out of county planning. I think the only way that should be allowed is if the county council concerned agrees with it; otherwise, it can't happen.
Mr Grandmaître: Can I have one very short question?
The Chair: It doesn't seem like it.
Mr Grandmaître: Very, very short.
Mr McLean: Go ahead.
Mr Grandmaître: Have you approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to become a prescribed county?
Mr Greig: No, we have not.
Mr Grandmaître: You have not. How come?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, let me follow up.
The Chair: Quickly, please.
Mr Greig: Well, at this time we are presently working on a new official plan.
Mr Grandmaître: Oh, I see.
Mr Greig: Once that new official plan is in place, or as we go through that process, it would seem an appropriate time to become prescribed. This bill won't allow that, unfortunately. You have to have the minister's approval.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. We are running out of time. Mr Hayes, one last comment.
Mr Hayes: Very quickly, Mr Chair. I don't want people going out of here with the wrong information. I have made this statement; I made it very clear at other meetings, but some members keep bringing it up: The municipalities will not be paying for the commissioner. It'll be coming out of provincial resources.
Mr McLean: We finally got the answer.
Mr Hayes: You had that answer last week, Mr McLean.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayes.
We thank you very much for participating in these hearings and thank you for the brief you made to us.
This committee will recess until 1:30.
The committee recessed from 1208 to 1336.
The Chair: Call the meeting to order. Before we welcome the township of Erin, Mr Hayes has an announcement to make. Would you like to do that?
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Chair. There are some proposed government motions, and I know the members are anxious to get some of these. These are the government's preliminary proposals. Some of these we have intended on bringing forward, and of course there'll be more to follow this because of these hearings and some other ideas and suggestions that presenters have made. I'd just like to ask the clerk, if the clerk hasn't already distributed these amendments.
The Chair: Rather than encouraging a debate at this moment, this was simply an announcement of amendments. Thank you, Mr Hayes.
TOWNSHIP OF ERIN
The Chair: We'll begin then with Mr Clarke and Mr Holder with this presentation, from Erin.
Mr Murray Clarke: Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to present Erin township's views with the reform package. This brief was adopted by council resolution on August 2 of this year.
Bill 163 and the associated reform proposals follow the final report of the Sewell commission, and, following the Sewell commission, the consultation paper issued in December 1993, A New Approach to Land Use Planning.
Erin township has monitored the progress of the reform effort with interest, has submitted responses to the province at each of the important steps. These are council's views on the reform package:
Firstly, with respect to disclosure of interest, it would appear that the reform initiative is largely a response to large urban and perhaps regional councils where the role of the politician is full-time. However, of the over 800 municipalities in Ontario, most elected officials are essentially volunteers, receiving minimal remuneration, with little or no exposure to opportunities for improper benefits from local decisions.
Council's view is that the existing legislation is appropriate and effective in dealing with potential conflict. Our experience is that local politicians are scrupulous in declaring conflicts and in not participating in matters where an interest is identified.
There is validity in the assertion that full disclosure of assets and particularly liabilities may in fact deter potential candidates from seeking office. This would be unfortunate since in most municipalities the field of candidates is typically very small.
With regard to the Municipal Act reform, the proposed revisions which would deal with open meetings, procedural bylaws, disposal of municipal property and permitting greater control over dumping and removal of fill and grading are appropriate and reasonable, and in fact within the last month, Erin township council has finally adopted a procedural bylaw using the draft legislation as a guide.
Most of council's concern is directed to the Planning Act reform initiative. Council is seriously concerned with many of the provisions of the reform package. The township has endorsed the position paper adopted by the county of Wellington which has been submitted to the minister and I understand was presented to the committee last week in London.
The opportunity for local municipalities to join together in planning areas or planning authorities is a throwback to the planning boards of the pre-1983 legislation. In addition to potentially weakening the role of the county planning function, planning areas or boards have in the past tended to be fractious, parochial and inefficient.
The bill requires local planning decisions to "be consistent with" provincial policy rather than the current "have regard to." The distinction, not dissimilar to the difference between "making a sincere effort" and "toeing the line" is not insignificant. When considered together with the suggestion that the province will now mandate prescribed contents of official plans, it becomes another major erosion of local council's discretion in community planning matters.
In the bill, counties have taken a back seat in terms of delegated approval authority for local official plans and subdivisions. This treatment of counties, along with the new authority for creation of planning boards, might be regarded as a back-door strategy to force local municipalities within counties to consider restructuring. Erin township has never resisted the notion of municipal restructuring and has long advocated a strong, unambiguous provincial policy in this regard. Before the bill is passed, counties must be given greater opportunity to acquire delegated approval authority. If approval authority in the county system is to remain with the province, streamlining the process will remain a mythical concept.
Included in the bill is a new provision which would allow the province, that is, provincial bureaucrats, to overturn local planning decisions with no opportunity to refer to the municipal board. One wonders how this fits with the province's assertion that the reform package will empower municipalities.
The bill also fundamentally alters the minor variance process, one aspect of the current planning regime which works. The changes, which would take away the opportunity to appeal variance decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board, are undemocratic and arbitrary. The revisions would place local elected members in a position where they must review decisions of their own committees of adjustment or in fact function as the committee of adjustment.
In the July 1994 issue of Municipal World magazine, Michael Vaughan describes the new minor variance provisions as "a direct attack on the rights of property owners." He questions the removal of the OMB appeal avenue and suggests that, rather than streamlining the process, the new measures could actually slow it down. He notes that it is inappropriate to place elected members in a position where they must conduct minor variance reviews.
Our view is that the minor variance system as it exists works well, and so why attempt to fix it?
This municipality is not alone in its conclusion that the combined effect of the package of proposed policy statements will be to essentially halt development in rural Ontario. Michael Vaughan notes in his Municipal World article that the "policy statements are dramatic if not drastic in impact," that the "policy statements are elevated from guidance to strict governance" and that "the significant policy-making role of planning, whereby the structure and character of communities are determined, moves from the grass roots to the ivory tower."
Concerning the streamlining measures proposed in the bill, Michael Vaughan observes that many of the time lines for processing planning matters are unreasonable and impractical. He comments, "Some consider these provisions to sacrifice the rights of the public on the altar of expediency."
Comments and conclusions: It is increasingly apparent that local elected and appointed officials are regarded by the province as being incapable of dealing with land use matters in a rational and responsible manner; that these decisions are best placed with non-elected provincial officials who tend to regard all of Ontario as being homogeneous. Elected community representatives are questioning their relevance and purpose in an environment of constantly diminishing local discretion.
The province is employing doublespeak when it talks of promoting the concepts of empowering municipalities and streamlining the planning process. The real effect of this reform package is to tighten provincial control over the land use planning process and to direct rather than guide municipal decision-making in these matters. Community planning at the community level will become a myth and local councils will be left with making decisions on dog licensing and road ditching.
Overall, the message from the province is that the municipal role in local governance, particularly lower-tier municipalities, should be limited and very closely defined. The effect of this reform package is to further erode local autonomy and reinforce the top-down, centralist trend which defines the provincial-municipal relationship in Ontario.
What is needed is a recognition that locally elected and appointed officials are in fact best positioned to take decisions on local matters, within a provincial policy framework which recognizes the diversity of Ontario municipalities without compromising important protection priorities.
We need a planning regime which would allow us to respond in a meaningful and positive manner to the inevitable strong demands for growth in Erin township, positioned in the shadow of the greater Toronto area.
We need provincial financial assistance to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place to service new development. We need the tools to allow us to balance the demand for growth with sensitive and responsible recognition and protection of the natural, social and cultural resources in our community.
We also need a system which does not assume that development is a dirty word, one that recognizes that sustainable development is achievable, and in fact desirable.
We need to get past this incredible morass of an approvals system if we are to restore and ensure the long-term health of the development sector in Ontario.
This reform package will do none of these things. If it is passed in its present form it will guarantee only one thing: In a very short time, we will once again be dealing with proposals to reform the planning process in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll begin with the official opposition, M. Grandmaître, five minutes.
Mr Grandmaître: On page 2, "This treatment of counties, along with the new authority for creation of planning boards, might be regarded as a back-door strategy to force local municipalities within counties to consider restructuring:" What makes you say this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like to get your definition. Why would you make such a statement?
Mr Clarke: First of all, I'm not suggesting that restructuring is a negative thing. As I outlined in the paper, our municipality, which is a quasi-rural municipality, surrounds another village also called Erin. We have many significant service linkages between the two municipalities, to the point where the dovetailing is pervasive. Logically, I think, as our council has done, an amalgamation would make sense.
If we revert to the creation of planning boards, planning areas, such as was the case pre-1983 in south Wellington, that's just yet another linkage of service. In our view, land use planning is the most critical function that municipalities perform. If those linkages are strengthened through planning boards, then the sense of community will be broadened and I think it will be a step towards local government restructuring in the county system.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you feel this kind of pressure?
Mr Clarke: I think if planning boards are created -- and of course the corollary to that is the county planning function would be weakened. Unlike perhaps other deputations you've had, we tend to be very supportive of the county, at least in Wellington. Yes, I think it will lead to more pressure for restructuring.
Mr Grandmaître: One question on the OMB: In my 20 some years in politics, people have always been concerned about the OMB. Very, very seldom, people would have something good to say about the OMB. For the last 10 days, everybody is saying, "Hey, we need the OMB." Never mind the bureaucracy; now everybody seems to be on side of the OMB, "They weren't so bad after all." What are your thoughts about the OMB? Do you think it's not needed with this legislation?
Mr Clarke: I think the OMB's role is critical. In fact, it's pivotal in the planning process. As you yourselves, as elected people, sit in the House taking essentially policy decisions creating legislation, we have a system in the parliamentary world where you've created an independent, arbitrary opportunity for litigation and for appeal, and that's the court system. You yourselves and local politicians are reluctant to serve in a tribunal or administrative tribunal capacity. You've created a system to ensure that those reviews are undertaken outside of the legislative function.
Local politicians are no different. They feel that their role is, of course, to create policy and to create legislation at the local level and to sit in that capacity. To sit also in a tribunal or a judicial capacity is, in our view, clearly inappropriate. I think it flies in the face of the separation of functions in a parliamentary system.
Mr Grandmaître: So you would like to see the OMB, with all its bureaucracy, stay in place.
Mr Clarke: Yes. The only comment I would make directed to the board is that our experience, other than the significant time line between the time an appeal is submitted --
Mr Grandmaître: And the cost.
Mr Clarke: And the cost, but it's essential and it's a necessary function. I'm aware that the board is undertaking, I think, great pains to streamline its own process and facilitate solutions outside of a formal board hearing, but it's critical, in our view, to have those decisions taken completely separately from the creation of policy.
1350
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, you ran out of time. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the county of Simcoe and thank you for your brief. You quote Michael Vaughan with regard to the new minor variance provisions as a direct attack on the rights of property owners. In your municipality now, do you have a committee of adjustment that makes those decisions?
Mr Clarke: Yes, sir.
Mr McLean: Do you have many that go to the OMB, appeals?
Mr Clarke: Relatively few.
Interjection.
Mr McLean: That's right.
Mr Clarke: However, the matters that go to the board are decided as matters de novo. The board clearly takes a fresh look at appeals that come before it, and not in every case but I would say in the majority of cases the decision of the local committee of adjustment is reinforced by the board's decision, but not always, and that's of course part of the process.
Mr McLean: Michael Vaughan goes on and he also talks about processing planning matters are unreasonable and impractical. What's your opinion with regard to the matters that we have seen here in this bill? Do you think they're unreasonable, the time limits of 30 days, 150 days, 180 days?
Mr Clarke: I can speak as a clerk, because of course I'm responsible under the Planning Act and many other pieces of legislation to see that time lines are adhered to. I'm sceptical that under the current regime the provincial bureaucracy could cope with time lines which appear to be artificial. I'm from Missouri; I'd have to be convinced.
For example, an amendment under the Planning Act a few years ago required provincial agencies to respond to our circulations of planning amendments or planning initiatives within 20 days. Well, that just simply doesn't happen, and it's not appropriate to assume that if we don't hear from an agency within 20 days of circulation that they don't have an interest. In many cases they do have an interest but we're not hearing from them. I think it would require an incredible amount of power and force to overcome the inertia to see that those time lines are adhered to. I'm not rejecting them. I think it would be a great thing to see those streamlining measures effected. I just don't believe they're realistic.
Mr McLean: You say streamlining the planning process, "The real effect of this reform package is to tighten provincial control over the land use planning process and to direct rather than guide municipal decision-making in these matters." So what you're saying and you feel is there's going to be more control on the municipalities than what there is now.
Mr Clarke: Oh yes, sir, very much.
Mr McLean: What do you think will happen if you get the power to make the approvals, as a county, for plans of subdivision and for other jurisdictions? Do you think, then, that you will have less power than what you have now?
Mr Clarke: No. I think, in our circumstance, if the county of Wellington is given the opportunity, the authority to approve plans of subdivision and official plan amendments, I don't know that we would go so far as to suggest approval of official plans. That quite probably is the legitimate role of the province of Ontario, but at least then we would have our representatives sitting around this table. If it was the county of Wellington chamber, we have access within 20 minutes of driving rather than 777 Bay Street. We'd know whom we were talking with. We'd be dealing with planning and elected people who'd be familiar with our community. We don't see the county achieving delegated authority as any kind of a spectre. We see that as strengthening the local role as well.
Mr McLean: Thank you. My last question is to the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant would be aware that last week and so far this week we've had a lot of very negative comments with regard to this bill. Is it your intention that this bill will receive third reading this year?
Mr Hayes: Yes. Thank you, Mr McLean. Just to add, if you don't mind, to your comments, we've had quite a bit of favourable response to this bill also. Yes, we feel, hopefully, that it will get third reading probably in December, I think.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for coming forward. The township of Erin -- is that in the county of Simcoe? It's not, is it?
Mr Clarke: No, Wellington county.
Ms Harrington: Wellington, okay. So you're over towards Orangeville?
Mr Clarke: Just below Orangeville.
Ms Harrington: I note your concern about the planning board and I'd like to talk to staff further about your concern about weakening the role of the county on that. I also note your concern about the deadlines. I really do think those deadlines should be and could be moved up. What you're saying is that you think they're too strict, they're too limiting for you, too short.
Mr Clarke: Under the current operating system, if an agency can't respond to us with even preliminary comments, or just simply with a comment that suggests they'd have to review a matter further -- we're not getting that kind of feedback within a statutory 20-day time line now. To look at a full review and approvals system functioning within those time lines, I think it's artificial.
Ms Harrington: I note in the Niagara area, where I am from, my city planners have told me they have no problem meeting deadlines, that they have streamlined so this is not going to be a problem at all for them.
Mr Clarke: Perhaps I could qualify that. We're advocating very strongly that the county -- and every county is different, of course -- that provided the county has an official plan in effect and demonstrated a strong planning resource, then counties should have delegated approval authority. In that circumstance, I think those time lines are quite achievable.
Ms Harrington: Okay, that clarifies it. Finally, just to comment on your concern with regard to whether or not this will in fact empower municipalities, it certainly is the intent that the power go to the municipalities. This is a more rational way of doing it so everything doesn't have to go to 777 Bay, as you say. But along with that comes the importance of assuring that the local citizens have access to the planning process and are involved in it right from the beginning, that it is less adversarial, that people are listened to and involved.
We've heard in other parts of the province that in fact sometimes citizens aren't even heard until they take it to the OMB, because their municipal council says this is the way they want to go and that's it. I think it is important that municipalities are empowered so it doesn't have to be rerouted down to Bay Street, but that citizens are really involved in this process. I hope that happens.
Mr Clarke: I can't take argument with that. Certainly, our view is that community planning is a community process and I'll say it again: We regard land use planning as the most critical function that municipalities perform. Some would argue that perhaps roads are more important.
Our experience -- we have what we still call a new official plan in Erin township that was adopted by council in December 1992. Over a two-year period we had a series of 12 public workshops, three formal public meetings, which were well attended and well focused. The plan that was ultimately adopted by council, in council's view was the best expression of the community's interests and desires for a 25-year time line, covering a whole host of issues that official plans typically cover. We're now just wading through 89 modifications proposed by various provincial agencies that would clearly distort the local interest that reflects what was certainly not consensus, but the best amalgam of the local viewpoint that came out of that consultation process.
One wonders how meaningful public consultation really is, when we're looking at a document this thick that would completely and radically alter that official plan which came out of a consultation process.
The Chair: Mr Hayes has some remarks.
Mr Hayes: In regard to your disclosure of interests comments, that it's a response to the large urban and perhaps regional councils, I don't know if you're aware of this, but 40% of the conflict-of-interest cases are from municipalities with 5,000 or less.
The other thing is where you mentioned that there's no exposure to opportunities for improper benefits from local decisions. I think in some cases it's possible that in the smaller municipality there could be a greater potential sometimes with development pressures and sometimes some very large developments, for example. That's one of the reasons we don't feel we should have different rules as far as conflict of interest is concerned, whether it be Toronto, Ottawa or Erin township. The other part about the candidates: They may deter potential candidates from seeking office. There are other jurisdictions that do have disclosures. Disclosure is required and there's really no evidence that I'm aware of or that the ministry's aware of where it has really been the case that it's discouraged people from running for municipal council.
1400
Mr Clarke: Our deputy reeve is here. He'd like to speak to that, of course.
Mr John Holder: I'll speak to this as well. At the time this was drafted for your presentation, a lot of members were unaware as to really what is expected as a response to this question. Now when it comes out when they're not going to have to disclose dollar amounts, I think it makes a very big difference and I don't think there will be the opposition to it that there was before.
Mr Hayes: The other point, Mr Chair, real quick, as far as municipalities coming in the back door to force restructuring is concerned -- if a county wants to be restructured they have to request that through the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- that's certainly not the intent of anything in this bill.
Mr Grandmaître: One very short question to the parliamentary assistant: You say that 40% of the charges or cases were from rural municipalities?
Mr Hayes: No, I didn't say that, Mr Grandmaître. What I said was that 40% of the cases were from municipalities with 5,000 or less population, so it's not just for the larger urban areas.
Mr Grandmaître: Of that 40%, how many people were found guilty?
Mr Hayes: What's the figure on that? I forget.
Mr Jones: There were two court cases all told.
Mr Grandmaître: Two court cases?
Mr Hayes: How many? There were charges.
Mr Jones: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has documented 43 cases of conflict of interest that have proceeded to the courts, only two of which have resulted in guilty charges. Forty per cent of those cases involve municipalities of less than 5,000.
The Chair: We thank you, Mr Clarke and Mr Holder, for coming and for the presentation you made to us this afternoon.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF COMMITTEES OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONSENT AUTHORITIES
The Chair: We call upon now the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities, Mr David Cowtan. We're going back to the previous appointment. They were to have come here at 11:30. There was a problem, so we've rescheduled them to the 2 o'clock opening that we have, given that we had the county of Grey at 11:30. Welcome, Mr Cowtan.
Mr David Cowtan: The problem was me. I got a misdirection and I'm here, better late than never. I think earlier in the summer each provincial member of Parliament was sent a copy of that through the mail. I'm going to just use it today. It's a summary.
Our association is 600-plus members. We represent the people who grant minor variances and give land severances. Needless to say, when ministry staff told us of Bill 163 in June and its passage on May 18 at our conference in Kingston, there was just total unbelief, particularly with respect that there would be no opportunity for individuals to launch an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
I've heard your previous speakers and if I remember correctly, and I refer back to this newsletter, the Sewell commission mandate from this government was to restore integrity to the planning process, make the planning process more timely and efficient and ensure that the planning process focused more closely on protecting the natural environment.
We question whether or not removal of the opportunity to have an appeal heard by an independent body such as the Ontario Municipal Board will restore the integrity to the planning process, and whether it will be timely or efficient. What we believe is that people wanting to preserve their right of appeal will now be going to the councils for rezoning for one- and two-inch variances in their side yard. They will now apply for a rezoning and I don't see that will be timely and efficient or a wise use of the local council's time.
If you have a member of the committee, which many do, as an elected official in the province of Ontario, you have no right of appeal or review by the council. The only time that council may review a committee decision is if there are no elected officials on that committee.
Section 45 -- and I'm on item 2 -- I did a summary: We always were required to put it out in 10 days. We've been all making that 10-day deadline to get decisions out. Timely and efficient has now been extended by five more days. We don't know why they arbitrarily tacked on an additional five days when we were all making it in the 10 days that currently exists.
Minor variance applications get a review. You have the 15-day period and then the 30-day period. We used to have a 30-day appeal period from when it was heard; by the 15- and 30-day appeals, it's now extended 15 more days for an appeal. We don't see that's timely or efficient.
I refer to item 4, sworn declaration. I have been advised by the ministry that's permissive and not mandatory because sometimes it's very, very difficult in municipalities to find someone to take a sworn declaration. It is particularly in our municipality because it's the stated position of the province, in so far as municipalities are concerned, to limit the number of commissioners for oaths and affidavits. It appeared to be a requirement when I read the act, but I've been told by ministry staff that it's permissive. You can give a sworn declaration if you wish; you don't have to. When you read the legislation it appears as though it's a required sworn declaration that all the things of the act have been complied with.
We think the ability for council to review a matter and then refer it back to the committee introduces a looping system, it becomes circular. We can't see that's timely and efficient. The act allows council to tell the committee to reconsider the matter that they previously made a decision on. We fail to see how that could be timely and efficient, it just introduces a looping system.
Item 6: I see the province being protective of their fellow politicians. They say, in the instance of the council, that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply when council is reviewing a decision of a committee of adjustment. We find that if they don't have to follow the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, such as you find the rules, that will not definitely, in the opinion of many, restore integrity to the planning process when they don't have to follow the rules that other tribunals that make decisions on property matters must follow.
I refer to number -- I think probably we can skip because some of them are repetitive between the committee of adjustment and the consent.
1410
One of the other matters that is our concern now is that the committee of adjustment is required to hear an application within 30 days. However, the land division committee or the consent authority must give 30 days notice. So what we see in an authority -- the committee of adjustment that has both powers, they're to be hearing one in 30 days and giving 30 days notice in the other, so logistically it will not work. You will have to cause a deferral of the committee of adjustment application so that it can be brought on stream at the same time as the severance application. We don't see that as timely and efficient.
I think one of the problems we see as the biggest problem, of course, is this removal of the right of appeal. I had the opportunity to sit on the Sewell commission chair's committee and between the interim report, which was done in December of, I believe, 1992 and the final report in June of the following year, he said in the interim report, and I'd like to read it here: "The commission considered and rejected the idea of limiting rights of appeal. Not only is it inappropriate for the OMB to become less accessible, but conditions and limits would also very likely lead to further delay." That's from the Sewell commission and now you've taken away people's right to launch an appeal on minor variances. I find that it's somewhat unusual.
I did have an opportunity and I do have it in writing and I did speak to Diana Macri, chief operating officer and secretary to the OMB. They spend less than 6% of their time adjudicating minor variance appeals. They do not advocate the removal of the minor variance appeal going to the OMB. I think there's a short one on the top of page 3 on that. They did write it and I think that speaks for itself.
I think the biggest problem, and I say it one more time, is the removal of appeal. I've heard it from some of the people who were here. I think this is the greatest travesty of 163 and our members are quite upset and we do have -- we're just starting to get them in -- the resolutions of the councils throughout the province that are opposed and support the position in our newsletter. We also have a questionnaire on Bill 163 that was going in September and I realize we're running it, but we have had the summer months which put us all at a bit of a disadvantage, but we are putting a questionnaire out on Bill 163 to all the municipalities in the province of Ontario.
I think, other than what you find in the written form before you, that's all I have at this point.
The Chair: We'll begin with Mr McLean, five minutes.
Mr McLean: Minor variances: On the first day of the hearings, I asked the minister if he could explain to me what the minor variance procedure was and he couldn't. Now we're wanting the OMB to stay in place to deal with these very difficult decisions and where we note there's only 6% across the province. I also note in this pamphlet where the OMB did not make any recommendations, but the OMB itself is not advocating the removal of minor variance appeals from its jurisdiction.
Your opinion is that the OMB should stay there and still be the watchdog.
Mr Cowtan: Absolutely.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is with regard to the integrity that you talked about at the start to try and restore integrity in the whole process.
John Sewell at the convention not long ago wasn't overly enthused about the process that we're in; he thought they were going to have 90 days to review what he had done and have some report. Instead of that, the ministry brought in a bill, 163, and John wasn't overly enthused about it at the AMO convention a week ago.
What do you feel are the major changes with regard to the approvals being made by the counties? And you talk in here about the two-tier also, whereby they would have some power. Would you clarify that?
Mr Cowtan: We didn't address that. Personally I have no difficulty, but our association did not address that particular issue. We stayed very focused on the minor variance and the consent process because those are the people we represent throughout the province. Albeit we have 600 members, we probably represent about 4,000 people when you take into account all the committee members and the elected officials who are appointed to committees.
Mr McLean: You're sending out a bunch of petitions and what not. The parliamentary assistant's already indicated that we're going to have this finalized by this fall. Do you think you're wasting your time by sending out those forms?
Mr Cowtan: Well, we changed John Sewell's commission between the initial draft report with respect to the consent process. We don't believe we should ever give up if we believe in something strongly enough, and in so far as the appeal to the OMB, we believe strongly.
Mr McLean: All right. Thank you for that.
Mr Winninger: You raised an interesting point in number 6 about appeals to council not being subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I was going to ask the ministry for a response on that. I've always understood that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act ensures that parties have a right to be heard, that certain formalities are observed and that the rules of natural justice prevail. Is there a reason why these appeal hearings are exempt?
Mr McKinstry: May I?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Mr McKinstry: I guess the government's view was that the proper place for minor variance decisions to be made was at the local level, that local council was the appropriate place for these to be made and that they could in fact give this to a committee of adjustment. So the review that was mentioned in the act is not intended to be a hearing; it is intended to be a review by council to make sure that council agrees with their committee's decision. That's why that provision was put in there, because it is a review, not a hearing.
Mr Winninger: I see. Thank you.
Mr Cowtan: I don't agree. That sounds very good, but I think that it --
Mr Winninger: My question or his answer?
Mr Cowtan: Your question was good, but I think that really it exempts -- like, they can meet over at the Holiday Inn. You don't have to give notice, you don't have to hear the other side, you don't have to follow the normal rules. I think, you know, with all respect -- and I'm a staff member so I probably am at risk here -- councils are well intentioned, but because they get very political and very heated, they don't necessarily always follow the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. But when you're deciding a property matter, I think you should.
The Chair: Mr McKinstry with some clarification.
Mr McKinstry: Just one clarification. All council meetings have to be held in the open, and of course that particular provision is also being addressed in Bill 163, so we do see that when council's deciding these matters, they have to do so in the open.
Mr Cowtan: The end result, you see.
Mr McKinstry: The meetings, I was talking about.
Mr Cowtan: The end result of the meeting part, but I've been in this business since 1966 and I know that a lot of decisions are made long before they ever come to the public meeting.
Mr Murdoch: Not really?
Interjection: That's news to us.
Mr Cowtan: That's for the press.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I found your presentation to be very interesting. On the issues we're talking about in terms of how those decisions are made, I understand that the issue that could still be decided at the OMB would be whether or not the matter is truly a matter of a minor variance. My friend opposite has said many times that the minister hasn't defined what a "minor variance" is, but that's certainly something both which the minister has spoken about anecdotally but also would be defined through jurisprudence at the OMB.
But the issue that you bring up is a very, very valid one. That's the issue of, how are these decisions made, and are the decisions made prior to the council meeting? I think your wisdom and experience will certainly be noted as we go through the clause-by-clause. As you note yourself, this is not the end of the matter. The bill still has to go through clause-by-clause, and issues like this can certainly be addressed at that level. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Cowtan: One thing I did forget to note, and it just came to my attention of recent date, is that the OMB itself is concerned with matters that are related -- a severance, a lot being created and a variance that's related to it -- in two different jurisdictions: "under appeal, review at council, appeal at the OMB for the severance." They'll both be heading off and the left and the right hands won't know what the other's doing. That was one of their other big concerns, and they've already lodged that concern with this committee, to my understanding.
1420
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. I notice the date on this pamphlet is June 1994, so was it issued early in June or in May, indeed?
Mr Cowtan: The very latter part of June. We had a conference on June 5. The bill was passed on May 18. We had someone from the ministry speak to our conference in Kingston and we immediately went to work.
Mr Eddy: So this would have gone to the ministry? This would have been in the hands of the ministry for some months?
Mr Cowtan: Yes, it would be there in mid-July, because there was a covering letter that went to the minister and I think Mr Marchese got a covering letter from the association president. There were a few of them. We went to every member of Parliament in the province with a covering letter, to people who we knew were going to be -- we knew Mr Marchese was going to be Chair of this committee, so I think he got the covering letter, as did the minister and several other members of Parliament.
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much. I appreciate that you've done this and thank you for your presentation going over this, but have you had any indication that the ministry would make any changes to the act in view of these important things, to date? I would have hoped they'd have had time to digest them and indeed propose to make some changes, because I think you make some very valid points about making the provisions of the Planning Act, especially the time frames, more timely and efficient. I appreciate what you're trying to do.
Mr Cowtan: I do sit on the working committee on Bill 163, but we've had only one meeting to date and basically, until the staff are advised otherwise, they believe that the bill is as they find it. I've had some notice of some minor amendments but not of consequence, which is of course the OMB one that I speak to.
Mr Eddy: I wish that had been done. Do you represent land division committees as well?
Mr Cowtan: I do.
Mr Eddy: I'd like your comment on what you feel about county and regional land division committees versus -- compared to, I'd better say -- committees of adjustment, for severances especially, and what system should be followed, whether it's better to have a uniform system in Ontario.
Just while you're thinking of an answer, on "minor variance," I think if we're going to use the term we must have some kind of definition or guideline for us all to know about or we're going to have chaos. It just isn't going to work unless we have "minor variance" with a definition, as some other members have pointed out. There's got to be some kind of guideline, I would think.
Mr Cowtan: I believe the courts have already tried to define "minor variance." Probably the most famous one is the Colekin case in Toronto, where nothing, as opposed to the requirement, was decided to be minor by the courts. So I think that it's in the appropriate jurisdiction for the local municipality committee of adjustment to make the decision. It's not a matter of quantum but it's a matter of circumstances related to the local municipality and perhaps the traffic loads of that street or the greenbelts that are there. I think that if this government attempts to, through regulation, define "minor" and leave this system as it is, as opposed to the OMB appeal, that's really just a wrong direction because the courts have held -- and they should, through their staff, find the court decisions on the definition of "minor variance." It's not definable. How big is a "large" room?
Mr Eddy: So your stance is that minor variance should be appealable, but to the OMB.
Mr Cowtan: That's correct. I may have his name wrong, but I was before the standing committee on general government when the Comay report came out in 1983 and I believe the member then in opposition was a gentleman -- and probably some of you know him -- by the name of Mel Swart. I think I'm very close to his name if I don't have it exactly.
Mr Eddy: That's it.
Mr Cowtan: He said words to the effect, and I've heard it here today, "If it isn't broken, why are we fixing it?" I've heard it so many times, but nothing could be truer. The OMB doesn't want it. I don't know who wants to put this to the local government. The local government doesn't want it.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, some remarks?
Mr Hayes: Very quickly. You mentioned you had a questionnaire that you're sending out to the municipalities. Would it be available to the members of the committee? If you wouldn't mind, we'd like to see it.
Mr Cowtan: I could probably prevail on it.
Mr Hayes: If you could give one to the clerk.
Mr Cowtan: Basically, it is the sections of the bill and whether or not it's supported by the committee and whether it's supported by their council. That basically is the direction we're taking. We also have another questionnaire that we run as a survey every two or three years and we're asking to see how many elected officials are appointed to committees throughout the province, because once you have an elected official, you have no right of review. So it is a double-barrelled kind of --
Mr Hayes: If it's possible to get a copy.
Mr Cowtan: I will leave one with the clerk.
The Chair: Mr Cowtan, thanks very much for participating in these hearings.
MCNAIR AND MARSHALL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
The Chair: Next is McNair and Marshall, Planning and Development Consultants, Ms Barbara Marshall. Welcome to this committee.
Ms Barbara Marshall: My name is Barbara Marshall. I'm a partner of McNair and Marshall planning consultants in Barrie, and I extend a very warm welcome to the legislative committee for visiting Simcoe county. Often we are not touched by your presence, and we certainly are delighted that you could come among the crickets and the smell of barnyard outside. It seems authentic to welcome you to our county.
My presentation to you is brief and in three parts. First of all, a very brief description of our firm; why I am here; and our submission. I don't suppose you've had too many people in the private sector come before you, and I do thank you for this opportunity for the presentation.
Our firm, McNair and Marshall, Planning and Development Consultants, has been in the Barrie area since 1976. Our work is about half for municipalities and about half for the private sector, including developers as well as those who are opposed to various developments. Our work covers all areas, from strategic planning through land use planning, zoning bylaws, official plans, subdivisions, special studies.
Why am I here? First of all, it's an absolute delight that you're here because I wouldn't have shown up if you hadn't come to Barrie today, or to Midhurst, to Simcoe county. Secondly, I've been very involved in the Sewell commission work from the beginning. I think that work should be continuing on and I would like to put my shoulder to the efforts that have gone on over the last several years. And thirdly, I think the concern on the part of various sectors in this province is to throw this whole Bill 163 out, and I feel very strongly that there is a lot here to support. That is the reason for being here.
At times, I think people wonder why we plan and if we plan effectively in this province. I would be loathe not to say that I have had those doubts as well. Oftentimes you think, "Well, where's it all going?" Sometimes good planning just doesn't show. In the rural area, if agricultural lands are left in agricultural uses, then that's good planning. It doesn't really show when you drive around and it doesn't show in the urban areas when water is attached to people's homes, when there are roads and schools and hospitals and all the services that make communities work.
When we go to the United States and see areas where there is no planning, it certainly begins to make a little sense, especially when maybe you've visited some of the communities in the southern US where people now have walled communities, where people feel comfortable only when they hide themselves behind walls for security purposes. Even for planning purposes in the United States -- private, because government has abandoned planning -- people are looking at setting up behind their walls, planning things even down to the colour of mailboxes. So please don't throw everything out in Bill 163. Abraham Maslow, an American social scientist, said that if anything is worth doing well, it's worth doing awkwardly at first. Perhaps we are doing this awkwardly, but we at least are doing it, and I commend you for that.
1430
My submission: I guess as you've gathered, our firm supports the overall intent of Bill 163. We are suggesting several revisions, mostly based on the Sewell commission work, in order to improve the proposed legislation. Our proposed revisions are as follows.
First, provincial planning: We think it's kind of tragic that the province is telling municipalities what and how to plan in the Planning Act but it's doing very little planning on its own. I look to places like New Brunswick, which you may be familiar with. New Brunswick is promoting itself as being part of the future of integrating its economy and its environment and new technology. When I look at what other provinces are doing and I look at what this province is doing, I feel it's kind of tragic that the whole concept of the overall provincial strategic plan was lost. It was in the original Sewell commission reports and watered down and nothing there about provincial planning.
I very much urge you to take a look at the possibility of integrating a strategic plan. If everybody knows what our vision of the future is and where we're all going, then all the little parts in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment will start to fit together. At this point, I don't think they do as cohesively.
We have to have a vision of the future and where we're going as a province. I think it's imperative. If you look at our newsletter, we've done a lot of reading on what's happening in the future, what's happening in communications and technology. I think that as a province as a whole, we have to take a look at these questions of the future and how we're going and how as a province we fit in. I would really love to see the province, in terms of the changes to the Planning Act, be compelled, like all the municipalities in this province, to plan effectively too.
So, point 1: Please look at an overall strategic plan that we can all be involved in preparing as part of our changes to the Planning Act.
Second, provincial responsibility: I think it's equally imperative that not just the Ministry of Municipal Affairs but all government agencies be bound by the policy statements that have been developed and are going to be incorporated once this Bill 163 is approved. All the ministries were involved in preparation; all the ministries should be involved in sharing the responsibility for implementing.
Official plan content: Under Bill 163, you're suggesting that an official plan should be simply a document that's approved by an approval authority.
We work for a small municipality in Haliburton which hasn't had the money to "buy" an official plan. They've really been seriously thinking, "Yes, we need an official plan, but we don't need a full-blown official plan like everybody else has, with all the incredible background expense." I said, "Let's take a look at what is the definition now in the Planning Act of an official plan and maybe we can meet that definition." I spoke with Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff and said, "Look, we can prepare an official plan that's not going to be gold-plated, but it's going to meet your definition of an official plan."
When I opened up Bill 163 and saw that an official plan is now something that's just approved by an approval authority, it doesn't give enough guidance as to what an official plan is. So I would strongly recommend that this section be revised. Go back to the existing Planning Act or look at what it is that we really want to see in an official plan, because that is the basis of planning in Ontario, the official plan for municipalities. It's a shame that we don't even say in the act what it is, except that it's approved by an approval authority. I really don't think that belongs in regulations; it belongs up front in the Planning Act.
Front-end public involvement: I think this was one of the tremendous recommendations from the Sewell commission, and we've seen this work in communities. If the public is involved from the beginning in a project, whatever it is, it means the diverse opinions in a community can be represented at the beginning, those concerns and questions can be integrated into the process right from the start and it becomes everybody's project. It just doesn't become the developer's project or the municipality's project.
It was really a shock to read through Bill 163 and see that the Sewell recommendations in this area were dropped entirely from Bill 163. I feel that's a real shame. I think front-end public involvement means less cost and less money and it means we're that working together from the beginning. It doesn't mean that we're fighting from the middle through to the end. It's essential for everybody to start at the same point in time and not have the public come in at the end. Please change.
Public notification: The Sewell recommendations are there. They're number 76. I believe that probably when the ministry gets to the detailed regulations, much of this will be included, but I do think it's important to have it spelled out clearly in the Planning Act as to where we're going.
Dispute resolution techniques: I should add that my partner and I have attended -- well, frankly, we've lost track of the number of hearings that we've given evidence at; I think it's well over 100. We are experts in giving evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board, but we also are very, very keen to try out our new mediation skills. We're members of SCRO, the Society for Conflict Resolution in Ontario. I've also taken courses in mediation.
I would love to be doing this kind of work, rather than spending a lot of money and energy at the Ontario Municipal Board fighting it out, being the professional hired gun that's hired at the last minute to fight it out. I do think there are wonderful opportunities for conflict resolution if those are integrated into the process. I'm delighted to see your section 65, but I'd like to see this really become part of planning in Ontario. The only place I've been able to use my mediation skills is in my family conflicts at home, so I'm really getting a lot of practice, but I'd love some professional practice as well.
Appeal rights: I disagree with your recommendations in Bill 163 that you lose the right to appeal if you have not made a written or oral submission at a public meeting, and this occurs throughout Bill 163. Often people aren't fully aware of what is being proposed. It certainly means that you're going to give me a lot of business, writing a lot of letters for every public meeting that's going on, objecting or supporting whatever is going on. Frankly, I don't think that's the way to do business and I don't want to earn my money that way. So please change that provision. I don't think that serves the process well at all.
Septic systems: It's funny to think that we should be dealing with septic systems in planning, but we've been in this province over 200 years. A lot of the development in this province has already happened. The Planning Act focuses on new development, but I really think it's time we started to look at the existing development that's around us. From the research that we've done in terms of safe drinking water, I think it's imperative that we start looking at septic systems, so I urge you to look at changes in this area. Certainly in Europe, in the United States and in other jurisdictions septic systems are a problem and I think somebody is going to have to look at it. Time to bite the bullet; let it be us.
Site alterations: Bill 163 does not give jurisdiction to municipalities in the area of tree-cutting and vegetation removal. We just had a situation here in Barrie where developers have gone in and clear-cut prior to development. In that case, the municipality appears to have chosen not to take any responsibility in that area, and I think it's a shame, but I think municipalities should be given authority and responsibility in that area.
Lastly, although your area of concern is not policy statement, I do understand that there are changes being contemplated to the policy statements as they've been sent out for general circulation. We have run across a problem with the definition and requirements for speciality crop land, and I bring that to your attention hoping that staff at the ministry will be able to take a look at this area of specialty crop land.
1440
The Sewell commission report suggested that when communities are expanding, they may have to expand on to speciality crop land if there are no other choices. I think that sort of wording belongs. Certainly here in Simcoe county we've got a lot of areas that have been in potato farming, no longer an economically viable use of land. If it was cropped in potatoes some 10 years ago, it may take a second look. Certainly we're not in the same situation as the tender fruit industry in Niagara or, say, the apple area up in other parts of the province. So please pass this on to whoever is dealing with the comprehensive policy statements.
I thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you, and I certainly welcome any questions. If I can't answer them, I will have my partner have a go at those too.
The Chair: Very well. Would you like to sit at the table as well, in the event that we need you? Mr Hayes has some remarks first, and then we'll go around in rotation.
Mr Hayes: Thank you very much for your very good presentation. I guess the one concern is, you talk of the first issue there, talking about the provincial planning and the province needs to plan. I'm very pleased to hear that, because what we are doing in this province is putting together some very good, clear polices and guidelines for municipalities, developers and others to follow.
We have lots of presentations saying that this province is going too far, I think even the word "dictating" to them what they have to do. I think what we're doing is trying to guide municipalities and trying to put in good, comprehensive planning in this province. So I'm pleased to hear you say that and I hope other people may hear the same thing, because what you're requesting is exactly what this province is in the process of doing.
On the other part about the official plan content, I don't know if there's a misunderstanding or not, but when we talk about the official plan, it does spell out in section 16, page 10, that the "official plan shall contain the prescribed contents and...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," and it goes on. Also, what it does here is give the province or the ministry the opportunity to consult with such groups as yourself and others. I just wanted to point that out, and if you want to make any comments, fine.
Ms Marshall: I'd like to respond in two ways. First of all, the strategic plan: I agree with you that the changes to the Planning Act and the Planning Act itself is a document that tells municipalities how to plan. However, there is no document in effect that says what is happening to this province as a whole, that the province has decided how it is going to run itself, and that's what I would dearly love to see, a vision of where this province is going and how it's going to get there. Not that the province is telling municipalities, "This is how you're going to run." I would like to see the province as a whole say, "This is where we're going."
Secondly, on the official plan, in the definition section it simply says, "the prescribed contents." Let's put that up front. Let's put it right in the act. Let's not put it into regulations. I'd love to see all of us know from the beginning what is to be included in an official plan, not leave it to staff to work that out at a later date.
Thank you very much for raising those.
The Chair: We should move on, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: Okay, just real quick, it's not the staff that's going to be doing it. There is an implementation task force that covers all stakeholders in the province that will be dealing with those regulations on the policies.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, five minutes, and there are a few other speakers in the event that you don't take all the time.
Mr Wessenger: It's a pleasure to see you here, Barbara, and you too, Al. You always make a thoughtful presentation and stimulate people you present to.
It was kind of interesting when you mentioned the aspect of a strategic provincial plan, because I know that's something that's been talked about for years and years and something that, as I say, has been around as long as I've been around in this planning area. Is it fair to say, though, a strategic plan could in effect constitute a series of policy statements? In other words, that's what it would be, a provincial strategic plan. Is that fair to say?
Ms Marshall: No. I think a strategic plan should have a vision of the future. I think the policy statements describe goals as to what is expected in certain areas. But as an overall vision of where this province is going, I don't see it.
Thank you very much for your kind comments at the beginning.
I think it's interesting that York region has been without an official plan for some 20 years, and finally York region now has a new official plan. It was preceded by a strategic plan, by people getting together and deciding, "Well, this is where we want to go," and then, "The official plan is going to take us there." I think it's really imperative as a province that we go through that process as well.
Mr Wessenger: Just following up your point on provincial responsibility with respect to provincial policy statements, as you know, there is a requirement that each ministry put out a policy statement with respect to the Environmental Bill of Rights. Would you envisage that this could perhaps be incorporated into that type of policy statement for each ministry?
Ms Marshall: Yes. I think once we have an overall vision of where the province is going, then each ministry would incorporate its part of the vision in its mandate. It's as if everybody's running around, the Ministry of Environment and Energy is doing its thing, Natural Resources is doing its thing -- often those guys conflict -- OMAF is doing its. They conflict with our friends in the aggregate area, and as a result there's no picture as to how it all fits together.
I foresee real problems with this statement that we all have to "have consistency with." I think it's going to be very difficult. I'm going to end up saying, "Well, we have more consistency with statement X than statement Y." But if we knew where the province wanted to go overall, we'd say, "But this makes sense, because you're saying that economic sense in this area is critical, so we're going to go for it."
That's kind of fuzzy, but --
Mr Wessenger: The third aspect is front-end public involvement. I've been seeing the way, for instance, the city of Barrie has generally done its official plan amendments. I was always under the impression that they did that on a front-end involvement. Maybe I'm wrong. Is that what you mean by front-end involvement, that type of situation? Are there many areas, for instance, that don't do that type of preliminary --
Ms Marshall: I think most areas don't. Most areas develop an official plan, a change to the zoning bylaw, and then announce it to the public and say, "That's it; take it or leave it." Even the city of Barrie unfortunately has been known to do that on occasion. It's common. That's the way we do stuff.
But instead, if we said, "Okay, look, we're thinking about doing an official plan. These are some of the things we're thinking about putting in it. Hey, public, what do you think?" they may say, "Well, we want this, this and this." We all get together and then we say, "Okay, these are our priorities, this is what we're going to study and this is where we're going to direct our resources."
I think that way we're going to save a lot of time and a lot of money. Otherwise we end up in a system which we have where everybody fights it all out at the Ontario Municipal Board, where sometimes people say, "This is the first time we've had a chance to talk." That's expensive. That's too expensive. It gives me business, but it's not the way to do stuff.
Mr Wessenger: I could probably go on. I better defer to my colleagues. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Barb.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for coming forward. I found your presentation very reality-based. You really know what you're talking about because you've dealt with that. The same thing goes for the woman consultant this morning. I found that was very helpful.
My question is following from what Paul was talking about. Last week we heard Dale Martin, who's a provincial mediator, talk about changing the personality of the system and getting people involved right at the beginning. I believe you stated that the Sewell recommendations were dropped with regard to front-end public involvement, so I want to ask the staff if that is correct, because, to my knowledge, I believe they're still in there, that people are going to be involved right at the front end.
Mr McKinstry: Yes. Indeed, all of the Sewell recommendations may not have been captured exactly, but very much we planned through this legislation to have an up-front system, and we've done that in a variety of ways. We're requiring that councils have time frames, of course, but that they have public meetings. We're requiring that there be 30 days between the time they have their public meeting and the adoption of their plan, just to make sure that people have time to talk about issues. So certainly our intent is very much that we keep involvement up front, and if you have further suggestions, we'd be happy to hear them, because, as Ms Harrington says, we are very keen to make sure that things are done up front and that problems get resolved up front rather than later on at the OMB.
Ms Harrington: So the Sewell recommendations have not been dropped then?
Ms Marshall: In my opinion, they have been dropped. Sewell said that at the beginning of an official plan, council is to outline a report to the public saying what they intend to do with the official plan and how long the time frame. In Bill 163, there is none of that. There is a prescription for a public meeting, but it is not at the beginning of the planning process, and I would really like to see the Sewell wording, as close as possible, incorporated into it. Certainly, there is the 30 days and everything else that you've mentioned, but there is nothing that says that you have to have a meeting at the beginning. There is no front-ending, as I see it, when I read through Bill 163. And if there's a real tragedy in this whole thing, this is it.
1450
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very helpful, as all the presentations are. I'm amazed at the different points that are coming up, many of which have reinforced what you're saying.
You've made many points. Many of your points were because the bill hasn't followed the Sewell recommendations, which were the result of many public meetings, as I understand it, and I think it would be well to look at those again, revisit those and use some of them, because this is a new act. The previous one was 1983. It's going to have to do for a while, and it should be done right, so I appreciate the points that you've made.
The strategic plan for the province: I'm most interested in that, and you're very convincing. It would seem to me that it would help government and the various ministers and ministries be on side and promoting the things the province has determined it wants to be or should become, and I can see it with agriculture. If we want to continue to be the food basket of Canada, or maybe a larger area, then we can gear many policies towards that, including economic policies, and the same with the industrial heartland, which some of our areas are, and the commercial centre, and so many things. So thank you very much.
The one thing I wanted to ask you about was your opinion about two-tier planning. In Ontario, as you know, most of the local municipalities have official plans. You mentioned an area near Huntsville, was it?
Ms Marshall: In Haliburton. Glamorgan township, actually.
Mr Eddy: Haliburton is a county.
Ms Marshall: Right.
Mr Eddy: It may be required to have an official land use plan. Some of our upper tiers have policy plans, which I favour, where they determine what they want. Like the province has with provincial policies, local official plans must incorporate those.
It seemed to me that what's going to happen with this act is that it's going to require the county of Haliburton to have a county-wide official plan, which will direct your small municipality to go through the throes of getting an official plan that's different to what you've decided you want to do.
I'm not in favour of two-tier planning. I think we should have the option: have upper-tier, lower-tier, or both, if people want it. Could you talk about that a bit? It would help me.
Ms Marshall: Interestingly enough, in this county of Haliburton, as well as Simcoe county, we have at the minute no-tier planning in the sense that there is no official plan in place for either the county or the local municipality.
Mr Eddy: I didn't realize that.
Ms Marshall: Yes. I do think it can be worked out, maybe in your way of the policy on a county-wide basis and then the local municipality. In the Haliburton area, the real problem is money. There's no money for the county plan and there's no money for the local plan.
I think some plan is better than no plan. How that works is going to be tough, because in the past the province has given grants to municipalities to help them plan. Now there's nothing left. I guess I have to be a practical person and say, well, go for something rather than nothing.
The Chair: Some short point.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Very short. The point I want to make is something that you have already sort of mentioned, if I'm hearing you right, that the legislation could've been stronger, which I understand, and also Sewell has made a point that the intent is to make the regulation take up the slack for the legislation. They said there are some important aspects of this Planning Act that should be in the legislation, and maybe I'm just making a comment. Am I hearing you right, that you cannot say it loud enough to the government and those who are making it to make sure that it's in the legislation, not the regulations?
Ms Marshall: If it's worth saying, put it in the act.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee.
Ms Marshall: Thank you. You've all been so warm and cordial. I've really enjoyed this, thank you.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
Mr Hayes: Because the exit's that way.
Mr McLean: When we were in Niagara Falls we had some delegations that were very up with regard to public notification, and I see in your report the Sewell commission recommendation 76, to provide for improved notification, including signage, a registry and rural notification. They're not included in Bill 163. There were several delegations which felt that with the short time frame we have now with minor variances that there should be a notice maybe placed on the lawn that this property is under minor variance. Is that what you think would be appropriate, that should happen?
Ms Marshall: I think it should be clearer. Certainly, we work in rural municipalities in Simcoe county, and oftentimes people haven't a clue what's going on. It may be in a newspaper that they just didn't happen to read. So I think there has to be improved notification or people find out too late and then they get angry, and angry is not how we should be working; we should be working together. So if it means putting a sign on a lawn or some other method, then let's do it. Let's forget this under-the-table stuff. Let's make it up front, and let's work together. Forget the anger.
Mr McLean: We had several presentations on that very issue. The other was with regard to appeal rights. That's another area where it passes by and they haven't sent in their objection or their concern and all of a sudden they're too late. That is under clause 29(b), page 15, and clause 38(b), page 17, where you indicate that this is. I think those two areas are a major concern when you're shortening the length of time for people to be notified. Now you send a letter in the mail and it doesn't always get there or it's late. So I think the points you make with regard to the appeal rights and with regard to the public notifications are very valid.
The other issue that I wanted to deal with -- it was in the Sewell report -- is the septic systems. If my memory serves me right, reading those recommendations, the septic systems were supposed to be inspected every five years at the expense of the property owner. Unfortunately, I see this as a policy for all of Ontario, and there are a lot of places in Ontario -- as I said, you get two miles out of Wawa, nobody else around you, why do you have to have your septic system inspected if there are no lakes or no runoff? Where I'd like to see it is around our lakes, where cottages have been turned into year-round homes.
I don't know if there is some system we could've started on a priority basis, but I see that you strongly support the Sewell recommendations, which I don't totally agree with because of the fact that all Ontario is not the same. So I wanted to make that comment.
With regard to the specialty crop land, could you explain that a little clearer with regard to the vegetable crops, such as potatoes, for their development to be limited.
Ms Marshall: I'll let Alan do that one.
Mr Alan McNair: Mr McLean, the concern there is that the policy statement set out some very specific prescriptions. It says that under absolutely no circumstances shall specialty crop land be used for any other purpose. But if you read the definition that is also included in those policy statements, and it's the same definition I believe that was in the Sewell commission's final report, it includes a lot of things, not just the lands that we are probably most familiar with, like the tender-fruit-growing area in the Niagara Peninsula, areas like the Holland Marsh.
1500
For example, it just says land that's being used for vegetable crops. Well, potatoes in Simcoe county are a vegetable crop. There was a time when Alliston was sort of the potato heartland of Ontario. Now the potato industry is a relatively small player there, particularly in the processing aspect of things. That's changed. But it is conceivable that somewhere in the planning process, of land that once grew potatoes it could be said, "Oh well, that was potato land, and therefore it's inviolate," even though it may have been growing sod for the last five years. Maybe it was used for growing tobacco before that, whatever.
There is an evolution in these things, and it's an area of concern because we have rural communities of varying sizes within Simcoe county. One of the things, in terms of the environmental improvements, that this bill is attempting to do and the ministry policy in various ministries, particularly the Ministry of Environment and Energy, is attempting to do is to improve the quality of hard services in these rural communities: water systems, sewage systems. But it's very expensive to do that if the community is static, if the community cannot grow. If it has a reason for needing the services, it probably has a reason for being able to grow at a reasonable rate.
It's a problem for the rural municipalities. I can think of lots of townships in Simcoe county and in other areas outside of Simcoe where there may be a number of small service centres or whatever of 500 to 1,000 people. They may have some partial services; they may have no pipe services at the moment. They may require those to correct existing problems with groundwater quality or drinking water quality or whatever, but there's substantial cost involved in that. If there's no growth permitted within those centres in a compact form and consistent with all the other things the policy statements are talking about because of an overreaction to what is defined as speciality crop land, I think we have to look at that. We're hoping that the committee will suggest that this be looked at.
I have spoken with people in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It is a concern to them as well, and they're trying to figure out how to do it. But the way the policy statement is drafted right now, the way it's been released, it's very, very prescriptive, it's an absolute. I think there are certain types of lands where it needs to be that way and there are other types of lands which might fall into that same definition where it doesn't. I think Mr Sewell made a better attempt at distinguishing between the two than the policy statement document does.
Mr McLean: Is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs listening to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food?
The Chair: We assume they are. Ms Marshall, we just wanted to say the committee enjoyed your presentation very much, and we thank you for coming today.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION BARRIE
The Chair: We'll move on to Mr McNair from Environmental Action Barrie. Please begin.
Mr McNair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. I trust that Mr McLean, as a former member of the council that sits in this building, has extended you all a warm invitation here, as well as Mr Wessenger, being our other local member of the provincial Parliament.
Mr Eddy: I hope they will tonight.
Mr McNair: I hope they took you to lunch.
Anyhow, this presentation is on behalf of Environmental Action Barrie. You have a copy of the presentation in front of you, and on the back of that is a brief outline about the group. It is a local citizens' environmental group that was formed in 1990. As I said, the background is attached here. Most recently, Environmental Action Barrie has been approved as a major partner in a green communities initiative for the city of Barrie, which is a program that's run under the Ministry of Environment and Energy.
I have been a member of Environmental Action Barrie since it was formed in 1990. It has no connection directly with this presentation, but the city of Barrie also has an environmental advisory committee of which I have been a member and the chairman for the last four years. But this is not a submission on behalf of the city; this is strictly on behalf of the local environmental group. I'd invite you to look through the items that this group has been able to accomplish; you'd have a better understanding of where we have come from.
Our objectives are promoting measures and perspectives that increase public awareness of environmental issues and that further solutions to environmental problems, and educating all persons so that informed and environmentally wise lifestyles and consumer habits can be made. We also operate a recycling depot in the Barrie area where recyclable items that are not otherwise collected can be collected and sent to appropriate processing operations. That of course is done with volunteer labour and materials and everything else, because some of the recycling program materials are simply not economic to handle in any other way.
Environmental Action Barrie strongly supports the work that was undertaken by the Sewell commission to introduce the concepts of sustainable development and ecosystem planning into the basic land use planning framework of the province of Ontario. We would suggest, though, that Bill 163's reference -- and it's in clause 1.1(a) -- to "sustainable economic development" is too narrowly focused and should better read simply as "sustainable development."
I get constantly concerned when people start talking about economic development and environmental protection like they're two different animals, it's two sides of the coin and you have to have one or the other, it's got to be heads or tails. You can't buy anything with a coin unless you spend both sides of it at the same time, right? I mean, you spend the coin and the head is gone, the tail is gone.
Jon Grant, a very interesting man who's the chief executive officer of Quaker Oats Canada and has also been quite involved with the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, is fond of commenting on how it always perplexes him when he hears people who don't understand that the long-term economic health of the province or anyplace else is inextricably linked to the long-term health of the environment, that the two have to go hand in hand if we want to be around here five years, 10 years or 25 years from now.
If we want an object lesson in that, all we have to do is look at what we found out about eastern Europe since the Berlin Wall and the Russian hegemony over the satellite states and its own empire collapsed. There are environmental horror stories all over the place. We've created our own horror stories in eastern Canada in the fishery by overexploiting it for economic purposes, and now we have both an environmental and an economic nightmare, because we've got all kinds of people who we were going to keep working in the fishery, and there's nothing for them to catch. Narrowing it to a reference to "sustainable economic development" is a narrow focus that I don't think the bill should have.
Secondly, the requirement about the decisions that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and all the local governments have to make to be consistent with provincial policy statements should also apply to all the provincial ministries and agencies, which the present bill says they're supposed to have regard to, but now they don't even have to have regard to it if this one goes through; they can just ignore it. I mean, that's kind of dumb, folks, if you pardon my comment. We're either all in it together or we're not in it at all. If we write it that way, I don't know what kind of planning it is; it certainly isn't strategic planning.
The principle of ecosystem planning, which is identified sort of early on in the purpose of the act, should carry right on through from there to the mandatory planning content regulations. I didn't comment in writing about that, but I also signed the submission that Barbara made on behalf of our firm. I would agree, and I know the environmental people I've talked with agree, that, hey, if it's worth putting in, it's worth putting up front. The problem is that the Legislature doesn't get to debate regulations; they just come out and that's it. We would like our elected representatives to debate those provisions and be satisfied that that's what you're going to stand or fall on, folks.
The city of Barrie has a tree-cutting bylaw, which was passed under the Trees Act. They passed that about three years ago because they had several situations where people had gone in and whacked down trees on sites that were either well in advance of development or in some stage of development but before the city had any legal authority to say, "Now we have an agreement with you, and those have to be protected." So they passed a bylaw. Now they're not even enforcing their own bylaw, and there is no recourse for citizens to force the municipality to take action on that.
We are suggesting that such things as unauthorized site alteration, filling or removal of fill, tree-clearing, those types of things, should be prohibited. Whether that should be done under the Planning Act or under the Municipal Act, there are a number of alternatives, I guess. I'm not a lawyer; I'm a planner. But citizens should have recourse to be able to go to court and get an injunction to say, "That's got to stop." Now, they have it in certain other functions if something is being done illegally, but they don't have it in this case, and that's the legal advice that was given in this particular situation.
1510
It's all well and good to say that municipalities may pass bylaws to do these sorts of things, but if they don't take advantage of it and don't pass the bylaws, or if they then, having passed the bylaws, choose, for reasons which in this particular example I've used have been totally unexplained -- then that's a pretty sorry state of affairs, and it simply causes the public at large to lose respect for the political process and the laws that their politicians make for their benefit and the laws themselves.
The right to appeal an official plan: As a practising planner, all I think is that the way Bill 163 is written now it's going to mean everybody and his uncle is going to be sticking their oar in. At the first public meeting, they'll make some submission or some comment or whatever, and you'll have hundreds of these things, potentially, to try and track down and figure out, because if they don't, then they wind up with no appeal rights down the road.
These projects often take months and years to get through. Somebody who moves into the neighbourhood a week after the public meeting or a week after council has adopted the bylaw may or may not have a legitimate grievance about a particular development that's proposed, but under Bill 163, as I understand it, they will have no appeal rights. So I don't think that's the way it ought to be. I think that rather than expediting the process, which I think was the intent, what it's going to do is just jam it all up at the start.
The issue of septic systems was touched on earlier. I grew up on a septic system. I know Mr McLean was a farmer out in Oro township for a long time, and I'm sure he didn't have a sewer out at his place. They can work, but there are a lot of things that we put into them these days that they were never really intended to handle, a lot of chemicals and cleaners and things like that, none of which are taken into account in the approvals that are given for septic tank systems.
On an individual basis, septics are not even dealt with in terms of things like phosphorus and nitrates, which are evaluated if you're doing a subdivision development but never on an individual severance. It may not be a problem for one lot or one new house on a 100-acre farm, but if you've got three or four houses in a row going down a rural road, they can be contaminating each other's wells and not even be aware of it, and contaminating not necessarily from a public health standpoint, which is just bacteria, but from a water quality standpoint. That could be happening in Wawa or it could be happening in Oro township, Al. It could be happening anywhere.
So there is a need for regular inspection of those systems. You have to keep in mind that we don't look at all the things we probably ought to be looking at with those. We're starting to look at more of them with our sewage systems and our municipal water systems, but there's a lot of stuff out there that we just don't know about.
So the problem is that with many small municipalities they simply don't have the staff to be able to take this on, yet the implication of the bill is that this could be delegated to the local staff. Well, now it's sometimes delegated to health units, which are constituted on a county or sometimes a multiple-county basis. They are only looking at the public health aspect of it, when the health unit looks at things, in most cases; they are not looking, unless there is a particular local policy involved, at the other implications for groundwater quality, and they should be.
But a lot of local municipalities don't want that responsibility. It's just one more thing. They don't have trained people to do it, and if you tell your bylaw enforcement officer that as well as being your secretary of the committee of adjustment and everything else and the dog catcher he's now got to go out and inspect septic tanks, how are you going to train him? Where are you going to find the time off from doing bylaw enforcement to send him on the required training courses to make him into a qualified septic tank inspector?
That's something for the Ministry of Environment and Energy, or if they want to deal with it jointly with the health units; that's where that level should stay. There may be urban municipalities which have got the staff. If they're urban municipalities, they probably haven't got the septic tanks.
Mr Eddy: Yes, a lot of cities have them on septic tanks.
Mr McNair: Yes. Also, we get to look at the systems that are there, because much of the development, as Barbara said, is already in place and we have problems in the rural areas and the cottage areas where the existing water quality problems in groundwater and in recreational lakes relate more to what's there already. But if they've got their approvals, whenever they went in, whether it's two years ago or 40 years ago, there isn't much of an enforcement, cleanup and check on them, and that's something that needs to be done.
The appropriate legislation may be the Environmental Protection Act. Mr Sewell talked a lot about this stuff, but I don't see anything in Bill 163 that's going to do anything about it, and that's a definite concern.
Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much. If you've got any questions, I'd be happy to respond.
Mr Wessenger: Thank you very much for your presentation. The first question I'd like to ask you is, in the definition they do have -- this is with respect to sustainable development, and I certainly agree with you that sustainable development is the meaning that we want to achieve in this act -- I gather you don't feel that "promoting sustainable economic development and a healthy natural environment" covers the whole aspect of sustainable development. Is that what you would say?
Mr McNair: I think the problem is that by throwing the word "economic" in there in the middle of the phrase, we bias the focus of it. I think sustainable development includes the economic, the social, the whole thing. Planners talk a lot now about healthy communities. They're not just talking about public health; they're talking about communities that work, that provide employment opportunities for people, that provide recreational and educational opportunities for them. So to narrow the focus by saying "sustainable economic development," I just think is too narrow.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, I would tend to agree with that. I'm just wondering if I might ask the ministry to explain why they used the words "sustainable economic development," because I was just listening to a CBC program last night about sort of the dispute between economists and biologists with respect to population, and it was somewhat interesting to hear the criticism of the economic aspects and how narrowly focused they were. So I'd to have some comment on why that phrase was used.
Mr McKinstry: Yes, we did look at the Sewell commission's recommendation on the purpose of planning. We did appreciate that the purpose of planning really sets the tone of the act. The government felt quite strongly about the fact that economic development was important in this province, as well as environmental protection, and that's why the decision was made by the government to put in the word "economic" along with "sustainable."
Mr Wessenger: Those are my questions.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to deal with your second recommendation and that is, "The requirement for decisions to be consistent with provincial policy statements should apply to all...agencies, including Ontario Hydro." That seems to me that you are indicating you feel it's very important that the wording be "consistent with" as opposed to "regard to."
Mr McNair: Yes, I think I would agree with you, Ms Harrington. The real problem I have is that the way it's written now, as I said in my submission, they don't even have to have regard to it. They're out of the loop. Municipal Affairs has to "be consistent with," and the other guys, it would appear, can do what they please. That's very inconsistent with anything.
Ms Harrington: We've heard from quite a few municipalities and some, just some, have said -- and in fact one was this morning -- that the wording "be consistent with" rather than "have regard to" is similar to the difference between "making a sincere effort" and "toeing the line," and they conclude that it is a major erosion of local council's discretion in planning matters. What would you say to someone who presented that?
Mr McNair: It may be an erosion, and I guess if it is, I'd have to ask why. Is it because they haven't understood what provincial policy was, or is it because they've said, "Well, we've had regard to it and we've ignored it," effectively? That's the problem.
But there's a need for the policies to be clear, and I'm aware that there are some potential conflicts. I mentioned the one about the specialty crop land, but there are some other potential conflicts between the various provincial policy statements too that I think the committee's going to have to wrestle with.
1520
The Chair: Mr White, do you have one question?
Mr White: Yes, I do.
The Chair: One then.
Mr White: Thank you. I'm very impressed with your presentation, Mr McNair --
Mr McNair: Thank you, sir.
Mr White: -- and it seemed to be quite similar to the one we had just before you in a number of the recommendations.
Mr McNair: We do have two computers.
Mr White: I'm going to ask you about one of the questions that arose actually in the earlier presentation -- it isn't even in yours but I'm sure you'll stick by your partner's recommendations -- and that is in regard to the issue about mediation.
What we have presently is a system that works very slowly, when it works at all, in terms of dispute resolution.
I heard on the radio this morning about a problem, from an area not too far away from us, where the lawyers' and the legal costs would have been far less than the cleanup costs for the company involved. Their interest, of course, is in prolonging a battle with the government, with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and I'm wondering, in regard to the issue about dispute resolution, whether that might not be a means of speeding up that kind of issue to the effect of making a resolution of that realizable while people are still alive in that vicinity.
Mr McNair: I think the idea of mediation and taking alternative dispute settlement mechanisms is an excellent one. I think it's long overdue. It does require a degree of good faith on the part of all the parties.
The issue of the tree clearing in the city of Barrie that I referred to took place while the council was in its August recess, while an appeal to the municipal board of the rezoning of this site was being mediated by a gentleman from the OMB and while the residents had had notice that a bylaw to exempt the site from the tree-clearing was going to be considered in September. If you don't have good faith by all the parties in the mediation, you'll have no success in mediation.
I still think -- and we have recommended it to any clients of ours, whether they are developers, municipalities or appellants of a particular planning decision -- that if you can settle it, it is far better, it is far cheaper. It doesn't necessarily make us as much money, because there's a lot of preparation time and appearance time and stuff involved in OMB hearings. But if you want to get something out of it, save the money and spend it on the landscaping instead of spending it on the lawyers and all the consultants that you have to hire. There's no question that the mediation approach is an excellent one and should be strongly encouraged in the province.
Mr Eddy: I appreciate your presentation. There are some very important matters in here, and the first one is 1.2. If the province is going to make everybody go through the hoop, we'd better be prepared to go through a hoop too. That's awfully important, and 1.4.
I'd like to go back to the previous presentation, if it's allowed, and it was something you said.
Mr McNair: My name is on that one too; it's okay.
Mr Eddy: Yes. You said the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are confused and concerned about wording in the agricultural land policies. Wouldn't the agricultural land policies have been drawn up by OMAFRA? Who drew up that policy?
Mr McKinstry: The policy was drawn up, first of all, by the Sewell commission and then revised by the government with OMAFRA, that's the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Mr Eddy: I hope we can be assured that the people who are in those ministries who are going to be following or policing, or whatever, those policies are endorsing them and supporting them.
Mr Grandmaître: You say that one of the activities you're interested in and promoting is tree planting. Does Barrie have a municipal tree bylaw?
Mr McNair: A tree bylaw under the Trees Act to protect existing trees, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: I was told some two or three weeks ago that apparently the provincial government is working on a piece of legislation.
Mr McKinstry: Not as far as I know. There was a consultation on the Trees Act some time ago, but that has not proceeded to legislation as far as I know.
Mr Grandmaître: It was the committee on regulations and private bills. I was passing a private member's bill and I was told that the ministry would be passing such legislation very shortly. I don't know if the parliamentary assistant remembers this.
The Chair: We don't know.
Mr Grandmaître: We don't know.
The Chair: Anyway, your next point. What's the follow-up to that point?
Mr Grandmaître: There is no follow-up. I just wanted to tell him the good news that the provincial government was going to do something good, and now it's pending.
Mr McNair: Actually, our environmental advisory committee suggested several years ago, when the city was in the midst of a long and drawn out review of its official plan, that it would be nice if we could have policies on our official plan which said, "Hey, if somebody comes in and does this kind of rape and pillage attack on the thing" -- I've worked in this business for almost 25 years now, worked for lots of developers.
The vast majority of the developers I've run into are reasonably responsible people. But I have seen some who are not and I don't think too much of the ones who go in and clear-cut and rape and pillage existing sites before they've got their approvals in place. We were hoping to see provisions put into the city's official plan, if it could be done, which would allow the city, if somebody went and pulled a stunt like that, to say: "Okay, for 10 years or 20 years or whatever, maybe there isn't going to be any development on that site. Maybe what will happen as a result of this is that you're going to have to replant the thing and you're going to have to maintain it until those trees have got back to the size of the ones you cut down. Alternatively, if you want to do it faster, you're going to have to plant much bigger trees."
That's the kind of problem you run into. When we discussed that with the city solicitor, he said, as a policy approach, you could always taken a run at it. He wasn't sure whether you'd be able to legally support that. Certainly, the Trees Act itself doesn't provide sufficient power to do that. Had Mr Sewell's recommendations been taken into Bill 163 and the trees been included in this, it's still permissive in terms of allowing municipalities to do it, and I don't know if you could have gone that far. But it's something to chew on a little bit for the members of the committee because what you're talking about here is hard, cold cash. You're talking about an economic disincentive to keep somebody from doing something which most of us would agree is a bit stupid out of spite of whatever.
Unfortunately, when the landscape and the vegetation get destroyed, then they come back and say, "Well, it was an environmental designation before, but there's nothing left there now." Usually, this isn't the owner who did it. He sells it off to somebody else and they come in and say: "Well, hey, I just bought the thing, but there's no wetland there. There's no woodlot there, so why can't you change the designation on it? It just makes sense, doesn't it? Because now it's just a bare piece of ground."
That's like bulldozing Mr McLean's son's dairy farm and then saying: "Well, it's not good agricultural land any longer. I guess we ought to turn it into something else." I don't think that makes a lot of sense.
Mr Murdoch: Thank you very much for your presentation. A couple of things: I notice Ms Harrington mentioned that there were a lot of municipalities and just some had problems with "shall be consistent with." I haven't heard of any yet that haven't had a problem with that, so I want to put that on the record.
I think most of the municipalities have a problem with that statement. They would have sooner seen the words "have regard to" and left it a bit more flexible. So I haven't heard any municipalities agree with the changing. There may be some that I hadn't heard other than today, but there haven't been any today.
Mr McNair: It is a bit more flexible, and I guess the trouble with the flexibility of "have regard to" is that some municipalities have driven a very large Mack truck through it and that's part of the problem.
1530
Mr Murdoch: The other one: I noticed that you're not too impressed with septic tanks. Do you have an alternative? What would we do in rural Ontario?
Mr McNair: No, I didn't say I wasn't impressed with septic tanks. There are problems with them that we haven't begun to acknowledge, but I think they can work effectively in certain limited -- and when I say "isolated," I don't mean in Wawa. I mean isolated in terms of the impact it has on the groundwater.
The problem is that when we approve septic tanks now, Mr Murdoch, as you're probably aware, we don't look at a lot of the groundwater quality concerns. If it's on a one-lot basis, we simply look at it and say, "Is it the right sized tank for the right sized house, given the number of bedrooms and fixtures they're going to have in the thing, and is the soil reasonable so that the effluent from the tank won't pond on the surface, so that we won't have a public health problem?"
When we look at them on a one-off basis, we don't look at nutrient problems, groundwater, and we certainly don't look at any of the more exotic chemicals. Many of the people who live in the rural environment are just as keen on using the drain cleaners and everything else as the people who live in the cities are. I shudder to think what they may be doing to some of our municipal sewage treatment plants too, because they're not all up to where they ought to be, but that's another argument.
Mr Murdoch: But how would we address that? What's the alternative for, say, multiple dwellings in rural Ontario on land that's not suitable for agriculture? We need a policy then.
Mr McNair: Under the present regime, there's nothing that stops an individual severance from going through just as rigorous a process as a plan of subdivision, which could include hydrogeology reports and studies of groundwater, pollution from nutrients and things like that, questions if there's any potential source of some sort of toxic contaminant leaking in somewhere nearby that could affect their groundwater.
If you're going to have development done through severances, through a land division committee or a committee of adjustment, they can take every step. The legislation at present permits them to put every kind of requirement and regulation on that the minister could put on a plan of subdivision, so they could be just as thorough about it as the minister is with a subdivision plan. Unfortunately, in almost any case I've ever seen, they're not and they don't. So the level of assessment and screening that could be done under the present legislation simply isn't followed on those severances.
Mr Murdoch: I understand that, but if you're doing a subdivision, it would pay to do that because you're going to have a number of severances or a number of dwellings in the subdivision, so you can afford to do the studies that you're talking about. But if you're doing two, maybe three severances, the cost of that would make them --
Mr McNair: Well, yes, but if those lots are worth $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 apiece and you've got two or three of them --
Mr Murdoch: But you don't get that in rural Ontario.
Mr McNair: It depends where you are in rural Ontario.
Mr Murdoch: That's what I mean then, okay.
Mr McNair: Right now, maybe not. In 1988 or 1989, a rural lot, not on a lake --
Mr Murdoch: On a lake, now that's different.
Mr McNair: -- not on the waterfront, in Simcoe county or, I suppose, in Grey county could have had a value of $50,000 to $100,000.
Mr Murdoch: On a lake, but not back in the backwoods somewhere.
Mr McNair: No, I'm talking more about the lots. The real question is, if you're going to have development, development should pay the cost of making sure that it doesn't create a problem. That's how I would assess it.
Mr McLean: Can I have the last question?
The Chair: If the answer is very long, it'll take -- all right.
Mr McLean: In 1.3 you talk about "the purpose right to the mandatory plan content regulations." Were you looking for some regulations in this legislation so that we could have known what was in them?
Mr McNair: No. The reference there is just that the principle of ecosystem planning should carry right through the whole thing. Unfortunately, we don't have any of the plan content information. That's all going to come in regulations. As Barbara mentioned in her submission, she really thinks, and I support that position, that it should be in the legislation. You, the Legislature, pass it and tell us what's going to be in the thing.
But that point is that the ecosystem planning principle should be carried right through in the plan content requirements. If they're in the act, then we know whether that's been done or not, and if they're in the regulations, we have to hope.
The Chair: Mr McNair, we've run out of time. Thank you very much for the presentation you made. It was very informative, but as usual, there's never enough time.
Mr McNair: I appreciate very much you and the other members of the Legislature taking the time to have the hearings. I know it's a busy schedule and you've got a long roadshow ahead of you, so we'll let the next batter come up to the plate.
TOWN OF CALEDON
The Chair: We invite the town of Caledon. Welcome, Ms Konefat and Mr Russell.
Ms Heather Konefat: On behalf of the town of Caledon, I would like to thank you all for giving us both the opportunity to speak with you today. Peter and myself will only be dealing today with the planning initiatives with respect to the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements and with Bill 163.
The town of Caledon has been actively involved in all public stages of the preplanning work leading to the current comprehensive policy statements and Bill 163. I personally have been involved as a member of the AMO planning task force on planning reform and as a member of the GTA mayor's planning committee. Both committees, as you may be aware, have been extensively involved in the process to date.
As an overall comment, the town of Caledon strongly supports the need to create a new environment for planning in Ontario, especially an environment that includes the recognition of an increasingly important role for municipal government. It is also clear that municipal decisioning must take place, under the positive leadership of the province, through clear policy and processes established by the new policy statements and Bill 163 itself.
With respect to the policy statements, we at the town were unaware that the comprehensive policy statements continued to be under discussion. The town has therefore not provided detailed comments on the statements. We are, however, very concerned that the various ministries, we understand, are proposing changes to the standing committee. As you may be aware, extensive work and discussions have been conducted collectively by many agencies and interest groups, including the town of Caledon, the GTA mayor's committee and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. These efforts could be seriously eroded if at this late date fairly extensive changes are made to these policy statements based on various ministry staff direction.
The primary concerns relate to two matters:
(1) The general public is not aware of the changes that are being proposed. There's been no opportunity to comment and no opportunity to debate.
(2) We feel that the policy statements are already encumbered with a considerable amount of detail, and any changes proposed will likely add to that policy detail. There is concern that this increased policy detail will undermine the broad intent of the policy statements and will promote provincial-municipal entanglement and subsequent delays and costs. This will also not empower municipal governments to get on with planning in their communities. We collectively have worked too hard in the past several years for this to happen.
As you are aware, and I heard it earlier this afternoon, there's been much debate on the conformity requirements with respect to the policy statements. We are also very concerned with the use of the word "compliance," combined with the extensive and detailed wording of many of the policy statements. We feel this will severely restrict the diverse Ontario municipal governments from making logical and appropriate decisions at the community level. We would encourage the committee to consider wording that would better enhance what we think is the leadership value of the policy statements. Wording such as "consistent with the intent" or "consistent with the policy direction" should be considered.
We are also very concerned with the voluntary aspect of local official plans. This implies that local planning is a less important component in the planning process, when in fact we feel it is one of the most critical. The development and implementation of a local official plan is a primary planning tool because it promotes municipal council accountability, political and public education and develops community dialogue and debate on fundamental community planning issues.
We recognize that there was a concern that remote local municipalities in the province may not have the resources to prepare an official plan. However, local municipalities in the GTA, such as Mississauga and Caledon, have extensive professional resources and a commitment to official plan planning. The provision that they only "may" do an official plan serves to undermine and denigrate the commitment those municipalities have made to their communities.
In addition, we must consider the tremendous size of regions in the GTA and their remoteness from the individual and the community as a need to strengthen local official plan planning in the GTA.
We would ask you, as there are other exceptions provided for in the bill, to enhance the empowerment of local municipalities, and in particular in the GTA, by directing that they must prepare an overall official plan for their municipality.
1540
With respect to the contents of the official plan and zoning bylaw, we strongly support the provisions in the new bill. They provide us with essential support in many areas of planning for the community. In particular, the zoning bylaw provisions for sensitive aquifers and groundwater recharge area protection provide us with new and progressive planning tools.
We also strongly support the opportunity of moving towards a development permit system. Zoning bylaws, as you're probably all aware, have fairly significant limitations due to their inflexibility, hence the need for committees of adjustment. The move towards such a development control system in Ontario will promote a less antiquated form of regulation.
Thank you for your time. I would like now to introduce Peter Russell, a planner with the town, who will deal with the more detailed regulatory processes of the bill.
Mr Peter Russell: Apparently, in the interest of streamlining and empowering local decision-makers, Bill 163 proposes to eliminate appeal rights to the Ontario Municipal Board for minor variance decisions. Under the new act, the decisions of council or a delegated committee of adjustment are final. Local councils may opt for a system wherein a review of the committee's decision is conducted. However, no appeal rights are provided.
Minor variance applications have often proven to be the most contentious of planning approvals as neighbours are often pitted against each other. Since committees of adjustment are appointed by councils, the members are not immune to political pressures which may arise. Despite these conflicts, the public has always been provided the opportunity for a full impartial hearing before the OMB, if necessary.
The OMB itself has indicated that minor variance appeals account for only 18% of actual board files and less than 6% of hearing time. With the introduction of alternative dispute resolution methods and case management procedures, it is anticipated that this system will only become more efficient.
The system proposed by Bill 163 would require local councils, the legislative bodies that enact zoning bylaws, to play the role of the judiciary in the event of a minor variance review. In addition to requiring elected bodies that must respond to political pressures, a judicial function, Bill 163 also provides for the review to be exempt from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which stipulates the requirements for fair hearings.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff have responded to these concerns by stating that proponents unhappy with local decisions on a variance can simply apply for a rezoning and avail themselves of the appeal rights provided through that process. As a result, the more costly and time-consuming zoning appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board would likely increase, potentially precluding the initial objectives of streamlining the process. In addition, the zoning appeal route would be impractical for opponents of approved variances as building permits may be available to proponents.
With respect to subdivision approvals, the bill provides some benefit to municipalities in that the approval authority can provide for the lapsing of draft approvals with a minimum time frame of two years. As a result, subdividers not proceeding to registration can lose draft-approved status, thereby freeing infrastructure capacity for other developments and allowing reconsideration of the initial approved plan. The bill does not, however, provide for delegation of the subdivision approval authority to local municipalities, an omission that would seem contradictory to the notion of empowering local government. As in the case of many legislative changes, action taken in the interest of specific goals may have unforeseen consequences which in some cases result in a reverse effect. In this regard, Bill 163 contains a number of provisions relating to processing procedures and time frames for dealing with various applications in addition to notice requirements.
Of particular concern is a proposed 15-day time frame within which the municipal clerk must complete notice of passing for all official plan amendments, plans of subdivision and consent applications. In addition to persons within a specific geographic distance, notice must be provided to all individuals who made written or oral submissions regarding the proposal. In most instances, preparing notice of passing requires intensive effort to formulate mailing lists, prepare newspaper advertisements, assimilate documentation etc.
To require notice to be prepared within the 15-day time period is fairly onerous to begin with. However, when coupled with practical realities such as staff constraints, vacations, major holidays and election periods, it would seem completely inappropriate. The reality is that rather than speed the planning process, such a requirement will in fact lead to further delay as reports and approvals are deferred in order to ensure sufficient staff time to prepare the notice of passing.
Bill 163 represents a package of comprehensive amendments to the Planning Act. Many of the proposed changes to the act are perceived to be positive steps towards planning reform in the province. As reflected by the concerns raised, however, not all of the proposed legislation is perceived in a positive manner.
I think we'd be pleased to entertain questions at this time.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Eddy, is it?
Mr Eddy: Yes, my names's Eddy. Thank you very much for your presentation. I must say --
The Chair: Mr Eddy, I know your name. I was just wondering whether it was going to be Mr Grandmaître or somebody else.
Mr Eddy: We do tend to be confusing at times.
Thank you for your presentation. It's very important. I do agree with you and I hope there would be others who agree. I definitely agree that official plans should be required at the local level; they should be optional between a land use plan and a policy plan at the upper tier.
Peel is one of the two regions in Ontario, the other being York, that don't have official land use plans and will be required to, so it's going to make a change in your situation and probably produce some conflict. I understand maybe a Peel official plan is under way now.
Ms Konefat: Yes.
Mr Eddy: Peel and York have been the two fastest-growing upper-tier municipalities in all of Ontario and they seem to have survived without an upper-tier official plan. Amazing. Do you think the local municipality will have much input into the official plan or do you see a lot of things being imposed on you because the regional official plan as well, of course, is the provincial policies?
Ms Konefat: That's a very tall order. I guess first of all I should establish that I am a proponent of regional planning.
Mr Eddy: Mandatory?
Ms Konefat: I do think regional planning should be mandatory.
Mr Eddy: Land use plans?
Ms Konefat: I would hesitate to say it would have to be a land use plan, but a strategic document must be prepared at a regional level -- there's absolutely no question about that -- to deal with many of the major issues, particularly, that we're dealing with in the GTA. Where I have difficulty with the large municipalities is at the local level within the GTA, places such as Mississauga, which are communities of communities. We're suggesting to them that their role is very substantially reduced to a provision of "may plan," and I think that is not progressive in the context of this particular bill.
Mr Grandmaître: The fact that minor variances cannot be appealed to the OMB under this legislation, would you like to see a different composition of committees of adjustment?
Mr Russell: We've talked about perhaps coming up with different alternatives, different dispute resolution alternatives in place of the minor variance appeal rights. The bottom line is that we feel that the OMB functions efficiently and effectively in its current role and therefore we haven't prepared an alternative to what's being proposed in the bill other than what currently exists procedurally. We believe that the provision of a fair and impartial review through the OMB is the best route. It represents a distinction between the judiciary and the Legislature, which I think is important at all levels of government.
1550
Mr Grandmaître: So you're satisfied with the present system, that they can be appealed to the OMB.
Mr Russell: "Satisfaction" is a strong word, sir. As I indicated, the board itself --
Mr Grandmaître: I've succeeded; I've succeeded.
Mr Russell: The board itself is aware of the obvious difficulties it faces in case management. They have embarked upon several different alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and a case management portfolio that we feel will address the concerns they presently have in terms of delays before the board and that sort of thing.
Many of the variance issues that we deal with at the town at the present time are disposed of through pre-hearing conferences and mediation and things such as that. The significance is that the decision to dispose of an issue without a hearing is made by a fair and impartial body as opposed to a politically appointed body or a politically elected body.
Mr Grandmaître: So I won't succeed in making you say that the OMB is doing a good job and it should stay in place, right?
Mr Russell: I would certainly say that yes, the board is doing a good job. You would never find me as an individual who would support doing away with the board.
The Chair: He's still probing, Mr Russell.
Mr Grandmaître: This is amazing, you know? This is the first time in the last 10 days I've heard municipalities saying that. I remember when I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, every mayor in this province was saying, "Abolish the OMB."
Mr Eddy: That's because they wouldn't file an official plan.
Mr Grandmaître: Okay, so the OMB is doing a good job.
Mr Hayes: They had no policy at that time.
Mr Grandmaître: Thanks, Pat.
Mr McLean: So what you're saying then is that you want the OMB still to be in place for minor variances.
Mr Russell: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
Madam, you had indicated in your brief that the local planning is less important than the planning process, when in fact it's one of the most critical. Are you saying that all local municipalities should have a plan?
Ms Konefat: I've given this a great deal of thought. I know for example in the comprehensive policy statements there are some threshold numbers that are put in. For example, 10,000 is a number that is put into that document. That might be one vehicle by which to omit the very small local municipalities in the more remote parts of Ontario from this type of planning.
But I would suggest that if we really want to do good planing in our communities, we have to get our local councils and our local communities to buy into the concept of planning for their community for 20 or 30 years. I think we do a great disservice to these communities when we have large, remote regions doing that planning for them and forcing it down to that community level.
Mr McLean: We all realize that you are a planner and you would of course promote planning in the province, but do you think there is a need for an upper tier and a lower tier to be planned? All municipalities put on a plan and then the county goes and puts on a plan. Their plan at the local municipality has got to coincide more or less with the upper tier because the upper tier's the one they're going to take their orders from. What is the point in doing all this local planning if you've got one overall plan for the county?
Ms Konefat: Largely, the way I envision upper-tier planning would be a strategic type of planning where you provide the broad umbrella for how you're going to plan for the next 30 or 40 years in your community. When I'm talking about community, I'm talking about huge communities. Local plans at a local municipal level are much more detailed documents with the emphasis on land use. In other words, it's an implementation tool for the upper-tier plan much the same way as an official plan is an implementation tool for a zoning bylaw.
Mr McLean: You make your points well. But there is a great cost to doing that, isn't there? Before you, we had some people who said that in Haliburton, neither the one municipality nor the county could afford to put on an official plan. In essence, you're creating a burden on a lot of municipalities that can't afford it.
Ms Konefat: I guess I'm very optimistic. I think if it's done properly and done cooperatively, it can run very smoothly.
Mr McLean: I was always of the great belief that the local municipalities are the ones that should be doing the planning. But what it's come to now in Bill 163, they're not the ones that are going to be able to make any decisions. It's going to be the upper tiers now that have got to make the decisions. They're the ones that are going to get planning authority and the authority to approve subdivisions.
Ms Konefat: My real difficulty here is I think somehow the planning process has to be accountable. Largely the accountable people that I see in my day-to-day workings, and I've worked both at a regional level and at a local level, are the local council. They are the people who first hand receive the complaints, the grievances, the difficulties in the community. Generally speaking, people are very intimidated by moving into a regional type forum. That's why I think, to promote accountability, local municipal councils have to do long-term community planning.
Mr McLean: I agree with you. Unfortunately, the upper tier now is the one that's going to be doing the planning. That's where the approvals are going to come from and that's where the cost is going to be.
The other question I had was with regard to --
The Chair: The last one.
Mr McLean: Oh, the last one?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr McLean: I was going to ask one of the ministry, but Mr Hayes looks pretty comfortable, so I think I'll defer that one.
The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which stipulates requirements for fair hearings, you are looking at a review to be exempt from this, is that correct?
Mr Russell: As we understand Bill 163, in the process of a review of a minor variance decision, the council is exempt from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Our understanding of that is that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is the legislative act that stipulates the specific requirements for a fair hearing. Essentially, it's the fair hearing requirements that have been established by common law. Our concern is that to exempt the council review of a variance decision from those requirements, the proponent of a minor variance application would not be required to be at the review. The review could be held without notice on the whim of council essentially, without either the appellant or the proponent present. It does not seem to be a particularly fair method of dealing with a variance issue.
Mr McLean: Thank you for coming and making your presentations. They were great.
Mr Wessenger: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just need some elaboration on some of your comments with respect to development permit systems that you indicate you're in favour of because of their flexibility. I must say I have some sympathy towards that position, but are you saying that Bill 163 advances the opportunity of having a development permit system, and if so, how does it do that?
Ms Konefat: I guess largely because it makes the opportunity there from a legislative framework. I know the guidelines are currently under preparation and I look forward with interest to see what those will say.
My experience in development control comes from Alberta. I worked in Alberta as a planner for nine years and I have seen the good things that development control can do. What we did in Alberta, so that you have some background on it, is that zoning bylaws were largely left to very small villages that were way out in the wilderness, largely because we knew those villages were not going to change. We used development control as a tool where we had a much more dynamic situation. It allowed us to more realistically translate the objectives and the policies from an official plan document into a regulatory tool that we would use then for approving development.
Mr Wessenger: Do you feel the act does permit municipalities to move towards that?
Ms Konefat: I think it does. It will when the guidelines come out and larger municipalities will evolve towards that. I think we're developing, to use an overused word in the year 1994, a new paradigm in planning in respect to zoning and development control. We're moving forward to a new system and I think it's about time.
Mr White: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd be pleased if you take back my greetings to your mayor, whom I know from the GTA mayors' meetings.
There are a number of things in your presentation I was interested in, the issue of the different strategies at different levels for planning. Of course planning isn't something one puts on like a new suit but rather something which is integral to the whole development process.
I was wondering if we could take a look at this issue that you bring up in regard to the minor variance. It's a thorny issue. It's been discussed earlier this afternoon. When you say the OMB had indicated that minor variance appeals account for about 20%, about a fifth, of their board files and 5% or 6% of the hearing time, that's still a significant amount for a body as central as that with the backlog that body has.
1600
I'm wondering if you would suggest that there might be an alternative means of resolving some of those things. Obviously, one thing that is clear is the question of whether something is a minor variance or not, is appealable to the OMB. But we were also hearing recently about alternative dispute resolution methodologies and whether or not that might not be a good means of clearing some of that backlog before it got to the OMB, particularly with the minor variance issues, where the cost of a hearing might be quite burdensome for the parties involved.
Mr Russell: One of the very positive aspects of the bill with respect to zoning approvals and official plan approvals and the like is that the bill does provide some very strong direction towards the board in dealing with appeals and methods for determining whether or not appeals or objections are reasonable. They've expanded upon the old frivolous and vexatious clause and there is some specific terminology within the bill that would provide the board with some clearer power in terms of dismissing and dealing with appeals in a short term. So we're very supportive of those steps and we feel those steps certainly could be applied to appeals on minor variances as well.
We also support the board in its efforts with alternative dispute resolution. The board's experimenting with many different methods for disposing of hearings in a relative short time. For instance, they are holding hearings by conference call, which, for obvious reasons, saves time because the member does not actually have to transport himself to the local municipality. They're holding hearings based on regional centres, so they'll send a certain number of board members to a specific geographic location and everybody with a hearing to be held within that area goes to that centre.
From what I understand from staff at the board, they've been very successful with these methods. We feel, given the relatively insignificant amount of time that variance appeals consume at the board at the present time, combined with those methods, it should alleviate the difficulties that the board is having.
Mr White: But do you think that would preclude other methods of resolving those disputes?
Mr Russell: As I indicated earlier, we did not bring an alternative to present to the committee today. Our concern is simply that whatever method is in place should maintain the distinction between the judicial body and a political body, a legislative body. The method proposed in the act does not provide for that distinction. Committees of adjustment are appointed by council and council themselves obviously are elected by the public.
The Chair: We thank you both for coming and thank you for sharing your views with this committee.
Mr Hayes: I want to make a clarification, if I may, not just for this delegation, but thank you very much for your presentation. I thought it was very good. The one part about the policies, of course, cabinet has already approved the policies, and yet we have an implementation advisory task force that is working on the guidelines and the regulations which will be ready at the time of the legislation. As far as the policies and this committee are concerned, this committee does not have the mandate to deal with those policies. I hope you understand that and I hope that cleared things up a little bit.
Ms Konefat: We are relieved to hear that because we had heard through Ministry of Natural Resources staff in fact we're going in for another run and we were not looking forward to that. We'd hope it was resolved. Thank you very much.
GREY ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER PLANNING
The Chair: We invite Grey Association for Better Planning, Mr Peter Ferguson.
Mr Peter Ferguson: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for the opportunity to be here to be talking about this issue once again. I recall a time not too long ago, Mr Marchese, when you were my trustee in the city of Toronto, and it's a pleasure to encounter you again now that we've both moved on, you to the Legislature and me to Grey county. I'm pleased also to see that my local MPP is able to sit on your committee.
You have, I believe, copies of our presentation and the executive summary. I'm hopeful that you've all read it and I'm not going walk you through it again. I'm just going to try and hit the primary points so that we can get into discussion as quickly as possible, if need be.
The Grey Association for Better Planning coalesced about five years ago when we found that planning in our county was not being pursued as it might've been. We've been intent on trying to improve the situation in that location, and we think that the problems in Grey and our work on them gave rise in part to the Sewell commission. We've been very impressed with the work of the Sewell commission, and we find ourselves now at a point where all of that good work runs the risk of possibly not having the effect that it ought to have.
Our primary concern, and I'm sure you've heard much discussion about it, is the issue of whether municipal planning should comply with provincial policies or whether it shall simply have regard to them, as the act currently reads. We're very concerned that the act at present has, in effect, no effect, that any municipality may at any time say: "Yes, we have regard to the policies. We didn't like them. We looked at them and we ignored them," or "We looked at them and we considered them and, no, we don't agree with them, and we'll do whatever we like." It's that kind of attitude that we found in Grey county and continues to this day.
We think it's incumbent on you people, as the representatives of the body which creates and directs the municipalities, to direct the municipalities to comply with your legislation and to not create a piece of legislation that can be chucked out. So we're hopeful that you will look at the policies and ensure that the wording is changed so that all lower-tier governments must comply with your policy directives.
We also note that the policy statements are not at present anticipated as governing other provincial ministries and agencies, which the Sewell commission recommended. One of the problems which we understood the commission was gathered together to address was the fact that there are conflicting directives among all the ministries, and we expect coordination among all of the ministries and we expect each ministry to issue directives which will, within the purview of its own area of concern, require the complying action on other bodies of the provincial government.
We note that the Sewell commission's recommendation that amendments be put over for later planning has been rejected. I'm on the second half of part (2) of the executive summary. Where Bill 163 allows referrals and appeals to be rejected without hearings, proponents as well as opponents should be required to base their claims on the purposes and provisions of the plan or the act or on clear public benefit. At the moment, the bill says that objections must be based on land use planning grounds. We find that again is, in essence, a weasel clause. If we're going to be establishing a piece of legislation which sets planning requirements, let's say in the act that objections or proposals must be based on the act and not on some undefined land use planning grounds.
1610
As to the purpose of the act, moving on to number (3), this is perhaps a niggling point of syntax, but the act at present reads that the purpose of the act is "to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment" thereby presuming, in effect, that there is a healthy natural environment and that all we're concerned about is promoting sustainable economic development in it. Whereas, we believe that the purpose should read "to promote sustainable economic development and a healthy natural environment," to be quite explicit that the act is directed towards maintaining that natural environment and that the natural environment isn't maintained through the grace of God. Purposes (a) and (b) of the Sewell commission should also be included. We believe they do an even better job of explaining the purpose of the act.
Moving on to number (4), we find that intervenor funding, which was proposed to be included has not been, and I think many of you will understand that in the discussion of these issues, very often there's a great weight of money on one side and very little time and money on the other. We thought it was a good proposal. It's been used in other jurisdictions. I'm not sure about whether it's used in other legislation of your government, but it ought to be maintained.
Number (5), Bill 163 should make five-year reviews mandatory and set deadlines for bringing lower-tier plans into conformity with both upper-tier plans and the NEC. We've had, as I'm sure you're aware, numerous difficulties with the NEC being different from our plan. We're only now in the process of writing an official plan which will ensure coordination between the two. I think it has been 20 years since we've had a new plan and we were looking forward to getting a good new plan earlier than that, and we think this act should be trying to do that for everyone.
As a sort of citizen group, we think it's important that you maintain the Sewell commission's recommendation that a right to full information about any proposed project be maintained. I can understand arguments against all the other points. I really do not know why there should be any question about this one. Again, we should make the right of appeal open to all citizens regardless of prior participation in the planning process, which seems again to be a fundamental quality of democracy that I hope we're all working towards.
Under point (7), we have a whole list of recommendations. I won't ask you to read them all right now because you're probably familiar with most of them, but again, viewing the Ontario government as setting the standards and requiring the standards for the operation of municipalities, we think it's important that 32, 35 and 45, which deal with the content of a plan, be included in this legislation, and that 46, 47 and 48, which deal with the process of planning, be included, because if we don't stipulate what constitutes a plan in the way of content in this province, and what constitutes a valid process -- and we're just now having a bun fight in Grey county over whether we have a public participation process or not. At present our councillors -- I believe some of them are here today -- are able to say that they are complying with provincial requirements for public participation because those requirements are so fuzzy and so minimal.
So please, I would urge you to ensure that every plan and every process of planning in this province meet minimum standards. While we're in favour of devolution of responsibility, the province must set minimum requirements.
Recommendation 50 I think is a kind of conceptual concern, which is that planning be done on a watershed basis. At the moment, we have boundaries among our various municipalities which make no geographic sense, and it's as a concept -- water being our most -- except for air -- movable resource, we must begin to coordinate on that issue. We would hope that the province will take the leadership in that.
Site alterations: So often the natural environment or existing built environment gets altered prior to approvals. That would be a simple time and a pivotal time to call an end to that.
Registry and rural notification should both be taken up, and septic systems -- we being in a rural jurisdiction, septic systems are an increasing problem and I think we're reaching critical mass in the development of certainly south central Ontario where, yes, in the past we could just blow whatever we wanted out into the ground and it would disappear. It's not the case any more. We're now drawing water off and selling it to the US -- a lot in our county. A lot of us have to drink the dregs and we'd like to make sure that this legislation goes as far as possible to making sure that those are healthy.
Those are the main points. I'm afraid there's an awful number of them but, in essence, our desire is that this committee go back to the Legislature and ensure that the strength of the Sewell commission's work not be dissipated and that all the time and money we've all put into this not result in a document which is essentially ignorable.
Going back to point (1), if we don't say it right, then anybody could just ignore it. Questions?
The Chair: There are some. Mr McLean to begin, four minutes.
Mr McLean: I see that: "The Grey Association for Better Planning is not opposed to economic development. With population growth, development is essential. It is therefore an appropriate goal of a Planning and Development Act. But the necessity for maintaining a sustainable natural environment is equally essential." This is what your association is saying, right?
Mr Ferguson: Yes.
Mr McLean: And you were also, just a few minutes ago, saying that septic systems were something that shouldn't be allowed.
Mr Ferguson: No, I'm sorry.
Mr McLean: How were you -- ?
Mr Ferguson: I think you misunderstood.
Mr McLean: I probably did.
Mr Ferguson: Perhaps I misspoke myself. What we're saying is that septic systems must be regulated and maintained as suggested by the Sewell commission.
Mr McLean: Yes. You just skimmed over this so I didn't get a chance to fully read it all.
Mr Ferguson: It's a rather dense document and I had been hopeful that most people would have received it earlier and been able to extract the main thrusts of it. I was trying to do it verbally so we could cut to the chase.
Mr McLean: Sewell is not very happy, you know. He was at AMO last week and wasn't overly enthused that a lot of his recommendations were left out of this plan.
Mr Ferguson: I'm not surprised by that.
Mr McLean: And there are others beside you who appear to be saying the same thing.
Mr Ferguson: I would hope so.
Mr McLean: I'm curious of what's going to happen with regard to some of the recommendations though. I think the ministry people have said that most of Sewell's recommendations were taken into consideration, but taken into consideration and being part of it, I guess, is a different story, isn't it?
Mr Ferguson: That's what every municipality is going to be saying if this act stays the way it is, "Well, we took it into consideration, but we didn't do it."
Mr McLean: I'd like to ask you the question with regard to planning. We're having some trouble with this: lower tier and upper tier. Do you believe there should be two-tier planning, both at the local level and at the county level?
Mr Ferguson: I think they're both worthwhile. Again, harking back to the comments we made on watershed planning, I think planning is an activity which has to happen at a variety of scales and I think we're only now coming to an appreciation of how the upper tier and lower tier interact. We have enough work done at both tiers historically that we can now begin to say on what issues and to what detail upper tier should be dealing, and then leaving the rest to the lower tier.
As the previous speaker said, I think it's important that we do have local planning being done by local people, but within the bounds of regulations set in the first place by the province; secondly, by the upper-tier government; and thirdly, by the lower tier. It's a matter of negotiation among the upper- and lower-tier governments, but I think for now, in most jurisdictions, it's the way to do it, yes.
Mr McLean: Thank you for coming today. We appreciate it.
1620
Ms Harrington: Thank you for coming down here from Grey county. You've given a very thoughtful presentation with regard to citizens' involvement, and I note particularly the citizen right to full information about the proposed project at the beginning. I'd like to reinforce that I believe it's very important. Your request for intervenor funding is also very important to enable people to have their say.
These are things that we heard about last week as well, the sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment. We heard an excellent presentation last week about this as well, that we do have to think about the environment when we are looking at development.
You did say that the very most important aspect was your number one, which is compliance with policy statements, and that you feel this is very important. Am I reading you right?
Mr Ferguson: Yes.
Ms Harrington: Okay. I'm wondering if you might speculate for me as to why there is a divergence in the people coming before us. Many of them are taking your point of view and saying that, "Yes, we must have strong and clear principles on which planning decisions are made in this province," and the other portion is saying, "You're taking away the rights of municipalities." They seem to be falling into two clear camps.
Mr Ferguson: Yes. I think that happens all over the province.
Ms Harrington: Would you speculate as to why this is?
Mr Ferguson: To me, it comes down to a philosophy of democracy. If we view coming together in legislatures to set the rules to which we all must hew, then on the one side -- the side on which I find myself -- we have to go through a process of determining what those rules are, setting them, making them strong and clear and having everyone live by them. I think that's difficult for the other side -- if I can put it that way -- to understand that there should be anybody who takes authority away from them. I view the proper process as being one of giving over authority to the greater whole in which we determine the rules and then living by them.
Having moved up to Grey county, one of the reasons I moved to Grey county from Toronto was that I rather liked the get-off-my-back attitude of many people up there. It's a pioneer place. It still is, and it's self-sufficient. When one has a history of being self-sufficient, one doesn't like to be told from Toronto what to do. The only way to move beyond that kind of perception is to realize that we're all in this together. We're all coming together, in large or small groups, to define the rules by which we will all live and we're all agreeing to them. It's not as though there is some government out there telling us what to do. The government is of the people; it is the people and we come to agreements and then we must live by them.
The difference, to me, comes down to one of lack of perception and lack of willingness to work together with -- that is, on the side of those who don't wish to have provincial rules -- one's neighbours.
Ms Harrington: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr White, only one question, because we're running out of time. Sorry.
Mr White: Could I start now?
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): There it goes. There's his question.
Mr Winninger: That's it, Drummond, you were never better.
Mr White: Thank you, Mr Ferguson. I'd like to pursue the issue that my friend brought up as well. This afternoon we had a presentation from Grey county. They differ with you on a number of points. I'm sure you're not surprised to hear that.
Mr Ferguson: No.
Mr White: But the issue of compliance with provincial policy statements they differ with markedly. They basically feel that it's all right to have regard to general planning policies such as environmental, integrity and preservation of our natural heritage. One could have regard to it in the same way that you quote here that a local politician said luxury homes would enhance the open landscape, as regard to the policy statements.
I'm wondering if the divergence might have something to do with the fact that you're talking about luxury homes in this example, and that many developers have a lot of money involved with them. There may be more than a difference in regard to where the locus of control is and that kind of get-off-your-back mentality, but also might have something to do with real, genuine, hard-core cash, economic factors.
Mr Ferguson: I'm not sure that there's a strong relation between the circumstance you describe and the last question. It's easier to use your money the fewer regulations you have to follow, certainly, but I think, by drawing that connection, you cast most municipal politicians, who by my understanding tend to believe in fewer provincial regulations, in the role of being in the developers' pockets. I don't think I'm quite as cynical about that; perhaps I haven't been at this as long as you have or in the same way as you have, but I don't believe that's the case.
In my experience of my representatives, most of them have been very honourable people and I don't think the dollar colours their principles in most cases, and so I think I would have to say that I view the dollar concerns as being less important than the simple lack of perception of how democracy should work. Does that help at all? We might have a longer discussion about that at some other time.
The Chair: Later, perhaps. Thanks very much.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for coming forward with your presentation and giving us much to think about, I assure you.
The one thing I've noted is your concern. I think you put your finger on one of the major things wrong with the planning process in Ontario at the present time, and that's the lack of conformity with provincial guidelines, provincial policies, conformity between the upper tier and the lower tier, conformity between municipal official plans and the Niagara Escarpment plan and I guess also, in many areas, the conservation authorities.
I'd like to ask you, realizing the concern that many people have about the conflict between various levels, and agencies, the cost, do you think it would be possible to, or should it be required to, have first of all provincial policies that are going to be approved? And these are the provincial policies. Do you think municipalities should be required to proceed to incorporate them in official plans within a certain time frame, incorporate Niagara Escarpment rules within a time frame and conservation authority concerns, with a view of possibly down the road having one hearing to deal with a piece of land rather than, at the present time -- in some cases, it's three? Do you have any views on that? I noted your concern, and I share your concern, about lack of conformity in the different areas.
Mr Ferguson: That to me was the hopeful thing about the Sewell commission, that it was trying to come up with a coherent, cohesive, integrated set of clear, crisp rules that everybody knew which would gather together all the layers of bodies with possible regulatory interest. So do I think it's possible? Do I think it's desirable? Yes, both, and this should be the first step on the way to it. All I'm saying is, give it some teeth. Don't just throw it out in front of us and say: "Hey, here's a good idea. Take it up if you want." The reason for having the government is that after we've gone through all of this discussion, we come to a decision and the decision is that things shall be this way. That's what we're asking for.
Mr Eddy: And it'd certainly be an advantage to everyone to know all of the rules.
Mr Ferguson: Oh, yes, which is why everybody got excited, why all the developers and municipalities and everybody got together and said: "Hey, let's forget being at one another's throats for a while, let's get together and see if we can figure this thing out. Yes, we can." Sewell almost did a really good job, probably almost got it right. The problem is it's now being watered down. We lost it.
Mr Eddy: So we should come back and look at Sewell very realistically.
Mr Ferguson: Oh, definitely, yes. Everybody wants to get re-elected, but don't be afraid of taking a stand. That's why I elect people. I want people to come up with a decision and say: "We think this is best and everybody's got to live with it. We're your representatives."
Mr Eddy: Thank you for expressing your concern. Mr Curling had a question or two.
Mr Curling: I just commend you for the presentation and being honest and open. I fully agree with you that here's an opportunity to make a good Planning Act and somehow we're getting some people weaselling out of that. It's what Sewell had said.
Mr Grandmaître: You say that Bill 163 is not going far enough. Do you think Bill 163 should have abolished, for instance, the Niagara Escarpment Commission?
Mr Ferguson: Oh, in no way. No. I think the Niagara Escarpment Commission, for all its recognized faults, is a necessary body. We have an incredible place in this province. We have to work with it so that we maintain it. It is simply one of the circumstances which must be integrated into a sensible province-wide planning process.
There may well be other places or other natural occurrences which should be given their own commissions as well. They would be integrated into this system. Planning is a very difficult business. You're always dealing with a patchwork of potentially conflicting desires and unusual places. The responsibility of each municipality has to take into account where it stands with regard to not only other municipalities, not only other governments, but other physical phenomena, of which the Niagara Escarpment is the most obvious at this point.
So good planning will take into account the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the watersheds that flow across different counties. There's this whole patchwork of things that we have to deal with. So, no. I think it's really important that we maintain some kind of continuity of consideration of the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Grandmaître: So you don't agree with the government that said 15 or 20 years ago, when the Niagara Escarpment was put in place, that eventually the plan would be turned over to the -- what? -- 27 or 29 municipalities, I forget exactly. You don't agree with that kind of a move.
Mr Ferguson: Well, to cast myself back then and maybe to think about it in the present too, I think it's of a large enough scale in this province and it's of an unusual enough nature in this world that we have to be planning at much more than a local scale. We have to be considering it at the scale of the beast itself. The only way to do that within the layers of governments we've got right now -- the lowest level at which you can do that is provincially.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Mr Hayes, one last point of clarification.
Mr Hayes: Just for the benefit of the members of the committee, one of the delegations that was here this afternoon -- I think the committee may have been left with the impression that no counties had the subdivision authority. Just for the benefit of the members, I'll list the counties for you: Oxford county in 1983; Huron county between 1983 and 1984; Prince Edward county, January 1994; and Victoria county, January 1994. All of these counties have very good official plans and worked very hard to implement them.
The Chair: Mr Ferguson, thank you for coming and thanks for participating in these hearings.
Mr Ferguson: Thank you. It's been an illuminating discussion for me. I hope it has for everyone else.
The Chair: We will leave for Oshawa at approximately 5. This committee will be adjourned until 9:15 am tomorrow in Oshawa.
The committee adjourned at 1635.