PETERBOROUGH AND DISTRICT HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO COTTAGERS' ASSOCIATIONS
ECO-COUNCIL OF THE PETERBOROUGH AREA
GEORGIAN TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
PIGEON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Thursday 8 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
Peterborough and District Home Builders Association
Murray Davenport, president
Hans Keppler, board member
County of Victoria
Ken Logan, warden
Rob Griffiths, planning director
Patricia Carlos
Bruce Edmunds
Mark B. Stagg
City of Peterborough
Anne Marie Predko, legal assistant
Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations
Ambrose Moran, chair
Eco-Council of the Peterborough Area
Jean Greig, chair
County of Peterborough
Gary Stewart, warden
Doug Armstrong, clerk-administrator
Brian Weir, planning director
City of Kingston
Norman Jackson, city solicitor
Ian MacInnis, councillor
City of Vaughan
Scott Somerville, chief administrative officer
Theresa Caron, commissioner, legal and corporate services
Donald MacDonald
Georgian Triangle Development Institute
Colin Travis, president
Dave Slade, chair, committee on the Sewell Commission and vice-president
Pigeon Lake Environmental Association
Dan Kennaley, board member
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud 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)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Ms Harrington
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
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/ Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
for Mr Gary Wilson
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mr Tilson
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Bisson
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Harnick
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Ms Haeck
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs:
Boeckner, Pat, manager, plans administration branch
Dewar, Diana, manager, municipal planning policy branchHayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister
Jones, Paul, manager, local government policy branch
Melville, Tom, legal counsel
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Stobo, Carolyn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0934 in the Ramada Inn, Peterborough.
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.
PETERBOROUGH AND DISTRICT HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): We're quite ready to begin, happy to be here in Peterborough. We invite our first guests, Mr Murray Davenport and Mr Hans Keppler. Welcome to this committee. You have half an hour for your presentation. Please leave as much time as you can for the members to ask you questions.
Mr Murray Davenport: My presentation here is on behalf of the Peterborough and District Home Builders Association. I am currently president, and Hans Keppler is a director of the local association.
Your committee has received a presentation in the past from the Ontario Home Builders' Association which we have reviewed, and we are here to express support for their positions. However, we are also prepared to speak to the issue on our own behalf with some points we would like clarified in addition to the presentation by the Ontario Home Builders' Association.
The Peterborough and District Home Builders Association represents more than 80 small businesses which are involved in the development and construction of new houses in the Peterborough district. Our industry has been ravaged by the recent recession in the 1990s and by the increased cost of constructing houses created by changes in the Ontario Building Code and provincial legislation created by our provincial government.
We have concerns with Bill 163 as presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. As I mentioned, we have reviewed the concerns expressed by the Ontario Home Builders' Association in their brief dated August 25 and we do support their recommendations. We have prepared this brief in an effort to expand on some of our local concerns as they relate to Bill 163.
The Peterborough region is a rural community with issues and concerns largely separate from those issues and concerns encountered in the Toronto region. We have concluded that the legislation presented to the House is often based on issues peculiar to the Toronto region, which do not necessarily apply to the rural regions of Ontario.
The size and nature of land development projects in Peterborough are relatively small with the number of lots commonly being created ranging from 25 to 100 lots per application. Obviously the planning costs related to a small plan of subdivision are high relative to the number of lots being created as all developments must follow a similar process whether that development is large or small. That compares with housing developments in Toronto of 500 to 1,000 homes or greater.
Mr David Cooke, as the Minister of Housing, created the position of provincial facilitator to address the real concerns of the development industry in the province as they existed in the late 1980s. The theme of the day was to streamline the planning process so developments could be brought on stream with a minimum of delay so affordable housing could be provided by the free market home building industry. This experiment has worked relatively well in addressing the processing issues of the day, with the exception of procedural issues created by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and to my knowledge most of those problems haven't been resolved to this day. This act serves to reverse the trends created by the provincial facilitator's office.
Subsection 51(14) of the act states, "At least 30 days before a decision is made by an approval authority under subsection (20), the approval authority shall ensure that," among other things "a public meeting is held."
We interpret that to mean that before conditions of draft plan approval are issued by the approval authority, and in Peterborough that's the city of Peterborough, they must have a public meeting within 30 days of the issuance of conditions of draft plan approval.
The city of Peterborough is currently reviewing a 39-lot plan of subdivision, and it held a public meeting on August 29, 1994, to receive the comments of the affected community. The normal process in the city of Peterborough dictates that city council will have the opportunity to make its first official decision on this application on September 12, 1994 -- that's next Monday -- which is 14 days after the public meeting. Conditions of draft plan approval then have to be prepared and issued within 16 days after September 12 the way Bill 163 is written, as I understand it.
0940
Should council decide that the issues related to this development project are too involved to permit decision at that time, and with the city of Peterborough that's not unusual, then the next time city council would review the issue, based on the normal cycle of council meetings in Peterborough, would be October 3, 1994. Subsection (14) would require that a new public meeting be held, complete with proper notice procedures being implemented, before conditions of draft plan approval can finally be issued.
The implications of this subsection are extensive and a knowledgeable objector to a development proposal will have immense power under the legislation to oppose the processing of this development application. We believe this subsection is unnecessary and too restrictive on the developer. I think at the local level one public meeting is sufficient for our subdivision development applications. There's really no need to keep following up with a cycle of public meetings.
The ability to make minor changes to the approved plan by redline amendment has been removed from the Planning Act. This change restricts the approving authority and the developer from making changes that make sense. Usually the reason for using the redline amendment rule was not obvious during the application review process, so this flexibility in the act has been important in the past in resolving minor issues encountered when finalizing a subdivision plan just prior to registration.
We recommend that redline amendments of draft plans of subdivision be permitted under the Planning Act.
Subsection 51(33): "The approval authority may, in its discretion, withdraw the approval of a draft plan of subdivision or change the conditions of such approval at any time before the approval of the final plan of subdivision under subsection (47)."
This subsection dramatically increases the risk of proposing new plans of subdivisions by private developers. Considerable expense is incurred by the developer in obtaining draft approval of a plan of subdivision in its first instance, and all of that investment can be lost by a sudden change in personnel or policy of the approval authority. Just imagine the impact that a change of municipal council can have on the development process with this clause in force and effect.
The approval authority should not have the ability to withdraw the approval of a draft plan of subdivision, in our opinion.
These are our comments, in addition to the comments that have already been presented to you by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. We'll address any questions that you might have.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think my question will be directed to the parliamentary assistant on the redline amendment. I think it should be clarified that redlining or minor changes to the plan or plans can be made. They will be allowed, right? Am I right?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I will refer that to staff, if you don't mind, Mr Grandmaître.
Ms Diana Dewar: I'm Diana Dewar from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. There is no change in Bill 163 that would prevent any changes to be made to the draft approval. The change in Bill 163 would require, though, that where there's a change in conditions, notice would be required.
Mr Davenport: With the echo in here, it's difficult to hear what you're saying.
Ms Dewar: Sorry. Bill 163 does not prevent changes being made to the draft approval, but the change would be that notice would have to be given where there's a change made to the draft approval.
Mr Davenport: Yes. It's quite extensive. It's about the same as the notice for an additional application for a plan of subdivision.
Ms Dewar: Yes.
Mr Hans Keppler: But that's the problem. We have to start from scratch again, and that is what we're trying to prevent, because redline changes are minor little changes which are usually agreed by planning staff anyway. So it's not something that the developer wants to put over on the municipality or prevent in the act. It's something which is agreed mutually. It's a convenience.
Mr Davenport: We agree with your comment. The issue is that the circulation of the changes that are allowed under the new act are so extensive it's about the same as a review at the initial instance of the application for plan of subdivision. If the intent of the government is to streamline the development process, then this is the one good way of stopping that from happening.
Mr Hayes: This particular issue has been raised by many presenters, and I think that is something that the committee may have to take a good look at. I can't make any commitments at this time, but it is something that I know has been brought up several times.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for your presentation. As we go around the province and listen to some of the developers, some who are not the large developers, so to speak, but those who are in the medium, 35, 50, creation of homes and all that, they seem to have more frustration in the process than any other, and normally legislation seems to target the big ones and the small ones get more broadsided on this itself.
One of the things we've asked the government to define, I know that one of things that held you up in your development is the fact of minor variances. Do you have an idea of what a minor variance is as defined, or if it is not defined or if it should be defined, in this new legislation? Do you have an idea of what minor variances would be as defined in the legislation as you have read it?
Mr Davenport: I'm not real clear, quite frankly, on minor variance as it relates to this act. Are you thinking of the current process?
Mr Curling: Yes. Do you feel then that it should be very clear what a minor variance is in the legislation? Maybe I should ask the parliamentary assistant to define for us what a minor variance is as it's reflected in here.
Mr Hayes: I would certainly like to. I think Mr Curling was at the meeting the other day when we had the individual from the Ontario committees of adjustment association. I know that question was raised there, and that individual even said, when some members thought that the government should give the definition, that it's certainly very hard for anybody to do. I think, you know, it takes probably some common sense more than anything in dealing with minor variances.
Mr Davenport: That's the system that minor variances are working under at the present time, and it's effective as far as we're concerned. I'm sure that the planning staff for the local municipalities have to define on a daily basis the limits of what a minor variance really is and what's a planning policy.
Mr Curling: Then, as the parliamentary assistant has stated, they have no idea of what a minor variance is. It could be large, it could be small, but it's minor in itself. What it is though -- I'm talking about developers -- you have identified the fact that a minor variance can be something that is very costly to developers like yourself, because it takes time in which to know what is being amended and what is being addressed.
Mr Davenport: In Peterborough minor variances, as they are currently implemented, take about two months to go through the process. Minor variances in relation to a house builder will come up primarily because of an error in the layout of the house, so you implement the minor variance process and in the period of time it takes to build the house, then everything's approved and there's not a problem. It might be a bigger issue in other communities, but I don't think it is in Peterborough.
Mr Curling: It's not there. Thank you very much.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Does Peterborough have the subdivision approval authority?
Mr Davenport: Yes.
Mr McLean: Is it working?
Mr Davenport: Well, since the approval authority was given to the city of Peterborough, I would think that we have only gone through one plan of subdivision under that system. There are not a lot of subdivisions being approved over the last two or three years. Is it working? I would say, yes, we're hoping that it will work.
0950
Mr McLean: Do you think this legislation is going to change anything in that, Bill 163? I guess the bottom line is, in your opinion is this bill going to speed up the planning process or is it going to slow it down?
Mr Davenport: Well, our interpretation at this moment in time is that it's going to slow it down, and that is the position of the Ontario Home Builders' Association as well who have done a more in-depth study of Bill 163 than we have.
Mr McLean: We had some planners and consultants make presentations to us in Midhurst on Monday and they were of the very same opinion. I don't know what we're going to do about that because we have not seen any amendments that the government may be bringing in, we have not seen any regulations to implement the bill. After these hearings are all over we'll probably have 50 amendments and people will want to have some say on them and there will be no opportunity for public hearings on that.
The other question that I have is about the surrounding area around Peterborough. Does it have an upper level of --
Mr Davenport: An upper-tier government?
Mr McLean: -- an upper-tier government that has planning approval, official planning?
Mr Davenport: No, we're fortunate to not have regional government in Peterborough. We have county government and city government.
Mr McLean: Does the county government have any planning approval or does it have an official plan?
Mr Davenport: No. They've applied for planning approval but they haven't received that as yet.
Mr David Winninger (London South): This came up indirectly earlier, but the point you raise on page 2 of your brief under section 3, regarding the necessity of city council having two public meetings in rapid succession if they're unable to come to a conclusion at the first of their regular council meetings, I just wondered if the ministry or the parliamentary assistant has any response to that issue that's raised there. Would it in fact be necessary to have two public meetings if they were unable to reach a determination at the first of the regular council meetings?
Ms Pat Boeckner: No, we don't think that's the way it can be done. The legislation requires 30 days' notice before the public meeting is held so that the public have a chance to prepare and come to the meeting. Bill 163 would require 30 days' notice of a plan of subdivision. Let me just refer to the section for a minute. It's subsection (14), 30 days before a decision is made by council.
Mr Davenport: What page is that on?
Ms Boeckner: Page 39.
Mr Davenport: That's a subsection of section 51.
Ms Boeckner: That's right. So 30 days before a decision is made the council must give notice and hold a public hearing if it's required. You'll notice that (14)(b) says "a public meeting is held, if required by regulation."
Mr Davenport: So how do you get around that with Bill 163? It's required.
Ms Boeckner: Dale Martin's task force on implementation is consulting with UDI and the home builders and so on, for instance, in what circumstances would a public meeting be held. Examples given, for instance, are if there's a public meeting being held on a zoning bylaw application or an official plan amendment, perhaps the two public meetings could be combined, or something like that. But that regulation is being consulted on with groups like your own and planners and other stakeholders to create that regulation.
Mr Davenport: So that is under review and possible change then?
Ms Boeckner: That's right. I would suggest that if you have ideas on that, you feed them through the implementation task force.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Could I have a definition of what a public meeting is? Is it possible that if the developer has brought forward a request for a change in a subdivision plan, that usually has to go to council and that's usually done in an open council meeting. Would that suffice as a public meeting if it was advertised early enough, or would you have to hold a separate meeting in a separate venue with separate advertising and at the expense of the developers?
If it can be done in the regular process of council's committee of the whole or at the regular council meeting, then public meetings -- it seems to me that we're having an awful lot of public meetings around my part of the world.
Ms Boeckner: I'm sorry, I didn't give my name before. My name is Pat Boeckner and I'm with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the operations division.
In that case where council has given a draft approval and they're going to change something about the approval, the conditions or otherwise, they're not required to hold another public meeting but they are required to give notice to the public -- actually, in the bill there's a long list of people that have to be notified of a change -- and appeal rights would kick in at that point. Council may choose to hold a public meeting.
In my experience, when there are major changes made to a draft plan, council may have to change the zoning bylaw, will probably have to change the zoning at any rate, so they would go through a public meeting, but minor changes may not require that and then you have to rely on getting notice.
Mr Davenport: As planning consultants, we do work on both sides of the fence and we do have the opportunity on occasion to advise clients on how to delay the process to the point of frustrating a developer to the point where he'd just give up on the project. Under the current Planning Act it is very easy to extend the process for three or four or five years without a whole lot of difficulty. If we have to keep going back and doing new public meetings to inform the public of changes to the plan that have happened, which is normal in the development process, then the system of being able to frustrate developers is going to be much easier to do for planning consultants like ourselves or others.
Mr Wiseman: In the course of subdivision approval through the site plan approval process this is where the minor variances would take place, but if you're going to move a road from one part of a subdivision to another part of a subdivision, then that would be a major amendment which would require the public process. But the other minor variance types of things where you would just, say, move a road over half a foot or something, this isn't something that would normally be required to go to a public meeting.
Mr Davenport: That's where we have a difference, or feel that this legislation is initiated in Toronto and not in Peterborough. The chance of us changing the location of a road as it enters a plan of subdivision when you're dealing with only 25 or 30 lots is really quite small. I understand that in the 1,000 to 1,500 lot subdivisions it's not uncommon to make a major change of the total road layout inside the boundary of the plan, but in Peterborough it's very seldom that kind of major change to the plan even happens.
1000
Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, I'd like to clarify something, please, if you don't mind. On your concern number 5 on subsection (33), that's the same in the new bill as it is in the old act. It hasn't changed, and it's a section that is very seldom ever used. You're concerned about delaying the process. That's why we put in time frames to go by, time limits for responding. Those are a couple of issues.
The other part, regarding minor variances: I said earlier, and no one seems to be able to have a clear-cut definition, sometimes these things are based on their own merit. But the fact of the matter is, even today, when you talk about minor variances, they certainly have to conform to the official plan. In other words, they're governed by the official plan.
I find it actually kind of interesting. People are saying, "How do you interpret or describe or give the definition of a minor variance?" and some of the same people have been dealing with minor variances for years. We're not going to be changing what a minor variance is.
Mr Grandmaître: But the difference is we can appeal minor variances.
The Chair: We'll have an opportunity as we go along for people to raise their points as well. We thank you for your brief.
COUNTY OF VICTORIA
The Chair: We invite the county of Victoria, Mr Robert Griffiths and Warden Ken Logan. Welcome to this committee. You obviously have noticed that unless we speak clearly and loudly, we won't be heard, so keep that in mind. If you want the members to ask you as many questions as you like, remember to keep your brief as brief as possible.
Mr Ken Logan: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today with respect to Bill 163 as it relates to the Planning Act. I'm Ken Logan, warden of the county of Victoria, and with me is Rob Griffiths, the planning director for the county of Victoria.
Before going into the details of our presentation, I would like to provide a description of Victoria county to assist the committee members. The county of Victoria abuts Durham region and is one of the fastest-growing counties in the province of Ontario; and I would say that as counties, not as regions.
Victoria county has a permanent population of 63,000. It consists of 18 local municipalities with one town, five villages and 12 townships. It is situated in the heart of the Kawartha Lakes system with the Trent-Severn waterway providing a recreational corridor through the county. With the seasonal population of campers, cottagers and tourists, the summer population within the county doubles. In addition to the lakes and rivers, the county supports a strong agricultural community as well as being a major source for aggregate from the Oak Ridges moraine in the south to the Carden Plain in the north.
The planning department was established in the county of Victoria in 1974. In 1978 the county adopted its first official plan that covers the entire county. There are three local official plans in effect within the county. These cover the town of Lindsay, the township of Ops and the village of Fenelon Falls. These three municipalities represent about 35% of the county's total population and tax base. Lindsay has its own planning staff, while the township of Ops and the village of Fenelon Falls use consultants. The remaining 15 municipalities in the county utilize the services of the county planning department.
The planning department at the county has prepared comprehensive zoning bylaws for 15 municipalities. On a day-to-day basis they provide planning advice on development proposals, minor variances etc. The county planning department, as well as administering the county official plan, was delegated in January of this year responsibility for approving plans of subdivisions and condominiums.
The planning department also comments on consents, which are administered by the county land division committee. The land division committee is responsible for the granting of consents in all of the municipalities except the town of Lindsay.
With respect to our concerns, the first major concern that the county of Victoria has with Bill 163 is that the counties are not being treated in the same manner as other upper-tier municipalities. Section 10 of Bill 163, which incorporates a new section 17 in the Planning Act, gives all regions except Metro Toronto the power to approve local official plans.
As earlier stated, the county of Victoria has had an official plan since 1978 and was delegated the authority for subdivision approval earlier this year. The county has had an official plan and a planning department for as long as many of the regions and carries on many of the same functions. On this basis, the county of Victoria feels it should have the same responsibilities given to the majority of the regions within this province. This would include the ability to approve local official plans and amendments thereto.
The second major concern is the provision under section 8 of Bill 163 that incorporates section 14.1 into the Planning Act. This provision permits two or more local municipalities to establish a planning area with the minister's concurrence. If a group of local municipalities form a municipal planning area, they would then assume the responsibility for the administration of the county official plan. They would also not contribute to the county levy for planning processes.
This has two significant downfalls. The first is that it takes away the ability to plan in an overall, comprehensive manner for issues that cross municipal boundaries. An example is the county road system. If municipal planning areas are formed, the county would no longer have a role in land use planning but would still be responsible for providing a road network for present and future generations. Land use patterns are directly related to the transportation network and cannot be carried out in isolation of each other.
The second matter is the economics of scale. If municipal planning areas no longer contribute towards the county levy, it could financially jeopardize the planning function at the county level. Planning is a multidisciplinary matter that not only covers land use matters but also deals with the environment, transportation, agriculture and natural resources. Without a strong financial base for the planning function, the number of people with various areas of expertise within the planning department could be reduced, affecting the level of expertise and experience to deal with major planning issues.
Section 10 of Bill 163, under subsection 17(7) of the act, will require prescribed counties to prepare an official plan. Under section 40 of Bill 163, section 69.2 is being added to the Planning Act, which permits the minister to charge administration fees to a county for processing of planning applications if the county fails to adopt a plan.
It is our understanding that Victoria county will be a prescribed county because it abuts the greater Toronto area and is subject to significant growth. If Victoria county is a prescribed county and municipalities are allowed the opportunity to opt out of the county planning by forming a municipal planning authority, it significantly weakens planning at the county level. Secondly, the provision to charge an administration fee towards counties is discriminatory in that it does not apply to any other municipality.
A third area of concern to the county is subsection 6(2) of Bill 163 amending subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, which requires planning decisions to be consistent with policy statements. This provision in the Planning Act, along with expanded and detailed policy statements, essentially means that municipalities, both upper and lower tier, will have less ability to tailor provincial policy to fit local circumstances. Provincial staff will be able to identify items that would qualify and be regulated by the provincial policy statements without any public input.
For example, within Victoria county there is a major aggregate deposit that ministry staff decided was an area of natural and scientific interest. This major aggregate resource cannot be extracted and is to be left in its natural state. It could just as easily have been shown as an area of significant aggregate. If so, the mineral aggregate policies would have applied. Either way, there was no local involvement as to whether that aggregate material should or should not be removed and whether the area should or should not remain in its natural state. It was all determined by Ministry of Natural Resources staff, in-house, with no public consultation.
This is just one area where there is potential conflict between provincial policy statements that could have a substantial impact on residents. For example, if that aggregate deposit was not identified as an ANSI but as a significant aggregate deposit, then it could have an impact on the local residents with the haulage routes, hours of operation etc.
Policy statements should be a guide in the development of official plans. Ministry staff, in reviewing draft official plans or amendments, can have input into their development along with the public. The municipal board could be involved to resolve a matter of whether it is of provincial significance if a disagreement occurs. This process has worked in the past and was found to be acceptable from a municipal perspective.
Once an official plan is approved, then any zoning bylaw that is passed should conform to that official plan and no regard should have to be made back to the provincial policy statements, since the plan would be considered to have regard to the policy statements. This process allows for public input to meet local circumstances while having considered the policy statements.
1010
The policy statements and legislative requirements require substantial upfront reports, studies and background information, and result in a very costly process for small business and individuals with small development proposals. It also greatly increases the municipal costs for preparing plans and amendments. In rural Ontario these costs are significant for both taxpayers and small businesses.
Finally, the time periods that are being established are lengthy and may not streamline the approval process. For example, in the proposed subsection 17(16) of the Planning Act, council cannot adopt an amendment until 30 days after the public meeting. This requirement will delay a number of amendments up to a month or more. The majority of the amendments to official plans adopted by Victoria county have no objection from ratepayers or agencies that have provided comments.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to make our views known to you, and we respectfully request that the committee amend Bill 163 to address our concerns.
Mr McLean: Thank you for your brief. That was very well put together and well documented. It raises some issues there that I hope the ministry will take into consideration and address.
The one issue I wanted to discuss with you was with regard to the road network, present and future generations. There are very few who have hit on that very subject. We were meeting yesterday around Metropolitan Toronto. None of the delegates talked about anything to do with the planning with regard to our transportation system. I see today that you have raised that, and it's a very important issue.
The other issue is with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources putting on and designating an area of significant interest with no public consultation. If the ministries are allowed to proceed and not have any consultation with the public -- I thought the official plan was to be drawn by the local people, with public hearings held and public input. Is that still on your official plan? Is there any change in that?
Mr Robert Griffiths: At the present time the Planning Act has "regard to" and so we must consider things of provincial significance. The proposed change in Bill 163 would be "be consistent with," I believe is the wording, and that leaves very little room, in our view, to allow for public input, and decisions can be made by ministry staff without public input.
As another example, we have an area that is subject to flooding in part of our county. Access is considered a major concern with respect to that policy statement, access to and from those cottages. We have properties in that area that are subject to flooding that are going to be high and dry during a flood. They are going to be two or three feet above water during a regulatory flood, but the access is going to be flooded. Is that any different from an island, where you must get to it by boat? There should be the ability to look at a provincial policy statement and provide some local flavour to it to meet the local circumstances.
Mr McLean: The other question I have has to do with the lower tier and the opportunity to opt out of county planning. In your view, should all lower-tier municipalities have an official plan, as well as the upper tier, such as the county of Victoria has its official plan?
Mr Logan: I believe that, yes, they should have, but I believe it should be a supplementary to the upper-tier official plan.
Mr McLean: It's got to coincide with the upper tier if they want any approvals, from my understanding. Is that right?
Mr Logan: Absolutely.
Mr McLean: But you only have two municipalities, other than the town of Lindsay.
Mr Griffiths: Three.
Mr McLean: There are three?
Mr Griffiths: Two, plus Lindsay.
Mr McLean: Yes, two with Lindsay that have official plans.
Mr Logan: Yes.
Mr McLean: Are the others in the process of doing anything?
Mr Logan: Some are, and to the best of my knowledge there are several that are not. But I know some of them are considering it.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): As the warden, you're quite obviously disturbed by the Ministry of Natural Resources having no public consultation or whatever in the designation of a considerable aggregate deposit. Did you get an explanation for that? Did it just happen and you were told: "This is the way we see it, thank you very much. Your input isn't required"?
Mr Logan: I haven't received any explanation for it. Something may have gone through the staff. I'll refer to Robert. Did you have a staff person receive anything?
Mr Griffiths: It was identified in the mineral aggregate reports produced by the ministry as an area of significant deposit. I believe it's an esker. It's probably one of the two biggest eskers in the province, so it certainly is significant. There was certainly in the development of our county official plan a lot of discussion in house between ministry staff of whether that area should be extracted or whether it should remain in its natural state. There was no public involvement in that process.
The county at one point tried to acquire part of that for a gravel pit and was told that it could not be used. The county was not successful in purchasing it so did not pursue it. A major aggregate producer has purchased it and is probably keeping if for the long term. What happens at that point I don't know.
Mr Villeneuve: The designation of wetlands: Is this a problem in your jurisdiction at this point with land owners not realizing that they're either in the buffer area or in wetlands, very much limiting what they can do with their property?
Mr Griffiths: I think the biggest problem with wetlands is that they're essentially all being reclassified within our area and being redefined. Areas that were class 4 or 5 wetlands three or four years ago which were incorporated into our official plan have been reclassified and are now, for example, class 2 or something. So they've changed. I think there are probably some that have gone the other way too. But that causes some concern from the public in that it seems to be a moving target. We try to incorporate it into the official plan, but already the official plan is out of date with the reclassification.
Mr McLean: Who reclassified them?
Mr Griffiths: The ministry staff. They've come up with a new classification system and have gone back and re-evaluated them.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I wonder if that was approved by the Legislature.
Mr Villeneuve: You don't need to wonder.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, five minutes.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for bringing forward the concerns that you have, because they are very important. You'll be interested to know that of the 26 counties in Ontario, it looks like we're going to hear from about half with presentations. They all agree with you, number one, that the counties are not being treated fairly or equally, and we're given reasons for that.
You feel that you will be a prescribed county, is that right? Have you been given any indication that you are going to be designated a prescribed county and therefore delegation of all authority -- or you're hopeful you will be?
Mr Griffiths: It's not a matter of hope. In discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, it was my understanding that Victoria county would be one of the designated municipalities because we abut the greater Toronto area, we're subject to a fair amount of growth, we have an official plan. In their view we are one of the logical ones that would be prescribed.
1020
Mr Eddy: In that case, it's unfortunate you weren't named in the bill, Victoria county, the same as the regions.
Mr Griffiths: We're assuming we're going to be in.
Mr Eddy: You assume. Well, I hope that works out. It is a matter of hope. I think I'd have to term it that way.
On the matter of municipalities in a county opting out, all of the counties that have made presentations are very, very concerned about that. They're distressed about it, as a matter of fact. My suggestion, and we'll present an amendment to that effect, is that a municipality in a county can only opt out of a county planning program or arrangement with the permission of that county council. I think that's a must or else we're going to have some really serious problems in planning in counties across the province. Would you agree with that proposal --
Mr Logan: Definitely.
Mr Eddy: -- that you would consider it and look at it and maybe counties would have criteria under which they would grant that or consider it?
You've also pointed out many concerns about provincial policies which are mandatory which I understand, at least the agriculture policies, have had no consultation with municipalities, or very little. They've been formulated. They're mandated. They're not under review during this review of the bill. You pointed out, as have many others, conflicts between various policies, and I think you mention one specifically that had to do with aggregates.
From my experience with the designation of the aggregates deposits, the big concern from the people, the citizens, is the transportation of aggregates and therefore you mentioned about the transportation corridors and the roads -- very important.
How do you feel we should be dealing with the provincial policies? Do you think they should be reviewed completely and hearings held, have input before this bill is passed or afterwards? What is your view on that to really come to grips from a public point of view with the provincial policies?
Mr Logan: Without a policy review, I don't know how the grass roots of the community can be addressed in their concerns. I don't know who knows any better about what impact an aggregate resource or an extraction operation can have on a municipality than the local residents. So if there isn't public input and review of policies, I know of no other way that it can be fair.
Mr Eddy: The other thing I'll just briefly comment on is the difference between urban and rural Ontario. You pointed out the differences, and they have to be considered, I think.
Mr Grandmaître: If I may, I'd like to refer to Understanding Ontario's Planning Reform, and maybe the parliamentary assistant can answer my questions.
On page 3, "Municipal role": It refers to official plans. "The proposed legislation will require that all regions, prescribed counties, separated municipalities, cities in northern Ontario, and planning boards and municipal planning authorities prepare an official plan." Is there a deadline to have these plans in place?
Mr Hayes: No, there isn't.
Mr Grandmaître: If there's no deadline, how can we best serve Bill 163? Because now we're talking about the municipal role and all of these regions and planning boards, municipal planning authorities in northern Ontario and all prescribed counties will need an official plan.
Mr Hayes: If you don't mind, Mr Chair, I wouldn't mind if I could put this question to the proper people, people from a county such as yours and people who are consulters and planners, you people yourselves. Those are the people we should be asking. Do you think that there should be a deadline on when all counties should --
Mr Grandmaître: We're the legislators.
Mr Hayes: No, no. We want to hear from those people, not just the parliamentary assistant's opinion. We want to hear from the public, the planners and the municipal politicians.
The Chair: Mr Logan.
Mr Hayes: I'm not meaning to put you on the spot, but do you feel, with Mr Grandmaître's comments, that there should be a deadline on when we implement that all counties have an official plan?
Mr Grandmaître: It says so; once they're in place.
Mr Hayes: Once they're in place, yes. But what you're asking here --
Mr Grandmaître: How long will it take, 10, 15, 20 years?
Mr Eddy: I see the point.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, you asked a question. Do you want to give a comment? Do you want Ms Dewar to comment? How do we want to proceed here?
Ms Dewar: If I may clarify, counties will be required to prepare an official plan within a scheduled time frame.
Mr Grandmaître: Counties?
Ms Dewar: Yes. That's just on the bottom of page 3 of Understanding Ontario's Planning Reform. The time frame will be prescribed by regulation, so each county will be dealt with individually.
Mr Grandmaître: So that means it could take 15 years. Thank you.
The Chair: All right. Mr Hayes, do you have some points of clarification to make?
Mr Curling: Is that the end of our time?
The Chair: Yes; five minutes per caucus.
Mr Hayes: Just a couple of points, because it has been mentioned in our committee several times that certain individuals or stakeholders have not been consulted with, and we do know that municipalities have been consulted with. I think we had a 90-day period for people to respond to this final Sewell commission, for example. We've sent out 28,000 documents, involving 65 stakeholder meetings, we've received over 600 written responses and we're still consulting with the public. I just wanted to make that very clear, that we are consulting, we are listening and we are prepared to certainly look at the presentations that are being made, and we are prepared ourselves to come forward with amendments to address some of these particular issues that have been raised here.
The other issue, dealing with the Ministry of Natural Resources just designating wetlands or what have you, what the Ministry of Natural Resources does is actually map the areas. They are not the ones that designate it. It's the municipalities that would do the designation in their official plans. I know the frustration many municipalities and the public themselves have gone through for years and years. The Ministry of Natural Resources going in and just designating an area is not as a result of Bill 163, and I think we should make that clear. That has been the process for many years. But now we're looking at streamlining the system and involving more public. The public will be involved in the future when MNR, for example, decides to designate a wetland, and the landowner especially will be notified.
So I can appreciate your frustration dealing with designating wetlands and aggregate areas and things of that nature, but it's not something that came as a result of Bill 163, and I think we should understand that. If you want any further clarification, I would ask the staff to respond, Mr Chair.
Mr Eddy: I think the frustration is with the changing of the rules.
The Chair: Let me just ask Mr Griffiths if he has a response to the comments.
Mr Griffiths: I think the only comment I have is that Bill 163, in my opinion, is changing it, because it's changing from "have regard to" to "be consistent with." "Have regard to" gives you the opportunity to have the public, in the official plan review process, comment on the wetlands, comment on aggregates and these designations that go in the official plan. If we have "be consistent with," it leaves very little flexibility, in my view, for the public to alter what the Ministry of Natural Resources identifies as a wetland site.
Mr Hayes: We understand where you're coming from, but we feel that "be consistent with" is something that has to be there so that we have good planning in this province.
1030
The Chair: Okay. We've run out of time. We thank you for participating in these discussions, Mr Logan and Mr Griffiths.
Mr Logan: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
PATRICIA CARLOS
The Chair: We invite Ms Patricia Carlos. Welcome, Ms Carlos.
Ms Patricia Carlos: I thank you for allowing me this opportunity, ladies and gentlemen. I am bringing your attention today to the part of the bill which is the conflict-of-interest portion. My report has been written without malice intended. I have to mention names because I feel that those are the factors that are truly involved. Excuse me while I get my glasses.
I'm here to address a problem, ladies and gentlemen, which has plagued many citizens of Chandos for many years. Chandos township is ruled by an élite group: seasonal residents who spend 30 to 60 nights at best per year on their cottage property on Chandos Lake. This group comprises the Chandos Lake Property Owners' Association, which I will refer to as the CLPOA for the sake of typing, and chooses to install a council which is committed to carrying out its wishes first and other residents' wishes last, if at all. I shall demonstrate how this is done, its effects upon residents and payoff for services rendered to one supporter.
The CLPOA began in 1947 as a social organization bringing together the few cottagers on Chandos Lake. Later, it took on the responsibility to ascertain the water quality of the lake and protect fish populations in it. By 1973, cottage development had increased considerably and there were about 700 members in the club. Also in 1973, a proposal of a condominium and massive lake development, over seven miles of shoreline, was being looked at. This alarmed the lake association, which then became incorporated in order to take on the legal battle.
In the fall of that year, its members successfully installed their slate of council members in the municipal government. In the brackets, I have little numbers. I actually had attachments, but you haven't received them. There are only eight copies, so if you'd like to refer to those, please ask for them. Bill Domm was the selected reeve who also took on the job of selling the negotiated lake lots, which were considerably reduced in number from the original proposed amount. Membership today stands at about 700 to 750, although only 20 to 30 families attend annual meetings. There is also another small group of ratepayers, of which I am president.
Elections: I'd like to refer to how these are done. To contest the CLPOA slate -- and I refer to it as a slate because they install five people, and they tell you how to vote and who to vote for -- successfully is impossible, I find. In 1991, Joan Rayment and I ran for council. Election day was very good to us; Joan scored the highest number of votes and I the third highest. However, the three advance polls proved that most seasonal residents voted in block. Two other councillors received similar votes, 579 and 570. A little pink card was distributed with a newsletter and some of these cards were seen visibly in the voting booth. The end result was that their team received two votes to our one vote.
Joan and I paid for our own election expenses. The ratepayers' association, which I was no longer the president of at that time, sent out a two-page newsletter. However, the CLPOA targets $2,500 to the election campaign, sends extensive newsletters, sets up candidate meetings for its candidates and puts together for its candidates a precise telephone committee. On the eve of election, the campaign chairman called three times from Texas to get the results. In the attachment, you will see quite clearly listed that Mr Harold Forbes is the campaign chairman.
This is where the payoff comes in. Mr and Mrs H. Forbes have a cottage on the West Bay basin. In 1990, Mr Forbes as well as other members of the CLPOA executive, including myself because I was there then, received copies of a letter from the MNR which cited the west basin of Chandos Lake to be frozen to further development. All those things are attached. However, Mr Forbes wished to sever his property and build a permanent home on the severed part. Mrs Forbes applied and, on November 27, 1991, received approval with conditions for the severance from the Peterborough county land division committee.
The approval raised some controversy from several ministries. In 1993, the county of Peterborough's official plan was accepted. It omitted this fact, the fact that West Bay basin was frozen, citing only that Gilmour Bay may not be developed. This was based on a lake carrying capacity study done by Michael Michalski Associates for the township of Chandos. The study was requested by the CLPOA, and $5,000 was donated towards the total price of $32,297. Mr Harold Forbes sat on the executive of the CLPOA.
Cause number 1: amalgamation. Amalgamation with the township of Burleigh-Anstruther is unquestionable and denied by this council and the CLPOA. Without going through the arduous background of these past six years, I shall focus on a newsletter sent to taxpayers this year. In that newsletter -- and there are copies of it -- council declares clearly and adamantly its refusal to accept the boundaries committee proposal for amalgamation. It criticizes and points to only negative facts of the study. These are based on worst-case scenarios, such as expanding quarters of municipal offices. When they made comparisons of the cost increases, they looked at the worst scenario and of course proposed it. Also, the facts submitted for making comparison in taxes were distorted because Chandos has included 123 tax bills assessed at 43, having a value of $7.45, and 16 tax bills assessed at 64, having a value of $11.09. These 139 tax bills are for a 100-acre parcel which would normally carry one tax bill.
Also, in this newsletter no reference is made to Apsley hamlet and to its benefits to residents. It does not explain the fact that Chandos does not support the arena-community centre in Apsley. That of course is part of the additional cost that would be levied to the taxpayers in Chandos.
This newsletter resulted in 700 negative responses to amalgamation and about 20 positive ones. Those who signed the petition -- and there was a petition signed, by the way, with 200 signatures on it, which I don't mention because it's also in the attachment -- mostly did not repeat their response. The one-sided and biased view of council deliberately misled taxpayers and offended many.
Cause number 2: infrastructure. Recently, taxpayers got a notice about the infrastructure program and were asked where the $300,000 available funding should be spent; that is, $100,000 from the township and $100,000 and $100,000. Less than 100 responses came in for this one, but a greater number opted for road improvements. In spite of this, council has opted to also -- it went for some road improvement -- expand the municipal office and the Chandos Glen Alda Community Centre. They have commissioned Nowski Partners to make the drawings. The decisions to do this were made in caucus. Taxpayers were not informed.
Please note the conflict-of-interest note and the fact that two other submissions were not received. In the copies, there are minutes of one meeting stating that Mr Rogers, who is our Reeve, could not attend because a conflict of interest arose in the fact that his son had a friend in the company that was to supply the drawings. At that meeting also it was requested that two other tenders be asked for. However, those two tenders didn't come in. The following month there wasn't enough time; they did not come in, so Nowski was chosen.
I object to the expansion of the community centre. There is no need. In 1993, $1,500 income was received for user fees. This has been and is the yearly income from rental. A small seniors group donates $500 for the use of the hall 20 times per year. Whereas the community centre in Apsley suffices the larger area, supplying it with recreational programs, Chandos has not supported it these last six years.
The effect of all this is that the situation in Chandos compares to a demagogy. I refer to it as a fiefdom of the CLPOA. The situation is intimidating and threatening. Those who resist the system will be trampled upon. Two of the executive of the ratepayers association, that is our small one, have resigned because their economic status is threatened and has been threatened. This situation cannot be expanded to other communities. Democracy will take a back seat to the élite. Chandos council is acclaimed time after time; that is, in the election. No one wishes to contest the slate.
1040
I do not attend council meetings because I'm not welcome; I did in 1991. I have requested twice to sit on the finance committee and have been denied. When I recently asked for the 1993 financial statements, I was not allowed to remove a copy from the office nor make one on the copier. I had to hand-copy the financial statement. In contrast, I'm always given or loaned a copy by the Burleigh-Anstruther municipality. I've been told that I had to pay a $125 fee but later found that this payment should have been made by the township. I contested a bylaw, and they said that I should pay the $125. However, I didn't need to in the long run. I've been told that I would have to pay for the time it takes to get copies out of files. I was told that I could not tape record council meetings; a bylaw was established to effect that. I was criticized by members of council for asking too many questions and wasting too much time.
The first organizing meeting for the Chandos ratepayers' association, in 1991 that was, was attended by the past reeve, George McKie, and wife. They sat themselves directly in front of me and harassed me throughout. We suggested that they leave but did not force them to, and they did not. Naturally, their harassment cast doubt on the ability of the association to work effectively.
I have been called a liar on several occasions, and after responding to the attached newsletter on amalgamation in a column "Apsley and Area," outcries of "liar" came by telephone to the editor of the Bancroft Times not once but several times.
Are there personal gains to be had by members of council under this structure? Perhaps, but very difficult to prove. The present reeve, until 1992, sold real estate. He had every household listed on his personal computer. Imagine the edge he had over other agents. The present reeve retired from IBM some 10 years ago after 26 years of service, yet the township purchased computer hardware in Owen Sound. The first software program was soon junked after the company went bankrupt. In 1989, the first fire truck for Chandos --
The Chair: Ms Carlos, I should have told you a bit earlier, but I'm not sure about some information that you provide here that's for the public record that may be a problem to you legally in terms of some of the things you've been saying. As long as you're aware that what you're saying is on the public record and that it might put you in some difficult legal situation, then continue, but I am worried about some of the stuff you've said that's public that is a bit of a legal problem.
Ms Carlos: Okay. In 1989, the first truck for Chandos was to be negotiated by the reeve at a rate of $10,500 to $12,500 -- that is public information; there are minutes, and copies of the minutes are with you -- but it came in at $15,000. Actually, the cost was $14,500. At one point it was minuted that the reeve would negotiate, and if they would not accept $10,500, he'd go as high as $12,500. Apparently, the truck cost $15,000.
If limits cannot be put on interest groups to put forth a complete slate to council, as suggested in David Hobson's letter in the Examiner, December 1973, "That a citizen may have only one municipal vote regardless of how many properties he owns," then candidates to government should have to disclose fully their allegiance to groups whether there is pecuniary interest that is easily seen or not and this disclosure must be made available to the electorate.
The CLPOA usually has one sympathetic local family member on its slate, in this case I.E. Tanner, and usually it is someone connected in a business relationship to the township. However, this person must admit to the fact that he or she is beholden to the CLPOA. In Mrs Tanner's case, although she declares a conflict of interest when the circumstance arises, it is obvious that her husband will be favoured over others when it comes to contractual work he does for the township. And in Mrs Tanner's case, she declared to many that she was running independently. Now, that's hearsay, but I can get people to defend me on that.
I conclude now by asking that you look at this case from the prospect of it being replicated throughout Ontario. As well, Chandos desperately needs somebody's help. Would you please help?
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Carlos. We are three minutes over time, but I want to give any member an opportunity to make some brief comment with respect to this if they want.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's not so much a question to the witness here this morning. I just wanted to know from legal counsel, because there are a lot of serious allegations in this brief, if we have the authority to request a police investigations of Chandos' proceedings.
The Chair: Is there a legal opinion on that question?
Mr Tom Melville: I'm Tom Melville, legal adviser with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. You had asked about legal authority for a police investigation?
Mr Perruzza: Given all the allegations that are being made here, and they're being noted and we have a written copy, it would seem to me there are a lot of sort of improprieties going on in this Chandos county. I wonder if we have the authority, having received this, to request the police to go in and pursue these allegations.
Mr Melville: I can't really answer in terms of the committee's authority because that's not an area that I'm familiar with. In terms of a police investigation, my understanding is that any citizen can bring forward their information to the police.
The Chair: Mr Eddy, just as a brief comment by way of suggestion or help.
Mr Eddy: Mine was just a follow-up that anyone can apply to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well for a review of the municipal operation, and I know that's been done in the case. Go ahead.
Mr Curling: My comment is that I hope you have an opportunity to read the conflict-of-interest legislation that's being presented here. Not that we agree with all of it, but it would be helpful in the sense that assets and all that would be declared by all those who are running for offices or sit on boards. I hope that conflict-of-interest legislation will assist you and answer some of the questions you talk about here.
The Chair: Ms Carlos, we're sorry. We have run out of time. We appreciate you coming and taking the time to communicate the concerns that you are experiencing in that committee. Beyond that, perhaps you may find a different way of dealing with your problem, okay?
Ms Carlos: I have already approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with that specific problem of conflict of interest in the west basin area, and I was told it was not in conflict and could not be used.
The Chair: It's very difficult for us as a committee here to suggest what recourse you have. The mandate of the committee is to of course deal with this bill and to get people's input with respect to it, as opposed to how we might be able to help with that particular matter.
Ms Carlos: Can I ask one question with the bill then? I understand that assets have to be disclosed. I understand that you have to disclose if you're on a board of whatever. However, how does that relate to being on a board, on the executive, or being affiliated with a group, a very strong interest group? I mean, if you're a politician, you have to declare, "I'm running for this and that party." How do you declare, or what kind of --
Mr Paul Jones: Bill 163 makes no requirement for someone to note their affiliation with the legion or the Rotary or any ratepayers' group or organization. It only requires disclosure of assets, liabilities, sources of income that are specified.
1050
BRUCE EDMUNDS
The Chair: We invite Mr Bruce Edmunds.
Mr Bruce Edmunds: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity of presenting my thoughts and concerns on Bill 163. You have a copy of my presentation. The first paragraph may seem strange to you, but we did bump into some particular argument as to what subjects we could bring up here, and very particularly my concern lies within the policy statements and their implications. As I read the bill -- I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a planner, I'm just a regular citizen. But as I tried to struggle my way through, I saw specific reference to the policy statements within the bill, tying them in as part of it, so I'm going to continue my discussion involving those policy statements.
Very briefly, my wife and I own approximately 220 acres of woodlot property in north Peterborough county, and these are personal concerns and thoughts that I have, although I do work with two woodlot associations and certainly will be putting the same thoughts and recommendations through to them and working through. The concerns go beyond my property boundaries, because I'm very concerned about the effect on the community and the province and I feel that the bill and the policy statements are really in a lot of ways an overreaction on the environmental regulation and I'm afraid what we will do, as I've said here, is we'll kill the patient in trying to treat the disease.
Before we go any further, my wife and I have a woodlot because we believe in protecting the environment and working on it. We've put our money where our mouth is for the last 25 years, working diligently to improve our woodlot and improve its habitat environment. So I'm not coming from a position of being anti-environment or anti-habitat protection.
But I do think, coming back in on overview, that the bill is overly aggressive on regulation and very directly it's going to cause a substantial loss of property market value for many rural land owners, will paralyze much of the rural economy and will increase unemployment and social costs in the rural areas. As well, and I think this is probably the saddest part of all, I think it's going to poison the attitudes of land owners towards making any contribution to environmental improvement.
I don't know whether it's been considered, but the bill is going to trigger a very major loss in land tax revenues for municipalities, as properties designated significant and those that are denied development under the community development conditions are a perfect condition for a lowering of assessment and then consequently lower tax revenues.
I'm very concerned -- and my background was as an insurance broker in industrial coverages, and of course the things that we were involved with were contracts; in fact my career then was reading documentation -- and I really was shocked at the shoddiness in construction of the total package as it's presented. I think perhaps it was done too hastily and the policy statements from different directions all put together, but you'll find gaps and overlaps and major questions that really should be addressed.
On the specific impacts of the denial of property development rights, either through the economic or community development section or the "significant" designation, it is going to affect property values up to 50%.
Now, just in case you think I'm off base on that, I've had an appraisal done. We have actually three properties. I've had appraisals done on two, and while admittedly the appraisals were directed to gearing myself to how to respond to the last change of capital gains, I also asked the appraiser to give me an appraised value of the properties with all development right removed. Now, to me, and I haven't got that many resources, our property values are dropping by $45,000. That's why I'm here. That's one of the main things, because that certainly has got my attention, and we're going to carry through with that very severely.
The other thing that's being done of course is the tremendous air of uncertainty that's going to be created by the policy statements. I don't know whether you have looked at that part. There are so many areas that are judgmental calls as to what somebody thinks has happened to the aesthetics or what is a view of consequence or, more particularly, coming down into point 3, what's going to be under the species classifications of "vulnerable" and "threatened."
I don't know if you've done your homework as to how those come about. Those terms were designated by the federal government. The other one that's there is "endangered." To get on the endangered species list is a very detailed, controlled system that goes through to a final committee for a review. The other categories are open to organizations that can establish themselves as recognized professional organizations. As I understand, and according to documents by MNR, there are now five organizations that are working on the "threatened" and "vulnerable" categories, and just to give you a little indication, under "vulnerable," one of those organizations has got 542 plants -- just plants. That's not trees, that's not insects, fish, reptiles or whatever, just plants, 542, and I read one of their newsletters the other day and they gleefully said that they're working like crazy on another list of 12,000 to see how many more they can get listed.
Now, that's just one list, but there are five lists, and if you think the land owners and the people are going to be able to sort their way out of all this mess, I'm sorry, you've missed it, because the land owners are just going to be targets of the groups that want to tie up and get the free use of land -- that's really what it comes down to -- without any direct contribution.
The other thing is adjacent land, looking very quickly at 120 metres. Do you know what that means? That's the equivalent of the depth of four city lots, and that's to allow wildlife to pass through. I think that again becomes an unreasonable level. Again, on two of our lots, where I had a detailed scale plan to work with, the wet spots were all identified. We took the 120-metre buffer zones, and out of 130 acres to start with, there is approximately one acre left outside of buffer zone, and that's in two tiny pieces. That's the effect of this. I'm up on the Shield, and I think I've said in here too that your wetlands policy was designed for southern Ontario below the Shield, and this 163 just says now it covers the rest of the province: a totally inappropriate policy being plunked into place without any serious consideration by the professionals.
1100
The Chair: Mr Edmunds, I don't mean to interrupt you, but if you're going to explain each item, we will run way over time, and we're close to the end. I just wanted to tell you that.
Mr Edmunds: Those are pertinent points to keep in mind. Those points are going to be the ones that are going to drive the tax revenues down on thousands of acres of land, and I've said in my report -- you've got the rest of it -- the municipalities are going to be stressed by the additional costs of planning, which this bill is going to dictate down on to their shoulders, and I'm reasonably sure the province isn't going to stand up and give any further consideration to the municipalities for that.
In addition, now we're going to have properties with lesser tax revenue. So we have then the situation that everyone else's land tax is going to go up, and as the word of this starts to get out, I sense a tremendous groundswell of serious concern by the citizens of Ontario, the citizens, incidentally, who I think have been kept very much in the dark on this. This is not a bill that's known by the public at all. It's very hard to get even a line and get information on it.
I do believe -- I touched on this point before -- you're going to poison the attitudes of people who have land and have responsibility. To have tree cover, to have wetland involved on your property is going to be a detriment. That's the sad, sad point that you've driven home, and what we will see without any question -- because to maintain a woodlot, for instance, it takes an awful lot of hard work, it takes dedication and it takes a willingness to spend a lot of money too. But if you're going to have your rights removed because you own a woodlot, well, people are just going to walk away. The woodlots are going to start to decline in value. We haven't had a lot of fires on private woodlots lately, but look out if there's a drought. I think that will start to happen. We know right now woodlots are being stripped, which is very sad, and contrary to everything I believe in, but they're stripping them right now, because they know that it's going to be a tremendous detriment to have it there.
I put before you what I believe are some constructive recommendations. I believe the significant wetland areas must be identified, must be surveyed by the province, thank you, so we know what boundaries you're talking about, and that all should go in place before 163 is effected. I can't see any other way around it.
There definitely has to be a program of compensation for the loss of development rights for lands that are designated or the denial of development, because again, God bless the province, you've driven a real hard bargain on assessment, because every assessor coming out talks about your development rights and that's where they keep nailing you to get the taxes up. You're removing it in an awful lot of cases, so there's got to be compensation. There's going to be lower taxes. There has to be.
I'm recommending that "vulnerable" and "threatened" be deleted from the bill until there is a reasonable, respected and monitored system of species identification, as in the case of "endangered," that can be established under federal jurisdiction so we get some common elements and features running through across the country.
Please have your people reread particularly the policy statements. The act I can't follow, because that's a planner's glory, obviously, but look at the policy statements for the gaps.
I disagree on the disclosure requirements for municipalities too, incidentally. I do believe the necessity for people to declare their personal assets, their income sources, and for that information to be publicly available at the clerk's office is going to deter many very talented people from being prepared to put their name up for public office. I believe we have to have mechanisms for conflict and we need to have severe ones with fines, but I do not think we go at it this way. I think the approach is wrong, the idea is right.
I've summarized, I've emphasized what I believe are the real key points. I think the essence of removing property rights is one that must be decided by the total population of the province because everyone is going to be involved with it. If you're taking my $45,000, I'm going to want recourse and I know an awful lot of other land owners are in exactly the same position. We want to work it out now, before it becomes law. If it won't, then obviously we'll have no course but to look to legal recourse. There's too much at stake. We can't pass that up.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, quickly, with some clarification.
Mr Hayes: Okay, real quick, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Edmunds, for making the presentation, but I think you're possibly jumping ahead a little bit because we are still putting policies together. I just wanted to let you know that we do have an implementation advisory task force that is made up of various people, like farm organizations, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, food land people preserving food land, things of that nature. There are all kinds of planners and different institutions involved in this task force and there are going to be very comprehensive policies that are being put together as a result of this policy. They're not down in black and white right now.
The other thing is that the land use planning, actually by its nature, does allow different uses on different sites. Of course, property owners may, for example, profit more significantly with some of these than they would if it was designated -- or even if it is designated for urban uses -- maybe more so than if it was for rural uses. People are dealing with those right now; there is a lot of consultation and a lot of public input coming into this. Now it's all over the province, sir.
Mr Edmunds: Yes, I realize that. I do appreciate your comment that way, but it is rather sobering when the bill has had first and second reading. The policy statements are very specific. The bill says --
Interjection.
Mr Edmunds: All right, I know you want me to shut up. Sorry, the bill says, very specifically, if the municipalities do not apply the conditions of these policy statements as written, the province will remove their right to be involved. I question that legally because we, the voters, put in our municipal councils and I'll be damned if you can come along and suspend their authority. It's as simple and straightforward, in my opinion, as that.
Mr Eddy: They do in London-Middlesex in the middle of the term. They are gone.
The Chair: Mr Edmunds, we appreciate the concerns you've brought to this committee, and you've brought quite a number. I am convinced the members will review your suggestions very carefully as we go along.
Mr Edmunds: Okay, I hope so. Thank you very much indeed.
MARK B. STAGG
The Chair: We invite Reverend Mark B. Stagg. We are running a bit --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Eddy, it would be good to exchange these views after we've done this. Reverend Stagg, I'm sorry, we're running a bit late.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could I ask the members to keep some order, please. Reverend Stagg, we have 15 minutes for the presentation. We are running a bit late, so I would urge you to keep within that time frame, okay?
Rev Mark B. Stagg: Thank you. The general intent of the new legislation and proposed policy statements as outlined in the minister's statement to the Legislature, May 18, are very commendable. There are some details, however, in fact which will hamper the achievement of the government's goals and will reduce the ability of municipalities to fulfil their responsibilities and role in the process.
Many of these matters have been or will be raised with you by representatives of the regional planning commissioners, county planning directors, and AMO. I won't repeat those. I generally agree with them. My points, therefore, are either to emphasize a few of theirs or to raise a couple of extra points.
As a resident of the county of Haliburton, I would note its unique pattern of small settlements and many groupings of seasonal residents set within a huge area of a most beautiful natural environment comprised of rolling hills and containing over 550 lakes and linked by a complex drainage system.
The unilateral implementation of sweeping policies to protect the environment, which one surmises were designed -- and properly so, I would add -- to primarily deal with the development pressures of southern Ontario, would inflict considerable economic and social harm in the sense that further development would be largely prohibited.
1110
Such collateral damage, in the county of Haliburton and other areas of the province with similar characteristics, could be avoided if local rather than Toronto values were used to implement the proposed policies. One also notes that a number of the rural areas, such as the county of Haliburton, have had unemployment rates that have reached 30%, social assistance costs which have climbed over 800% in the last five years and, because of that, cannot afford all of the sophisticated and expensive studies and processes which are common to southern Ontario to deal with the development pressures in that area.
At the same time, I think it's very clear that without at least some broader implementation of the policies now proposed, some of the finest environmental jewels of the province will continue to lose their sparkle. There is then an imperative case, with necessary adjustments and improvements, for the proposed legislation and policy statements to proceed.
I have a few particular points which I'll now go through. My numbering follows the sections of your bill.
Section 5: With respect to section 2 of the Planning Act, the section recites the key ingredients to achieving the purposes of the act, namely sustainable economic development in a healthy, natural environment. There are many ministries and agencies of the government that are prime actors respecting those cited matters; for example, Natural Resources, Transportation, Environment and Energy, Economic Development and Trade. To achieve the purpose of the act, all ministries and agencies of government should be subject to the provisions of this section.
Subsection 6(2) of the bill: The same point I've just made, I think, applies again. Also, the replacement of existing wording "shall have regard to" with the wording "shall be consistent with" will impose too strict a conformity to singular provincial standards, preventing the judicial balancing of official plan policies by municipalities to fit local conditions. Recognizing that through its approval process the province would remain the final judge, an alternative wording might be "shall be consistent with the spirit and intent of policy statements issued under subsection (1)." Such a wording would also allow for easier balancing of the interests of the various ministries and agencies of government, all of whom, I've just recommended, should be subject to such policy statements.
A compromise might also be considered; namely, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, other ministries and agencies of the government might follow the above recommended wording together with municipalities that are preparing their official plans or making decisions pursuant to an approved official plan. In the case of municipalities, upper or lower tier, that don't have an official plan, then perhaps the tighter wording proposed in Bill 163 might be appropriate.
I have a couple of examples of the problem that will be created when you link the proposed wording of 6(2) with the proposed comprehensive set of policy statements:
First example in policy A, goal 1, sections 1.1 and 1.2, refers to prohibiting negative impact. Negative impact has not been defined, but adverse effect is defined, including "the impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use" -- I repeat -- "for any use that can be made of it." Since much of rural Ontario consists of natural environment, the regulatory impact of combining the proposed legislation and the policy would be draconian.
Second example in policy G, implementation, section 6.1: The requirement for an environmental impact study is recognized. However, there will be many simple and repetitive situations where a municipal class EA approach created, say, through an official plan policy would expedite the process without loss of integrity. If that requires legislative authority, I think it should be provided.
Section 8 of the bill, proposing new sections 14.1 to 14.8, inclusive, to the Planning Act: The provision of powers proposed for municipal planning authorities is very regressive, whether for counties already having their official plans and planning departments or for counties not having official plans, with or without their departments, it would entice division where unity has hitherto prevailed and it will encourage parochialism where cooperative effort should be fostered. The provision, if implemented, would significantly negate the responsible and practical implementation of planning for many of the matters mentioned in section 2 of the act which require a larger scale, that is, a county-wide approach.
Obviously, however, care should also be taken not to overlook or negate the cooperative efforts that go on already between municipalities, upper and lower tier, through these ad hoc or formal agreements.
Section 9 of the bill, proposing a new section 16: The proposed subsection is fine, as far as it goes. However, the Sewell commission at recommendation 47 indicated that the plan formulation process should include some examination of options and alternatives, and the rationalization of the preferred plan. This would be superior to a plan that might be driven by particular interests, and thus obviously open to some political expediency.
Section 10 of the bill: The proposed legislation should offer to county councils the same opportunities and encouragement for planning as has been provided to councils of other forms of upper-tier municipal government. Those counties that prepare and adopt official plans and have adequate arrangements in place to implement them and to administer a planning process should, upon request, receive delegation of approval authority from the minister for any or all of the matters which may be granted either pursuant to this or other provisions of the act.
The preparation of plans by county councils should be mandatory. To recognize some variations in the degree of urgency and the lead times to put the preparatory mechanisms in place, proposed subsection 17(7) might be worded to provide an ultimate deadline or an earlier deadline when prescribed. If the government is truly serious about achieving the purpose of the act and addressing matters of provincial interest, then these most worthy goals will only be properly achieved if all upper-tier municipalities are undertaking the responsibility the legislation implicitly indicates is theirs. If responsibility for the construction and maintenance of elements of the community infrastructure and hence resultant settlement is already a county mandate, then surely the proper and orderly patterning of that infrastructure and settlement should also be mandated. One follows the other.
Section 37; new section 65: This recognizes the alternative dispute mechanism, and I'm suggesting they're most timely and welcome and I believe they should be strongly supported. I suggest consideration might be given to authorizing the minister to prescribe procedures or processes that experience might indicate are needed. If that is the case, you'd need a parallel amendment to section 42 of the bill.
Section 45 of the bill; new section 72.1: Just a small legal point. It would be useful to indicate, as and when the comprehensive set of policy statements are adopted, whether they or the provisions of existing official plans are to prevail if the latter, official plans, are in conflict with the policy statements or are silent on certain mandated requirements.
Finally, if I could make only one recommendation, it would be to reword and temper the provisions of subsection 6(2) of the bill and the proposed requirements of subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act.
This is a personal submission and I make it to you most respectfully.
The Chair: There is time for a very brief comment by the members if they wish to make one.
Mr Grandmaître: Reverend, did you have an opportunity to go before the Sewell commission to highlight your concerns?
Mr Stagg: I did. I also had the privilege of being a member of one of the working groups.
Mr Grandmaître: One of the working groups?
Mr Stagg: Yes, on cottage country. I was invited to participate and help in the original drafting of the first draft proposals on the policies.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you see in Bill 163 any of your input while you were sitting on this committee?
Mr Stagg: Both there and subsequently I've had the opportunity to have input, and I've seen definitely some results of a few of the suggestions I've made. I was very happy, for instance, in the latest set of policies for housing that the minimum level was set at 10,000 population rather than 5,000 for the percentage rule. In Haliburton county, for example, where you've got two and a half times as many seasonal homes as permanent, the 25% affordable policy would have been nonsense. So there have been some very good changes made. That's why I'm so happy with the process being so open.
Mr McLean: I just want to thank you for coming before the committee this morning and relating your views. I don't need any clarification. You've made it very well. I appreciate your coming.
1120
Mr Wiseman: Thank you for your presentation. One comment I would like to make, though, is that one of the things I'm hearing from a large number of people, both who are in the development industry and who are ratepayers and community activists and environmentalists, is that we have to get rid of the ambiguity around phrasing. "Shall have regard to" leaves it too wide open for a council to make a decision having regard to the policy but ignoring it in this case, but having regard to the policy and enforcing it in another case, which people see as being similar, and this leads to a lot of case law and fights in courts and so on.
Even the developer in my riding said to me: "You know, what we really need is clarity. We don't need maybes, we need it to be defined. If you tell me that I can't build on class 1, 2 and 3 farm land, that's fine, I won't buy it. But don't tell me I can't build on class 1, 2 and 3 farm land and then say to somebody else, `Well, maybe under this circumstances you can go ahead.'"
What they're asking for is clarity, to define it: "You tell us what we can do and then we'll go ahead and do it, but don't start changing the rules and have them change under us as we go along." That's what community activists are also saying, that we need a defined way of interpreting what the act says so we can act as another check in the balances of checks and balances.
Mr Stagg: May I respond? I agree that the current wording is too loose. I was hoping that the wording which seems to be supported by the counties and the regions was sort of the middle ground and that's being consistent with the spirit and intent. I think, in terms of clarity, I have to agree with you.
On the other hand, you can't legislate common sense and if you enshrine absolutes then you start to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think Mr Gary Cousins indicated, in the county of Wellington, you've either got prime farm land or you've got existing settlement, so you've got natural environment areas. You've got nothing left where you can sort of do anything according to the policies if you take this absolute approach.
Haliburton county, which I tried to illustrate is either small settlements or natural environment -- there's sort of no middle ground where there are some grey areas perhaps indicated in the policies. There's really very little in practice and I think this is what everybody's trying to urge, that there should be some real strength and force to the regulations and the policies, there's no question about it, but you still finally allow a certain amount of judgement.
I think the particular concern a lot of people have is, will the values for many of the people who will be in the final approval process of southern Ontario, with all respect, fit, shall we say, the values of the balances which really only the people in, say, Peterborough county, Wellington county or Haliburton county or wherever, can finally evaluate?
There has to be a balance between, say, the natural environment and the interests of human beings from a social and economic point of view.
The Chair: Reverend Stagg, we've run out of time. Thank you for coming and participating in these hearings.
Mr Stagg: Again, thank you for your process.
The Chair: Mr Hayes wants to make a correction.
Mr Hayes: A correction, yes; it's not a clarification, a correction this time.
When Mr Edmunds was here and I commented on the implementation advisory task force, I said, I believe -- we'll check Hansard -- I talked about the policies being worked on now. In fact, implementation guidelines, and implementing the policies and guidelines, is really what I should've said.
CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
The Chair: We invite the city of Peterborough, Ms Anne Marie Predko. Welcome, Ms Predko.
Ms Anne Marie Predko: Welcome to all of you to the city of Peterborough. I'd like to say good morning first of all. I'm appearing on behalf of Mr John Hart who's the city solicitor for the city of Peterborough. I'm a student at law in the legal department in the city of Peterborough.
My presentation this morning is a little different than what you've heard so far. I'm here to explain and expand upon a letter written by Mr Hart to the minister dated May 11, 1994. I believe you have a copy of that letter as an exhibit.
In this letter and in my presentation, the city of Peterborough is requesting an amendment to section 67 of the Planning Act, which is not something that you've examined closely up to this point with this bill, but an amendment to allow fines collected under bylaws passed under the power of the Planning Act to be payable to the municipality.
You can probably ask yourself what this proposed amendment would have to do with Bill 163, which is of course your mandated interest this morning. I would like to point out that from the city's point of view, Bill 163 provides new and augmented powers to municipal planning authorities and that the municipalities would like to exercise these new powers, but without the tools necessary to go about that exercise, much of the bill's impact may be lost. Our position is that municipalities should be able to finance, as much as they are capable, their own operations from local sources, and in that way they can ease the pressures on upper levels of government to provide financing.
Currently in Ontario, municipalities are very unequal in terms of the revenue they can generate from planning matters. Some municipalities, for example, Oshawa, Scarborough and Kitchener, receive all of the revenue from Planning Act prosecutions from their local court office. Others have become so frustrated with not receiving this revenue, for example, the city of London, that they have applied for and received without opposition from this government special legislation to allow them to receive that fine revenue. Still others, like the city of Peterborough and also North Bay, Brampton, to name a few, do not receive this revenue from the court office.
Interjection: Just to mention a few.
Ms Predko: Just to mention a few. The source of these inequalities, except in the case of special legislation, is not really clear. In the minister's response to Mr Hart, he states that, "such fines are payable to the consolidated revenue fund."
I've also provided for you this morning certain relevant sections of the Planning Act and other provincial legislation dealing with fine revenue, and maybe we could just look at that briefly for a moment.
First of all, it's clear from the Planning Act that there's no direction as to where this revenue would be payable, and that basically leaves the court offices turning to other pieces of legislation to find out where they need to pay the money. The Administration of Justice Act appears to indicate that the money from municipal bylaws would be payable to the municipality. It's an implication, because what the Administration of Justice Act actually says is all the revenue goes to the Ontario consolidated revenue fund excepting this revenue generated by municipal bylaws.
The Fines and Forfeitures Act basically says that all fines imposed for the contravention of any provincial statute are payable to the consolidated revenue fund, and presumably that's the position that the minister is taking in his letter to Mr Hart.
The apparent inconsistency between these two acts, the Fines and Forfeitures Act and the Administration of Justice Act, may have caused difficulty in the past in terms of municipal matters, and you'll notice in the newly amended Building Code Act, both of these provisions have been excluded in the proceeds of fines section of that act, which is subsection 36(9).
The amendment which I propose to put into the Planning Act -- obviously that's not my position to do but that's potentially your position to do -- would have similar exclusions to that contained in the Building Code Act. If you turn to the second page of the handout of legislation, you'll see that this is a proposed amendment wording and it does exclude both the Administration of Justice Act and the Fines and Forfeitures Act from applying.
Bill 163 promotes, we believe, efficient, local-based planning. It would seem ironic if the aim of the act was diluted by lack of financing at a local level. This proposed amendment will ensure that all municipalities, whether they are large, small, upper-tier or lower tier, can afford to enforce planning matters. The prosecution of planning matters is not pursued with a view to making a profit, but they can be very expensive propositions. They often require certified copies of title documents, the posting of orders and a lot of focus of staff resources.
My position this morning is that good enforcement must be the watchdog of good planning, because any plan that a municipality makes is only as good as the enforcement of that plan. At the city of Peterborough, we believe Bill 163 recognizes the important role that municipal governments must play. From a provincial perspective, this proposed amendment would ensure that all municipalities could be treated alike.
At this point, I would welcome any questions or comments. I'd like to thank you for giving me the time to make this presentation to you this morning.
1130
Mr McLean: Subsection 24(5) of the Building Code Act, that's the one that you want amended.
Ms Predko: No, actually we'd like an amendment added to the Planning Act similar to that section in the Building Code Act.
Mr McLean: The Planning Act to be amended to include a provision similar to subsection 24(5) of the Building Code Act. That would then allow you to collect the fines?
Ms Predko: Yes, it would.
Mr McLean: Who collects the fines now for traffic violations? Do they go to the city?
Ms Predko: Highway traffic or parking?
Mr McLean: Do they go to the city?
Ms Predko: It depends on which it is. Parking infractions come to the city; highway traffic infractions go to the province.
Mr Grandmaître: It's the local bylaw, it's the local municipality.
Ms Predko: Yes.
Mr McLean: The other question has to do with the Planning Act, with regard to the upper tier. There have been some referrals and amendments, and you can review the application, and the minister can refer any plan. That's what they're proposing. Do you think that is proper and right, that if you're halfway through an official amendment that the minister can refer and it's done?
Ms Predko: Mr McLean, I have to apologize, but I can only speak on behalf of the legal department. I would really -- a matter like that would have to come from our director of planning. I can't speak on that matter.
Mr McLean: I have no further questions.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much for your presentation. Private legislation as it affects London and may well affect Hamilton and Ottawa in the near future, are you familiar with that?
Ms Predko: Yes, I am.
Mr Villeneuve: Could you just expand on that a little bit?
Ms Predko: The city of London has applied for and been granted private legislation to allow it basically to do what is done in this proposed amendment. What they say now in their bylaws is that fine revenue collected under this bylaw is not affected by the Fines and Forfeitures Act, is not affected by the Administration of Justice Act, and is payable to the treasurer of the municipality. It's a very short piece of special legislation that basically allows them to have this amendment within their municipality.
Mr Villeneuve: This is legislation that was brought through Queen's Park via private member, private legislation?
Mr Grandmaître: I brought the Ottawa private member's bill.
Mr Eddy: And spoke very eloquently to it, I must say.
Ms Predko: Yes, they're all private pieces of legislation.
Mr Villeneuve: How do you qualify as a city? Would Peterborough qualify for this private legislation?
Ms Predko: Yes, we would.
Mr Eddy: Costs money.
Ms Predko: But it costs money. If it's the answer, if it's not something that the government's opposed to for any given municipality, then our position is that it should be given to all municipalities equally. Yes, the city of Peterborough is in a position where we could bring private legislation, and I've done research on that matter. If this is unsuccessful, we may very well do that. But that doesn't deal with smaller municipalities which are smaller than ourselves. We're probably about the cutoff point in terms of it being worth your while financially.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want to make some comments to clarify?
Mr Hayes: It's correct that there have been other municipalities that have come to regs and private bills. This ministry has not objected to them getting their private bills dealing with fines for example. We certainly will consider this, because I think it really does give the municipalities some incentive to really enforce their bylaws, and at the same time possibly some revenue to the municipalities. So we are certainly looking at addressing your concern in your presentation.
Ms Predko: If I could just comment to that, the situation we're in presently actually provides a disincentive. Most municipalities do want to enforce their bylaws but it's a very costly endeavour, and when you have a situation with limited resources, if you're getting nothing back and spending money out, there comes a point where people go, "No, we can't afford to do this."
The Chair: Any questions from the government members?
Mr Wiseman: I did have a question.
Mr Grandmaître: Sorry to wake you up.
Mr Wiseman: I'm awake, believe me.
I guess the question would be, can we open up this section of the bill if we were to try to do this? It's section 67 of the Planning Act. I think that's where it would be.
Ms Predko: Yes, it is 67. I've provided most of 67 there. That's all of 67, and what you're looking at is putting something on to the end of 67 as it stands.
Mr Wiseman: It's a technical question, whether it could be opened or not, and I haven't heard an answer yet.
The Chair: Mr Melville, is it?
Mr Melville: Yes, it's Mr Melville. I'm not sure I should speak here, because this is properly a legislative counsel issue in terms of the procedure for opening up sections of bills.
Mr Eddy: Can we refer it to them and get an answer?
Mr Melville: Yes. I think we can certainly speak to legislative counsel about this issue.
The Chair: Do you want to comment on that?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): I was just going to say legislative counsel doesn't make that determination, it would be the clerk, and without seeing the amendment, you can't really rule hypothetically. However, as a general rule, if the bill already speaks to that issue or if it's opened in one of the acts which the bill is amending, then it is in order.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Bryce. Mr Eddy.
Mr Eddy: Third call. Thank you very much. I'll go this time.
Thank you very much for your concise and important presentation. I agree with you completely. That's the way it should be done and there will be an amendment, I assure you, presented to this effect. Now, it may be a government amendment, and of course when the amendment is presented, it may be ruled out of order by legislative counsel, but certainly we'll try, because I agree with you completely, it's time it was done.
There are a lot of other matters that have come forward as private legislation for an individual municipality that we should face up to and change the act to include, but this is certainly very important. I agree, when you start getting some municipalities that have it and others that don't, then if it's passed, it's an admission by the government that it is in fact okay and should proceed. And we should follow it up with general legislation, otherwise you're putting some at a disadvantage to other municipalities and that's not fair nor equal. So we need to get on with it and I'm pleased you brought it up. I've supported the applications from those three cities because I sit on that committee, but it is a cost and it is time-consuming, so let's look at that. Good point.
Mr Grandmaître: One short question, Mr Chair. Did you get an answer from your May 11 letter?
Ms Predko: Yes, we did.
Mr Grandmaître: What was the reply?
Ms Predko: Would you like me to read the reply?
Mr Grandmaître: Please. Was it favourable?
Ms Predko: No.
Mr Grandmaître: Read it.
Ms Predko: "July 11, 1994.
"Dear Mr Hart:
"Thank you for your letter of May 11, 1994, requesting consideration of an amendment to section 67 of the Planning Act to empower municipalities to collect fines for contraventions under the act.
"Currently the fines collected go to the consolidated revenue fund. As you know, Bill 163, the planning reform legislation, was introduced for first reading on May 18, 1994, and received second reading on June 21, 1994. The collection of fines by municipalities is not in this package. However, my ministry is reviewing this issue further.
"I thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.
"Sincerely,
"Ed Philip, Minister."
1140
Mr Grandmaître: So one more question: Where's the review at? The minister has said it's being reviewed. Is it being reviewed?
Ms Dewar: We have done some further work on the amount of money, for example, that is affected here and we have looked into the possibility of including it. It wasn't included in the bill when the bill went for second reading.
Mr Eddy: It wasn't?
Ms Dewar: No, it was not.
Mr Grandmaître: So is there a possibility that the ministry, or I should say, the minister, will amend the bill?
Mr Hayes: Just to reaffirm what I said earlier, Mr Grandmaître, there is that possibility, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: That's a possibility.
Mr Eddy: We'll follow it up.
Mr Curling: It's a matter of we have a lot of time here and --
The Chair: Yes, we do. On the other hand --
Mr Curling: -- what are our opportunities to speak to you on this matter?
The Chair: Briefly, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Was this matter raised before the bill was introduced at second reading? I just want to get the dates right.
Mr Grandmaître: May 11.
Mr Curling: May 11.
Ms Predko: You would have to inform me of the date of second reading.
Mr Curling: And the legislation was May 14, and the --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: This is important.
Mr Wiseman: First reading, May 18.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: So the letter was presented to the minister before the legislation was presented.
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Let me ask the question.
The Chair: Mr Curling, please, we've gone beyond our time. Place your question.
Mr Curling: The minister said it's under review, so he had no intention, it seems to me, to include it in the legislation.
Mr Wiseman: That's not fair.
Mr Curling: Therefore, I would presume I'm hearing now that it's still under review; he has not done anything about it. It seems to me then that there would be no review going to be done on this, because he had the opportunity to put it in the legislation and he said it's still under review after second reading.
The Chair: Mr Curling, are you soliciting a response to your statement or are you making a statement? Make the statement then.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, I've been interrupted from the government, from you --
The Chair: It's just, Mr Curling, that we've gone way beyond our time in terms of questions, so all I'm asking you to do is please make the statement or place the question.
Mr Hayes: Make your political statement.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Curling: I don't intend to be dictated to about if it's a question or a statement, you know that.
You said it was not favourable, itself. Do you feel that there would be a response now, now that the minister has an opportunity before the legislation was placed before the House, and also now that there really is no real response to this statement?
Ms Predko: Quite frankly, sir, that is why I'm before this committee, to bring it to your attention as well. We are not so naïve in our office that we think we send one letter and we get changes to legislation. We're following every route we can. We're also working with the court office in Peterborough to point out to it that other court offices are receiving a fine revenue. We're doing all we can. No, I don't think a letter's going to do it, but I think that's a political reality.
Mr Curling: Yes. Well, I appreciate your persistence in continuing to do so. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Predko, we appreciate you coming. Thank you for your brief. People have heard your concerns.
The committee recessed from 1146 to 1333.
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO COTTAGERS' ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: We're ready for the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association, Mr Ambrose Moran.
Mr Ambrose Moran: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for providing the opportunity for me to address you today. My name is Ambrose Moran and this presentation is on behalf of the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association, often known and referred to as FOCA.
I'd like to preface my comments by explaining that FOCA is an umbrella organization of cottage associations and individual members throughout Ontario in areas such as the Kawarthas, Georgian Bay, Muskoka, Haliburton, eastern Ontario and the Lake of the Woods area. Approximately 50,000 cottagers belong to FOCA through 500 cottage associations, along with approximately 800 individual members.
FOCA has a land use planning committee, and I am the current chair of that committee.
We would like to take this opportunity to commend the government for undertaking this major review of the planning process, and feel that the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario has contributed greatly to raising general public awareness of the planning process. FOCA has actively participated in the extensive consultations undertaken by the Sewell commission, and we were very satisfied with most of the final recommendations, including the proposed policy statements.
Bill 163 has, in many areas, supported the findings of the Sewell commission, while at the same time has fallen short of dealing with certain recommendations in which FOCA has a particular interest.
I will share with the committee today four concerns which we have regarding Bill 163. The first one is regarding notices.
From the outset of the review of the planning reform, FOCA has recognized that what was most important to our members to effectively participate in the planning process was to have a means of knowing what planning decisions are being made in cottage country. It is fundamental to a fair planning process that those affected by planning and development decisions have the benefit of effective notice provisions.
Currently, many significant planning decisions are made which impact on lakefront neighbourhoods without those directly affected having the opportunity to provide input. Often, statutory notice requirements are satisfied by limited circulation and possibly a notice of the public meeting in a local newspaper or posted at the general store. Lakefront property owners are often seasonal residents and not aware of public meetings dealing with important planning matters such as rezoning, official plan amendments, severances and variances which are being considered by our councils.
We encourage our member associations to get involved with planning matters and to form partnerships with their elected councils to assist them in the often very difficult and sensitive matters of waterfront development.
It has been recognized by many that in order for the planning process to be effective, those directly affected must have an opportunity to provide input in the early stages in order that conflicts can be resolved and expensive and time-consuming OMB hearings can be avoided.
As the Sewell commission work was developing, FOCA realized and worked hard, as did other groups, to encourage a change to the planning process to establish an effective method of notification of planning applications. We were very satisfied that Sewell commission recommendation 76 stated:
"To encourage public participation in the planning process through better notification, the Planning Act be amended so that:
"(b) municipalities be required to maintain a registry of those requesting notification of planning matters in the municipality or part of the municipality. A nominal fee may be charged for the service."
In communications with our member associations we have on several occasions indicated that, setting aside all the other 97 recommendations, the recommendation which we felt would most effectively ensure fair participation in the planning process was the proposal that we would, as a matter of process, have the right to be notified of development applications through this registry system.
We submit that the use of the registry system would be consistent with the purpose of the act, 1.1(d), stating "to provide for planning processes that are fair" by making them open and accessible.
The number two item I'd like to deal with is the matter of dismissal of referrals to the OMB if no oral or written submission is made. Apart from Bill 163 as presently written not providing for the recommended registry system, cottagers, when not aware of the fact that a development application is being considered by council, may lose their traditional rights to refer the matter to the OMB if they do not make an oral or written submission prior to council making their decision.
We recognize the obligation for affected ratepayers to express any valid concerns to council to assist them in making their planning decisions. We do not support a system of losing referral rights based on not making an oral or written submission prior to council making a decision when, as so often is the case for seasonal residents, we are not aware of the fact that the matter is being considered by our council.
The registry system as per Sewell recommendation 76(b) would provide an effective notification system. When an effective notification system is in effect, then the obligation to participate and the risk of losing rights for not making submissions may have merit.
The third item I'd like to deal with is the matter of minor variance appeals. Bill 163 as written amends the Planning Act so that council decisions on minor variances are final and that traditional rights to appeal decisions to the OMB are taken away. This proposed amendment is apparently intended to streamline the planning process but, if implemented, would be at the expense of property rights and prove to be a serious flaw in the planning process.
Justification for this appears to rely too heavily on the word "minor," which has never been defined, and some questionable claim that the minor variance appeals take up a large portion of OMB time.
The very fact that concerns are being raised that the OMB is spending too much time on minor variance appeals could be evidence that the current minor variance system is being abused, and this could be further aggravated if councils act without the risk of being challenged to the OMB.
Although examples of minor variances have been provided which include a lot size being reduced by a square foot, it is our experience that in rural Ontario major relief from zoning provisions are routinely provided through committees of adjustment. Little difference exists between rezoning and minor variances, and the proponent usually decides which application to pursue based on which is quicker and less expensive.
Another illustration of the interchangeability of variances and rezoning is the practice of land division committees approving consents subject to the applicant satisfying a condition that either a zoning amendment or a minor variance be obtained.
1340
We see the following problems with the elimination of the rights to appeal to the OMB on minor variances:
-- Abuse of the variance process could result as certain councils would enjoy the final approval authority.
-- When developers recognize influence by active ratepayers over elective councils, developers will likely make applications for rezoning rather than minor variance in order to provide for an eventual appeal to the OMB rather than to have to accept a political decision from council.
-- Where land division committees approve a severance subject to a minor variance to recognize a deficient zone provision, an appeal to the OMB of the severance could result in a situation where the OMB may grant the severance and subsequently the local council could effectively overrule the OMB by not granting the variance.
-- Ratepayers disagreeing with and frustrated by a council's decision on minor variances will possibly complain to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the news media and the local member of Parliament as they do not have the traditional rights to the OMB. Traditionally, provincial politicians did not have to get too involved in planning matters as constituents have appeal rights to an independent appeal body.
-- A serious matter of fairness can arise when a developer's application is denied at council and then the developer immediately applies for rezoning for the same bylaw relief. This would provide an opportunity to eventually have an OMB appeal right, whereas a ratepayer objecting to a variance application has no further steps to take after the council makes a decision. Clause 1.1(d), one of the purposes of the act, is to provide a fair planning process. We firmly oppose the removal of the appeal rights for minor variances.
The fourth item I'd like to deal with is the matter of septics. The Sewell commission raised valid concerns about the serious state of existing septics throughout Ontario and made recommendations that private septics be inspected regularly and that a fee be charged for these inspections and that this fee would be collected with property taxes on a user-pay basis. FOCA has supported this approach and it is disappointing that Bill 163 has not addressed this important part of the Sewell Commission work.
Reinspection of septics is an inexpensive, cost-effective way of providing environmental protection while at the same time providing significant economic development activity throughout rural Ontario. The large percentage of malfunctioning septics around lakes presents a far more serious threat to water quality than new developments, which would be subject to strict environmental controls.
Although it appears that a decision has been made not to address the septic recommendations of the Sewell commission within Bill 163, we and many others support the recommendations and urge the government to support implementation of a program of regular reinspections of septics.
In summary, FOCA feels that our concerns are not extensive and are reasonable and can be addressed by providing a fair planning process by (a) providing for the registry system as proposed in Sewell commission recommendation 76, and (b), continuing the rights to appeal minor variance decisions to the OMB.
It is likely it will be some time before we again have the opportunity to improve the planning process in Ontario and we ask this committee to support our requested changes.
The Chair: We'll begin with the official opposition.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you familiar with Reverend Mark Stagg? Is he with you?
Mr Moran: I just read his submission at lunchtime on the chair there.
Mr Grandmaître: Wasn't he your representative on the cottage committee?
Mr Moran: No, during the work of the Sewell commission, there was a cottagers' working group committee and our past president was representing FOCA on that working committee.
Mr Grandmaître: So you've never shared your concern with Rev Stagg?
Mr Moran: No.
Mr Grandmaître: And yet he was supposed to be your representative. What input did you have?
Mr Moran: We have 500 member associations, but I chair the land use planning committee of FOCA. We certainly encourage other member associations to make submissions and develop their positions and take an interest in the matter.
Mr Grandmaître: So you had ample time to tell the commission of your concerns, especially on the septic.
Mr Moran: Yes. We made significant submissions and supported the reinspection program, and we also supported that it be done on a user-pay basis.
Mr Grandmaître: And the Sewell commission accepted your recommendations.
Mr Moran: We were satisfied with the recommendations of the Sewell commission in its final report, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: But the government left it out.
Mr Moran: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Is it possible, Mr Chair, to ask the parliamentary assistant why it was left out? I think it's fair.
Mr McLean: Good question. It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not.
Mr Hayes: I don't think it's a case of just ignoring the recommendation, because it does fall under the Ministry of Environment and Energy. I know that they are having discussions probably dealing with this issue and I think that's probably the appropriate place for it to be.
Mr Grandmaître: But, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, I thought Municipal Affairs was the lead ministry in this bill.
Mr Hayes: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: If you are the lead ministry --
Mr Hayes: Certainly we are, but I don't --
Mr Grandmaître: Well, you are. This is what I'm told. You are the lead ministry, right?
Mr Hayes: We are the lead ministry in this piece of legislation, and there are certain recommendations --
Mr Grandmaître: Did your ministry --
Mr Hayes: If you want to hear me out, Mr Grandmaître, there are certain pieces of legislation that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries. We certainly want that other ministry to take a look at this situation, because that certainly is its jurisdiction.
Mr Grandmaître: Did you meet with the ministry to, let's say, fight or promote or assist or support the cottagers on their recommendations?
Mr Hayes: Have I personally?
Mr Grandmaître: The minister. No, not you, but the minister.
Mr Hayes: I don't know if one of the staff wants to address that. Are there, I guess, discussions going on at the present time --
Mr Grandmaître: They're ongoing.
Mr Hayes: -- on these particular issues?
Ms Dewar: There have been and there are bits of discussions going under way with the Ministry of Environment about this issue.
Mr Grandmaître: And what's the feeling of MOEE on this one?
Ms Dewar: I haven't been involved in those discussions.
Mr Grandmaître: So we don't know if this will be one of your amendments or not.
Mr Hayes: No, we don't know that.
The Chair: Okay. Anything further?
Mr Eddy: I can see that you consider the matter of the registry very important, as many other people do, other than cottagers too, because there are a great many people who have properties in municipalities and don't live there for various reasons. So I can see the importance of it. What system do you follow now? It's always in the newspapers, so you watch the newspaper and then circulate that to your members and hope you don't miss one? So it's a hit-and-miss type of thing?
Mr Moran: It's very informal at the moment, and when the original thoughts were coming out about developing a registry, we used that approach. In my own municipality, we approached our municipality and asked if it would set up a registry for us as the cottage groups for that township, and they now, as a matter of course, do circulate to our own cottage associations in that township.
Mr Eddy: You said the association, so it's the officers of the association?
Mr Moran: Yes.
Mr Eddy: And you would be content with that in future rather than every member --
Mr Moran: Yes. I think from the point of view of paper flow and monitoring a particular area or a part of a township, it makes some sense that an identifiable interest group be part of the registry rather than individual people.
Mr Eddy: I think that's a good point and I appreciate the fact that you're willing to --
Mr Moran: I've had discussions with the staff of the municipality as to whether it's a difficulty for them and they said they circulate widely all of these applications. So it's whether they press the button for 14 copies or 15, and they've related back to me that it was not a difficulty for them administratively.
Mr Grandmaître: Why would there be a fee then for them to register?
Mr Moran: It says that there may be a fee, and I think that's a decision of local councils, whether they want to offer that service to their ratepayers' groups or identified ratepayers. But it said that there may be a fee.
1350
Mr McLean: Just briefly, the three specific areas that you zero in on: I don't think there should be a big problem with at least two of them, with the registry system and with the rights to appeal the minor variance decisions to the OMB. Indications that we've had are that it's only 6% of the appeals that go to the OMB anyway so it shouldn't be a big job if they want to maintain that.
The other area is septic systems, that Sewell had recommended. I had some problems with making it a blanket coverage across the province but I live in an area where I know there are real problems with the septic systems on the waterfronts, on a lot of our waterways. What recommendation could we have that would try and solve that with regard to the septic systems without covering the whole of Ontario?
Mr Moran: We are, in FOCA, participating with the Ministry of Environment in some discussions about a cost-effective expanded cottage pollution control survey from which, incidentally, there's been support withdrawn last October. The program that we were having some benefit of, which was not very extensive -- as a matter of fact, in Peterborough county, there's only been one lake checked since 1980 and it happens to be my lake. Put a lid on it.
Mr Grandmaître: Lucky you.
Mr Moran: But anyway, it's done, and the reports in the paper at the time said that 70% of the cottage septics failed that survey. When I talk about a cost-effective system, in that survey system, if you put a septic in a year ago, that survey would have come back and asked you a lot of questions about your system. I've made a proposal on behalf of FOCA for a cost-effective one where we share information between the assessment office, the building department and the Ministry of Environment, all of whom have data on my property and shouldn't be sending somebody out to every property.
I think the way to do accomplish it is have an expiry date on your certificate of use. If your certificate of use expires every 10 years, then you would only be dealing with expired certificates of use and it would be much more cost-effective.
So we are working with the Ministry of Environment towards promoting that and we're going to continue to take that as an issue with FOCA because we feel that the existing systems are a far greater threat to the environment than the new ones that are proposed.
Mr McLean: Are they accepting that? Not really. Thank you. Mr Villeneuve, do you have --
Mr Villeneuve: FOCA has got to be a fairly powerful group. Do you notice some degree of reluctance from the local people who live in your area 12 months versus the people who belong to FOCA? Have you been able to work with the local people reasonably well? We've heard some submissions here that there is a great deal of friction at times.
Mr Moran: Something I'm very concerned about is the integration of the seasonal and the permanent residents in a community. There's examples in this area where cottage associations, through frustration, actually took over the elected positions. I think that they may have had reason or may not have had reason, but it's caused a lot of sensitivity and the people are very worried about the extension of that approach.
In my view, in my municipality, I felt that we should be plugged in at the committee level, the planning advisory committees, the committees of adjustment, recreational committees, and help the elected councils do their work, which is a difficult job and getting more difficult all the time. I think there's some expertise in the seasonal community which could contribute to that.
So I'm very aware of that thing. I frankly think that a cottage association taking over a municipal elected council probably wouldn't have any volunteer firemen a week later. I don't think that's the right thing. I think you've got to be very, very sensitive to your influence as a seasonal resident and we're very conscious of it.
We encourage our members to vote; we encourage them, if they are available, to participate in the election process in terms of maybe being a member of council. We don't campaign to take over a municipality and I don't support that.
Mr Villeneuve: The appealing of minor variances, can you not see that becoming very, at times, frivolous and vexatious?
Mr Moran: I think that should be sorted out but I can tell you that I'm on a committee of adjustment. I watch what's happening. I read in the paper a week ago, in this county, where a minor variance was approved; it relaxed the setback from 40 feet to zero. I looked up the minutes again last night to confirm that the land division committees give approvals subject to either a minor variance or a rezoning approval. They don't differentiate between it.
I think that there's a real risk right now of people applying for minor variances, getting it approved contrary to zoning, contrary to the official plan and contrary to every provincial policy statement that would allow construction on wetlands, and nobody could do anything about it. I think it's a huge defect in the system.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I originally had three questions, and they've all been touched on, but never mind.
Thank you for a very sensible and friendly presentation with several very valid points. You've got me really scared, because on page 4 you say that local MPPs are liable to get involved in planning decisions because of the absence of appeals to the OMB. You elaborate on that topic quite a bit. I'm just wondering if we could have a response from the ministry as to how it envisages the situation developing in the absence of those minor variance deals.
Ms Boeckner: The intent of Bill 163 is that local councils would make the final decision on minor variances without an appeal. However, it does set up an appeal route that councils could take whereby they would set up a committee of adjustment of appointed individuals. The committee would make a decision, and that decision could be reviewed by the town council. That would be the only appeal route or second route allowed by Bill 163 for minor variances.
Ms Carter: Of course I haven't been sitting on this committee and I'm sure you must have gone over this many times, but I suspect that there is some work to be done on this still. We did discuss the septic tanks, but again I think that's a very valid and compelling issue and that we do have to make sure that all those older septic systems are functioning well, whatever the mechanism for doing that.
I also appreciate your assurance that your cottagers' association wishes to work with local councils but not to take them over, because we really heard a very astonishing report about that in one township this morning.
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'll speak very quickly. Thank you, Mr Moran, for being before us today. I'm from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings; the Bay of Quinte, Sandbanks Provincial Park, North Beach Provincial Park, they lie within my riding. Down in that area they're administered by conservation authorities. We have what's called a CURB program -- you may be familiar with that -- Clean Up Rural Beaches; very successful, deals with septic tanks. I don't want to dwell on the septic tanks, but if you come from cottage country or if you come from rural Ontario, they're a fact of life. This program's been very successful.
A couple of years ago in the Legislature I brought in a private member's resolution that was supported by the majority of members in private members' public business on that day, that suggested that before people sell their residences they have their septic tanks inspected so that the new buyer wouldn't find a problem, a surprise, after they purchased their new property. The expense of course would be borne by the owner-seller.
Because I only have two minutes I can't go into the detail I'd like to, but would FOCA be agreeable to supporting that kind of resolution should it be made into a bill where at least on those occasions when people sold their residences and cottages there was an opportunity by legislation to inspect their septic systems?
Mr Moran: FOCA's on record supporting that approach. On the same basis that you can't sell your car without making it mechanically fit, your property should be environmentally fit before you transfer ownership. We do support that approach.
Mr Paul Johnson: Great.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, did you have a comment to make?
Mr Hayes: Yes, just in regard to the registry. That part is being dealt with right now under the implementation task force. It will be prescribed by regulations to deal with the notices. It's likely that the regulations will provide for persons who have -- like yourself -- their own association and who have requested to be notified. That is really being dealt with by the implementation task force.
The other point of clarification I'd like to make is, and we talk about minor variances -- it's been mentioned that only 6% of OMB cases are minor variances. That's really not correct. It's 6% of the time spent on them, but 18% of the cases are dealing with minor variances. Just to let you know.
1400
ECO-COUNCIL OF THE PETERBOROUGH AREA
The Chair: We have the Eco-Council of the Peterborough Area, Ms Jean Greig. Welcome to this committee.
Ms Jean Greig: Thank you and good afternoon to members of the committee and to the Chair. My name is Jean Greig. I'm here representing the Eco-Council of the Peterborough Area, and I'd like to say first of all that I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee, and particularly that the committee has taken the time to travel to Peterborough and to other communities, because this really facilitates the ability of citizens' groups like ours to participate in this public hearing process. I appreciate that greatly.
To start, the Eco-Council is a citizens' environmental group of individuals and groups from not only the city of Peterborough but from the surrounding area and surrounding municipalities, including Lakefield, Norwood, Millbrook and the Kawartha lakes, and we have been active on a number of issues in this community for about the past five years. Land use planning issues have been a particular focus of ours. We've participated in several local processes, including commenting on our county plan.
We are currently involved in two processes within the city of Peterborough in partnership with the city planning department and other community agencies. One is the development of a natural area strategy for the city, the outcome of which will be used to help the revisions of the open space portion of our city's official plan, and the second is participation in a review of the section of the official plan that deals with transportation issues. So we're keenly interested in local planning issues.
We've also been quite extensively involved in this ongoing process to revise the planning process in Ontario. We made several submissions to the Sewell commission as it was going through its consultation. We looked at and commented on the comprehensive set of policy statements and we currently have a representative sitting on the implementation task force, which I believe is meeting today in Toronto to discuss regulations and guidelines to put some of the stuff into action. We are, of course, very happy to be here to talk specifically about the issue of Bill 163.
As I stated in the front-page summary of our presentation that's been handed around to you, we've generally been very pleased with the outcome of the Sewell commission and with the comprehensive set of policy statements. We felt that these represented some very positive and necessary steps forward to restoring both environmental and process integrity to the planning process in the province.
Bill 163 embodies many of these positive steps, but we also feel that there are some critical shortcomings that need to be addressed if this bill is to achieve the purposes that it set out to do, injecting necessary environmental and process integrity into planning in Ontario. So I have comments on five specific areas that are our main areas of concern with Bill 163.
The first has to do with the "shall be consistent with" clause. The recommendation of the Sewell commission was that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, other ministries, planning authorities etc make decisions that are consistent with the policy statement set out in the Planning Act, and this was a really important principle. Part of the whole thrust of this was to establish a much stronger policy direction from the province and establish the framework within which municipalities and local planning authorities could make planning decisions that would uphold provincial interests.
We were very, very disappointed to find in Bill 163 that this requirement for consistency with policy statements has now only been extended to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and it appears that the other ministries are not covered by this requirement.
Part of our dismay, I suppose, is because we don't really know where this came from. It wasn't anything that came up during the course of the Sewell commission. We haven't heard about why this has happened. We don't know what its implications are. Does this mean that the Ministry of Natural Resources, for example, in commenting on an official plan, doesn't have to be consistent with the policy statements? What does it mean? What is the implication of this? Maybe somebody can address that, but we're very disappointed that the other ministries have not been included in the "shall be consistent with" clause.
Likewise, the statement in subsection 62(1) that Ontario Hydro shall have regard to policy statements, again seems to us to be a step backward. Why should Ontario Hydro only have to have regard to the policy statements when a municipality, for example, has to be consistent with them? Why is there this difference in status there? Indeed, by having that clause applying to Ontario Hydro and no clause applying to any of the other provincial ministries, it really appears that there's a three-tiered set of requirements here: that the municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs must be consistent with policy statements, Ontario Hydro must have regard to, and everybody else really doesn't have to worry about them at all. That's how it reads to us. Now, I may be convinced differently, but that's how it reads, and we feel that's very, very dangerous and is a big step backwards from the recommendations of the Sewell commission.
We would like to recommend that part III, subsection 6(2) of Bill 163 be amended to read: "Subsection 3(5) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"(5) A decision of the council of a municipality, local board, planning board, the minister and the Municipal Board under this act and any other act as may be prescribed, and a decision by every ministry of the crown and Ontario Hydro affecting land use matters under this act, shall be consistent with policy statements issued under subsection (1)."
That is our first recommendation.
Our second concern has to do with pre-approval site alteration. As a local grass-roots environmental organization, one of the concerns that comes up over and over again, not only in our community but in other communities, is the fact that currently, in many municipalities at least, just about anything can be done to a chunk of land before it actually goes through the approvals process, and if this is a sensitive environmental feature, it can be damaged or destroyed before there's even any possibility of protection.
We feel that the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act that are part of this bill really do not go far enough to ensure that damage to those features and functions does not occur prior to obtaining the development approvals.
As it's stated, the bill gives municipalities the option of passing bylaws that would restrict pre-approval site alteration. Certainly, some municipalities are not going to pass these bylaws, and where those bylaws are not in existence, there is no recourse, and even a citizen or a group or whoever who may want to take some action to stop what's going on has no legal recourse. We feel that's unacceptable.
A second concern about this section of the bill is that those site alteration activities that are discussed in this section should be expanded. At the present time, they talk about grading and the dumping and removing of fill, but it should also be expanded to include cutting or clearing of vegetation and removal of peat, because these are two other activities that can and often do have a significant effect on the integrity of a piece of land before a site approval is given.
1410
Our first recommendation or our preferred recommendation would be that part VII of the Planning Act be amended by adding a section that would prohibit site alteration by an applicant prior to the issuance of any necessary approvals under this act, prohibit any site alteration that does not comply with any terms and conditions attached to any approval issued under this act or any other act, and provide citizens with the ability to apply to the courts for injunctive relief where an authorized site alteration is taking place. That would be our preference.
In the alternative, we would recommend that the first line of part IV, section 2 of Bill 163, where municipalities are given the option where they may pass bylaws concerning these matters, be amended to read that "the council of a local municipality shall pass bylaws concerning the issues that follow," the various site alteration activities, and furthermore, we would recommend that the words "the cutting or clearing of vegetation and the removal of peat" be added in the appropriate places to the subsections under this part of Bill 163 that defines the types of site alterations included in this section of the Municipal Act.
Our third concern with Bill 163 has to do with grounds for dismissal of appeals. We have two main concerns about this portion of the act. There's a phrase that appears several times through this portion of the act that deals with refusal to refer or dismissal of appeals, the phrase "apparent land use planning ground." This is a phrase that is not defined in this act, and it raises the question in our mind, what is a valid land use planning ground and who is going to state what this is? Who is going to interpret this and how is it going to be interpreted? How indeed does it differ from the frivolous-and-vexatious clause that has been more or less defined, and why are there these two different sets of grounds for dismissal? We don't feel that it is acceptable that this phrase remain in the bill, at least in an undefined form, because it just leaves too much room in how those words will be interpreted or applied.
Secondly, we feel that the ability to dismiss appeals or referrals on the grounds that oral or written submissions were not prior to council giving approval is, again, not acceptable. It's not sensitive to the reality that most citizens' groups have to deal with, which is that they're mostly volunteers. They're working in their spare time. They don't have, necessarily, any very consistent or fast method of getting word around. It takes time and a lot of effort with usually no professional help to go through the information and assess what its implications are and prepare a response. That a valid appeal or referral be rejected simply on the grounds that an oral or written submission was not made prior to the approval, I think, is an infringement of democratic rights, and we feel that Bill 163 should be amended to remove these clauses.
So our recommendation on this section is that in part II of Bill 163 referring to grounds for dismissal, delete the subsections referring to apparent land use planning grounds or that the term "land use planning ground" be replaced by the phrase "land use planning ground as provided in sections 1.1 and 2 of this act and as described in the planning policy statements under section 3," and that would define that land use planning ground in reference to something that's already been more or less defined.
Secondly, that those subsections of these portions of the act that refer to the limitation of making oral or written submissions before an appeal or a referral is valid be deleted altogether from the bill.
The last two issues are more or less omissions from the bill, we feel. The first has to do with joint planning. There is a range of planning issues which extend beyond the boundaries of individual municipalities, and these could include watershed planning, integration with protected areas under the control of other jurisdictions, transportation planning, growth and settlement patterns and population projections. In order to plan effectively and in a useful way for these types of issues, it is really important that municipalities consult with the surrounding municipalities in developing their plans.
Peterborough is actually a great example of that, because of course in many areas there are already regional governments that help this to happen; there are upper-tier plans that help this to happen. But the Peterborough example is one which illustrates why there needs to be a requirement for joint planning. We have a city of Peterborough inside the county of Peterborough, which is a separate planning jurisdiction, and ideally planning would occur in a joint manner between the county and the city. There is some resistance to this happening, and if it doesn't happen, it means that those issues which are of joint concern and that really extend past those boundaries are not getting dealt with in the most effective manner.
We feel that there should be a requirement within the prescribed process for planning that municipalities consult with all neighbouring jurisdictions on shared planning concerns, and we recommend that this legislative committee formally request that cabinet ensure that the prescribed process for plan preparation, including plan review and amendment, requires that municipalities consult with all neighbouring municipalities and jurisdictions to ensure that their plans are logically integrated and will not conflict with or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the plans of neighbouring jurisdictions.
Finally, deadlines for revisions of plans: We haven't been able to find anywhere in Bill 163 a requirement or a time line for municipalities to bring their plans into consistency with and into line with the new policy statements. As you probably well know, it sometimes takes an awfully long time for some municipalities to get around to reviewing and updating their official plan. It could be years from the time that this bill is passed -- many years in some cases -- before a municipality actually brought its plan into line with the intent of this bill and the new act if there is not a requirement that this be done and a time line that it should be done within.
Our recommendation is that Bill 163 be amended to add a new subsection (4) to section 26 of the Planning Act -- this is where it would sit -- which would state, legal talk:
"Despite subsections (1) and (3), when the province issues new policy statements under section 3, the council of every municipality that has adopted and approved an official plan shall, without undue delay, undertake a review of its plan to ensure that the plan is consistent with policy statements issued under section 3 and each municipality that is the approval authority in respect of the approval of an official plan of a local municipality within its jurisdiction shall submit to the minister a revised official plan no later than three years of the issuing of new section 3 policy statements and ensure thereafter, and within no more than two years, that a review of any official plan of a local municipality is undertaken to ensure that the plan is consistent with the revised plan of the approval authority."
That would be our recommendation on that issue.
These are our main concerns with the act. There are some others that we will be addressing in a joint statement that will come from the land use caucus of the Ontario Environment Network, but from the point of view of the Eco-Council, these are the key issues for us in Bill 163. We think that if these issues are addressed, we will have a much stronger bill and one which goes much further towards achieving the goals and the objectives that were the basis of this entire review of the planning process in Ontario.
1420
Mr McLean: My questions will be short. Welcome to the committee. The question I have, and maybe its looking for a clarification is with regard to "Decisions consistent with policy statements.... We were dismayed to find in Bill 163 that all provincial ministries but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have been excluded from that requirement. It is unclear to us why this change was made, and we are nervous of its implications."
With regard to "the revision of subsection 62 of the act to state that Ontario Hydro `shall have regard to,'" would you explain that a little more clearly for me? I think what you're looking for is that all ministries should have the same --
Mr Grandmaître: All agencies and boards.
Ms Greig: That's exactly right. All ministries, all agencies, all parties shall act in consistency with those policy statements. We see that that's why those policy statements are there, to provide that direction. If decisions don't have to be consistent with them, then there's not a whole lot of point in having them there.
Mr McLean: At the bottom of that same page: "We recommend that part VII of the Planning Act be amended by adding a section that would prohibit site alteration by an applicant prior to the issuance of any necessary approvals under this act." Can they do it now without going through the necessary approvals?
Ms Greig: Oh, site alteration, certainly. My understanding is that where there are not specific municipal bylaws limiting things like the cutting of trees, removal of vegetation etc, many types of site alterations, there's absolutely no legal limitation on what gets done.
Mr Wiseman: AMO has suggested with respect to the phrase "shall be consistent with" to add "the spirit and the intent," "shall be consistent with the spirit and the intent." To me, those are waffly. That would waffle it an awful lot, in my own opinion. To show you that some of us do accept compromises, I prefer the phrase "will conform to," but I'm prepared to live with "shall be consistent with." I would like to hear what your opinions are.
I think what's wrong with the planning process all around, whether it be from the point of view of developers or community groups or environmentalists or councils, is that there are too many "maybes," and that what we have to do is get rid of the "maybes" and the "yes, buts" and put in, "No, you can't do it." Then make sure there are no exceptions to it, so that you know, if you are a developer, that you are not going to be disadvantaged because somebody else might get a "yes, but" and a "maybe" when you're getting a "no."
So I'd like to hear your comments about AMO's suggestion. It almost seems to me like what they're trying to do is to water it down so they can continue doing what they were doing all along, and that may not be acceptable to a lot of community groups and ratepayers that I know of.
Ms Greig: I think we've said more or less what we think should happen and that is that it should be "shall be consistent with." That is clear.
I echo your point exactly. I think if the rules are clearly stated, if the limitations within which development can occur are clearly stated up front at the beginning of the process, then we avoid a lot of the time and a lot of the anger and frustration that come of the unclearness that currently exists.
My opinion is that development is going to continue to occur, growth is going to continue to occur, and what we're trying to do is set up some acceptable frameworks within which it should occur. The provincial role in that should be to strongly state and direct what that framework is. That's what the provincial role in planning should be. If that's what the provincial role should be, then we need to make it strong and we don't need to waffle on what the language is.
Mr Perruzza: My question is very brief and it refers to something you talked about in your brief, and that is the definition of what constitutes sort of a legitimate planning ground type argument and what would be considered frivolous and vexatious. So that we have it in Hansard as well so that when the OMB panelists go back and try to figure out how they're going to define that, I'd like to know from you what a good planning ground argument is and what you would consider to be frivolous and vexatious.
Ms Greig: I don't think I can answer that question in the time allotted. There are all kinds of valid land use planning grounds, and I guess my concern with this statement is its vagueness and that there actually are land use planning interests stated quite clearly at the beginning of the bill, at the beginning of the proposed act. I don't feel I can answer your question in a meaningful way because there's a whole range of things that could be frivolous or vexatious and a whole range of things that would be valid.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. We're pleased to have it. A common thread through nearly all of the presentations is that indeed provincial ministries and Ontario Hydro should be following the policies. I don't know why it's not there, and I'd like to have that explanation at some convenient time. But it's not there and people are pointing it out and they're very concerned that it's not there. So you make a very good point.
I just wonder if you have a copy of Looking Ahead: A Wild Life Strategy for Ontario, produced by MNR. Do you have a copy of it?
Ms Greig: I have had a copy, an earlier version perhaps.
Mr Eddy: You do have a copy of it?
Ms Greig: I don't know if I have a copy of that version, but I believe I saw an earlier version.
Mr Grandmaître: How did you get started? How did your council get started?
Ms Greig: How did our organization get started? What did it come out of? I believe it came out of a community conference on sustainable development. There were all kinds of issues identified that needed to be addressed. There were some isolated groups dealing with different issues and it was felt that there needed to be a stronger network and a stronger cohesive force that was dealing with these issues, and from that the Eco-Council was developed.
Mr Grandmaître: What kind of cooperation are you getting from the local councils? Because it's Peterborough "and area."
Ms Greig: From other municipalities?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Ms Greig: We have representatives on our body from a variety of different municipalities. We have someone from Lakefield, from Norwood, and we often have individuals from the Millbrook area. We address issues that deal with the broader region, such as the county plan, and as a group of people who are the most active in the organization, we try to address issues in a way and provide education and information on issues that are of relevance to the entire region.
Mr Grandmaître: Would you say that you're successful in your working relations with local councils?
Ms Greig: With local councils, yes, I would say actually we're fairly successful.
Mr Grandmaître: Good.
The Chair: We thank you for participating in these hearings.
Ms Greig: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair: Everyone, of course, has heard all of your views on these issues.
Mr Wiseman: While we're waiting for the next group to come forward, I'm wondering if it's possible that we could extend an invitation to the Ministry of Environment and Energy and have them come to talk to us about what kind of possibilities we could have of including septics, and maybe also hear from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at some later date as to the rationale behind the exclusion and what possibly we could do to include in the Planning Act the other ministries. We're hearing this as a common theme, and I think we should hear it from the ministries, if we can work that out somehow.
Mr Eddy: I strongly endorse that request because it comes forward time after time. Of course, the big concern is that I think the minister of the day, in whatever ministry, will go any way they want. It would be good to hear.
Mr Curling: Hydro should be here too.
The Chair: We'll take that into consideration. I think we might want to discuss this perhaps in subcommittee, if that's the way to do it.
1430
COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH
The Chair: We invite the county of Peterborough.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to introduce the clerk administrator of Peterborough county, Mr Doug Armstrong, as well as the director of planning, Mr Brian Weir.
As warden of the county of Peterborough, we are pleased that your committee has seen fit to meet in Peterborough to hear comments regarding Bill 163. We trust that the entire committee will be aware of the discussions and presentations you hear at the various meetings you have throughout this province.
We would like to comment, first, that Bill 163, in our opinion, is improper legislation inasmuch as the very title states a number of significant legislative changes have been incorporated into one bill. Planning and development, conflict of interest and other amendments to the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, by themselves, are complex. Incorporating them into one piece of legislation, we suggest the public may not become fully aware as to what legislative changes are being made. It has been some time since one piece of legislation has received as much attention as Bill 163, we believe in part due to its complexity.
The county of Peterborough has reviewed Bill 163 and has a number of major concerns. We have attached a report from our director of planning which was adopted by our county council. A report from the county's chief administrative officer was adopted also by council, both expressing concerns on specific areas of the legislation. During this presentation we would like to highlight some of the more serious concerns as we see it, and trust the committee will review all the documents presented.
Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994: The imposition of additional obligations on local government representatives is taken very seriously, I assure you. The legislation as drafted tends to suggest that municipal government representatives have conflicts that are unreported. Very few members of municipal councils or boards or commissions have been charged with conflict, and even fewer convicted.
The suggestion that the majority of the numbers of complaints under the Conflict of Interest Act come from smaller municipalities is indeed misrepresentation. The percentage of municipalities with less than 10,000 population is by and large the majority of municipalities in Ontario. Therefore any suggestion that a higher percentage of charges are from small municipalities is misleading.
The requirement that a member's spouse and family's assets be listed is, in short, an invasion of privacy. It is an invasion of privacy that members of the provincial Legislature may not be subject to, as many of the records that are to be filed by members of the Legislature are not readily available to the public. The proposed legislation requires that the declaration by members of municipal bodies must be kept in a register in the clerk's office, open to the public at all times, and I believe that is the difference.
If it is necessary to list the information for the member, his or her spouse and family, we request that it be subject to applications under the freedom of information act. This would be at least in keeping with provisions for provincial members.
The matter of recording conflict-of-interest disclosures in a registry seems to be somewhat redundant. It should be sufficient information to have it recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Thus, anyone reading the minutes would be aware of when the disclosure took place.
We are extremely concerned that some members of the public who may consider being involved as a member of municipal council or other bodies may not do so due to the requirements of recording assets and income sources.
A very fundamental question follows: What benefit can it be to list assets that are located in another municipality?
We have proposed that if the details of assets and liabilities are to be maintained it be maintained either by the province, at the county, or at least be subject to disclosure through applications under the freedom of information act.
Planning Act changes: Amendments being made under Bill 163 relating to planning in Ontario are headed in the wrong direction.
It has been our understanding that the province of Ontario has been promoting an improved planning process which would ultimately provide the developer and property owners with a speedier approach to resolution of planning issues.
First of all, Bill 163 requires that municipal councils make planning decisions which should be consistent with provincial policy statements. In our opinion, this is direct planning from the province. Each county or local municipality has different conditions than that which is prepared for by the province.
The Sewell commission advocated a stronger county planning system. Bill 163 completely disregards that approach and reduces the importance of county planning. We strongly object to this move, particularly as planning at the regional government level is not affected.
The notion that municipal planning areas may be established is a contradiction in direction from the province. It is unclear as to what the rationale is for this move. We seriously question why planning areas can be created between municipalities which are not part of the same county. In the event of a municipal planning authority area being established, a county official plan could not be enacted.
As noted in our reports, the financial provisions for municipal planning areas tend to undermine the authority of county jurisdiction. We suggest this is a provincial government approach to restructure counties. The same conditions are not proposed for regional municipalities.
Bill 163 provides that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has the authority for official plan approval. Our concern is that an individual's or a municipality's right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board may be vetoed by Ministry of Municipal Affairs' staff under subsection 17(1), as proposed, since the approval authority for official plan amendments rests with the ministry.
We have included a number of other concerns in our document, concerns which we believe will impede land use planning in Ontario. Additional time has been added to the planning process in certain functions. This is counter to the provincial initiative to speed up planning processes in Ontario.
We would like to express our concern that limits have been imposed on parkland dedication conditions. We would suggest the initial value of parkland be deducted from any values created due to intensified development. This would be less confusing than trying to deal with amended development changes schedules.
We've also attached copies of submissions received from the following local municipalities in Peterborough county: the township of Cavan, the township of Chandos, the township of Burleigh and Anstruther, along with the reports of our staff.
Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to thank you for taking time to listen to our submission and, as noted earlier, we would appreciate it if the committee reviews all of the suggestions that have been presented.
1440
Mr Wiseman: I have a couple of questions. The first thing is that I personally haven't heard anybody casting the kinds of aspersions and assaults on the credibility of municipal councillors in the rural areas. I don't see that -- on page 2, where you talk about there being a larger percentage of people who are on council doing things that they shouldn't be doing. I haven't heard that and I don't believe it at all; I don't have that view of the world. I just wanted to make that as a comment.
The comment I really would like to get into is this "shall be consistent with." It seems to me that we're hearing, from municipal councils and counties and all of the elected officials, that they would like to see "with regard to" and that all of the community representatives are saying that "shall be consistent with" is the very least. In fact, we heard yesterday from a group that said if it's going to be watered down to be "shall be consistent with," they would like to see "shall be consistent with and conform to" the policy guidelines.
I think that's a real problem because there seems to be a division in this. But there does seem to be unanimity around the fact that what we need to do is get rid of the maybes in the Planning Act so that people can be very clear about what they can and cannot do. Even the developers in my riding, where there's a lot of them, say they don't really care what's in the Planning Act as long as it's clearly defined, as long as it's consistent, across the board, so that one developer or one person doesn't get an advantage over another one and that it's applied in a way that they know what the rules are. They just simply said: "If you tell me I can't do this, then I'm not going to buy the land to do it. But if you tell me what I can do, that's what I will do"
When you start talking about "will conform to" or "will have regard to," if you go with "will have regard to," you're putting a whole lot of maybes back into the system. You're really going to water it down and you're going to be no further ahead. Citizens' groups are going to go to the Ontario Municipal Board and they're going to be told: "Well, we had regard for that. We looked at that piece of paper on that policy statement. We disagreed with it, so we had regard for it." What are you going to do about it? This is what we're hearing and this is the dichotomy.
Do we just totally disregard the public? How do we make sure that this works for everybody and how can it work for everybody if you keep muddying the waters with "maybes" and "yes, buts" and "have regard for?"
Mr Stewart: I think what we're saying here, sir, is the fact that what you're doing is taking the total planning element away from the municipality. Back, they wanted a very strong county government to control or to have certain controls regarding planning. If we have to be on a consistent basis with the provincial statements, there are different conditions in many municipalities. If you have something that is totally consistent across the province, what may work in one area may not work in another one.
Mr Wiseman: Can you give me an example there, maybe?
Mr Stewart: I'm going to maybe turn it over to our planning director for the examples, but I think that's one of the problems we have. You wanted a strong county government and it's slowly being taken away from us under this particular type of legislation. It was my understanding, and I've certainly talked to the ministers over the last three years as warden, that it's what they were looking for.
Here we are, we've been going through an official plan in Peterborough county for 15 years -- finally got it through with good help from the ministry. The ministry seemed very pleased it was happening. Now all of a sudden we're looking at something that's taking that authority away from it as far as we're concerned.
Mr Brian Weir: To shed some more light on to this, I think we recognize at the county that the wording "shall have regard to" has been misused or misapplied and is not appropriate.
In reviewing the drafts that came out before this package, there was a little bit of an explanation as per policy statements and it said something about the way it's drafted so it'll maintain the spirit and intent of the provincial policy statements. As a county, we picked up on that and in our submission that comes from the planning department, specifically on the Planning Act revisions, we do recommend that the wording "shall maintain the spirit and intent of" be used as opposed to "be consistent with," because, in our experience in the past, we found that a lot of the provincial policy statements have been GTA centred, and while you're trying to create consistency across the province, and that's admirable, there are definite problems when you reach the rural areas.
A specific example is the housing policy statement where you're talking about the provision of affordable housing when in some of our municipalities all we have is cottage development -- impossible to provide affordable housing. The other thing is that a lot of our development occurs on vacant lots. Someone will actually purchase a lot and build a house to suit their own means.
We find that adhering to some of the provincial policy statements, the current ones and the proposed ones, would be difficult from a rural perspective and that having a little bit of flexibility would be beneficial to us.
The other suggestion is to have two different policy statements, which I agree is equally as difficult, one for the GTA or builtup areas and one for more remote.
Mr Wiseman: But then you'd run into a problem where you have urban-rural mix, you'd have a real battle over the definition of which policy statement you would use. I could just see problems unfolding there, but thank you. I think I've run out of time.
Mr Curling: Your worship, I think your presentation and your delegation here have been direct and forthcoming in a way that we have heard this remark quite often, especially in the sense that here we have an omnibus bill before us. Normally when we have such legislation, we have a 30-minute presentation for you to interact with the legislators here so we can hear where you're coming from. Normally an omnibus bill doesn't give you a chance to really express some of your concerns.
As a matter of fact, earlier on today there was a presenter who had written to the minister before about her concern and hoping that she can bring it before here and they said, "Why don't you present it here?" As a matter of fact, that was not even taken into consideration. We hope they will take it into consideration. I would hope also that the member for Peterborough would have spoken up and seen some of the concerns and I hope they're advocated with some of the changes that you are seeking here. It is really a top-down situation, dictated by quarters who don't really need the input of the other municipality.
What I need to ask you though, because I'm a perpetual optimist in these situations, regardless that the government has ignored some of the recommendations of the Sewell commission and has ignored completely the process that you put forward, do you think it is too late to get those changes or do you feel they will be changed by this legislation that could reflect some of the things you are so seriously concerned about?
Mr Weir: I have concern, as in the past, where we have made presentations on various subject that appear not to have been listened to and legislation keeps going ahead. I feel that if we're going to be a team and get good planning for Ontario, then we better start, sit back and take a look at where we're going.
I have difficulty when the author of your report, who is Mr Sewell, stands up at AMO two weeks ago and totally criticizes the bill. I have a great deal of difficulty. For a man -- where they spent thousands and millions of dollars going around this province listening to us, getting our concerns and then totally present a bill that has many of the concerns not addressed.
Sir, I am not as optimistic as you are, but I would suggest it is time that we all become very optimistic and not put into place something that is going to hamper our level of government, and I believe our level of government, as a county and as a township or village, is as important as the level of government I'm talking to today.
Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've said many things that others have said to us, and I agree about putting so many things in the bill. It's very difficult for the members of the committee to get opinions of everyone on the various matters when so many things have been put in.
Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act: Thank you for giving us some alternatives. I understand your concern because many, many other people are concerned and you've given us some alternatives there to look at. I thank you and we will look at them.
I agree that urban and rural are different and it should be split. It's been mentioned it's impossible because of suburban -- it isn't, it's by designation of municipalities. What are you? What are you determined to be? And it could be done. I appreciate that and it is provincial planning being forced on -- the provincial policies are very strong and must be adhered to.
I share your concern about having municipalities opt out of the county planning system. I would say the only way that could happen is if the county council voted on it and agreed to a municipality opting out. It shouldn't be done any other way, and I'm very strong on that.
The Chair: Mr Eddy --
Mr Eddy: It's a good brief. I appreciate it and I'll be giving it consideration. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr McLean.
Mr Eddy: I'll learn to talk faster too.
Mr McLean: I want to welcome you here today and thank you for your presentation. You've raised some of the issues that others have raised also, but I wanted to ask you, do you think the government probably has a hidden agenda of county restructuring.
Mr Stewart: Well --
Mr Villeneuve: That's not a leading question.
Mr Stewart: Maybe I could answer it this way: I've been very involved for three years with county restructuring in Peterborough county and we suggested three years ago, when I was first elected as warden, that if we didn't do it, the province would do it for us. Unfortunately, there was a change in ministers and the only person left with his neck stuck out was me.
I believe in restructuring. I believe that down the road we are going to have to look at restructuring, not only at your level of government but at the county level as well. If we don't, we will not survive. I think we have to find ways of doing business better.
Whether it's a hidden agenda or not I am not about to say, but I will say this: I think it's something all of us are going to have to look very, very seriously at in the future at all levels. We're doing it in business. I believe we're going to have to give consideration to it at the government level as well.
1450
Mr McLean: I'm from the county of Simcoe, so I know exactly --
Mr Stewart: You know all about it, sir.
Mr McLean: -- what it's all about. But I often think that probably some amalgamations may be the most important thing that a lot of counties could do in order to start it in the right direction.
A concern was raised with regard to the importance of the county. Sewell had made very strong recommendations that counties should be given more control and more power. In the municipal role in the understanding of Ontario's planning reform it says once they have their official plan and approval has been given, they can proceed, but unfortunately there have been no approvals given to any counties. There are counties that have official plans that have been accepted by the minister and yet they have not been designated that approval process.
The concerns you raise are very well founded and I'm hoping the ministry will probably make some of those recommendations and put them in the approval process and perhaps the parliamentary assistant -- probably it would be whispered in his ear that it's already happening.
Mr Hayes: I will actually correct you on a few points, Mr McLean.
The Chair: Mr Hayes has some clarification to make.
Mr Hayes: Just on Mr McLean's last statement that there are no counties that can give subdivision approvals, that is not accurate at all because there are four counties right now, including Victoria, which made a presentation earlier today. Of course, it looks like Peterborough is coming pretty close to getting that authority. On behalf of the ministry, I want to compliment you for the hard work you've done getting your official plan together. It's being reviewed right now and I understand it won't be long before you will be delegated for subdivision approvals, for example.
Mr Stewart: We're hoping so, sir.
Mr Hayes: I hope I made that clear. The other point I'd like to make also, Mr Chair, if I may, concerns comments Mr Sewell had made at AMO. He did make some comments that he was not totally pleased, and I don't know of anybody -- I have had all kinds of suggestions where everybody doesn't agree with everything I have to say. That's for sure. But the fact of the matter is that what we failed to let the public know is that Mr Sewell also made a presentation to this very committee here and was very, very positive about this piece of legislation. I just wanted to say that for the benefit of members who maybe weren't listening at that time.
Mr McLean: Certain sections of it.
Mr Hayes: We won't get back into a debate. I actually want to address the issue so there isn't any other misunderstanding. You say there is misrepresentation when there's a suggestion made that the majority of numbers of complaints under the conflict-of-interest act came from small municipalities and you indicated in here that that is misrepresentation and also that it was misleading.
I can tell you, and I will repeat it again, the statements that we have made are that 40% of the complaints dealing with conflict of interest come from municipalities with under 5,000 population. That's what we made. We did not make a statement that it was a majority. I just want to make that clear.
Also on page 3, "The Sewell commission advocated a stronger county planning system." Yes, and that's correct. But you're saying that we are reducing the importance of county planning. Well, I have to say that it is the opposite, that we certainly are encouraging and looking at the planning.
Mr Eddy: Except the opting out.
Mr Hayes: Yes. There are a lot of issues that people have raised and you have raised here yourselves in a very good presentation. That's why we are doing what we are doing today. The government will be coming with amendments and the opposition parties will be coming with amendments and I'm sure there will be some changes that will be made that will address some of your concerns -- not all your concerns but some of them.
I would also like to have Pat Boeckner clarify the section, the last paragraph on page 3 where you talk about municipal planning areas being established and so on.
Ms Boeckner: The request was to have the last sentence in the last paragraph on page 3 clarified. The submission says that, "In the event of a municipal planning authority area being established, a county official plan could not be enacted." I think what the bill says is that where a municipal planning authority is enacted, that municipal planning authority would have to do an official plan and could receive delegation within the area covered by the authority and that the county official plan would not apply in that area. But that's not to say that the county official plan would not cover the area remaining outside of the municipal planning authority. They could exist side by side.
The Chair: Mr Stewart, do you want to make some final remarks based on these clarifications?
Mr Stewart: No. Mr Armstrong, would you like to, or Mr Weir?
The Chair: Not by way of making a speech but simply --
Mr Stewart: No, sir, we're not going to do that. The only comment I would make to you is that we've done many presentations in my three years and I would really ask that you listen and get involved with some of these requests. It's a lot different out in rural Ontario than it is in other areas. We're different. We're still all Ontarians, but we are different and we have different concerns, different planning areas. So I would really ask that you give consideration to what we've asked.
Certainly this conflict-of-interest thing, when you're again saying what is not good enough for us has got to be different for you and vice versa, I think that's where we have a concern. We're all supposed to be politicians. I would suggest that we all should be treated accordingly. Would either of you gentlemen like to comment?
Mr Doug Armstrong: We do understand about the county official plan. A county can have an official plan, but it doesn't apply to those areas that might be designated, which we think is a mechanism that went out of vogue probably 15 years ago. I think one of your members would remember when counties had a number of planning authorities and areas within them.
Mr Eddy: Twenty-one years.
Mr Armstrong: Twenty-one years ago. That's the concern. The other has to do with the percentage of complaints. By and large, the percentage of municipalities under 5,000 is much larger than over. I think that's somewhat misleading and the complexity of this omnibus legislation is just more than municipalities can -- when your amendments come through, I wonder, Mr Chairman, how much time will be given to people to respond to the amendments.
The Chair: We won't. These are the hearings. The amendments are based on what we are hearing obviously, and I should say the members have heard your concerns. We thank you for participating in these discussions.
1500
CITY OF KINGSTON
The Chair: We invite the city of Kingston, Councillor Ian MacInnis and Mr Norman Jackson, city solicitor. Welcome.
Mr Norman Jackson: Thank you for your indulgence in scheduling us. I also thank you for previous appearances we've had before parliamentary committees on legislation that the government and the other parties have supported from Kingston. We appreciate the assistance of the government in downsizing and other legislation that we've had in Kingston.
We come before you today to recognize the need for this type of legislation and particularly we want to address the conflict-of-interest legislation as a part of the bill. Our view is that this legislation is required, is important, and we have conveyed that to your staff. We appreciate as well that your staff have taken the time to come to Kingston and discuss the legislation with us.
We see that there's a need to have legislation such as this, which is very general. We're dealing again with just the conflict-of-interest part of the bill. We know it must be somewhat general because the more specific you make it, you may exclude certain situations you wish you'd had some broadness to cover. But we would like you to move in the direction of making it more specific for purposes of making it easier for members of the public and for members of council who are subject to the legislation to be able to interpret it and follow it and know what the rules of the game are.
We suggest that our amendments, which we will briefly deal with, would make the legislation more workable, and that's what the province has suggested is the aim of the bill. We would ask you to consider the amendments put forward in a positive frame, not a negative frame, with a view to making the legislation more understandable and certainly legislation that we believe would be more accepted by those who are going to be subject to it.
We first refer to the commissioner's office and have a concern that the commissioner's office is something that could become very expensive, very bureaucratic and we express some caution with its creation. But when it's created, we'd like to see it made more workable in terms of the type of information that can come from such an office. We would like to see the office made more of a determination-making bureau to save the expense and the hardship for some people of ending up with cases in court.
Our suggestion is that the office be made similar to other offices that exist now in the provincial sphere, the Human Rights Commission or the Ontario Municipal Board where hearings can be held less formally, and that the office be created with some decision-making power to do that. In doing so, we know that rights attach to that, but we think that not only the legislation should suggest there can be rulings or directives, but we would like to see the office be in a position where it could give opinions or rulings on individual situations where warranted.
We have a strong concern with the removal of the clause on inadvertence or error. We think that because legislation of this kind has to be written to apply in so many different situations that cannot all be contemplated, because we're dealing with the field of morality, there has to be a saving provision of some kind. It has been used frequently in the courts.
There may be some concern about the frequency of the use, but we suggest that if legislation is written in such a way that the ordinary person can read it and not necessarily know what is a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, they may need to consult a lawyer to review case law, and if that's the case, how can a person who has consulted a lawyer, received that advice, not rely on that advice? We suggest that the bona fide error in judgement serves an important purpose and should not be removed.
The type of situation that can result from a hearing where a conflict is found and an excuse is provided by the bona fide error in judgement can still render a strong effect on the public knowing about a situation. Certainly on the individual who is subject to a proceeding, has to pay his own lawyer's fees and perhaps has to pay costs for other parties in the hearing, there's enough of a penalty without imposing further penalties.
We suggest the disclosure of assets provision is useful. We in Kingston originally had a concern about how broad it was. There had been some revisions to that, and I guess now that it has been revised, although there is still some concern in the city of Kingston, our feeling is that it should be made more applicable to all other boards and commissions in the municipal sphere if it's going to apply.
One of our largest concerns, and you will hear more of this from Councillor MacInnis, who is with me, is the interest in common provision, which is an exception in the act. Again, it is a very general provision and, based on recent decisions emanating in Kingston and on appeal to the Divisional Court, the interest in common has been held to be an interest in common which one must have with almost every ratepayer in the municipality. Because of the generality of that, we believe it's not able to be used in a useful way.
To be practical, we would suggest that that stay, but have a further rider in the legislation to indicate that the interest in common can be with a group of persons of like kind in the municipality who are under consideration in the issue. Similarly, to make the legislation more workable, the exception regarding remoteness and insignificance is also very difficult to apply and, from our reading of approximately 30 cases in this field, it has never really been applied.
We would suggest, again to make things better and more workable, that there be a definition of what may be a level, such as $1,000, below which an interest will be deemed to be so remote or insignificant that it should not be subject to the act.
We commend you for proceeding as you have. I personally served on a previous conflict-of-interest committee with the province a number of years ago and I hope what I tried to do made things better. I'm not so sure, the way things have worked out, but it's a difficult task.
1510
We ask you to proceed. We are satisfied that our brief will provide you with the detail, along with Councillor MacInnis's personal observations, and we would hope to be kept informed of changes, but we're satisfied we've been given an opportunity for the input today and thank you for that.
Mr Ian MacInnis: Mr Jackson has just given you an overview of some of the concerns that the city of Kingston has with respect to the proposed new disclosure of interest act. I am here today because I've had two years of personal experience specifically to do with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Basically what I want to do is just take a few moments to drive home a few points that he has raised.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires a member not to participate in a matter in which he or she has a pecuniary interest, a financial interest. The one exception of course to that is where a member has an interest that is shared with others in the community. The legislation as it reads today and is proposed in the future is that you must in fact have an interest that is shared with "electors generally." That's how it reads today. How it reads tomorrow may be "persons generally." That's the terminology change that's being proposed.
This interest in common exception is relied upon more than any other exception, yet it is impossible for any member anywhere to have an interest that is shared in common with everyone else in the community. It's an impossibility, and that's based on not only the law as it is written but in recent case law right up to the appeal level at the Ontario Divisional Court on May 9 of this year.
Let me give you a couple of examples. If you sell real estate for a living, let's say you're a realtor and you're on a city council, according to the case law and the law that exists, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, as well as the local disclosure of interest act, you cannot vote on any matter pertaining to real estate because not everyone else in the community is a realtor.
If you are a landlord, you can't vote on matters pertaining to rental properties in your community because not everyone else in the community is a landlord. If you are in any business whatsoever, you cannot vote on matters pertaining to similar businesses because not everyone else in the community is in business. We can provide you, of course, with the documentation to support what I'm saying.
Some would even argue that members are in fact allowed to vote on such things as mill rate increases because, after all, we all pay property taxes, but it's interesting because there are a number of lawyers in town in Kingston -- a fine school exists there as a matter of fact, producing a lot of good lawyers -- and they have said to me that an argument could be put forward in the courts that in fact we shouldn't be voting on mill rate increases because not everybody's a property taxpayer in the city of Kingston or in any other municipality. They could be tenants. They don't pay it. What about the raises we give ourselves? We don't share that interest in common with everyone else in the community.
On May 9, 1994, the Ontario Divisional Court heard an appeal by three councillors of the city of Kingston who had been found in violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The three councillors had participated -- you're going to love this -- in the Sunday shopping debate in 1992. They included a commission salesman from Sears Canada -- he sells lawnmowers -- a tobacco store owner and a flea market operator. That happened to be me. The three-judge panel dismissed the councillors' appeal, so we lost the case on May 9, saying that although the councillors had an interest in common to persons engaged in the retail trade in the city of Kingston -- that's 7,000 people that are involved in retail trade in the city of Kingston -- unfortunately our pecuniary interests, our financial interests were not in common to electors generally. So we lost the case.
How many people does it take to constitute an interest in common? According to the results to the cases that we have, I can show you very clearly it takes every single person in the community, and you cannot name a person in this room or anywhere in the world who has an interest that is shared in common with everyone else in the community. It's an impossibility. So you've got to change that definition. Okay?
Now I'm here not just to complain and point out problems, I'm here to offer a few solutions too. Of course the decision makes it virtually impossible to serve on municipal councils. The proposed Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act exacerbates the situation by changing the wording from interest "in common with electors generally" to interest "in common with persons generally." That means every man, woman, child in your community. You have to have an interest in common with them, and it's impossible.
The solution is to redefine the interest in common as follows: A pecuniary interest should be one that is held in common with that segment of the population affected by the vote. So if you're dealing with a retail matter, then 7,000 people in the retail trade, you would have an interest in common with and that should be quite satisfactory.
The exception -- I'm changing the subject to the exception called an interest "that is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member" -- serves no purpose. That exception serves no purpose because the moment there's even a potential of a monetary gain or loss, even without it being defined, it is dismissed by the courts and maybe rightfully so, because the Legislature has not taken the time to define what is significant versus insignificant.
In terms of disclosure, you're saying everything $1,000 or more should be disclosed. Well, then, make $1,000 the point at which insignificant becomes significant. I think we have to be more definitive and crisper in our definitions.
The proposed role of the commissioner's office should be modified. It should play a preventive role. If a member has a concern about an upcoming issue, he or she should be able to contact the commissioner's office and get an advance ruling. Today, members must pay lawyers' fees for a legal opinion. I can tell you that there are a few members of our council who have paid lawyers' fees at $1,200 a crack for a legal opinion, and as you've heard in the case of the three Kingston councillors, the legal opinions are not always worth a whole heck of a lot, but you still lay out the money.
I think the financial burden that's caused by this legislation, both on the part of the person bringing the action and indeed the councillors who are defending themselves, should be eliminated. I think that's wrong.
I also believe the commissioner's office should actually hear the cases. I don't think the courts should be involved except at the appeal level. I think it should be dealt with at the OMB in an OMB style or a Human Rights Commission style of hearing. They're user-friendly and they're a lot less expensive than going through the courts. It cost the three councillors to defend themselves for two years $45,000; $45,000 was our legal cost and it's just not worth it.
The "saving by reason of inadvertence or bona fide error in judgement" clause should be kept. In the Kingston case, not only did the councillors act responsibly in speaking to several lawyers and obtaining legal opinions before they proceeded further with the Sunday shopping debate, but the trial judge, in finding the councillors in violation of the act, also wrote:
"I emphasize that there has been no allegation of corruption levelled at any of the respondents. I am satisfied that all of the respondents are men of good character and have rendered service of inestimable value to the community. I think, participating as they did, they were acting in the best interests of the people they represented."
What more do you want from an elected official other than acting in the best interests of the people they were elected to represent? That's what the judge said. "I'm satisfied," he said, "on all the facts that the contravention of the act by each of the respondents was due to an error in judgement." That very fine compliment appeared in the paper, but it cost me $45,000. That's an expensive compliment, and those things can be avoided. There shouldn't be this kind of animosity that's generated from these kinds of cases. I mean, the hard feelings that develop, they're avoidable.
I think the message, too, that the judge was sending, in my opinion, was: "Too bad this law stinks. Too bad this law is written so poorly and so ambiguously. Too bad, but it's impossible, Ian MacInnis and other councillors, for you not to have a conflict of interest and so therefore I have to find you in conflict."
The proposal is to remove the saving clause and impose severe, draconian measures. If that's done, the lives of a good number of decent people in this province will, in my opinion, be destroyed because there are some very vindictive people out there who, if they have the money and the will, will take you to task and do you in. Yet, you'll get a fine compliment from the judge as you leave office and are dishonoured.
I'm almost finished, Mr Chairman. I know I'm going on, but this is important. This is very important because --
The Chair: I understand. Keep going.
Mr MacInnis: All right. I hope you're with me on my every word here.
The disclosure of assets and liabilities should in fact be extended to all elected officials, non-elected board members, appointees and advisers to councils, commissions and boards.
What I find interesting is that the legislation is starting to narrow on who's going to be brought into the net of this. Under the existing legislation, all these boards and commissions are included. Under the new proposal, they're all being eliminated and it's going to be the guys on city council and the PUC commissioners whose necks will be on the line constantly. Meanwhile, you have people who influence every day through their business improvement area or through their school board or through the library board the voting of all those on council.
1520
Why isn't their financial interest just as important as mine? Why shouldn't their influence or their participation in a vote be scrutinized just as much as my interest and my participation? So I believe that the list that exists right now under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should be maintained and not eliminated.
I'm concluding now. I am certain that the intent of this legislation is to catch crooks. However, it is indeed so poorly written and ambiguous, that it has become a political minefield for honest municipal politicians who become the target of nasty vendettas involving richer or well-funded opponents. Sitting on local council has become a game of Russian roulette for certain members and the vagaries of the law require some crisper definitions.
I can go back to any council agenda and find two or three councillors that night who were in conflict. They didn't know it and the conflict was silly or remote, but technically and by the law they were in conflict and if somebody accused them, they would go through the same kind of expensive, embarrassing ordeal that the members of council did in the city of Kingston.
So I really sincerely ask you to think long and hard about some of what I think are substantive, reasonable suggestions that we're putting forward on this.
Mr Curling: I want to thank you for your presentation. Again, you've gotten caught in the trap of having this short time to present some very important observations that you've found here. The conflict of interest is only one aspect of this great omnibus bill, itself.
I may make just a comment instead of a question. I just have some concern, and I address this to the solicitor, if you're going to follow the procedure of the Human Rights Commission -- because they go into the direction of investigator and prosecutor, and what has happened here is an extremely long backlog that follows because they're trying to play all these kinds of roles. Although I see what your intent is, everyone else would be going there to question those elected people and those who are appointed to the board for some sort of clarification, while in the meantime, the other people are using it also. So that's one of the parts that I would have some sort of question on.
I can see again you have opened our eyes to many other things. One individual previous to here, the warden, stated should one declare their interests outside of their jurisdiction; in other words, if they are not in their county, whether they should say that they have an investment down in Toronto, whether or not that's a conflict of interest. I think those are some of the things we have to look at.
You had a point; my colleague would just like to put in here.
Mr Eddy: I really appreciate you bringing these problems to our attention now. It's important. Could we have a copy of the points that you're recommending, the changes?
Mr MacInnis: Certainly.
Mr Eddy: I think that would be very useful. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Grandmaître: Is that it?
The Chair: It's two minutes per caucus. There isn't much time.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, gentlemen, for making that presentation. I recall, back in the days when there was a provincial government known as Tory in Ontario that the Minister of Agriculture was taken to task because of the farm tax rebate, and he was exonerated. You bring forth a much more complex situation, and I guess it went to the courts: the availability of the information. I think you're agreeable to divulge. What sort of a process should someone desirous of obtaining Ian MacInnis's pedigree -- is it readily available or should it be through freedom of information? Give us some guidance.
Mr MacInnis: I'll deal with your question and also the point I think Mr Curling made.
I don't have any problem whatsoever disclosing my assets and liabilities as prescribed or as being suggested. I don't like the idea, though, of people frivolously nosing through other people's business. It's just a damned inconvenience and I don't think anybody appreciates that.
Making it accessible through the local municipal clerk means every nosy busybody -- and you know them; they're in your town -- will go down and look at your stuff and raise trouble for you or spread rumours about you that may or may not be --
Mr Villeneuve: Perception.
Mr MacInnis: It's perception. I think that I'd like to see a central registry maintained at Queen's Park, frankly. I think we should all be required to file our disclosure of assets and liabilities to the local clerk and he or she in turn files it with, perhaps, the commissioner's office. It might make good sense, especially since I'm also suggesting the commissioner's office be called in a preventive role. So if I phone up and say, "It's Ian MacInnis and I'm concerned about what's coming up next Tuesday night at council," they can take my file and say: "Okay, Ian. You own this" -- actually they're going to find out I own nothing -- "and you're okay. Go ahead." And any one of us could then do that.
So if somebody wants to know what my assets and liabilities are, I think they should be able to contact the commissioner's office, state who they are, what their purpose is and perhaps pay a nominal $10 processing user fee for a copy of it, just the same as I pay a fee for my birth certificate.
Mr Winninger: I find this issue of conflict of interest a matter of endless fascination. I don't necessarily agree with the argument that you and others have made that conflict of interest will preclude the best candidates from running for office. We've had conflict-of-interest legislation for some years and I look around, particularly on the government side but even some on the opposition side: good candidates running for office.
But you raise a very good point, and that is that the commissioner can play an advisory and preventive role. If we have potential conflict-of-interest situations, we can call up the commissioner's office and in a fairly timely way get a response that will indicate to us whether or not we're treading on dangerous ground and avoid that kind of a situation. I think that would be invaluable to municipal councillors as well.
Mr MacInnis: Precisely.
Mr Winninger: But I do disagree with your assertion that the statement of assets and liabilities and other financial disclosure information be housed somewhere in Toronto or with the office of the commissioner as opposed to locally, where the electorate, in my view, have a direct interest in ensuring when their local councillors make decisions that they're not made for any financial or economic imperative, that they're made in the good spirit they're designed to.
I don't have a specific question to you, and I know that my colleague Mr Perruzza's looking for a moment as well, so you might want to respond.
The Chair: There's only one minute left, so we have a problem. It'll have to be a short question, Mr Perruzza, please.
Mr Perruzza: Yes, very briefly. I sort of share some of your concerns with respect to the conflict of interest stuff because it becomes really dicey when you look at some situations where you're sitting on a council. You have a brother-in-law who works for a company where there's a development going in and that company's located within a 100-metre radius or something of where your brother-in-law works and you say, "Gee, there's nothing wrong with this" and you vote in favour of that development. That company's property value is affected in some way. Your brother-in-law's working there.
Some guy who wants to get you -- and I agree with you, if the objective is honesty and integrity, and you want to encourage honesty and integrity at the municipal level, but at the same time too you don't want to create the kinds of situations where it becomes really problematic for people. I think that this is an area we need to look at and we need to do some work for sure. I share a lot of the concerns that you raise.
Mr MacInnis: Thank you very much. Yes, I'll --
The Chair: As a comment?
Mr MacInnis: Just a 30-second comment, I promise you. Mr Curling made reference to the delays, I guess, with the backlog at the Human Rights Commission and would we encounter the same type of delay if we were to hear these appeals or hear these allegations in a similar way. In my case, my court case was two and a half years' long. I know OMB hearings, you can expedite them to 90 days or within 18 months usually. So I'm not sure, but certainly get the courts out of it. Get the courts out of it. It's too expensive for everybody.
Number two, Mr Winninger, you made reference to the system. The provincial system encourages good people to come. They keep coming, but your provincial system is different from ours. You just described --
Mr Perruzza: The rules apply --
Mr MacInnis: Yes, that's right. You just described that you can call the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and get some advice at least, or counselling in advance. I can't do that. Number two, you don't have to pay for it, I don't think, on an individual basis, and number three, I have to go to court and spend $45,000, and I don't think any one of you wants to take $45,000 of your MPP's --
Interjection.
Mr MacInnis: Yes, but I do agree 100% with the preventive measure. I think that's all I have.
The Chair: Mr MacInnis and Mr Jackson, we thank you for sharing your concerns and your ideas with this committee. Thank you for coming today.
1530
CITY OF VAUGHAN
The Chair: We invite the city of Vaughan: Ms Theresa Caron and Mr Scott Somerville.
I ask everyone in the room to keep the noise down because it's difficult to hear people. Can I ask you, Mr Johnson, if you want to share a few remarks with Mr MacInnis, perhaps outside.
Mr Scott Somerville: On behalf of the mayor and members of council of the city of Vaughan, Mrs Caron and myself are quite pleased to be here today and we thank you for your indulgence in hearing our proposals.
You may wonder why there are two senior administrators in front of you as opposed to municipal councillors, and I think our council, in reviewing the legislation and participating in AMO, decided that between Mrs Caron and myself there are some 23, 25 years of senior management experience within the city of Vaughan, with numerous municipal councils over that period of time, and in their opinion, we can best represent what they were trying to do through these proceedings, and that is perhaps pass on some of their concerns to you, as a committee, that would in some way maybe help you reach the decisions you have to reach in amending the legislation, or leaving it as is, but for the councils of the future.
They're not looking at it from the point of view necessarily of them today. They all recognize that on November 14 they're all going to the polls, but the spirit of the city of Vaughan's presentation is to look at the legislation as it will look to the future and that council to be elected on November 14, whatever composition it may be. Mrs Caron, our commissioner of legal and corporate services and our city solicitor, will be making the presentation on behalf of the city.
Mrs Theresa Caron: We have filed some written submissions with you that set out really several of the concerns that the city of Vaughan council has with the proposed legislation, but for the purposes of today, we'd really like to concentrate just on about four of those areas.
Before I get started, I'd like to say we'd like to invite Councillor MacInnis back up here with us, because many of the things that he was saying he said so well, and they're things that we have included in our comments as well. We thought he expressed the concerns very well, and we'd like to adopt everything he said.
The first item that we would like to speak to today pertains to the provisions regarding open and closed meetings, and the requirement specifically that all votes be taken in public. The proposed act does provide for a number of matters that may be discussed in camera, but it requires that even those matters have to be the subject of a public vote. We can see some difficulties just from a practical point of view of trying to conduct business with that requirement. Take an example of a labour relations type of issue or the acquisition of land, and you would have the reports, you would have the advice, and you would have the staff all providing the information to council in an in camera session, which is appropriate under the legislation. You would have a discussion on the matter, appropriately at the in camera session, but when it came time to actually vote on what to do, the council would have to come out of the in camera session and take the vote in public.
We can see circumstances where they're going to do that and then they're going to think about something else that they might want to ask, or they'll take the vote and that'll lead to: "Well, now that we're going to do that, what about the next step? What are we going to do?" They're going to have to go back in camera again to get more advice, more direction, and they're going to be in and out, or in some circumstances they may come out and they may think, "Well, I would have liked to have asked that question, but, well, we're all out here now, and it's probably not that important."
You want to ensure that the council always has all the full information that it can have and that they feel comfortable that they can get whatever information or advice they need when they're making the decisions. It's hard to see what benefit that provision has, although it can cause this troublesome and cumbersome procedure, because the way our system works, an item comes before a committee of the whole in camera, if it's one of the properly excluded items, and it's discussed there. There's a vote taken at that point in camera.
Mr Grandmaître: A registered vote?
Mrs Caron: It's recorded in the in camera minutes. It then appears on a public council agenda. The outcome of that vote is then recorded on the public council agenda, it's then reconsidered by council at a public council meeting and a public vote is taken. That occurs on every matter. So you'll always have a public vote, and you'll always have the outcome of the in camera vote recorded on a public council agenda. So it's difficult to see what the benefit is of requiring them to come out of the in camera session to take the vote, particularly where they may need to go back in to get further direction, and that's an issue that was of some concern to our council.
On the financial disclosure matters, our members of council have indicated, as I believe the city of Kingston did, that they don't have a problem with disclosing their assets and their liabilities. They feel that's quite appropriate. They ask that they be given the same consideration that the provincial members are, in the sense that they feel that the public access -- and I know that was one of the questions to the Kingston delegation, the access from the public. They feel that they would like it to be administered the same way and held in the same way that the provincial disclosure statements are held. But other than that, they feel that that's entirely appropriate.
On the conflict-of-interest provisions, we adopt the comments of the city of Kingston. We have the same concerns in Vaughan. Our councillors try very hard. They are very conscientious to ensure that they are putting their minds to whether they have a conflict or not; they seek legal opinions. The removal of the saving provision is of great concern to the council members. I think the suggestion that the commissioner perhaps could provide some guidance would be of great assistance to them, because their fear is that they have no way of protecting themselves. They can go and ask for a legal opinion, and that legal opinion may not be substantiated or may not be upheld by a court, as has been experienced by municipal councillors.
It's of great concern to them what they're going to do to ensure that they're making decisions -- because they feel that they don't want to take the easy road, as they see it at times, and declare a conflict because they're not really sure and so they'll declare one. They feel that they're not representing the people who elected them; that they're there to make decisions, to represent the views of the people, and they want to do that. But they also have to be concerned with these provisions and ensure that they are taking all the steps. I think that a provision such as that, which would give them the opportunity to seek an opinion ahead of time, would be of great assistance to them.
One other item, which we're really not prepared to discuss in a lot of detail today because I believe there are going to be further submissions to this committee on it, relates to the Planning Act provisions and it relates specifically to the cash in lieu and the amendments to section 42. That's frequently referred to as -- "double-dipping" I believe is the term that people use with it.
Vaughan is one of the municipalities that does have a bylaw passed pursuant to section 42 and does use that. It allows you to collect cash in lieu where the land is valued up to just prior to draft approval, and then where there is development you, under that section, get the additional. You give credit for whatever you've got up to that point and you get the additional for up to prior to building permit. Vaughan feels that in order to provide the level of parkland and the quality of parkland that the community is demanding it is essential that this provision be maintained.
1540
I can advise you that there will be further submissions. I was speaking to representatives from --
Mr Perruzza: Are you referring to density boosts after the development has been tentatively approved, that there's a density boost in between that further cash in lieu?
Mrs Caron: Yes. I'm aware there is a provision for that where the development is substantial. But we're talking about the same development.
Mr Perruzza: But only in the boost scenario.
The Chair: Hold on.
Mr Perruzza: I'm sorry.
The Chair: Let her finish. We'll come around to questioning. Go ahead, please.
Mrs Caron: We're just talking about getting that cash in lieu for the additional value that the land increases from just prior to draft approval to just prior to the building permit.
Mr Perruzza: The value of land, but not density boost, right?
Mrs Caron: No. We're not talking about density boost at this time. What we're talking about is that you calculate the cash in lieu based on the value of the land, and under section 51 that gets you up to just prior to draft approval; under this section 42, that gets you up to just prior to the issuance of the first building permit. That additional money, you give credit for everything you've got; you're not getting it twice. You end up with the value being up to that date. That's when you're usually buying the land. So you're paying the price. In times when values are going up and you're going to perhaps have to be buying parkland for a particular community, you're then able to buy parkland in that area if the values have gone up.
I know that you will be receiving further submissions. The city of Mississauga, which also uses this, is doing some calculations on the serious financial implications that the removal of those provisions will have, and we are working with them in that respect. So other than to bring it to your attention today, further discussion of that will be coming and submissions will be coming to you.
Mr Somerville: Those are the highlights of our presentation, and we're quite open to any questions or comments that the committee may have.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much for your presentation. When you speak of the decision-making process and people backing away, and I realize Vaughan is a very progressive and rapidly expanding area, do you find quite regularly that -- and there's been some publicity of some of the things that have happened in Vaughan; we know that -- people have got gun-shy? They would like to be able to take that decision, sit at the table, but they have declared interest in case?
Mrs Caron: I think that may be true; yes, I think to some extent, the experiences that they've had. I think just generally, with the thrust of the legislation -- and we heard comments earlier about the feelings in some rural municipalities, and while Vaughan is partly rural and partly urban, they do feel there's a general mistrust sometimes of municipal politicians. They don't really feel that that's fair, but they certainly are doing everything in their power to try and change that.
Mr Villeneuve: In your opinion, you've seen the being gun-shy, do you think in the long haul that will prevent some very capable people with community interests, and of course with personal interests, from running for office?
Mrs Caron: It is a concern, yes. I think it may, particularly if the legislation proceeds as it's written right now, where you don't have the saving provision, where you have nowhere to go to get the kind of advice that you feel you need. I think it very well could, yes.
Mr Villeneuve: People run for office because they feel they want to change certain things, and yes, if you happen to be close to a situation and you're wanting to change it, to better it, you may be bettering it for you, but you're bettering it for everyone. Again, you heard the previous submission, which is rather a travesty of sorts because the courts have decided that really, if you're an elected person, you're guilty. To the government, we've got to look at this one very closely.
Mr Perruzza: My question was essentially answered when I asked for the clarification. So it's just on the increase that you charge the additional 5%?
Mrs Caron: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Wiseman: I want to get back to the closed-door meetings. I have to tell you that this is a major contentious issue in Pickering. Over the last four or five weeks, there isn't a day, there isn't a newspaper edition that doesn't go by without a haranguing of this issue.
Here's the problem: You go behind closed doors, you make a decision, you come back out into committee and the councillors all vote on it and it goes through, but behind closed doors there has been debate, there has been discussion, there's been an exchange of points, there's been a total disclosure of the information, and for whatever reasons political, the local councillors do not want to relive that debate in public. So it comes forward. You have the resolution on the floor of council. The chair or the mayor or whoever's in the chair says, "Debate?" Everybody sits there on their hands, because politically they know that it's a contentious issue. Then: "Seeing no debate, all those in favour? Carried." Boom, it's done in 30 seconds. Then second reading, 30 seconds; third reading, done. That's the act, filed and done. People are sitting up there going: "What's going on here? What happened?" Three weeks later, everybody finds out what happened.
Mr Perruzza: You can't enact a bylaw the same day as you pass a motion.
Mr Wiseman: It slips through.
Mr Somerville: May I respond to that?
Mr Wiseman: Sure, go ahead.
Mr Somerville: I can only speak for the city of Vaughan, I can't speak for other municipalities, but our process is such that, and I think Mrs Caron alluded to it earlier, there's a full week, at minimum, and sometimes more, between the time that the closed meeting takes place and the time that the item, as approved by committee in camera -- and I'll be quite candid about that, approved by committee in camera -- hits a public agenda. There's another three or four days that the public has access to the agenda. So it's not a matter of sort of flipping out of committee, walking through a back door into the council chambers, taking the vote and going home.
Mrs Caron: It has happened.
Mr Wiseman: That's exactly what it is in some municipalities.
Mr Somerville: It has happened. We can only refer to the norm within what we think are most of the municipalities. They're trying to make the legislation work. We believe very strongly that there is a need to do some things in camera. We believe there is a need to discuss your labour relations and your personnel matters in camera.
Mr Wiseman: That's in the legislation; it allows you to do that.
Mr Somerville: We have no dispute with what's to be discussed in camera pursuant to the new legislation. That's a given. We certainly accept that. It's more the process, having the discussion inside, going outside to take a public vote, saying, "Oops."
One of the problems we have is, how do you give direction to your union negotiators by taking a public vote? Generally speaking, you're starting out here with your union, and you're over here and you're working through and both sides are back and forth and back and forth, and then there's a settlement, and generally speaking the final vote, in open public, is when you're ratifying an agreement you've reached with your union and both sides are happy or at least it's a good compromise there. But to have some of these votes and to give direction on land matters, acquisitions and disposals, in a public forum when, can I say, the issue isn't settled? They can be ongoing.
1550
Mr Wiseman: That's the conundrum.
Mr Somerville: That's our conundrum; that's our difficulty.
Mr Wiseman: Personal issues and union negotiating issues, I don't think that's a point, but I'll tell you that the major conflict or the major discussion right now is about land and infrastructure, the use of money in infrastructure programs and how the decision was made. It was all done behind -- I'm not going to get involved in the debate, but I'm just saying that the accusations are being made and that the public is perceiving that these decisions are made, and then all of a sudden it hits the floor of the council. It's done so fast that the public doesn't know it. In fact, seven, 10, 14 days, it sometimes doesn't make any difference, depending on how the resolution is worded in the document.
You can sit there and read through it. "This is not a bad resolution." Well, wait a minute. It may have wide-ranging effects on neighbourhoods and people if you're moving a storm-water retention pond or something. It may be that you word it in such a way that they don't find out until it's all done through council and your ability to participate in it is finished.
Mrs Caron: If I may, the items that we're talking about are only the ones that you can properly talk about in camera anyway. We have no difficulty with operating within that limited list. So the act, as drafted, really doesn't help with that situation, because you can still do all your discussion in camera, get all your advice in camera. It's just the vote. So you just come out and take the vote. We don't really see what advantage that is really bringing, because your vote's going to be recorded in the minutes anyway.
Perhaps if there's a requirement that there be a period of time and that any recommendations coming from a closed session appear on a public agenda with a minimum of seven days, or something like that, just to ensure you don't have this coming out and going directly into council, that kind of idea. But they're still going to be discussed in camera and you're still just going to come out and, boom, get the decision.
Mr Winninger: We've been discussing a number of sensitive and delicate matters that are better dealt with in camera. But in London, like so many cities, we have a ward system. Not all, but many voters like to know how their ward councillor voted. If indeed the vote takes place behind closed doors, that will remain enshrouded in mystery unless the councillor owns up. So I actually see some palpable benefit in having a vote dealt with in public even though the voters may not, in most cases, know what led up to that vote because that went on behind closed doors.
Mrs Caron: But there will be a vote in public, because everything that's done at the in camera session has to be ratified at a public council meeting. So they will have that opportunity to see how their ward member votes at the council meeting.
Mr Winninger: Well, I understand your point; I don't necessarily agree.
The Chair: We're going to have to move on, I'm sorry. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Thank you for your presentation. It's rather interesting to see that the province is now making legislation about open or closed meetings.
Interjection.
Mr Curling: I'll just see if I can get my colleague's attention here, if he would be a bit quiet, because with the echo in here it's kind of difficult for them to hear.
The fact is that the provincial Legislature is much more secretive than your process, because in cabinet not even their own colleagues who are not in cabinet know what goes on, and then when they are whipped into place to vote how they should, some don't even know why. They say, "How are we voting today, yes or no?"
Mr Perruzza: You were the only guy with a spine when Peterson was in office.
Mr Curling: In your situation -- and all parties basically go through that anyhow, and I don't want to be partisan on that, but --
Ms Carter: He's talking about the Liberal caucus.
The Chair: Let Mr Curling go on. Order, please.
Mr Curling: It seems to me I rattled the cages over here. But the fact is that if the provincial government itself or the provincial Legislature could be as open as you are in some respects, maybe we could see the kind of justification for what they want here, because I find that your situation is much more open than the provincial one. Even with that, though, I still think there are situations in which you should be more open. I think that the parliamentary assistant, whom I have great respect for, said he's listening very carefully; to take those signs into consideration --
Mr Hayes: Do you want me to respond?
Mr Curling: No -- the recognition of what you're going through because he also was a local politician in that respect. I hope they listened in that respect and look at some of the directions and some of the concerns that you have raised. My other point I'd like to raise, and I know I have quite some time, is in regard to the housing situation in the area. I know you are then caught up in the fact that the short time you have in presenting all your points of view, but intensification -- I think some of the members you talk about here -- is something I would address the government to look at -- the draft of this legislation and the draft of the hidden regulations that we haven't got, you know -- to take a serious look at this.
Mr Grandmaître: How much time?
Mr Curling: Go ahead.
Mr Grandmaître: How much time?
Interjections.
Mr Wiseman: On a point of order --
Mr Grandmaître: On a point of order on my time? No way.
The Chair: Monsieur Grandmaître, continue.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, I have a question to the parliamentary assistant. Let's assume that Bill 163 is in place and I have a conflict of interest. I'm a councillor in Vaughan for instance. I stand up and I declare --
Mr Perruzza: They could use you in Vaughan.
Mr Grandmaître: Good. I declare my conflict of interest, does the mayor become the judge? Who is really satisfied or who is the judge that my declaration is good enough?
Mr Hayes: I would say that it would certainly be the public and if I'm a councillor and standing up and saying, "I'm declaring a conflict of interest" --
Mr Eddy: You don't, you declare a pecuniary interest.
Mr Hayes: Okay, thank you for the technical advice. I would do that. I don't think that any other --
Interjections.
The Chair: Hold on, please. Mr Perruzza.
Mr Grandmaître: Is this your first day on committee? It's going to be your last.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître -- Mr Eddy, please no, please.
Interjections.
Mr Grandmaître: I did ask the question. Who becomes the judge of my declaration? The mayor?
Mr Hayes: No, I think you as an individual --
Interjection.
Mr Hayes: Whoa, hear me out. Just a second and then I will refer it over to someone else, if staff wants to -- if you are a councillor and you and I are sitting on the same council, you declare a pecuniary interest, conflict of interest, should I, as one of the other councillors, as a mayor, decide whether you are or not? I don't think so.
Mr Grandmaître: But my question --
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, we're going to need a legal opinion on that, all right? Mr Melville, perhaps?
Mr Melville: It's not a legal question.
Mr Hayes: It's not a legal question. Do you want to answer it Tom?
Mr Melville: Tom Melville, Municipal Affairs. There is no judge as such. You simply submit your declaration and withdraw from participation. Ultimately, the local citizen may be the judge in that if they disagree with it, they can bring an action under the act.
Mr Grandmaître: Even after I've declared a conflict of interest, the public can still be the judge of that declaration?
Mr Hayes: There's no charge.
Mr Grandmaître: What do you mean, no charge?
Mr Hayes: You're declaring a conflict. Nobody has charged you.
Mr Grandmaître: They can have access. They can have access to my declaration, and also they can read the minutes of city council and they say, "This is not good enough, you should have gone beyond this."
Mr Melville: The act only requires that you submit the declaration and then withdraw. The public would judge in the case where there was a failure to submit the declaration.
Mr Grandmaître: So even if I declare a conflict of interest, the public is still the judge if this is satisfactory.
The Chair: Okay. Thanks very much.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We've run out of time. Mr Somerville, Ms Caron, we thank you for sharing your concerns with us and thank you for coming today.
1600
DONALD MACDONALD
The Chair: We invite Mr Donald MacDonald. Welcome, Mr MacDonald.
Mr Donald MacDonald: Thank you. I must apologize for the spelling of your name on the cover.
The Chair: That's all right. It happens every now and then.
Mr MacDonald: It's important, but it's not part of the presentation.
I have basically geared my comments to Bill 163, and they're to be read basically in conjunction with the bill. Rather than being a long, drawn-out thing, I've just -- where I feel there are problems as such or could be better changed as such. Anyway, there are the specific comments and then I have general ones.
Basically, the Planning Act -- page 3, section 4, purposes of the act. I have to ask, what is "sustainable economic development"? The "economic" I feel should be removed, as the wording currently places the emphasis on economic considerations, which are important. However, so are other considerations.
Also on page 3, clause (b) under purposes of the act, I believe the word "led" should be replaced by "regulated" -- "to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy." Yes, provincial policy will lead it. However, it must be regulated also by provincial policy. It must conform to the provincial policy; be consistent with. So the policy must be followed, I feel.
On page 4, clause 2(m) -- at the end of (m), "the coordination of planning activities of public bodies including all levels of government." I know this is a provincial Legislature; however, we are vastly affected by what takes place in the federal government. Somehow they must be involved too, right down to your local beginning government. It has to be all levels, I feel.
Clause 2(p): "the appropriate location of growth and development." "As per section 3 policy statements," I would suggest should be added on to that one. That would give more direction within the province. If there's an area of good agricultural land, a city maybe should not expand that way. It should be directed to some other city rather than that specific city. There's no God-given thing that a city must grow, I feel. Sure, cities must grow, but not a specific city. Maybe certain cities are limited; other ones do not have valuable resources surrounding them that it would hurt society to have them used for urban development as such.
Under section 3, policy statements, page 12, subsection 17(14), delete the words "as the council considers may have an interest in the plan." Under the Charter of Rights, everybody is supposed to be equal. It's a condition that exits; it's not something that's earned. A council for example can -- if this wording is allowed, a person who has a very great concern, who may not be a resident of that specific municipality, then would be subject to being eliminated. However, the municipality may be contrary to provincial policy statements. So, therefore, someone not necessarily within the municipality would be limited to have anything to do about a provincial matter.
On page 15, subsection 17(31), written explanation by the minister: "If the approval authority refuses to refer all or part of a proposed decision to the municipal board, the approval authority shall provide a written explanation for the refusal." I suggest to add "to the requester, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs who must also confirm the refusal." This gives the power to the granter, the approval authority, and if that approval authority -- there could be instances where the minister may override the approval authority, I feel. It may be that they don't conform to provincial policy.
Now we jump way over to page 48, subsection 51.1(4), the determination of value for purposes of land. By whom and how will the value be determined? That one should be stipulated.
Now we switch over to the Topsoil Preservation Act. As a general comment, the Topsoil Preservation Act should become a policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act, with specifics to be followed in the zoning-development process, I feel. Topsoil seems to be a good commodity. Developers feel it's expendable. Rather than pile it up or use it elsewhere, it's buried underneath and then more is transported in from offsite. How much farm land do we have to lose in the province? There shouldn't be any need to destroy farm land to obtain topsoil. There should be topsoil available from all sites if it's properly stored and stockpiled. If there is excess, trucks are hauling aggregate one way; maybe they can haul topsoil back the other way, who knows, but I think that should be subject to a future policy statement under section 3.
The Ontario Planning and Development Act: This act is appropriate, especially in new development areas, ie, urban versus rural-agricultural. One caution is that the entire plan area must be dealt with in a comprehensive approach, or a cumulative effect of problems on resources may not be dealt with in the most suitable manner.
In the city of Orillia annex area, the secondary plan area, it's my experience that they're trying to piecemeal the secondary plan with portions of it rather than the whole plan. There's a provincial park involved, there's a floodplain involved, but these areas are not being dealt with. It's just a portion of the planning area. It should be dealt with as a whole, I feel.
General comments: These go back to the front of Bill 163, which is basically the explanatory aspects.
1. As I mentioned before, the Charter of Rights; everyone is equal, minister, ministry, municipality and individual. Rules must be applicable to everyone being equal.
4. Official plans must conform to provincial policy. That's basically "shall be consistent with."
8. Basic planning principles are to be adopted and used. I've sat at OMB hearings which last upwards of a month, and we're hearing about rubber in the environment. The board member is bored, the public is bored. It's a very costly process.
A board hearing is not a commission. There are basic planning principles. Built-up areas, pavement areas I call them, where there's roads and roofs, they have a greater amount of runoff every year than treed areas or agricultural areas. Those are basic planning principles. Why do we have to explore them all over and over again at OMB hearings? It seems ridiculously costly to me.
1610
9. If the complainant -- I have to question complainant. I know a great amount of OMB hearings are "not in my backyard." People just don't like them, that sort of thing. Yes, that occurs a lot; however, it's not always the case. There are provincial resources, various resources and various planning reasons for requesting a referral. Whether they are valid or not, how valid they are is what the board determines. I think that should be possibly replaced with a requester. If the complainant or requester does provide sufficient planning reason, the board will be required to hear. Planning reason, ie provincial policy, not conforming to provincial policy. This goes for the minister too. The minister can request a hearing, as far as that goes, or deny.
12. What is a minor variance? I'd like to have a definition of it, please; it should be required.
And I have some new ones -- it goes only to 18.
19. Enforcement: If an individual or ministry cites an illegal use of a property zoning to the municipality and is ignored, then after an appropriate time, ie council inaction or denial, the ministry or person has the right to refer the matter to the OMB for a hearing of the matter. This should be up to 60 days, and specifically referring to zoning infractions, improper use of zoned or designated land.
If the land is designated agricultural -- however, there's boat storage takes place in the barn. I tried to buy a property one time. I didn't know I was competing with somebody who was going to use this turkey barn for boat storage. That's an illegal use. It's not recognized in the official plan; it's not recognized in the zoning, but there it is. I have to spend a fortune on lawyers to do anything. If I request council, quite often you're just laughed at. That happened in Oro.
The Acting Chair (Mr Paul R. Johnson): Mr MacDonald, I just wanted to inform you that you've actually used up all your allotted time but I know that the members of the committee want to hear the rest of your presentation, so I just bring this to your attention so you might hurry along.
Mr MacDonald: Right, I'll just be brief and get on with it. The board decision may order cease and desist, levy fines -- very high -- especially for predevelopment site destruction of a proposed development that has not received final approval.
This has been one of the most major lacking aspects in the use of land. Literally, fortunes are spent on the planning process while others use without approval. I suggest that the process would be similar to the proposed subsection 20(7) on page 24.
20. Urban versus rural: Infrastructures are different, as should be environments. Development of a subdivision adjacent to a wetland in a rural municipality is an infringement on the wetland complex while some wetlands within a city are sometimes so fragmented and disrupted that their protection is a lost cause, while others may not be. The distinction of rural versus urban must be recognized in municipalities.
21. Systems: The integrated comprehensiveness of policy statements and the proposed changes to the Planning Act and other acts must work in a complete system that earns the respect of the majority of individuals and, in turn, respects the individual. However, might or numbers are not to take precedence over being morally or legally correct.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr MacDonald. We don't have time for questions, but your presentation was very direct and all the members heard your presentation and have a copy as well.
GEORGIAN TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
The Acting Chair: The next presentation is by the Georgian Triangle Development Institute, Mr Colin Travis, president, and Mr Dave Slade, vice-president.
Mr Colin Travis: My name is Colin Travis and to my right is David Slade. Together we are representing the Georgian Triangle Development Institute as, respectively, the president and vice-president.
For those unfamiliar with the institute, we have included some background material with our submission, appended as the last page.
First, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views before you. We're aware of your time constraints, constraints imposed by an extremely busy schedule, and we have made our submission as brief as possible. On that note, I'd like to ask David to proceed with our submission.
Mr David Slade: Thank you again for giving us the opportunity. Just briefly, the Georgian Triangle Development Institute is a group of professionals based out of Collingwood and area, professionals in the form of lawyers, planners and engineering firms all involved in the development industry in that particular area. We came together approximately three years ago as information for ourselves and also as a forum to speak out on issues such as the issues brought on by Bill 163. On that basis, we have given a submission and I'd like to just read it into the record.
The Georgian Triangle Development Institute has followed the changes of the Planning Act since the inception of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, basically what we all call the Sewell commission. This involved several presentations directly made to the Sewell commission and a special hosting of the commission by the institute in July 1992. At that time, we hosted the committee and we had approximately about 150 people who were part of our day, basically people within the area and political representation from the area also.
It is not our intention to review the proposed changes point by point -- we just feel it's impossible, there's so much in it -- but rather to illustrate the need for a very cautious approach to these dramatic proposals, and we do consider these to be very dramatic, in many cases positive, but in many cases we have concerns and we really want you to carefully look at this.
1620
These proposals begin with the redefinition of the purpose of the Planning Act. We respect the intentions outlined within the purpose of the Planning Act. However, the whole focus of our concerns can be summarized by clause (b) of section 4.1 of Bill 163. Subsection 4.1.1(b) states that one of the purposes of the act is "to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy," and we underline "led by provincial policy" because I think that's the whole focus. This is an extremely large and diverse planning jurisdiction, and to have one set of provincial policies universally applied is neither appropriate nor feasible. However, this approach is now proposed to be enshrined within the Planning Act and the whole focus of the reforms support this direction.
Accordingly, the committee should review the repercussions of this approach and ensure that regional diversity can and will be recognized in future planning policy.
An extremely important change has been proposed by Bill 163 to ensure all planning direction "shall be consistent with" provincial policy statements. The existing Planning Act had a similar clause. However, the wording required all planning decisions "to have regard for" provincial policy statements. It would appear that the purpose of this change is to remove the flexibility and the interpretative abilities of local planning jurisdictions. Why is such a drastic revision necessary to the Planning Act? All planning authorities have been required to have regard to those provincial policy statements and we have not seen any justification for the proposed changes to the Planning Act. If there has been a problem in the last 10 years, it has been as a result of the province's inability to take advantage of the reasonable provisions already in the existing Planning Act.
Interpretation of provincial policy statements will most likely be from senior bureaucrats, and the ability for local elected officials to plan appropriately for their communities will be lost. Provincial policy statements, as proposed, will result in less flexibility at the local level. Therefore, we request the committee to seek adequate justification for the change to "shall be consistent with." Again, we followed Sewell's work for the last two and a half years and we are not aware of anything in his documentation to suggest that there was a problem with the previous wording. We'd like to know why, because we think there's a major difference in the terminology, "shall have regard for" and the terminology "shall be consistent with."
Because of Bill 163 and this committee's work, another important aspect of planning is raised, and that is the inclusion of well over 60 new provincial policies. These policies will be required to be implemented by local planning jurisdictions and must be implemented in a way that will be consistent with the provincial policies. We are very concerned the repercussions of these new provincial policy statements will have on planning within the province of Ontario. Many of the provincial policies will be a beneficial planning basis for the future. However, our concerns arise from not knowing the ultimate repercussions.
The sheer magnitude of the number of provincial policies to be established concerns us. Under the existing Planning Act, four provincial policy statements and the implementing guidelines have been produced in the last 10 years. Extensive review occurred and was necessary for these provincial policy statements prior to adoption of these policies. Again, it's impossible for us to assess the repercussions of these policies due to the sheer magnitude.
We've got one policy statement and I think you're all familiar with it, the wetlands policy statements that occurred within the last 10 years.
Mr Wiseman: June 1992.
Mr Slade: That's right. The policy statements are 15 pages long and the guidelines are at least 125 pages long. We knew what was going on there and we all participated in that and I think we ended up with a very good direction. But our concern is with the provincial policy statements that are occurring, or will occur. They're going to be there and we really don't know the repercussions of those, because we don't know the guidelines that go along with them. A lot of them are just one-line policy statements that are going to be open to a lot of interpretation.
In addition, it is next to impossible to fully assess the policies in the absence of implementing guidelines. As an example, clause 13 of section B, economic, community development and infrastructure policies, states, "Policies and decisions regarding development and infrastructure should conserve significant landscapes, vistas, and ridge lines." That could be wide open for interpretation.
What are the consequences of this policy statement? Are we to conserve 5%, 10%, 50% of the province, as it may be defined as an area of significant landscape, vista or ridge line? We must have the implementing guidelines to accompany this provincial policy statement or you, the committee, will not know the resulting impact of approving these policy statements. Who will determine what is significant, a provincial bureaucrat or an elected official? It would appear, the way the Planning Act is being revised, that the decision will be made by the senior bureaucrat.
This leads us to streamlining of the planning process, which has been a strong focus of the Sewell commission's stated mandate. There have been minor modifications within Bill 163 to achieve this streamlining; however, we are extremely concerned that the establishment of more than 60 new provincial policies which are untested will only lead to chaos and delay within the development community.
When the contents of a statement are questioned, the only option is to refer the matter to the courts or the Ontario Municipal Board. This will only lead to substantial delays of implementation of these guidelines. The more knowledge presented now through the establishment of appropriate guidelines will lead us to a more expeditious development and approval process in the future.
In summary, we only request that the committee proceed with caution and knowledge of the repercussions of approval of Bill 163 and the proposed set of comprehensive provincial policy statements. We would advocate that the committee recommend to the minister that he establish a set of comprehensive guidelines for all proposed provincial policy statements and to prepare an environmental assessment of the repercussions of these provincial policy statements.
In summary, we'd also ask that we have the opportunity to provide a written submission to you in regard to a more detailed response to Bill 163 prior to your committee, I believe, going into a clause-by-clause review of Bill 163.
The Chair: Thank you. You can do that, the last question you raised there.
Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much. I enjoyed a lot of your observations with respect to the bill, but my question really relates to something that was raised earlier by the people who were here from Vaughan. It occurred to me when they were speaking, and they were talking about the integrity portion of the legislation, it's my understanding that the mayor for Vaughan, Lorna Jackson, is going to be running for the Conservative Party some time, I guess, in the spring or in the fall next year; however, she's not telling anyone. It's my understanding that she's also running in the municipal election which is coming up in November.
My question to them, and I wanted to ask the other people, is that I'd just like to get some sense of what the general public thinks of this process.
Mr Eddy: Mr Chairman, this has nothing to do with Bill 163 whatsoever.
Mr Perruzza: Would you let me ask the -- you don't know what I'm going to ask, right? Don't jump out of your seat. I didn't jump out of my seat when you --
Interjection: Okay, Anthony, ask the question.
Mr Perruzza: My question is, should municipal politicians resign their positions when they plan to run for other office? What do you think of that?
Mr Grandmaître: Say "maybe."
Mr Slade: I don't feel qualified to answer that.
Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, does this question have anything to do with --
The Chair: Mr Eddy, they can answer the question or not.
Mr Eddy: But on a point of information --
The Chair: I'm not sure it's related to any of the things that we have dealt with so far or that it is contained within the proposed bill, but if they wanted to respond to that question, they could; if not, they don't have to.
Mr Slade: I think we'll decline. We certainly are not prepared on that field of it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Perruzza, any further questions.
Mr Perruzza: No, that was it.
1630
Mr Wiseman: I don't know if you've been in the room before when I've gone down this road on the "shall have regard for" as opposed to "will be consistent with." It seems to me that what I've heard from my constituents, both developers and community groups, is that they want clarity. In fact, when I was on the public accounts committee on Tuesday, the committee was considering the whole question of governance. The major issue about governance, from what was being discussed, is this whole issue of maybe you can do it, maybe you can't do it. It depends on who you are, it depends on where you are, it depends on who's on council, it depends on what people say.
So the interpretations of the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and all of the other acts that apply to the subdivisions and their creation are really quite iffy. In my riding there's a lot of development, because the population of my riding since 1987 has doubled, easily doubled. There's 133,000 people there and in 1987 I think there were about 50,000 people. Nothing gets the developers more upset than going into council and being told by council on one night that they can do this and then, having another developer come in the next night, "No, you can't do that." Yet in their minds it's exactly the same thing. In other words, the council was having regard to the provincial policy with one and, having had regard for it, in another says, "You don't have to comply with it."
This is something that really, really irritates residents and ratepayers and environmentalists and me. My own feeling is that even "shall be consistent with" is too weak. I would prefer to see something -- Save the Rouge came in and said it should be "shall be consistent with and conform to." Others have come in and said that it should be "will conform to." I think everybody will benefit -- developer, ratepayer and council -- from a policy statement that doesn't have "maybe" in it.
I think that's why "shall be consistent with" -- I think it's important that we make sure that we're as clear as we possibly can be about what can happen and what can't happen. It should state, "You will not develop on class 1, 2 and 3 farm land," period, not, "You will have regard" to that statement," but, "You can't."
Mr Slade: I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need rules to follow. In doing that, right there, we'll streamline. There'll be less dilly-dallying, we'll know what the rules are and can get on with it. But where should those rules be? Should they be through vague provincial policy statements? No, I think the direction of the Planning Act says that they will be outlined in official plans at the local municipal level. Those official plans should be respected.
Mr Wiseman: But they aren't.
Mr Slade: That's what we've got to firm up. They should be respected. As guidance in the preparation of those official plans, we have a set of provincial policy statements. We don't disagree with that. Give us that direction, but give the local municipalities the ability to interpret those locally, and when that official plan is in place, don't deviate from it. If it's designated, then that's the rule. If it's not, then that's the rule too. Everybody wants a fair field. We're talking about which document should give me that direction.
Mr Wiseman: Not to be argumentative, but --
The Chair: Sorry, we ran out of time. Mr Eddy.
Mr Wiseman: I've just been cut off.
Mr Eddy: I'd gladly give the member some of my time, because I'd follow up on his questioning.
Yes, there's great argument. I hope you don't hope to take all the controversy out of the planning process with what you're suggesting, because that may never happen. The words "have regard to" -- unfortunately, it's interpreted that people hold up the book and say, "We've looked at `have regard to.'" The government says, "be consistent with", pointing out that it does give flexibility, and I think you disagree with that.
Mr Slade: Yes.
Mr Eddy: I disagree with it. I think it will prove that there isn't any flexibility, that it's hard-line stuff, very much like, I believe, "conform to." Maybe that's the way some municipalities would like to have it. Maybe it's the way some of the members here would like to have it. I don't see it that way, coming from rural Ontario.
We had a new suggestion today, and I'd like your opinion on it. A group came forward and said, "We would like the words changed from `be consistent with' to `maintain the spirit and intent of' provincial policies." I thought that was great. It seemed to me it hit the right note and that it would be better than what's being proposed and it would do what you say: Have the policies, but let the local areas decide what they're going to do. We're facing two-tier planning in Ontario, upper tier and lower tier, so, God, there are going to be enough rules locally. Would you comment?
Mr Slade: I agree with you. I think that's the focus we're coming at, that we have to have planning. This question is, where should the planning come from? Yes, maybe the province does have the ability to give us some direction, but remember, it's an extremely diverse planning area. To say the province of Ontario is all the same, it's not.
Mr Eddy: Municipalities are diverse. Individual municipalities are very diverse.
Mr Slade: We have countries much smaller than the province of Ontario, and to set more than 60 provincial policy statements generally the same throughout the province is a great difficulty. Where the planning really happens is at that local municipal level, county level or regional level. Let them have some -- and I hate to use the word all the time -- flexibility to interpret. I like the terminology you came up with.
Mr Eddy: Well, it was presented --
Mr Slade: I don't think there was any problem with the terminology that was in the previous Planning Act. All we ask you as a committee is, where's the background material that said there was a problem before, in the terminology that was established before? Just look at that aspect.
Mr Eddy: I note your suggestion to "proceed with caution and knowledge of the repercussions of approval of Bill 163," but unfortunately you don't know the repercussions until after the fact unless we listen to people like you.
Mr Slade: I was lengthily involved, and Colin was lengthily involved, in the review of the wetland policy statements and the guidelines that went with them. So we knew the repercussions of this. It identified a lot of the wetlands throughout Ontario. We knew what's going on. I honestly don't know the repercussions of scenic viewshed, whatever, throughout Ontario. That may be tremendously used. Whether it's through a political body or through a ratepayers' group or through whatever, that can be abused if we don't know what the guidelines are to go along with that.
Mr Eddy: Unfortunately, some of the other policies have not been developed that way, we're told, and that's unfortunate, and there are going to be probably many more.
Mr Villeneuve: Gentlemen, thank you. "Shall be consistent with" takes away a lot of the autonomy that local councils -- I represent an area with 23 municipalities, average 2,500 population, very much rural.
Wetlands you've touched on. You're reasonably happy with wetlands. I can bring you to hundreds of land owners who are very unhappy with wetlands. The planning on this designation of wetlands, to me, left a great deal to be desired. We had a group of people in your profession yesterday, or a spokesperson for planners who were quite happy with Bill 163. You're expressing some concerns, the long-run concerns on Bill 163, and we really appreciate that.
But back to the wetlands. The gentleman before you definitely said there should be policy for the rural portions of Ontario and for the urban, more populated areas of Ontario. Just your general comments: You're happy with the wetlands. Tell me what you're happy about. I'm not happy.
Mr Slade: I'm happy with the process of establishing these. I didn't say I'm happy with the content, okay?
Mr Villeneuve: The process? Like the vegetation, I don't even think that people went on the farms. They went by vegetation.
Mr Slade: I'm much more happy with the process of devising this than what I've seen with these new 60 policy statements. So I'm showing you: Here's a process. Whether you're happy with the way it worked or not, certainly there has to be a lot more definition. I've got clients and I've got work that I'm working on now where I'm not too sure how it ever got designated, but at least there's a process of guidelines in here for me to review it, to maybe remove it, whatever. I just have no idea what's going to go on with a lot of these new provincial policy statements on it. That's why I bring it up.
Mr Villeneuve: Those are the concerns you've expressed. I thank you.
The Chair: We thank you for coming and we appreciate your submission.
1640
PIGEON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We invite Pigeon Lake Environmental Association Inc, Mr Dan Kennaley. Welcome to this committee. Please begin any time you're ready.
Mr Dan Kennaley: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Pigeon Lake Environmental Association. I think I've been given 15 minutes to speak to the group and I probably am not going to take that long. I probably have five minutes, so I can tell a few jokes if you want.
Mr Wiseman: Only if they're politically correct.
The Chair: Better not to tell them.
Mr Kennaley: That's the problem. I'm not sure I have any politically correct ones to tell today. I'm sure you've had a long day, so I'll get down to business.
First of all, the Pigeon Lake Environmental Association Inc, or PLEA, as it is more commonly known, is an organization of lake residents and others who are dedicated to the goal of contributing to the maintenance of a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment in the Pigeon Lake watershed. Pigeon Lake is a lake that's located about probably 10 miles west of here, between Peterborough and Lindsay. It's about 15 miles long. It's in the very south end. It's an agriculturally dominated watershed. The lake is shallow and weedy. At the north end, you're actually up into the Canadian Shield and the lake becomes deep and with a lot less weeds. We have about 120 members around the lake.
PLEA acknowledges and appreciates the increased concern for the environment that is reflected in Bill 163. We feel, however, that the legislation requires at least one change so as to better provide for protection of the environment. If you've already decided to put the appeal of minor variances back into Bill 163, I can stop here and go home.
The change that we're advocating isn't actually the return of appeals of minor variance, but it relates to the elimination of the appeal of minor variance applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. The problem with this change is that minor variances have been used in the past to allow new uses in zones, and even in official plan designations, where they are otherwise not permitted. I've given to the secretary a series of Ontario Municipal Board reports which document this surprising interpretation of law.
PLEA is concerned that local municipal councils with the final say on minor variances will use such variances to undermine the environmental protection otherwise afforded by way of Bill 163. PLEA is very concerned about the possibility of a hotel, a marina or a commercial cottage resort being permitted by way of a minor variance in a zone that otherwise only permits perhaps residential uses or perhaps even open-space uses. Unfortunately, PLEA's experience with municipal councils in the past suggests that they are capable of subverting good land use planning in this manner.
Rather than asking that the appeal of minor variances be incorporated back into Bill 163, PLEA would like to suggest that the province further modify Section 45 of the Planning Act by adding a sentence to subsection 45(2) that would indicate that, "Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, a new use shall not be permitted in any zone or in any official plan designation by way of a minor variance," or something along those lines.
That, Mr Chairman, is the only concern, I guess, that the Pigeon Lake Environmental Association has with Bill 163.
Mr Villeneuve: I think you make an interesting suggestion, to attempt to identify minor variances and what is a minor variance and the extent of minor variances. I think any new use would certainly be part or probably should be part of the definition of a "minor variance." I guess a new use would not be a minor variance, although it's been used that way before.
Mr Kennaley: Yes, that's certainly our concern. Around the lake and in an environmentally sensitive area, I think the implications are particularly serious if certain types of new uses are added by way of minor variance. As it stands right now, there is no appeal, no remedy to the final say that council has with respect to minor variances.
Mr Villeneuve: Do most of the residents around Pigeon Lake belong to the association of cottagers?
Mr Kennaley: No. The lake is a very developed lake, numerous subdivisions around it, so no.
Mr Villeneuve: Most of them are permanent residents?
Mr Kennaley: There is some backshore development that is predominantly permanent. The immediate onshore development is probably still mostly seasonal, although there certainly have been lots of conversions taking place. It's a lake environment that is very stressed already, and it's one of the reasons why PLEA exists.
Mr Perruzza: Why do you feel it's important to be able to appeal minor variances to the Ontario Municipal Board and why do you feel that the municipal council wouldn't be able to make the same kind of determination as the OMB if the appeal was to the council?
Mr Kennaley: Well, I guess again it isn't so much that. We're not necessarily asking for the appeal to be put back into the act; what we are asking for is for limitations to be put on the ability of municipal councils to grant new uses by way of a minor variance. Something that's not permitted by the zoning bylaw or by the official plan designation on a property could still, under Bill 163, be permitted by way of a minor variance, and there's no recourse. We don't have anybody to go to.
I'm not suggesting that the appeal be returned, but if there was an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and PLEA or any other organization was concerned about the environmental impact of allowing a new use, then we could go to the board and argue our case, and if the board was convinced that, yes, there was going to be a negative environmental impact, they would not allow the minor variance. But as it stands right now, it can't go anywhere other than I guess to the courts by way of an injunction or some other kind of action, but that's a very expensive process, a very expensive way to do things from the perspective of a rather poor community organization like Pigeon Lake Environmental Association.
Mr Perruzza: So what you're saying is you don't trust the council.
Mr Kennaley: Not all councils; not all the time.
The Chair: All right. Thank you. Mr Wiseman. I'm sorry, is your question this long or this long?
Mr Wiseman: Neither.
The Chair: Just a short question, please.
Mr Wiseman: To do what you're saying, if all of the counties and municipalities have official plans, in order to do that, they would need an official plan amendment, and that would be appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. I wonder how they could even think about trying to squeeze through a use change like that on a minor variance. I mean, that would be something that even some of the councils I know wouldn't do.
Mr Kennaley: I was surprised when I came across this interpretation of the concept of a minor variance which has been made in the past by the Ontario Municipal Board, and that's what those cases are all about. There are quite a few of them there. In those cases, the Ontario Municipal Board decided that adding a new use despite the fact that it's not permitted by the zoning bylaw in some instances or by the official plan nevertheless could be considered a minor variance given the right set of circumstances. I do have some faith in the Ontario Municipal Board making that kind of decision, but I'm not sure I have the same faith in municipal councils making that sort of decision. In my experience with municipal councils, sometimes the environment is not given the weight that it deserves, I guess.
Mr Wiseman: Could I ask the clerk if we could see those at some point?
The Chair: Okay.
1650
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to get your definition, the one that you're proposing for minor variances. In other words, you would abolish minor variances if the official plan was affected or the zoning bylaw was affected by that minor variance?
Mr Kennaley: No. All I'm suggesting -- I think most people's idea of minor variances involves things like changes to side yards and front yards, those kinds of examples, and those are the examples referred to in this document here where it talks about taking away the appeal process. I was really surprised. Those are certainly the kinds of minor variances I'm familiar with as well, and I was really surprised when it was shown to me that in fact the Ontario Municipal Board had allowed new uses, uses not permitted by the zoning, not permitted by the current official plan designation, and called them minor variances.
Mr Eddy: The OMB doesn't follow anybody's rules.
Mr Kennaley: No, that may be true. In these instances, there's justification, I think, for the board's decisions. But what it does is it establishes the precedent -- not the precedent, but the principle -- that new uses can be contemplated by way of minor variances. Now, with councils having the sole responsibility for making those kinds of decisions under Bill 163, I'm just worried, knowing sometimes how municipal councils are not necessarily very pro-environment, that bad decisions are going to result, bad minor variance decisions are going to result.
Mr Grandmaître: You see, my argument is that some minor variances can -- not destroy, but affect a zoning bylaw or an official plan. This is why I'd like to see the appeal process retained, for the simple reason that these minor variances can be major to an official plan or a zoning bylaw, and that's why it should be maintained. Do you agree with me?
Mr Kennaley: I think PLEA would also welcome a return of an appeal of minor variances through the Planning Act, a return to Bill 163, because you're right. Under certain circumstances, you know -- for instance, one of the common features of bylaws in this area, especially around lakes, is a setback from the lake. If a variance is granted by a council to greatly reduce that setback, it can have major implications for the lake environment. But by the same token, I have to acknowledge that many minor variances -- minor reduction of a side yard and so forth -- aren't that big a deal that they necessarily have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board. So rather than advocating flat out that the appeal power should be retained, we're suggesting as a compromise that at the very least a limitation be put into Bill 163 that would prevent these new uses from being permitted by way of a minor variance.
Mr Grandmaître: That's why we need regulations.
The Chair: Monsieur Grandmaître, you've run out of time. I'm sorry.
Mr Grandmaître: And I've run out of gas. Tomorrow we'll be in Belleville --
Interjection.
The Chair: Your mike is off. Mr Kennaley, we thank you very much for participating in these hearings.
The Chair: Just a few reminders to the members with respect to tomorrow and today. With respect to tomorrow, we're staying in Belleville but we're meeting in North Fredericksburgh. If someone needs directions, those people who have cars, please talk to Donna, but we will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in North Fredericksburgh, and the bus leaves from the hotel tomorrow at 9.
The committee adjourned at 1656.