Committee Transcript 1994-Sep-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 163, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l'aménagement du territoire et les municipalités, projet de loi 163, M. Philip

Michael Vaughan

Canadian Bar Association--Ontario

Igor Ellyn, president

Jim Harbell, chair, municipal law subcommittee on Bill 163

Urban Development Institute

Morley Kells, president

Jack Winberg, past chair

Metropolitan Toronto School Board

Brian Kelsey, legal counsel

Winch Planning and Development Services

Melvin Winch, president

City of North York

Mel Lastman, mayor

Paula Dill, planning commissioner

Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Tony Usher, president

Marni Cappe, chair, working group on Bill 163

City of Toronto

Barbara Hall, councillor

John Adams, councillor

Citizens Concerned about the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront

Michael Harrison, president

Regional Municipality of York

Craig MacFarlane, solicitor

John Livey, planning commissioner

Ontario Real Estate Association

Ross Godsoe, president

Rose Leroux, chair, political affairs committee

James Flood, director, government relations

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

John Gartner, planning commissioner

Howard Moscoe, councillor and chair, economic development and planning committee

Alan Tonks, chairman

Regional Municipality of Peel

Hazel McCallion, mayor

Rob Candy, acting supervisor, legislative services

Rob Payne, legislative coordinator

Swansea Area Ratepayers Association

William Roberts, board member

Alliance of Community Groups

Paul Crawford, representative

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: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

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

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)

Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND)

Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

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

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

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

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

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

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Bisson

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Winninger

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Municipal Affairs:

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to minister

McKinstry, Philip, acting director, municipal planning policy branch

Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0918 in room 151.

PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DES MUNICIPALITÉS

Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.

MICHAEL VAUGHAN

The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Good morning to the committee. I would like to welcome you back to Toronto after your journey last week. Our chair is going to be a little bit late this morning but we will proceed. We would like to call upon Fraser & Beatty, that is, Mr Michael Vaughan, who will present this morning. You have 15 minutes, so please go ahead with your presentation and any time that is left we will use for questions and answers.

Mr Michael Vaughan: Thank you very much. My name is Michael Vaughan and you should have before you two things: a letter from me, and as well an article that was published in Municipal World. I hope you have those. I will be referring to the article in Municipal World, particularly on page 2 down at the bottom. There's a section that says "Minor Variances," and I'll be referring to that section because that's what I wish to speak about.

What I'm asking you to do is that section 25 of the bill, the section dealing with minor variances, I'm asking that that section not be approved, and if I could just tell you sort of where I'm coming from about that. I'm kind of an old warhorse in the field. I've been practising planning law and teaching it and so on for about a quarter of a century. I don't represent anyone here but me. I'm only here because it makes me feel good to operate in a system that's relatively efficient and fair and it would make me feel bad to operate in a system that is cumbersome, or even more cumbersome than now, and that might not be as fair as the present system, and that really relates to the role of the OMB.

There are three basic reasons that I would urge that section 25 not be enacted. The first is essentially that the system works fine now. No system of this sort is perfect, but it's relatively efficient, relatively fair. What has happened here, as is apparent from looking at the underlying documentation, is that the recommendation to delete the appeals to the OMB is really based on two misconceptions. The first is that minor variance appeals are trivial and inconsequential, and that is not true in fact and not true in law.

The leading case, and I won't go into it, but basically a minor variance is to a large extent what the committee of adjustment or the OMB says it is. They have to look at all the circumstances and make a decision. So minor variances can and often are very important to applicants and very significant, both to those who support them and those who oppose them. They are not always or necessarily minor in the sense of being small matters or trivial matters.

The second misconception, and I referred to that at the bottom of page 3 of my article that you have, is that I think the Sewell commission might have got its statistics wrong when it comes to the OMB. In fact, whereas the Sewell commission thought that 28% of the OMB appeals involved minor variance in appeals, it consumes only about 6% of the OMB's time, and that time is diminishing because of case management and ADR. So the system is not clogged with committee of adjustment appeals.

The second reason that I would urge that it not be approved is that the changes would generate more cumbersomeness than now exists. There's no way, for example, that most municipal councils can hear committee of adjustment appeals on a proper basis. So they will inevitably delegate it to one of the groups referred to in the act. I think that will generate much longer hearings because people will want a full and proper hearing. If there is no appeal to an impartial board, they'll just have to have longer hearings or else go by way of the alternative route, which is the rezoning. So I think that the changes proposed in section 25 will lead to more work for people like me, but it doesn't lead to any greater pleasure; it just bogs the system down.

The third reason I would urge that it not be approved is that I think removing the OMB appeal would generate an unfairness in the system. To a large extent, the OMB is the salvation of the planning system in Ontario. It's not perfect, but it's what keeps us honest and it's what people think keeps us honest. One can imagine that if major matters can be dealt with by councils or by appointed officials, by committees of council without appeal and without scrutiny, that that in effect circumvents the intent of the Planning Act; that is, if you have the votes sewn up, if I could put it that way, you go through the committee of adjustment or the delegated official and no one can touch you, you can't be scrutinized except by a court, which is unlikely and expensive and even more cumbersome. So I would think that there's every incentive to leave the process as it now stands and leave the appeal to the OMB in place. That's the way the system should operate.

I don't intend to read that part of the article that you have -- I'm sure you have a lot of material to read -- but if you have any questions, I'm happy to try to address them.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Vaughan. Each party has approximately three minutes, and we'll start with the Liberal Party. Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): It's nice to hear that the OMB is doing a good job because for the last 20 or 25 years I've been hearing all kinds of bad reports on the OMB, and for the last couple of weeks the OMB is now the salvation of planning in the province of Ontario. It's good to hear this.

I realize that you're not the only one that's concerned with section 25 removing the appeal process to a minor variance, but won't you agree with me that not only in this bill, in Bill 163, there's no definition of "minor variance" or "minor variances"? Don't you think if this bill stands as it is we will need to define "minor variances"? Right now a minor variance to one committee of adjustment is very different from another, so there's no consistency in minor variances. Do you think this would improve Bill 163 by adding a better definition of minor variances?

Mr Vaughan: The courts have dealt with what a minor variance is.

Mr Grandmaître: Not consistent though, you'll agree with me?

Mr Vaughan: Well, the court is consistent in saying that it's up to the committee to decide in all the circumstances that apply. In order to answer the question, I appreciate the intent of the question, one would want to look at the definition. It would be very hard, I think, to draft something that's sufficiently circumscribed and sufficiently broad.

Zoning and planning matters don't come neatly tied up and they deal not only with new development in new areas, greenfield development, which is much easier to deal with, but they deal with the knitting of an urban fabric in established communities and they deal a lot with imponderables, or at least matters that are hard to quantify, like if you see a minor variance is not more than 3% or 10% of the zoning standard. If what's permitted on a site is one million square feet, 10% is an extra 100,000; or if what's permitted is three storeys or 30 storeys -- I think it would be very difficult to draft, but I would like to defer answering the question until I would see what the draft might be.

The Vice-Chair: You have one more minute, Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Grandmaître: One more minute. Again on minor variances, would you agree with me that some minor variances could affect official plans or zoning bylaws in the province of Ontario? I know you've refused to define --

Mr Vaughan: That's one of the very interesting things about minor variances. A municipality is totally constrained by its official plan when it passes zoning bylaws. When it comes to minor variances the jurisdiction is much broader, it just has to "have regard to" the official plan. So that's why many matters are indeed processed as minor matters, as minor variances, if you have a good feel of the committee of adjustment, rather than by way of rezonings. That is, you often know you're going to lose on a rezoning because it doesn't conform to the official plan, there's no way an official plan could be processed, so you go through the committee of adjustment, do it as a minor variance. I could give you many examples.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll have to move on to the Conservative Party. Mr McLean.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning, Mr Vaughan. Your views are very clear and it's not the first time that we've had them. We've had them from other delegates too that have appeared before us.

When I asked the question of the minister on the opening day as to what a minor variance was he didn't have the answer for it either, so I can see the reason why you're now looking at, and a lot of other people are, having it in there that you can appeal to the OMB. When we have only 6%, I think what you're saying is what I'm agreeing with more all the time that I hear it, because there should be somebody there who you can really appeal to as a last resort.

I welcome your comments and I thank you for making your presentation this morning.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McLean. We'll go to the government party. Who would like to speak? Mr Wilson.

0930

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Welcome to the committee and thanks a lot for your presentation. Mr Grandmaître mentioned the 25 years' experience with the OMB. I don't know whether he's not stuck in the past. I do think it is improving, not least because we've got a good chair there now from Kingston, I'm pleased to say, so we can expect further improvement.

But what I want to look at is the issue of the minor variance, as you've I think very clearly laid out your concerns about it. What we're trying to do, of course, is to put more decision-making in local hands. I'm wondering, as long as the OMB is there, will not people assume that that's going to be the ultimate destination for any kind of a resolution to a problem and therefore, if you put the emphasis on the local setting, will not then more emphasis be placed on that and then the committee of adjustment and indeed the council will become more responsive to local concerns?

Mr Vaughan: That's the virtue and that's the vice. The system that people are living with now and have been for a long time is one that they perceive to be a system of rule of law, that is, they look at zoning bylaws, they look at official plans, those are the rules and everyone knows that.

The other system, more of an American system maybe, the rule of political discretion -- in countries and nations where important matters that involve a lot of money and involve a lot of impact on people are decided on a purely political -- I shouldn't say a "political" basis in this room, but that is something that I think a lot of people would not be comfortable with, having in mind our traditions and our type of society.

When I say the OMB keeps us honest, what I mean is -- it's not perfect; I don't suggest it's perfect. God knows I've lost decisions there that I shouldn't have, and I hate to admit that in this room.

Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, with all objectivity.

Mr McLean: It's on the record.

Mr Vaughan: But in general, because it's impartial, the system works and people accept flaws along the way. The same with the courts, because judges often make wrong decisions too, but at least you get a fair shake at it; at least you get a fair hearing.

Mr Gary Wilson: And you don't think that's possible in the local setting in the way that council works?

Mr Vaughan: You know, you get 25 neighbours on one side and one guy on the other or you get a developer -- I mean, I don't know whether you've been in municipal politics, sir, but lobbying plays a very large role. It's very political and it's supposed to be political. They're elected politically. They're not supposed to be impartial or independent; they're supposed to express the wishes of the people.

I think there is a very healthy thing in the act and that, I think, is section 70, the provision for development permit zones, which will give council immense discretion. But on this particular issue, there are going to be fights about matters of minor variances. Whether it happens in the courts or before the OMB or politically, there are going to be fights. The present system channels and deals with those fights in a relatively economical and impartial way. It sometimes makes wrong decisions, though.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wilson, and thank you, Mr Vaughan, for presenting to us this morning.

CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION -- ONTARIO

The Vice-Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Canadian Bar Association. We have the president, Mr Igor Ellyn, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr Jim Harbell. If you would come forward, you have half an hour for your presentation. If you would begin by introducing yourself and all of your colleagues here and then make your presentation, I hope you will be able to leave some time for questions. Please go ahead.

Mr Igor Ellyn: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Igor Ellyn. I'm president of the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario branch. I have with me today, at my immediate right, Jim Harbell of the firm Stikeman Elliott, who is chair of the subcommittee making the submission; at my far right, Virginia MacLean, QC, of the law firm of Cassels Brock and Blackwell, a member of the committee; at my immediate left, Bob Boxma, who is chair of the municipal law section of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario and is at the law firm of Smith Lyons Torrance Stevenson and Mayer; and at my far left, Tim Bermingham, who is with the law firm Blake Cassels and Graydon. All my colleagues are experts in their respective fields of municipal and environmental law.

Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you this morning to introduce the submission of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario. As president of the association, I intend to make remarks of a general nature and to introduce the other members of the committee, as I have done today, who will take you through the recommendations. Indeed, Mr Harbell will speak on behalf of the committee.

The Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario was established in 1916 and is the largest voluntary association in the province and in Canada, representing more than 15,000 lawyers, law students and judges in Ontario and more than 34,000 across the country. Among its many programs, the bar association conducts a review and critique of proposed legislation on a regular basis. The legislation is reviewed clause by clause by a committee of legal experts in the field who consider the legislation from legal, fairness and access-to-justice considerations.

L'Association du Barreau canadien, division de l'Ontario, est l'association bénévole des avocats et avocates et des juristes la plus grande en Ontario et au pays. Parmi ses divers programmes est la présentation de soumissions sur les projets de loi préparés par des experts juridiques dans chaque domaine.

In July 1991, some time shortly after the commencement of the Sewell commission, the bar association struck a committee of municipal and environmental experts to provide input to the Sewell commission and to make a submission about the recommendations the Sewell commission would eventually hand down. Our submission today addresses eight areas of concern, and I believe the copies of it have been distributed to each member of the committee.

Each of the areas of concern is important, and Mr Harbell will take you through them, but as you will hear from Mr Harbell, the key difficulty with the bill is that we perceive that there is a fundamental reduction in individual property rights in favour of administrative expediency. Bill 163 was supposed to improve planning and development in Ontario, but we believe that in the case of property rights it does precisely the opposite.

I urge you, members of the committee, to give your careful consideration to the elements of our submission. The Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario is not an interest group with a political focus. Rather, our objective is to ensure that access to justice, in an open and fair manner that protects individual property rights, is preserved. It should be kept in mind that open, fair access to justice is not only the stated policy of the current government, but of all parties in the Legislature. Our submission addresses legal process and not substantive planning policy, upon which we concede there may be legitimate differences of opinion.

With this in mind, I ask you to give your attention to my colleague Mr Harbell, and I thank each one of you for the careful consideration you will give our submission.

Mr Jim Harbell: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. There are two major areas that I wish to address in our submission this morning. The first is that in the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, the three goals set forward by the government last December have not been significantly achieved in Bill 163; second, there are a number of other problems with Bill 163, and I'd like to enumerate some of them for you. Basically, my remarks are a highlight of a significant submission that we've given to you. We hope that it will be read and dealt with as part of the clause-by-clause review.

First, back to the goals. The goals the government said it wanted were more environmental planning; second, greater power for municipalities; and third, streamlining.

In our submission, with respect to the first one, the bill does not address, except in only the weakest and most ambiguous way, the issue of environmental assessment processes and official plan processes. There has been a significant problem in Ontario over the last decade that the Environmental Assessment Act doesn't work and that it's a completely parallel process from the planning process.

This was an opportunity in this act to address the two and put them together, because there have been difficulties in the province where somebody has gone through the planning process and has completed the planning process, only to have an objector with a less-than-valid objection start to use the environmental assessment process against them. Now was the opportunity to specifically combine those two to ensure that there was a strong environmental planning mechanism in the province, and that hasn't happened. It's simply an ambiguous provision that says that it might in the future.

0940

The second one was the issue of whether or not municipalities have been given any real new power under Bill 163. In our submission, Bill 163 is top-down planning. It does not. It's illusionary only in the amount of power that it is giving to municipalities; for example, the area of "be consistent with." The nature of the policy statements that have been put forward, the mandatory prohibitory nature of them, means that a municipality, when they have to "be consistent with," have to absolutely and slavishly follow whatever the provincial government of day has set down in the policy statements. That is not giving power to municipalities. That is simply retaining the power at the upper level and demanding that municipalities follow it.

Second, regulation has been used to an alarming degree in Bill 163, and that will be used against municipalities in the future. The fact that an official plan amendment is defined by regulation, that an official plan can be defined by regulation to be different in Etobicoke than it is in Mississauga as to the matters that have to be addressed, very specifically opens up municipalities to being governed by the provincial policies of the day.

Third, the issue of streamlining: In our view there is going to be so much uncertainty and debate about these new policies that the debate will be endless. It will start when an official plan amendment goes through, which will require a board hearing to debate what the policy means and how it applies. Then you turn around, and it may well be that a plan of subdivision, a plan of condominium or a rezoning bylaw will have to go through a similar kind of debate because it too will have to comply with provincial policies.

There have been those who have said: "Great for lawyers. It's a make-work project, you should be happy." We'd be happier if it was a stronger and more certain Ontario economy. We're not going to have any clients who are going to be able to deal with the policies that are under here because they're going to go to a different jurisdiction.

Those are our three concerns with the respect to the government goals that were put forward. What else is wrong?

What else is wrong takes me back to my last point, and the first one of those is that we believe that Bill 163 will seriously undermine Ontario's competitive position, and we have four reasons for putting this forward.

The first is that there is one expedited area within the Planning Act at the moment, and that's committee of adjustment appeals, and that's being taken away by Bill 163. We know, as lawyers who are well familiar with the process, that by taking away and leaving it at the local municipal level, it's going to turn it into court battles and it's going to turn it into rezonings, and rezonings are simply bigger planning matters that go back through the same process.

In rural areas, we've been told that you have a rural councillor who is only paid on a part-time basis. It's now going to be demanded of that rural councillor that they show up at a hearing at their local level and sit through it for some number of days, even though they perhaps have another business, a farm. Whatever it is they may have to deal with, they are now being called upon to do it.

In urban areas, where you've got agendas that are chock full, you're going to call upon, for example, the city of Toronto to deal with 200 or 300 of these appeals in one year. We think it unlikely that they're going to be able to give everybody a fair hearing.

Our suggestion is that a perfectly good and the only expedited approach at the moment under the Planning Act is being thrown out and it's being replaced with an inferior suggestion. Now, we'll leave that one there, because we think it's a very important provision and we suggest in our submission that there should be a leave-to-appeal process. We think that will solve part of the problem that the government has perceived. By a leave to appeal, we suggest that the Ontario Municipal Board be given the opportunity, perhaps even in writing only, to look at the appeals that come out of a committee of adjustment and to decide whether or not they're valid and substantive and warrant a hearing. And on the committee of adjustment basis, we can see that that may start to solve some of the perceived problem of having a lot of committee of adjustment appeals on the OMB docket, while at the same time expediting the approach.

Second, we are concerned that Ontario's economic and competitive position is going to be undermined because of the debate about policies and guidelines that's going to take place.

I did a quick flip through the policies, and one that I saw that caught my eye says that "the wellbeing of main streets and downtowns should be fostered" -- the "wellbeing." Now what kind of debate is that going to lead to? Is that the mental wellbeing of main streets and downtowns? Is it the physical wellbeing? Is it the economic wellbeing? That is only one of a number of examples within the policy statements that have been published that are going to be a field day for lawyers and objectors to have a go at debating what they mean and are going to cause undue public hearings.

That leads to uncertainty. It leads to a difficulty to say to an outside company that wants to invest in Ontario: "Here's the process you have to go through. You have to do A, B, C, and you will then have a building permit and you can open up your factory." Our view of it is that Bill 163 is greatly going to diminish the ability to tell an outside investor: "Here are the clear grounds that you need. Here are the clear rules of planning in Ontario that will get you an expedited building permit and get yourself open for business."

Third, we think that there is less flexibility for municipalities to respond to investment opportunities in Bill 163. The fact that it is top-down planning, that there are policies that are mandatory and prohibitory mean there can't be a local debate. There can't be a municipality that says: "We have this large new industry that wants to open up" -- perhaps in an agricultural area, perhaps in a wetland area -- "let us debate which is more important. How do we assess and balance those two?" That debate cannot take place because the policies are prohibitory. They simply say to the municipality, "You can't even look at that application," and that, we view, is taking away the flexibility of the municipality to address what may be valid investment opportunities.

Fourth, we're concerned about the issue of zoning certainty. The whole development permit process that has been suggested in effect says, "Fine, lift away the zoning and we'll impose by regulation a development permit." A zoning is what it is that an investor looks at. That's what they buy. They see a parcel of property. They see a zoning on it. The zoning tells them, "Yes, as of right, I am able to do this on my property." If you lift away the zoning, then you've taken away very elementary property rights that we believe are going to be a problem.

Our second major area that we believe is wrong with the legislation is the one that Mr Ellyn led off with, and that is that we believe it's going to sacrifice an individual's right to be heard in the name of administrative expediency. We have several reasons for suggesting that.

First of all, there is a provision under the OP policies that says if you as a potential appellant don't participate in the local public process, if you haven't filed some form of a letter that says, "We object; here are our concerns," then at a later date, an approval agency or the Ontario Municipal Board can throw out your appeal simply because you didn't participate. We have a very strong concern that if you have a Hong Kong investor who arrives in this country six months after it's gone through the local process, looks at it, he may be looking at the issues that apply to that parcel of land for the very first time and he finds a substantive problem, we've potentially taken away his right to validly deal with it.

We believe that is going to put this province in a comparative basis against other regulatory places such as Ohio and Michigan and other places that industry looks at in comparison with Ontario, in a bad light, and unnecessarily so. That's a provision that should be struck.

Another area in the natural justice concerns that we have is that appeals can be thrown out simply because, in the opinion of the planning agency, they're premature, or in its opinion they have no apparent land use planning grounds. Those two, particularly if it's a delegated approval agency such as a region, are going to lead to potential abuse.

In their opinion, if its thrown out on prematurity because it doesn't match the regional council's view of the day, or it doesn't match the regional council's view of what local planning is, it gets pitched out. It may well be that the regional council is pitched out in the next election, and by the time it comes around, what that person was proposing does legitimately match what should be going on in that municipality.

Our problem is that it throws it out without the ability of having a debate, without the opportunity for the Ontario Municipal Board to carry out its process the way it should, and we're very concerned that that can happen. We know it's part of streamlining -- get rid of these appeals so you can get approvals quickly -- but we think that in trying to balance those two issues, the government has gone too far with respect to throwing out potential appeals in the name of administrative expediency.

Allow the board to do what the board is doing a lot better these days than it used to, which is getting to the nub of the matter quickly. Let it decide whether or not a particular matter is a valid appeal, and whether it should be heard or whether it wants to hear somebody and then throw it out. That's a significant issue that we believe needs to be addressed.

0950

Lastly within that area, we're concerned that the Ontario Municipal Board will be given the power to throw out a major referral or a major appeal without having a hearing. We're prepared to accept, as I said, that on a matter of a committee of adjustment appeal it may be appropriate to have the board deal with it in writing on a leave-to-appeal basis, but a significant referral or appeal, if the board thinks that it's going to throw it out, it should at the very least give somebody the opportunity to come forward and make a statement.

It's the old adage that justice must be seen to be done as well as actually done. They may throw it out because it's not a valid appeal, but that person should be given the opportunity to come forward and have his day in court for an hour or two some morning and say to the board, "Here is why we thought it was sufficiently serious that we filed that appeal."

Third, in the area of what else is wrong, we're concerned that two classes are in fact being created here: the general public in one class, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs joins that class; and secondly, another area being all other ministries of the government and Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro and all other ministries don't have to be consistent with policies; they simply have to have due regard to them. As well, they don't have to participate in the public process up front; they only need to file their position at the very last minute, as they have been doing. No chance that if they don't participate up front their appeals get thrown out.

We think that dual classification is (a) unfair, and (b) we think it's unnecessary, and isn't addressing one of the major problems that's going on at the moment. One of those problems is that ministries in the government -- and they've been doing it for years, for whatever reason, I suspect it's because they've got a lot of work on their plate and in their perception too few people to do it -- are not getting their responses out quickly enough. If an applicant knew early on, "This is the position of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs," or "This is the position of the Ministry of Natural Resources," or the Ministry of Environment and Energy, they may well amend their application, they may withdraw their application, but when they don't find out until the eve of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and they've spent a lot of money and time and their own energy to get it that far, then they have to proceed. That has been a major problem, that those kinds of agency comments are not coming out until the last minute.

That hasn't been addressed in the bill, and unfortunately, so what we're saying is, it's been continued and in effect fostered because these two different categories have been created, and we're quite concerned about that.

Fourthly, I've mentioned that zoning rights are potentially being taken away, and we think that's a serious issue with the imposition of a development permit process.

Fifthly, we're concerned about planning by regulation and our belief that this is going to create less confidence. We believe that this Legislature has been created so that major planning matters should go through it, as part of statutory amendments. And it's unreasonable, for example, to suggest that the definition of an official plan should go through by regulation. That should be a matter of full and open debate within the halls of this body rather than going through by regulation, and we're concerned about the outside perception of that.

Finally, lastly, on areas that we believe are wrong, and again the highlights, we're concerned that in the conflict-of-interest side of the legislation, there has been a new regime that is being imposed on municipalities without giving them enough guidance and assistance. There are a number of municipal councillors out there who are extremely concerned about whether they are going to unwittingly fall offside, and they don't want to fall offside. They'd rather comply with the regulation and not have to have the difficulties that may ensue.

One of the suggestions that we have, and we think it's a fairly easy one to address, is give them some kind of a provincial guidance, a body. For example, you could use the commissioner on election finances as a body that they can call on a regular basis, and staff it with a few experts who can provide assistance to the many local councillors across this province who are going to need help from time to time to ensure that they're complying with this legislation. We think it's a fairly easy way to deal with a significant problem.

Those are six areas that we think are significantly wrong with the legislation. I'm going to end it there, open it up to questions and leave you to address questions to any of my colleagues here. Thank you very much for listening to us.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your detailed presentation, Mr Harbell and Mr Ellyn. We only have two minutes per caucus and we'll begin with Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: I want to say to you that over half the wardens of this province have also made presentations and are opposed to this legislation. Do you feel there is any way we can make amendments to this legislation that would improve it, that would be satisfactory to the majority of the people? It doesn't appear to me, from what I'm hearing across the province, that there are many people who are very enthused about Bill 163.

Where you indicated in your brief, with regard to the three months, that we were supposed to have some type of clarification and draft to look at before the bill was finally introduced, if that had happened perhaps we would have been in a lot better position to deal with a more comprehensive and better bill. Do you think there can be amendments to this that would satisfy your group?

Mr Harbell: We've a bias, as a starting point, in responding to your question. When the commission was first announced and it was said that there would be a new Planning Act in the province, we took the position: "We don't need a new Planning Act. The system that we have at the moment isn't broken by way of legislation. It needs to be administered in a stronger and tighter fashion." That has happened, in any event, by way of government-announced policy, by way of people responding more quickly to the process. We could, from our perspective, set aside Bill 163, take the administrative gains that have taken place in the last three years and simply implement those, and there may be only a very few sections of Bill 163 that need to go forward. That would be one response. That's how we started.

Another response would be, we have suggested a large number of reforms. If all of those were implemented, it would be fair that there should be another public process, after they've gone into the next bill, before there was a chance for final reading, because we think the number of reforms we've suggested may strongly alter.

Mr McLean: That's what bothers me the most, that we will go through this process, the ministry maybe will have 50 amendments and all the people who have made presentations will not have the opportunity then to have any input into those amendments. That's the sad part of the process we're going through.

I've asked for any amendments that the ministry's going to have. I think we've got one or two small ones but nothing major, and it appears to me there needs to be a major thrust in amendments in this legislation.

Mr Harbell: We had asked, as part of our submission in March, that the draft bill go out for public review prior to first and second reading. That hasn't happened. It may well be helpful that it should happen now.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. The government party.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much. You've made a very full presentation, one which obviously we're going to have to take some time to think about.

There are a number of things you've said that I must admit I totally disagree with on a personal basis -- not as a lawyer; a property owner living in small-town Ontario -- and in light of the fact also that the people I represent have some very major concerns, as just John and Joan Q. Public, who feel that in many respects the planning process is broken, doesn't represent community needs. They have some major, major concerns about how expensive and definitely, shall we say, not -- at least for appearance's sake. The OMB process, in fact, reflects the concerns of the little guy.

But we can agree to disagree on a number of those things. The little people of Ontario, the people who have come before us, have definitely indicated some major concerns with regard to this whole process and generally have some good things to say about this bill.

Very early on, Dale Martin, who has been acting as the provincial facilitator, gave us a technical briefing in this very room. As part of this process, he raised the issue of the complete application, which I believe you indicated you had some concerns about, in relation to an application being thrown out of the process because it was premature.

I think a lot of people I represent are very, very anxious to actually find out what is in the mind of the developer, how it is going to affect their particular neighbourhood, and would really like to have a complete application to deal with and have a complete understanding of what in fact those impacts are. To date, that is not the process. The actual neighbours tend to not have an understanding of what's happening.

1000

I would like you to give me, if you could, a response to the concept of having a complete application in hand. I understand you have some concerns about time limits, responses from different agencies, but I think the whole idea, the concept of having a complete application where everyone, the neighbours, not only the developer, are on an equal footing.

The Vice-Chair: If you have a very brief response. Ms Haeck has taken the two minutes already.

Mr Ellyn: There are two brief replies. The first one is, Ms Haeck, all of us are concerned about the rights of the little guy or the little woman, of all people in Ontario. It's precisely for that reason that the emphasis on the denial of or the reduction in individual rights, as opposed to administrative expediency, is an important element of our submission.

As to the more technical aspects, I turn again to Mr Harbell to respond.

Mr Harbell: We do not disagree with you. In our submission we believe there should be a full application available for public hearing, both the response from the agencies and a full response from the developer. And perhaps we're getting a little hung up, for example, on the word "prematurity." What we mean by that is that if somebody says, "We want a new subdivision on this side of town," we don't want somebody to simply be able to say: "No, we have no intention of growing that way for another 10 years. We're throwing it out because you're premature." It may well be that that's the right side of town there should be a new subdivision on and that the matter should be open for full debate. We don't think the developer or the applicant, whoever he may be, should have his application thrown out simply because that is premature.

But we agree with you that the application that they file should be a complete application. The ratepayers in the vicinity should have every opportunity to know what the environmental, the servicing, the land use consequences are of what's being proposed and proposed up front. That's one of the administrative changes that has been taking place in the last couple of years and that's helpful to the process.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I will move on to the Liberal Party.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you very much for an excellent presentation from that point of view, and we have had the opportunity of going around to some of the communities already and have heard some of the things, as a matter of fact most of what you've said, consistently. The little guy, the little woman or whatever it would be has been saying that.

It seems to me that this political exercise has backfired in some respect. What you have said -- it was very loud -- the fact is that maybe we don't need a new legislation; what we do need is cleaning up our act. Many of the governments at all levels seem to have not carried out their administrative work effectively.

One of the major things that I have concerns about, even the process of this exercise of hearings, is that this omnibus bill, this large bill which wants to change the Planning Act and also to deal with the conflict of interest and also to deal with the Municipal Act, revising all of that, must be heard within half an hour in your presentation, which you have to rush, and many of the questions I want to ask to get some more input cannot be done because of two minutes in themselves. I know I am using that time just to express that concern I have.

Would you say then, how strongly can we say to this government or any government that if it cleans up its act in getting the administration being effective, we may not need this bill? What more do you feel could be said? And one last comment: It seems to me, when you talk about top-down and policy-driven, the policy cannot be debated here, and it is the policy that we will be adhering to, not very much so the legislation, because it's the policy that will drive the order of the day.

Mr Harbell: It's important, in whatever process is used, that an applicant get a quick response, and that can be done by administrative changes as well as by legislative changes. That's our concern, that the land owner from Hong Kong, the industrialist from Ohio shows up at Ontario's doorstep and says: "I want to put in this multimillion-dollar development or industry. I want to know within two months what you think of it." We're concerned that the current process is starting to move in the direction of giving a quick response. We're concerned that Bill 163 is not going to assist with respect to that quick response.

Mr Curling: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: The parliamentary assistant would like to respond very briefly to one of your concerns.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): In regard to the policies, really the intention of this government is to make the policies a lot clearer, which we feel we are doing. I think one of the problems -- and I'm sure a few people have represented developers or investors -- one of the frustrations I'm sure that you and they have run up against is the fact that you had to go to three or four, maybe even sometimes five different ministries, whatever, before maybe you were told, "No, you can't do this."

I think what's important about making these policies clearer and up front is that I'm sure this is what you would want, that developers would know up front whether their project would be able to go or not go, rather than lead a developer or an investor down the garden path only to find out six months or a year later that, "Sorry, it doesn't meet the criteria." We feel it's important to make these policies clearer and up front and I believe that's what we are doing here with this legislation.

The Vice-Chair: I hope that's been of some help. At this point, I would like to thank the Canadian Bar Association for its presentation -- and the material you've left with us, the very detailed material.

Mr Harbell: Thank you very much.

Mr Ellyn: Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

The Vice-Chair: I'd now like to call upon the Urban Development Institute, UDI, Mr Morley Kells, president, Ms Lucy Stocco, chair, and Mr Jack Winberg, past chair. Please come forward. Good to see you again. You have half an hour.

Mr Morley Kells: Thank you and good morning, members. Again it's a pleasure to be here on deliberations on Bill 163. We have, as you have mentioned, Lucy Stocco, who is chair of UDI, Jack Winberg, who is the past chair of UDI, and Sue Cumming, who has worked along with us in preparing our brief.

I would like to mention that we have a joint industry brief. We have been working right along with the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association and today we'll be filing a joint task force brief, but we will leave the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association to deliver its message tomorrow.

Just for the record, I would like to mention again that UDI is a non-profit organization comprising firms engaged in the development of lands and construction of residential, industrial and commercial buildings in the province of Ontario. Our membership also includes many firms that are engaged in different consulting practices that provide services to the land development and building industry. Jack will take it from here.

Mr Jack Winberg: Madam Chair and members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to be here today. As Morley has just indicated to you, we represent the Ontario chapter of the national organization of builders and developers across Canada. We're an industry that's very proud of what we've done in the past, providing shelter and offices and factories and shops and stores for really the human condition in Canada today, which boasts a standard of living that is second to none in the world.

I have a number of concerns that relate to the planning process and to the Planning Act. I can't second too greatly the comments that have been made by the group before us, that what we're really talking about is Ontario's economic competitiveness and its ability to respond in the global marketplace to the changes that happen in our world.

Planning is a human process. Planning is a process whereby values of different people with respect to the way they'd like to see their physical environment and their physical world be created come to be articulated, debated and ultimately resolved. You must look at the planning process not so much with respect to the substance that it creates at the end but the means by which the competing values are weighed and balanced and decisions are made. What was important in the 1950s is not the same as what is important in the 1990s, but essentially it's the process that allows the determination of what's important to come to the fore, be debated, be articulated and be resolved. That is what the planning process is all about.

1010

We've said on many occasions, through the Sewell commission and through the others, that there's essentially nothing wrong with the act which says: "Come forward, make an application, have it circulated by all the parties, bring it before the public, get the public input and allow the people who are responsible" -- primarily, and I agree, the local elected officials -- "to make a decision on the merits; and if there's something wrong, if it doesn't conform with policy, if there's some mistake that is not in the interests of the province, then fine. Go to the OMB." That is the process of the Planning Act, and really we are very concerned that it not be dramatically interfered with as we go through the mid-1990s and try to articulate the environmental consciousness that's been present during that time period.

So, as you hear our submission, I really want to remind the committee that what you're dealing with is a human process, a process that's designed to help people through the physical manifestations or the physical utilization of their lands and buildings and structures and parks and trees, achieve their human aspirations, and they're going to change over time: The needs are going to change; the baby-boomers are going to age. We're going to have to be continually thinking and rethinking our society as it goes, and what we need is a process that allows that to happen in a proper, orderly and fair way. It is in that context that we ask that the Planning Act be considered and reviewed.

I want you to remember -- and I don't know, when I hear some of the comments, as to what the little guys and women out there think about the planning process -- that the development and building business really is like a manufacturer. We manufacture the houses and buildings and roads and parks that people live in and use and enjoy. If you look at the industry as a producer, we are already the most regulated industry in Canada and probably in the world. No other producer has to come to the public, has to come to the government at every stage in the production of its products.

Bill 163 and the other changes to the system that are proposed by this package are going to increase the regulation of the industry substantially. We want to be sure, if we're going to have more regulation, that it be regulation that adds value to the process and that will enhance and improve not only the planning process but Ontario's ability to compete on the world scale.

As builders and developers, our concerns with the Planning Act are that the process continue to work; that the process not only allow but encourage and facilitate the continued growth of the economy of Ontario; that the development and construction industry remain in a position to ensure Ontario remains an attractive place to come and invest, build plants, build offices, employ people and, in sum, create the wealth that is needed to sustain the standards of living that people in Ontario have come to enjoy.

I know the government wants this. I know, Mr Hayes, that your minister wants this. He wants to be able to go to Japan and say, "Come to Ontario and build a plant." When the minister says, "And we have a process there that accommodates you and will let you move towards a reasonable time frame of implementation," we want to be able to help the minister keep his promise. We are very concerned that the proposed changes to the legislation will not aid in that goal.

I say this for a number of reasons. For the planning process to work, it must be able to respond in a timely and efficient way. What that means essentially is that it's not enough to say: "We want to facilitate, we want to encourage people to come forward and tell the community every last detail about the plan up front. We want to be able to have alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. We want to be able to have a process where absolutely every single thing that could be considered is considered as early as possible in time."

That is all well and good and we support that in a general way, but you can't design a system without a fail-safe. You can't design a system that doesn't contemplate the potential for abuse that may be presented in the system. You may have someone who's out there who has just a fundamental disagreement, will never come to ADR, or if he does will come to an alternative dispute resolution with no intention of ever compromising. If you design a system that allows that person to control the system, then you've designed a system that will fail. You've designed a system that will never come to an end and will never allow the determination of that plant to be debated and articulated and a decision made in a timely and a proper way.

That is why when you say, for example, "Take away the committee of adjustment, and take away the fail-safe that an expedited system now provides," it's not really a question of the committee of adjustment. What you're saying is you're going to have more zoning bylaws.

If people need the front steps on their house but their neighbour doesn't like it and council's too busy to deal with it or the person who's the neighbour has more weight on council than the person who needs steps, the person needs steps on his house. What you're doing by taking away the appeal to the committee of adjustment is saying: "Make a rezoning application, go through a year and a half of process and three reports and four public meetings, and then appeal to the OMB. Then you'll have your hearing and the board will decide whether it was a proper thing to have steps on this house." I mean, this is what we're talking about in a very micro way.

When I say a fail-safe system, I'm talking about on larger issues, and we come back to the point my friends made earlier about prematurity. I'm a developer. I make a determination that the marketplace needs a use. It needs some land to be developed. There are people who will buy it, there are people who will build plants on it, there are people who will employ people in it or there are people who will live in it or there are people who will shop in it. I've made that decision, and I think that's an important part of the economic functioning of the planning process.

I've got some potential problems. I've got people who are used to having a park beside them. They don't want to see my building. Right now, I know that if I have the right idea and it's the right thing for the time, eventually I'll get a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board and I'll have the opportunity to present my case in a fair and impartial way. I will still prepare my plans, I will still meet with my neighbours, I will still go to public meetings, I will have a complete application, but at the end of the day I will know going in that I can go to the OMB.

One of the changes that concerns us the most is the fact that the new Planning Act will not give me that guarantee. If I make my official plan application under section 22 and I do not succeed at council, the regional council or the approving authority has the ability to say, "Your application is premature and you cannot go to the OMB." If you take that right away from me, as this legislation does, I'm not going to bother, and I may take my time and my efforts and go to another jurisdiction where I know I can be treated fairly.

Subclause 17(29)(a)(iv) is probably one of the most dangerous sections that this legislation contains. It is one section that will seriously undermine the competitiveness of Ontario as you move forward. It is a section that just simply provides no fail-safe. It's overkill in terms of trying to achieve that which the planning process -- in terms of facilitation, in terms of trying to get people to talk and get people to alternative dispute resolve, that's all good and we support it. By the same token, we have to know that at the end of the day you can have an ultimate dispute resolution mechanism, an effective one, and if you take that out of the act, I can assure you that you are going to do more damage to the economy of Ontario than almost anything else I could imagine as far as the planning process is concerned.

The other major concern we have, really, with respect to the policy and the way in which policy is taken and considered in the statement comes back to the statement we made before that the act itself is not broken but the actors have not made it work, and this comes back to the questions relating to "shall be consistent with" and whether or not those words should be changed or whether "have regard to" should be left in the act.

1020

I guess perhaps a bit of history on this is required. The 1983 act put into place section 3, which allowed the promulgation of policy statements to which people had to have regard. In the 11 years that that section was outstanding, we got policy statements on wetlands, on floodplains, on aggregates and extraction, and finally, in 1987 or 1988, we got a policy statement on housing. We never had a policy statement on the environment, we never had a policy statement on natural resources, other than the aggregates, and lo and behold, when we come to the time to reform, the system is broken because the policies and the powers that were given to the provincial policymakers and the municipal decision-makers were never exercised.

With the greatest of respect, to the extent that policy statements were issued, they have been quite successful. No one has any doubts about whether you can build in a wetland or not. They have that today. Somebody coming to Ontario who buys a wetland will get a very fast answer from anyone in the industry who knows. "Here's the policy statement on wetlands. You can't build in class 1, 2 or 3." It's very clear. If you get into grey areas, you can ask them questions and get things worked out.

Housing statements: You know what the objectives are. Yes, you may have difficulties finding locations or finding suitable spots for them, but the process is there and people take it very seriously.

Floodplains: Again, very clear.

The words "shall have regard to" in section 3 with respect to properly promulgated policy statements have worked very well.

Now all of a sudden we have both the policy being written and a determination to change the wording of the act as to how they're to be treated. I think it's not only unfair, in the sense that what you're saying really is that you don't have any trust and confidence in local government -- and if you're hearing from out in the other places where you've held your hearings the local area is upset about this, that's why. You're saying you don't trust us to honestly read your policies and apply them to our local circumstances, that somebody from Queen's Park has to decide that you've been consistent with something as opposed to taking it into account in a proper way.

I think with respect to "shall be consistent with," and I know we are joined with respect to this concern by AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the regional planning commissioners, the CBAO, I believe the greater Toronto mayors -- you'll be hearing from them all, and they'll all be telling you that "have regard to" is a sufficient means for dealing with the policy statements, particularly given the tightness of the wording of the policy statements. In the event that you feel some change has to be made, I think if you said, "shall be consistent with the intent and spirit of the policy statements," or "the general intent of the policy statements," you will achieve some modicum of compromise on that issue.

The other point that we think is critical is with respect to the true recognition of the economic importance and the impact of the planning process. We've made many suggestions at the Sewell commission and since that the purposes of planning should much more clearly articulate or acknowledge the impact the planning process has on the economy of Ontario, and we've asked for changes to the purpose-of-planning section to reflect that.

With respect to some of the streamlining issues, you'll see that in our brief we have asked for some consideration to the section regarding referral rights to the OMB that I've referred to. We've also suggested that rather than 180 days for a hearing to be held, it be held in 90 days. Today in the province, most municipalities, certainly most responsible municipalities, call a public meeting very early in the planning process, before the planners are writing all kinds of reports, to see what the public temperature is with respect to an application. That often happens in 30 or 60 days. Therefore, we ask that under section 22, paragraph 1, the 180 days be changed to 90 for the public hearing and that we get a decision in 180 days, because I can tell you that as soon as you put down what the statutory minimum is, I can assure you that's what it's going to become. All those municipalities that have busy dockets and planning staffs that have to juggle their budgets are going to say, "Listen, the legislation said I don't have to have this hearing for 180 days, so why should I have it in 60?" That's one of the little changes that's going to be made. It's made in the aid of facilitating resolution and accommodating discussion. By the same token, it's very likely to end up in a lengthened process.

The other comment we make with respect to the detailed planning issues --

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Mr Winberg, I hate to interrupt, but if you have much more to say, there won't be any time for questions. In fact, as it is, there would only be time for one question per caucus.

Mr Winberg: I've been here for 15 minutes.

The Chair: Sorry. You started at 1004, so we're --

Mr Winberg: No, I started at 1010.

The Chair: You have 1010?

Mr Winberg: I put it on myself so that I knew I would be --

Interjection: We came on time.

Mr Curling: That's the trouble with omnibus bills, you see.

Mr Winberg: I started at 1010, sir. Thank you.

I've hit the essential ones. The one comment I would like to make with respect to the complete application --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think we're going to need some consensus about how we're going to proceed with this, because we have a number of people coming later today. Do we give them a specific time?

Mr Winberg: I'll finish in two.

The Chair: I'm cutting off this session in approximately six minutes and a half, so whatever time he will take, that's when we end up.

Mr Perruzza: So 1035 --

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Winberg: Just to the last point then with respect to the development industry's willingness and desire to respond to environmental concerns, I don't want anyone to think this industry is not responsible. We are. We believe that the good husbanding of our natural resources is in everybody's interest. We think that we've been the leaders in the development of the technology to assist us in understanding our environment and that in great respect development enhances and improves the environment from conditions which existed previous to it. We want there to be a proper balance, however, to ensuring that the Ontario economy be allowed to grow and prosper and at the same time satisfy the concerns of future generations with respect to our natural heritage.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winberg. Two minutes per caucus then.

Ms Haeck: I wanted to raise with you your comments on page 5, section 3, "shall be consistent with." One of the concerns of my residents, my constituents, and obviously others who have spoken to us is the issue of their sense that the whole process, whether it's the Food Land Guidelines or a number of other things, in fact is not necessarily as strict as you have commented and that in fact you could in some instances drive a Mack truck through it. There is no floor or ceiling in this regard, so there are those who feel that "shall be consistent with" should in fact read "shall conform to," which would in fact make it a much stronger statement than "shall be consistent with." I would be interested in your remarks.

Mr Winberg: As far as conformity or consistency, I think the issue is, is whatever word we choose going to require slavish adherence in the sense that the opportunity to arrive at the appropriate local decision on a matter will not be possible?

When you say that your constituents think Mack trucks have been driven through the Food Land Guidelines, I can say to you that it may well be that they have more severances in rural areas than you've wanted. But that's not because the policy was wrong or the act was wrong, it was because people who had the responsibility to make a decision decided they wanted to do certain things to meet that community need. If you don't like it, you can change the official plan, as the government did in Grey-Bruce, for example.

1030

But there are no examples, or very few examples, certainly in my experience, which is quite extensive, where in the greater Toronto area, where this policy will have the greatest impact, there has been any abuse of those policies and of that wording. To change the act because you have perhaps in some cases a bit of irresponsibility or a lack of understanding, to throw out the entire process and to throw out the opportunities that are presented by a balanced decision-making process under a "have regard to" regime is a grave error.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for a very complete submission. I think this is the first one in the last two weeks that really goes through Bill 163 -- well, the planning part anyway -- so precisely.

The problem with Bill 163, or one of the problems with Bill 163, being an omnibus bill, is that this committee has no regulations in front of us. We have a bill with no regulations. So what we're doing, or have been doing for the last two weeks, is imagining things: It could happen; it won't happen; maybe. And it makes it very difficult for people like you and other groups who appeared before this committee to make a just analysis of this bill.

You've appeared before the commission, and you were promised, if I'm not mistaken, that regulations would be introduced with this bill at the time this committee would evaluate it. Am I right or wrong?

Mr Winberg: That has been the understanding upon which a substantial amount of our participation has been based.

Mr Grandmaître: That we would have regulations.

Mr Winberg: That we would have everything, that the entire package would be assembled and before us for a considerable period of time in order to allow it to be digested. In fact, as late as last week I made a submission to the government that in order to keep that promise, we should stop talking about January 1 for the implementation of this program and that June 30 is probably the earliest date you could possibly have a new system in place with people understanding at all what the rules are. The last thing I want to have is a situation where we do a whole pile of drafting in a very quick time and it isn't right. What we're dealing with is so important that it is worth whatever additional reasonable amount of time, given the political will to make a change, that it be right the first time and that we have a package that fits together and works together and that we understand.

Mr Grandmaître: Maybe we can ask the parliamentary assistant if the new regulations will permit you to have an input in those regulations before being finally accepted by this committee.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, we're going to three minutes right now.

Mr Grandmaître: Can we ask the parliamentary assistant, Mr Chair?

Mr Curling: When the regulations will be ready actually.

Mr Grandmaître: And will these groups have an opportunity to respond?

The Chair: Mr McKinstry, this question has been asked many a time. Perhaps you can provide an answer.

Mr Philip McKinstry: Mr Winberg is part of a task force which is being chaired by Dale Martin, the provincial facilitator, and the task force is developing in a consultative manner the guidelines for the policy statements and it will also look at the regulations. So we are developing them and they will be done in an open manner.

Mr Grandmaître: Will they have a chance, an opportunity, to respond?

Mr McKinstry: Yes, they will have an opportunity to respond.

The Chair: Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: The Hansard will show that I asked for them the very first day the minister was here, both the regulations and the amendments, and there was no forthcoming with either of them. We got the same statement as we got today, "We're working on them."

I want to ask you a question with regard to right of referral. In your brief you indicate on page 7:

"There are no time limits on when the minister must refer. The appellant has faith in the Ontario Municipal Board as an independent adjudicator. The new act reduces these rights and infringes on the powers of the board to hear matters creating confusion about the conditions under which an approval authority can decide whether to grant a referral. In the existing act, this is not an option."

My understanding of the act is that the minister can refer them pretty near any time he wants, up until the final approval of the subdivision, after the developer and the municipality have gone through a whole process; that he can refer at any time. Is that your understanding of it?

Mr Winberg: Yes. I think the comment in the brief was directed towards the referral of an official plan amendment. Today if you ask for a referral from the town or the region, the minister can sit with it for an indefinite period of time, but he must generally refer it unless he determines that it's frivolous or vexatious.

Under the new act it's not the minister who does the referring any more, unless he's taken back the power from the municipality, but now the municipality has 150 days in which to make a decision. This is where the ability to decide that something is premature comes in. We're concerned that essentially the right to refer will be taken away, because when you run into a situation that's hot and you're coming up to an election, the municipality is just going to say, "It's premature. We'll deal with it after the election," and that application is stopped dead in its tracks.

With respect to subdivisions, the minister, and under the new act the approval authority, has the right to change the draft conditions of approval at any time prior to final registration of the plan. This is a power that essentially exists today. I think ministerial restraint has allowed that power to be there and not be abused, in the sense that it's used only in extreme circumstances where something has changed or something has been terribly missed.

Mr McLean: Your group has confirmed what we've been hearing very strongly across the province with regard to this bill. We hope there will be some major amendments, if that would even solve it, which I doubt.

The Chair: I want to thank the Urban Development Institute for coming and for communicating your concerns to this committee.

Mr Curling: And to Morley Kells too.

Mr Kells: What's that, Al?

Mr Curling: It's good to see you.

Mr Kells: It's a pleasure to be here.

Mr Winberg: Thank you, Mr Chair, members of the committee. We appreciate your attention.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: We invite the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, Mr Brian Kelsey, legal counsel. Ms Vanstone is not here.

Mr Brian Kelsey: No. She apologizes for her absence. She is at the moment with the Minister of Education and Training at a press conference announcing the government initiatives with respect to aid to expelled students. She apologizes for her absence and hopes that my presence is sufficient compensation.

The Chair: Of course. She was an old colleague; that's why I raised the comment. But that's all right.

Mr Kelsey: You have before you, Mr Chairman, members, the brief that's been prepared and submitted on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, and you can take it that it has the support of the area boards, all the public boards in Metropolitan Toronto. I'm not going to deal with what it contains in detail. You'll notice that there are some 17 items of detail in the legislation that are dealt with in the brief. It's set up fairly clearly so that the particular clause is referred to, what it contains, what the previous school board position in relation to the earlier proposed legislation was, and then followed by the recommendation.

The only matters that I want to deal with or make submissions on in the short time available now are with respect to the provisions with regard to disclosure statements and the powers of the commissioner. I might say that all the trustees support the general intent of the legislation, provided that one understands that the overall intention of the legislation is disinterested decisions. The legislation must, I suggest, be looked at in that overall context because that requires a balancing of the need for public awareness of what might influence trustees in their decisions and, on the other hand, the legitimate interest that trustees have in privacy with regard to financial information.

On the specific provisions with regard to disclosure statements, I would ask the members these questions:

First of all, are open-ended disclosure statements of all assets and income, which are allowed under this legislation, required for trustees of school boards? Are not trustees of school boards in a somewhat different position than members of municipal councils?

1040

The second question is, should the content of disclosure statements be left solely to the executive? Isn't it necessary, as in the freedom of information and privacy legislation, that the legislation itself address itself to the principles which are required to be observed in order that the purpose of the legislation can be carried out, rather than, as it would appear from this legislation, as some people might take it, the attitude has been, "Well, if we provide everyone to provide all information, then we're covered"? That to me, with respect, seems a somewhat simplistic approach. You have to balance on the one side the desire for full disclosure where necessary, and on the other hand the need to protect privacy where necessary.

The third question is, is it necessary to have automatic public access to the information provided? I would suggest that there's a difference between, on the one hand, members of the municipal councils who are dealing with property issues as a matter of course, and school board trustees on the other. The school board trustees deal, on the whole, to a modest extent with property issues. They also are dealing of course with putting out contracts to independent suppliers. One may ask, have the conflict-of-interest rules been insufficient to ensure that school board decisions are made on the basis of the public rather than the private interest? Before requiring complete disclosure, as this legislation does, of all income and assets, one has to ask the question, has there been discovered in the province an evil that is necessary to get rid of? To get rid of that evil, is it necessary to require every trustee theoretically, as matters stand, to disclose every financial interest and source of income that the trustee has, without regard to jurisdiction?

One might, as a matter of principle, for example, say that only property interests within the jurisdiction of that trustee are relevant to the trustee's decisions. So anyone can say that only property within the province is relevant to the trustee's decisions. As it stands, it's left to the executive, and the draft statement of financial information which has been produced would require disclosure of all assets and all income, wherever they are.

I would suggest that what the legislation requires, as the freedom of information and privacy legislation does, is an indication of the principles upon which the government conceives it necessary for trustees to disclose financial information, what financial information needs to be disclosed to ensure decisions of trustees are made in a disinterested fashion, and then a broad delegation to the cabinet to decide exactly what is to be disclosed without any guidance given either to the public or to the cabinet as to the principles upon which that discretion should be exercised. It's our submission that the public is entitled in the legislation to an indication of the principles upon which the government and the Legislature are acting in asking that all trustees disclose all their assets and all their income.

The other aspect is, why should this information, or the information that is determined to be necessary by the Legislature rather than by the government, have to become automatically public? This kind of information under the freedom of information legislation would not; in fact, it would be protected as prima facie private information not to be divulged, and then the power is given to the commissioner under that legislation to decide in any particular case whether the public interest outweighs the need for the protection of private information. In other words, there's a balancing of interests. One might ask whether this legislation is more aptly entitled an absolute disclosure of interests rather than a balanced disclosure of interests, whether adequate attention has been paid to the need to protect privacy without -- there are circumstances where that privacy can be protected and the public interest is not harmed. One can imagine, particularly I think outside Metropolitan Toronto, that there would be a lot of people in smaller communities who would be very interested in finding out what the assets and incomes of trustees were, not for any public purpose, but for the satisfaction of their own private interests.

One way, I suggest, of dealing with that problem would be to have the disclosure initially, as it is under the freedom of information legislation, disclosed to the commissioner appointed under this legislation, and then that a decision be made by him in the particular case as to whether it is necessary to disclose that information. So rather than, as it's presently proposed, having the disclosure, if it is deemed necessary for trustees, automatically a matter of public record, initially it becomes a matter of record within the office of the commissioner. Then, upon application by a particular individual, the way the freedom of information commissioner does, a decision is made in each case based upon his knowledge and an investigation, which I'll mention in a minute, as to whether it's necessary in the public interest to divulge that information in the particular instance. There is, as I say, a model already set up under the freedom of information legislation for that kind of balancing of interests between the need of the public to know and the need of the individual to protect legitimately private interests in particular cases.

The position on that issue, in summary, first of all is that it's highly questionable as to whether it's necessary to include school trustees in the financial disclosure statement provisions; that, if it is necessary, the legislation itself should set out at least the type of information or the principles upon which what kind of information needs to be disclosed should be set out; and, thirdly, that the information should not automatically be made public, but that decisions be made in particular cases, balancing the interests.

The only guidance at the moment -- for example, in section 3 there's a whole list of types of interests that are not regarded as pecuniary interests for the purpose of the legislation. One of them, I think the last one under (m), is information or an interest that is remote or insignificant, which, although broad, at least is some kind of guidance to indicate whether the interest is pecuniary or not. In relation to the financial disclosure statements, there's no kind of guidance of that sort at all.

The only other thing I wanted to mention at this stage is the functions of the commissioner, so that the commissioner at least be in a situation where the various functions that he carries out be consistent. It's suggested that there be no power under the legislation to give him additional duties, because already at the moment he or she would be obliged to provide guidelines to trustees as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. The commissioner then has an investigative function, then has a function exercising the powers under part II of the Public Inquiries Act which would give the commissioner the right to subpoena and examine under oath, and then another aspect, the right to act as prosecutor and to bring proceedings.

As indicated in the brief, there is a large question as to whether the extensive powers given the commissioner in investigation -- the right to commence proceedings without acting on a sworn declaration of a belief of a violation of the act and the right to see all the proceedings of institutions and the papers of individuals without going to an independent body to swear out a warrant -- may well be in breach of the information and warrant provisions of the charter that examination should be given to that aspect to make sure, as I say, that the functions and duties of the commissioner are all consistent with each other, and then to bring into harmony with that, what I just mentioned a little earlier, that the commissioner should have the kind of intervening role between the public and the individual to make sure the information which is made public is in fact -- that decisions are made in the public interest.

1050

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kelsey. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and there won't be sufficient time to ask you questions, so we thank you. Ms Vanstone, welcome.

Ms Anne Vanstone: I am sorry I'm late.

The Chair: I understand. He mentioned where you were. We thank you for coming and thank you for participating in these hearings.

Mr Kelsey: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr Curling: I didn't ask about going on.

The Chair: No, but -- Mr Curling, I'm sorry.

Mr Curling: What do you want?

The Chair: If we go on, we will run way over time.

Mr Curling: I didn't ask you what -- I didn't ask you a thing yet. Why are you objecting to me even --

The Chair: Because already this has taken a great deal of time.

Mr Curling: Because you have not allowed me to say what I have to say. Mr Chairman, I just wondered why the board only had 15 minutes and others had half an hour.

The Chair: They weren't scheduled to be heard. There was a cancellation. That's why they were able to fit into that 15-minute slot.

Mr Curling: That's all I asked.

The Chair: That's what we did. Thank you, Mr Curling.

Mr Kelsey: We were offered 15 minutes on Friday and we took what was available.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kelsey. Thank you, Ms Vanstone.

WINCH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The Chair: We invite Mr Melvin Winch. Welcome. Please begin any time you're ready.

Mr Melvin Winch: I want to thank the committee for the opportunity of commenting on Bill 163. My remarks will be directed towards one particular section, namely the approval of what is commonly known as "minor variances." I noticed, of course, that the previous speaker this morning did comment on this matter somewhat in general terms. I want to focus in on some detail. I think it's quite important.

If, as I proceed through my brief, my comments and suggestions appear to be self-serving, your impression is correct. A substantial component of my planning practice is assisting with committee of adjustment applications and providing expert witness testimony on appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board. My remarks to this committee are based not only on this direct and substantial experience, but also as an individual who has worked in the public sector in senior roles for several municipalities.

Section 25 of the bill repeals the current section of the Planning Act dealing with minor variance applications. The new provisions would permit a council to select one of the following three options for the approval of minor variance applications.

Option 1: Council has the authority to approve applications. There would be no appeal, however, from council decisions.

Option 2: Council may delegate its authority to a committee of council or an appointed official. There would be no appeals from decisions under these arrangements as well.

Option 3: Council may delegate its authority to a committee of adjustment consisting of council members and citizen members or of citizen members only. If the committee consists of only citizen members, council may decide to review committee decisions.

Currently, decisions of the committee of adjustment can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. With the new legislation, the right of appeal will be denied to applicants and objectors. It will be replaced with an optional "council review" which council may decide to apply under option 3 only, and only if the committee of adjustment consists of all citizen appointees. Very, very restrictive.

The new legislation dealing with minor variances and other changes to the Planning Act originated with the Sewell commission. The commission recommended that appeals of minor variance decisions be heard by the municipal council, but this has been watered down in Bill 163 to an optional review that might occur in limited situations.

What is the importance of the current appeal procedure? The proposal to do away with appeals before the OMB and replace them with an optional but limited review of decisions by municipal council is, in my opinion, unsound for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the significance of minor variances: The Sewell commission states that minor variances deal with "zoning detail" and the issues are "too insignificant" to be dealt with by a provincial appeal body.

The term "minor variances," as other speakers have indicated earlier, is not defined in the act, but a successful application is required to meet four tests set out in the current legislation. In the final analysis, it is judgemental on the part of a committee of adjustment or municipal board as to whether the tests are met.

The granting or refusal of a variance to alter, for example, the height, size or placement of a building can be quite significant to both the proponent and community in which the proposed development is situated. While changes in use are usually accomplished through an application to amend the zoning bylaw, they can also be facilitated through the committee of adjustment authority contained in section 45 of the act.

There are numerous examples of committees granting substantial departures from comprehensive zoning bylaws or site-specific bylaws that were carefully formulated after consultation with the public. This is often done, I might add, with the blessing of the local councillor but without the backup staff reports and without full community participation. With the new procedure, the community loses its existing right of appeal.

The Sewell commission and the new legislation have understated the significance of the authority given to committees of adjustment. It is important that a sound approval and appeal process be in place so that all of the relevant issues will be thoroughly considered and a fair and objective decision be reached. It is also important that the process be perceived as fair to all the interests.

The second reason: Committees of adjustment conduct limited hearings at the present time.

While committees of adjustment are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, hearings tend to be somewhat informal and limited in time. I have never seen an oath administered, I have never seen expert witness evidence led by counsel, nor cross-examination permitted.

Committee members are lobbied, particularly by council members, and frequently meet before a hearing is held and arrive at an unofficial decision before hearing all the parties. It is not unheard of for applicants or opponents to say they are going through the motions and will have their day in court at the OMB. Under such circumstances, the appeal procedure must not be eliminated.

The third reason: Municipal councils are not appropriate appeal bodies. I think a number of members of this committee have served in local council positions and, hopefully, will attest to this as well. The municipal council is not well suited to consider minor variance applications or appeals. Councils, for the most part, have legislative and administrative functions to perform, which are based on perceived political mandates.

Members of council do not have the time, interest, necessary skills or, most important, the objectivity to deal with appeals of various decisions. It is one thing for the council to hold a public hearing before legislating on a planning matter. It is entirely different, however, to expect the council to act in a quasi-judicial manner, which is expected in matters of appeal.

Elected members of federal, provincial and municipal legislative bodies expect to be lobbied by their constituents and other interest groups. While tradition and law dictate that the courts and tribunals, such as the Ontario Municipal Board, are not be influenced prior to a hearing being held, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for councillors to avoid being lobbied and coming to a conclusion on a minor variance matter before it is heard.

Not only is the appeal process less meaningful with the new legislation but it is solely at the option of the council as to whether it chooses to review committee of adjustment decisions. Where variances are considered by the council or delegated to a committee of council or an appointed official or to a committee of adjustment with at least one member of council, the review option is not available.

Part or all of a committee of adjustment can consist of council members. It is not uncommon for council members, individually or collectively, to send a recommendation to, appear as a deputant before, or appeal a decision of the committee of adjustment. In such circumstances in particular, it is not possible for a council to be objective and be expected to deal fairly with such appeals. Council should not be judging the decisions of those to whom it delegated its authority.

The fourth reason deals with concurrent severance applications, which also accompany, in many cases, variance applications.

Many minor variance applications involve a concurrent application to sever property into two or more parcels. While appeals of minor variances will no longer be heard by the municipal board, the board will continue to hear appeals relating to severances or what are known as consents. A situation whereby minor variance decisions may not be appealed or can only be reviewed by council but the severance decision can be appealed and heard by the OMB is confusing, inefficient and wasteful of resources. The same development proposal can lead to two different results.

1100

Fifth: The removal of appeals will increase the number of rezoning applications. I will just touch briefly upon what the speakers mentioned this morning.

If a proponent receives a negative decision from a council, committee of council, appointed official or committee of adjustment, and if his review by council is unsuccessful, he still has the option of submitting a rezoning application and having the appeal ultimately heard by the municipal board.

Removing the right of appeal to the OMB for minor variance applications will likely increase the number of applications and appeals. This is counterproductive and is not the intent of the new legislation. On the other hand, if an opponent of a proposal is not able to convince the decision-maker of his position, he cannot take the matter to the OMB. This, I submit, is fundamentally unfair.

The sixth and final reason: Fairness should not be sacrificed in the name of expediency. The Sewell commission's recommendations, which are more or less reflected in the new legislation, have been driven to a very large degree by the commission's other recommendations, which would see the municipal board take on additional responsibilities. There was also a legitimate concern with the excessive time it takes for appeals to be heard. The appeal process should be concluded in a considerably shorter period of time, and there can be no doubt that the OMB is overburdened. Nevertheless, minor variances should not be trivialized, and removing appeals from the jurisdiction of the board is not the answer.

In conclusion, minor variances and minor variance appeals should be continued, and they deserve to be treated with the same degree of importance and impartiality as do appeals of official plan, zoning, subdivision, severance, and site control matters. This should go hand in hand with efforts to reduce the number of appeals by increased mediation and by greater screening of appeals, as recommended by the commission and provided for in Bill 163, and by arranging for hearings and explaining decisions within reasonable time frames.

If I may, the suggestion put forward by the Canadian Bar Association whereby there could be a procedure built in for applicants or opponents to request leave to appeal should seriously be considered by the committee and by the Legislature.

This can best be accomplished by strengthening the resources of the OMB. The highly politicized environment of a municipal council is not an appropriate forum to consider appeals. The little guy or little woman has to be protected.

I hope these comments will prove useful to the committee's deliberations and that the appropriate changes to Bill 163 will be made before third reading. Again I want to thank the committee for its attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winch, for taking the time to come to this committee and to communicate your concerns to us. Unfortunately, there's not enough time for questions, because once we get into questions we would then be late for all the others. We appreciate your coming and we appreciate your participation.

CITY OF NORTH YORK

The Chair: We invite the city of North York, Mayor Mel Lastman. Welcome. You have half an hour for your presentation. Please leave as much time as you can for questions. We've had a difficult time this morning having the members ask questions because we're running out of time, so if you can, leave as much time as you can.

Mr Mel Lastman: I would like to thank you very much for having me. This is probably the second time I've appeared before a committee here, and both times it's been the same committee. So thank you very much. This time I brought my glasses. Last time, I had to borrow somebody's.

North York supports the proposed changes to the Planning Act. Giving the task of approving local official plans and official plan amendments to the local area municipalities is still the way to go in Metropolitan Toronto. We have the skills and the staff to do the best planning. We know and understand the needs of our communities. We know at first hand what will benefit our existing neighbourhoods.

North York is noted for consulting our communities extensively throughout the planning process to protect stable residential communities. We have begun to encourage even more community participation by involving citizens very early in the process in a meaningful dialogue.

Metro is too big a bureaucracy and too far removed from our communities to do the job properly. There is no accountability at Metro. A Metro councillor from Scarborough or Etobicoke should not be making planning decisions for North York, just as a North York Metro councillor would not care what happens in Scarborough or Etobicoke. They don't have the time and don't take the time to find out, and what happens is that they say, "Well, what do you want me to do?" They ask a North York representative who isn't even involved in the planning, or Etobicoke or Scarborough or whatever, and therefore a lot of things get derailed.

Unless you have party politics at the Metro level -- which I am not encouraging, but I'm telling you, unless you have party politics at the Metro level -- where there would at least be some accountability to the taxpayers, don't make this move. It's a very dangerous and bad move to make. If the province wants to streamline the planning process for efficiency, keep Metro out of it. In our experience, we found that Metro complicates the process and in fact is often counterproductive.

I foresee real problems if Metro has more say over local planning issues: duplication of public meetings; overlapping functions; community confusion about who is in control of planning; Metro undermining city agreements; delays, after decisions have been made and things are well on their way, due to new rounds of extra meetings and negotiations.

Here are a few examples of Metro slowing down the approval process and bogging it down needlessly with bureaucratic red tape and delays.

Metro council delayed our important Bridgehome 2000 development project for six months, for no good reason, even though the Metro staff were completely involved in the planning right from the start. Metro staff supported the North York decision, yet some councillors still wanted to hold public meetings after North York had approved the development. North York looked after every one of Metro's concerns, as well as the city of York's.

For example, here are some of the things we put into the agreement. Never has an agreement been written with so many things in it, and yet Metro held it up for six months.

-- Metro must be satisfied that road improvements address all their concerns, including new signal lights, before moving to phase 2.

-- The developer must do road improvements to Trethewey Drive, Black Creek Drive, and other intersection improvements as identified by Metro.

-- Before moving to phase 2, Metro council must be satisfied that there is sufficient sewer capacity.

-- Before moving to phase 2, the city of York and Metro have to be satisfied that there are no traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods.

-- All enforcement conditions on the site have to be clean before anything gets developed.

-- Metro police will be asked to comment on the site plan to ensure that safety and security are satisfied.

-- Schools will not be built next to the railway tracks or next to the industrial lands.

-- The commercial and industrial portions of development that will create jobs will be developed within a reasonable period of time.

-- If, for some reason, future phases cannot proceed, council may zone for a 20-unit-per-acre town house development.

Everything was put in there to protect Metro and the city of York, yet Metro found it necessary to delay this for six months, for no reason, no good reason at all. North York had dealt with the application for two and a half years.

Many, many people came out to these public hearings. They were concerned. North York held 26 meetings with ratepayers addressing ratepayer concerns. There were two public meetings at North York council, one meeting at our planning advisory committee, six developer meetings at our planning advisory committee, with ratepayers invited, there were four open houses with over 4,000 notices sent out, plus nine staff technical meetings.

After all this, Metro began demanding a public meeting, and for what reason? Because two Metro councillors had their noses out of joint. This was a frivolous and irresponsible delay -- the staff were fully supportive of this entire process North York had gone through and everything that was in there -- and a ridiculous notion, given that Metro council doesn't hold public hearings.

By the way, I pointed out to them as well that there would be only three people opposing at the OMB, and only one was a private citizen. This is a major, major development, on which we aired out all the concerns and worked with the ratepayers and everybody involved, including Metro and the city of York, and only three people were going to oppose it and only one was a ratepayer, a private citizen.

1110

Metro council also delayed for eight months our plan to revitalize our dormant industrial areas with modest office uses, after two years of hard work. That's OPA 369, which you passed without any problems. During this time, many more industries closed up and moved away, leaving many more empty buildings. Many workers found themselves without jobs because of this delay.

Metro stalled our agreement for advertising in transit shelters, leading to delays in getting new transit shelters in place, because they thought there was a gold mine hidden somewhere there.

Metro advanced the tax levy due date, which cost North York $2.5 million and forced us to borrow $100 million out of our reserves to cover property tax payments that had not been received. The point I'm making here is that they did this without consultation, and this was the beginning of Metro not consulting with the area municipalities or working with the area municipalities.

Here is one more recent example of Metro meddling in local issues and abusing its powers. Just recently, in fact just a week ago -- well, we received a letter a week ago -- a couple of months ago we approved a three-storey building of 34 town houses and 16 apartment units at Sheppard West and Cocksfield, near the Bathurst area. We had two public hearings at two council meetings and we spent a great deal of time working to satisfy the area residents. They had concerns about on-street parking, vagrants and vandals, so at the request of the local ratepayers, council decided not to have a pedestrian walkway from the local street, and the ratepayers were completely satisfied -- completely. The development fit our secondary plan. The ratepayers and developer both liked it.

As always, Metro had an opportunity to comment on the application, and they did so. Metro staff wanted the walkway included, but North York council sided with the residents and deleted it from the plan. Then we received a disturbing letter from Metro planning implying that if we did not open the walkway, Metro would withhold other approvals; there's a copy of this letter attached, if you like. The local residents told us repeatedly that they did not want this walkway, but Metro staff appeared to take a tantrum because they did not get their own way. The only outstanding approval for this development is the site plan, which Metro has no role in whatsoever, but there are permits and licences requiring Metro's rubber stamp which they imply that they may withhold.

To hold up an application unless we agree with Metro staff on a relatively minor point is just short of extortion. If an issue did not fall under federal jurisdiction, how would any of you like it if your approved plans were endangered by some bureaucrat at the federal level?

That is not reason enough to hold up a development that everyone is happy with, but it is a good enough reason to seriously question Metro's involvement in our planning process.

North York is committed to action, not obstacles. North York is committed to consultation, not confrontation.

In May 1994 North York council unanimously adopted a motion that I put forward to have even greater citizen involvement in the planning process. This will not be achieved if North York citizens have to go all the way down to John Street in the city of Toronto for a public meeting. Citizen input would most certainly suffer, contrary to North York's wish.

Again I repeat, North York council holds public hearings on all planning items in our council chamber, with all members of council present just about all the time. This will never happen at Metro council. Metro council cannot possibly hold public hearings on all planning matters with all members present, and this would frustrate our ratepayers, who are accustomed to and appreciate North York's open approach. If Metro council held a public hearing for all six municipalities, they couldn't get anything else done. And they will never hold public hearings at their council chamber.

Our North York residents have participated in the development of some very significant secondary plans, such as -- well, Anthony Perruzza would know all about it -- our York University, Bridgehome, and the uptown and the south downtown.

The uptown for Yonge Street: We met with the ratepayers for over three years until we finally came up with something we could introduce to council. The secondary plan for the downtown, that took over two years, meeting constantly and getting ideas from them. This would never, never happen at Metro.

Ratepayer involvement in planning was the cornerstone of building our downtown. Their input not only reduced the amount of conflict but strengthened our original plans. As I said, this could never happen at Metro if they were involved. Metro wants to know why they are being treated differently from other regional municipalities; well, Metro is different than most other regional municipalities. Most of the regional municipalities don't have planning departments as well-staffed as ours who have been working with our ratepayers for many years, nor do most of the other regional towns and villages have the resources that we have in North York to do the job as well as we do. I know I can say the same for the other Metro municipalities.

I urge you to support the changes to the Planning Act, because if you don't support them, you are just going to destroy what is working well now. And if it works, why ruin it?

I have with me today as well -- I want to thank you for listening to me -- Paula Dill, who is our new planning commissioner, and George Dixon, our solicitor. If there are any questions, we'll be happy to answer them.

The Chair: There is time for questions, so we'll begin with Mr Curling, approximately four minutes and a half.

Mr Curling: Thanks again, Mayor Lastman, for your presentation. You're always forthright and direct. You mentioned here the dictation of Metro which more or less intervenes in some of the plans that you have made after you've done all of your public consultation.

The concern that we're hearing outside too -- and I ask you to go a little bit more corporate in some of your comments here -- is that the policy and the legislation is a top-down situation where there is a dictation by the provincial government to adhere to their policy. Therefore, that's a bit of interference too. It has no community input that they can determine their own destiny, because they know exactly what's going on within their community. They are pretty concerned about that.

The other part is that most of the directions will be left to regulations which they haven't got either. They're also concerned that they don't know what they are really doing unless they have seen the regulation. In the meantime the policy will be dictated and in the meantime the policy here cannot be argued on or even changed. I just wondered if you could comment there on those two points.

Mr Lastman: Alvin, are you referring to whether we like what the province is doing in handling it versus --

Mr Curling: Yes.

Mr Lastman: Okay. We'd rather do it ourselves. But if we have a choice between the province and Metro, we'd rather have the province do it the way it's being done right now, because of the delays. We have to get it done, your law says, within six months. It takes the province sometimes eight months because of the backlog. But anytime, anything, rather than having Metro do it, because we know what the heck this is all about and the frustration that we're having. If there are no objections, why not just leave it with the municipality? Anything is better than having Metro do it.

Mr Curling: What I'm hearing too is that poor administrations now will require legislation in order for them to carry it out. In other words, you said to go on, proceed with this, support this legislation here because you want to get on with what you have to do. Isn't it because many of the government levels have not carried out their jobs efficiently so we need legislation to dictate to them, to force them to do this, is what you are saying?

Interjections.

The Chair: No. Mr Lastman is the one that's --

Mr Lastman: Paul, maybe you can answer that -- or George, maybe you can respond to that better than I can.

The Chair: It's a political question actually.

1120

Mr Curling: This is not a political question.

Mr Lastman: I'm looking for all your support; I'm not just looking -- I can't get involved in this.

Mr Curling: What you're saying here is that Metro holds up your plan and the fact is that they're saying, "They're holding up our plan." The legislation will put time frames in and say you must meet by that. If we have those in, you cannot play politics with it, is what you're saying.

Mr Lastman: That's right. The two people, the two Metro councillors who held it up and wanted the public hearing, both voted for it. I'm sorry; I shouldn't say that. Both did not oppose it. One voted for it and the other one declared a conflict of interest. He held it up at the committee level and then declared a conflict of interest at the council because the law says now you can do that.

Mr Curling: So if there is a legislation to say you must do it within that time, you'd have to do it.

Mr Lastman: But what good is that if you're undoing the agreement that we've already got in place? You should see the things we've got for the community; it's unbelievable the things, you know. There's a 10-acre park; a 20,000-square-foot community centre; four acres set aside for two schools in the park; a total cash contribution of $7 million including $1.6 million for the Amesbury Community Centre. This is a major development and we got a lot of things for the community.

If Metro start fooling around with this or somebody else starts trying to make another deal, we're going to lose a lot of this because they are -- and they're going to make it maybe impossible for the guy to handle it. Who does he talk to? Who does he agree with if you have another level of government getting involved, having public hearings and trying to get more or changing things that the developer already gave? Who does he talk to? Who does he make his deal with? The whole thing is getting ridiculous if it goes this way with Metro.

The Chair: Monsieur Grandmaître, one last question.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Mayor, this is not the first time that I've heard municipalities in Metro saying, "We are different," and the rest of the province are saying, "Yes, it is. We all agree that Metro is different, but don't apply the same rules that fit or don't fit Metro throughout the rest of the province," and I agree with them. So what you're saying, if we all agree that planning is the future of our communities, of our municipalities in the province of Ontario, and you say that Metro is so different that Bill 163 should apply to Metro, right -- you say that it's good legislation and support it?

Mr Lastman: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: But for the rest of the province, for 830 municipalities, it's different. That's difficult to swallow. Mr Mayor, is it your intention, if you don't agree that planning is so important for this province, that you want Metro dismantled?

Mr Lastman: No.

Mr Grandmaître: No?

Mr Lastman: I don't know if I want -- I'm not asking for Metro to be dismantled, Ben.

Mr Grandmaître: No, that's not political; it's planning.

Mr Lastman: Ben, Metro themselves tell you that they're different when it comes to funding, when they want more money or they want something. So they are different, there's no two ways about it, but they don't want to be treated differently this way; other ways they want to be treated differently. They can't have it both ways.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but that's --

The Chair: Monsieur Grandmaître, sorry, we ran out of time. Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: Why is it that Metro has the power over the other municipalities? All municipalities around Metro, including Scarborough, Etobicoke, does it have planning power over top of them all?

Mr Lastman: Yes. We have to comply with their master plan.

Mr McLean: I thought there was going to be a vote to do away with Metro.

Mr Lastman: Toronto is having one, the city of Toronto.

Mr McLean: Would you agree with that?

Mr Lastman: No, I don't think so, no.

Mr McLean: But you feel that the planning power that they have --

Mr Lastman: I think there could be some changes to make Metro more accountable, but it's not accountable now because somebody in Scarborough, what do they care really what happens at North York? In a government, you know what to do. If they don't like -- let me use a prime minister -- the former prime minister, they knew who to vote against, but here at Metro, who do you get rid of? You don't know. There's nobody accountable to anybody and nobody gets deeply involved in local plans, nobody at Metro council.

Mr McLean: Who has the power to take the planning authority away from Metro?

Mr Lastman: The province does.

Mr McLean: And do you feel that they should?

Mr Lastman: I'd like it, yes, because it's nothing but a problem, nothing but headaches.

Mr McLean: But would the other mayors agree with you?

Mr Lastman: I think so, yes. In fact, I think they had me sign something to say that this should be stopped as quickly as possible and Metro should not be given this power.

Mr McLean: Could I ask the parliamentary assistant, would you feel that would be an appropriate step?

Mr Hayes: What was the question exactly?

Mr McLean: To do away with Metro as a senior bureaucracy in planning.

Mr Hayes: Right now we are not giving them, in this legislation, the power to approve official plans, and I think Mr Lastman is here supporting what the province is doing on that.

Mr McLean: You want to take the power away from them in this legislation of what they've got now?

Mr Hayes: No. They're asking for the power to approve and we have not agreed with them.

Mr McLean: We've got it muddied pretty good.

Mr Lastman: We'd like to see it at the local level but if we can't get it at the local level, please keep it at the province. Don't give it to Metro.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Harrington and then Mr Perruzza.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you, Mayor Lastman, for coming forward today and stating in fact that you are in favour of this legislation in the very first sentence. The whole point of the legislation is to reform the planning system in Ontario, and I think there are very few people who would say that the old system as it was is the way it should be. What we are trying to do is have more emphasis on environmental planning; secondly, give more power to the municipalities; and thirdly, streamline the process and aid in economic development.

What we've heard this morning from the Ontario bar association is that they do want the old system and they feel this will make Ontario less competitive. So I'd like to hear your point of view a little more fully on the broader parts of the bill. Do you feel this will help the competitiveness of Ontario? And what would you say to the Ontario bar association?

Mr Lastman: The bar association?

Ms Harrington: They want the old system of planning.

Ms Paula Dill: Generally, the city of North York is in favour of the legislation. Specifically, clarifying the province's position on policy matters is a positive step. Therefore, that would eliminate time delays and would clarify the roles more clearly, which, I think, is positive response to the Ontario bar, because it wasn't in the last act.

There are certain streamlining measures which we think are appropriate and positive, but then again, coupled with some of the time limits suggested, we have some problems. For instance, the six months required to do a development that is required by the municipality is positive; we can live with that. However, the five months that the province has taken we feel is a bit onerous. It could be made more efficient.

There are some separate streams for the committee of adjustment in terms of minor variances and the province has requested that the time period be lengthened to 30 days for the notice. The time period is shorter now. Most committees of adjustment work fine within that. Why lengthen the process?

We feel that establishing a development permit system is a positive initiative.

Enabling municipalities to require land conveyances for public transit right of ways under site plan approval is a positive initiative.

Introducing the principle of controlling sewer and water allocations through the subdivision approval process is positive as well.

There are some other minor areas, but generally the act is not that prescriptive and clear, and in those areas that I've just mentioned, North York is supportive.

The wording contained in the comprehensive policy statement should not be as directive as it is. We would like more of an interpretation in terms of having the province clearly focus on the broad policy level and letting the municipalities make the decisions that suit the local needs. I think the mayor has clarified that quite well.

An official plan process should be introduced which fully integrates the requirements of the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act with one single ministry as the coordinator, because that would truly save time and money, in our opinion.

The requirement that public hearings be held for subdivisions would seem unnecessary since hearings are held at the principal development stage, at the official plan and the zoning level.

I think that is in general some of the responses that we would have to the Ontario bar.

Ms Harrington: Thank you very much. I would like Mr Perruzza to get his question on the record.

Mr Lastman: Environmental control, that should be Metro. That's vital, it's important and Metro should be very concerned with that. They should be involved with that. They should be involved with the sewers, the bridges, the major arterial roads and so on. This is all important and vital that Metro should be doing this.

1130

Mr Perruzza: I too would like to welcome the mayor and the city of North York delegation to the committee. As always, I enjoy the mayor's comments whenever I have an opportunity to hear him speak.

Just to pick up a little bit on what Mr Curling and, to some degree, Mr Grandmaître were alluding to: The Metro situation per se vis-à-vis the new bill is somewhat different in terms of its application than the rest of the province, because, as you know, there's very little in terms of agricultural area within Metro, unless you include in that people's backyards and their gardens. The natural habitats to some degree are designated as such currently.

In picking up on the top-down provincial government planning approach where you usurp the authority of the local councils, I don't think that's something that happens with this bill and with this legislation in that the local councils, quite rightly, have significant control over what happens to their neighbourhoods and to their community, although housing is and would be a question mark.

I appreciate the mayor's steering away from the governance question when it was asked by Mr McLean so that we don't get into a kerfuffle today with Metro, but there are definitely some issues which I believe at some point need to be ironed out with respect to the duplications and the costs involved and the squabbles and the delays and all of those matters, because the Metro case is different again in that regard from many of the other regions across Ontario. You really, as a Metro member, don't have an opportunity to pick up on that until you get out there into the regions and into the small towns and rural communities, and quite truly I've discovered that that's the case.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but please don't ask your question because we'll run way over time now. So finish the comment.

Mr Perruzza: I was going to lead into a question, but just to clear that up and just to say that I agree with the city of North York's position in local control of planning, because I believe that if the local councils lost that local right, all of our communities across Metro would suffer. But we need to clean up some of those other areas as well.

The Chair: Mayor Lastman, we ran out of time. This committee is always happy to see you and we thank you and your staff --

Mr Lastman: The few who are left.

The Chair: Thank you all for coming and sharing your views with this committee.

Mr Lastman: Thank you very much.

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE

The Chair: We invite the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, Mr Tony Usher and Ms Marni Cappe, chair of the working group on Bill 163. Welcome to this committee.

Mr Tony Usher: Thank you, Mr Marchese, and members of the committee. Marni Cappe, who is with me, is from the city of Ottawa. She is one of the key members of our public policy committee and she coordinated our efforts in preparing this brief. I'm the president of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. I'm going to make some remarks and then we will both try to deal with any questions you may have.

The Ontario Professional Planners Institute is the professional body of planners in Ontario. It is also the Ontario affiliate of the Canadian Institute of Planners. OPPI represents 2,100 working planners from a very wide spectrum of practice in both the public and private sectors. Whomever we work for, our job is to protect and promote the public interest in improving the quality of Ontario's environments and communities.

OPPI has made significant contributions to planning reform. Our five submissions from the beginning to end of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario were developed by a volunteer committee that drew on the wide range of our members' expertise. This strong commitment continued with a submission to the province on the New Approach to Land Use Planning consultation paper, and it now carries forward to the next phase of the process, not only with this submission but also with our participation in the provincial implementation committees and working groups.

Before we turn to our brief, I'd like to speak to a couple of broader issues which are very important to us and which we have consistently advocated since the government embarked on planning reform three years ago, much to our applause. Bill 163 addresses only one part of the spectrum we planners deal with. This is our one chance in this three-year process to remind you, the ultimate decision-makers, of the bigger picture.

First, please don't forget that this process reviewed only the Planning Act, not the whole system of planning in Ontario. For example, during these three years, two concurrent reviews have been conducted of other portions of the planning system: one of the Environmental Assessment Act by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and one of public land and resource planning by the Ministry of Natural Resources. We're still a long way from an integrated, coordinated planning system in this province and there are other provinces that are well ahead of us in this.

The second point is that municipal restructuring has been the great unspoken issue of planning reform. The Commission on Planning and Development Reform adroitly avoided this issue and, by doing so, probably improved the saleability of its recommendations. However, most planners are convinced that planning reform will only achieve its full potential if and when extensive restructuring takes place.

Now I'd like to turn to our brief, which has been prepared in consideration of the three main principles that underlie planning reform. As articulated by Minister Philip, these are: municipal empowerment, protecting the environment, and streamlining the planning process. The minister is promoting the planning reform package as the embodiment of these principles.

We agree with much of the bill and we have not commented in our brief on those areas with which we concur. However, we remain concerned that the changes do not go far enough to realize the three principles of planning reform or, worse, that certain sections of the bill may deny them.

The first part of our brief is: empowering municipalities. In establishing the principle of empowerment as one of the cornerstones of the reform package, the minister has interpreted this to mean that municipalities will be given greater control over the development process. We also believe that the principle of empowerment must be rooted in a position of trust; that is, the province should respect the strengths of municipalities and trust them to make the right decisions, even if occasionally they make mistakes. We find that many of the proposed reforms only appear to give municipalities power. In fact, ultimate authority will remain with the province.

1140

Among our specific concerns enumerated in our brief are the following:

Purposes of the act: None of the statements of purpose embrace the principle of empowering municipalities; instead the provincial role is emphasized. If the province is sincere about supporting municipal empowerment, this principle should be explicitly articulated.

Provincial interests and policy statements: The amendments exempt ministers, other than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and they exempt other provincial agencies from having regard to provincial interests or from acting consistently with policy statements. We cannot agree with this exemption.

Policy statements: OPPI remains concerned with the requirement that decisions "shall be consistent with" policy statements. As expressed in our brief to the government on the consultation paper, the policy statements "are to be supreme to all other values, goals, and policies. The `shall be consistent with' clause ensures that supremacy.... The supremacy afforded to provincial policies...without the benefit and support of implementation guidelines to interpret those policy statements is the root of the problem" and of our concern.

The implementation guidelines that will support the policy statements must be prepared before we can support the use of the "shall be consistent with" clause. The guidelines must be flexible and allow for local adaptation while respecting the need for consistency in interpretation. We will continue to encourage the province to more fully involve the planning profession in the development of these important guidelines.

Joint municipal planning areas within counties: These amendments cause us concern with respect to the principle of empowerment and, to a lesser degree, the principle of streamlining. We believe that the concept of joint planning is valid in so far as the need exists to address important planning issues which transcend political boundaries. However, the implementation of that concept is flawed.

County planning is currently successful in many parts of the province. Enabling municipal planning authorities in these areas will undermine county planning authority as well as lead to duplication and confusion. Such consequences will contradict the foundation and principle of empowerment.

On the other hand, we can accept municipal planning authorities within counties where there is no prospect of county planning. We also fully support joint planning between abutting municipalities in different counties or regions, or between a separated municipality on the one hand, and its county or abutting municipalities within the county on the other hand.

Official plans and subdivisions in Metro Toronto: The amendments give approval authority for local official plans to regions that have official plans. As well, all regions will be given approval authority for plans of subdivision. However, the province's largest regional government will be exempted from these delegations. We see no justification for this.

Official plans of counties: The amendments do not give to counties with official plans the authority to approve local plans of their component municipalities. We see no reason to distinguish between regions with plans and counties with plans in this respect.

Subdivision approval authority: The amendments delegate subdivision approval authority to regions, and not to counties, regardless of whether the region or county has an approved plan. Incentives such as delegated authority should exist for municipalities to prepare official plans. We recommend that the authority to approve subdivisions be delegated to all regions and counties that have approved official plans.

The second section of our brief deals with protecting the environment.

The minister has identified environmental protection as a second cornerstone of the new approach to planning. Achievement of this largely rests on the implementation of the provincial policy statements, each of which contributes in its own way to this goal. We have already indicated our general support for the goals of the policy statements.

There's one key issue in Bill 163, however, under "Official plans -- prescribed process." The amendments appear to allow a municipality to prepare and adopt an official plan under the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. It is unclear on what basis a municipality would be able to choose this process. It's all left to regulation. We request that the minister provide details of the alternative process, and the mechanisms to apply to it, prior to approval of this section.

The third section of our brief deals with streamlining the planning process.

The minister has correctly identified the need for streamlining as a key goal of planning reform. The government maintains that the package of proposed changes will deliver a planning system which is more predictable, will generate fewer disputes and will achieve decisions in a timely manner. The government is on the right track and we endorse the principle of including specific time frames in the act.

However, we have serious concerns about the inconsistencies in the new act, particularly as they affect concurrent planning applications. In particular, the act should ensure that requirements for the adoption of official plans, zoning bylaws, subdivisions and consents are consistent in order to facilitate the approval of applications made concurrently.

Furthermore, we question whether the overall effect of the combined changes in the legislation will actually result in a more efficient system. Among our specific concerns are the following:

Official plans -- refusal to refer: The amendments set out criteria for approval authorities and the OMB to follow when considering the merits of an appeal. We cannot find any justification for exempting public bodies from meeting the requirement for prior written or oral submissions as a condition of appeal. We believe that all participants in the planning process should act responsibly and apply their available resources to meet a fair and consistent planning framework. All parties must be treated equally in terms of access to the process.

Official plans -- declaration of provincial interest: The amendments enable the province to declare a provincial interest as late as 30 days before a scheduled OMB hearing. We cannot support special provisions for the province in the absence of any justification. Bill 163 provides opportunities for extensive input from persons in public bodies, including all provincial ministries and agencies, during the plan preparation and approval process. Furthermore, one of the cornerstones of planning reform is to establish a framework that is led by provincial policy and implemented by municipal planning decisions which are consistent with such policies. It is indefensible that the province can wait until the last minute to declare an interest when adequate opportunities exist throughout the processing of a plan.

We are further concerned that OMB decisions will not be considered final where a provincial interest has been declared. The board's role as independent and final arbiter has been widely accepted by the planning community and the public at large.

Conditions of subdivisions: The amendments give any person the right to appeal conditions of subdivision approval. We do not agree that the general public has a right to appeal conditions of subdivision approval, which typically are onerous on the developer already. We believe the public's interests are adequately provided for by allowing "any person" to appeal the decision on a subdivision plan, which is when land use issues are considered.

Delegation to staff: We are concerned that the new legislation does not provide for delegation of approval authority to municipal staff, with the exception of development permits. Many upper-tier municipalities currently benefit from staff approval of undisputed subdivision and local official plan amendments. Municipalities should be trusted to make the right decision with respect to delegation of certain approval authorities to staff in order to facilitate the approvals process. Experience in some municipalities has shown that four to six weeks may be saved.

The fourth and final section deals with other matters of good planning, and among our concerns are:

Official plans -- mandatory local plans: We are very disappointed to see that mandatory planning by or for lower-tier municipalities is not part of the act.

We believe that, as currently drafted, the amendments appear to assign a higher priority to regional or county planning at the expense of local planning. We consistently advocated mandatory local planning either by local municipalities or by upper-tier authorities on their behalf in our previous submissions to the Commission on Planning and Development Reform.

Development permit areas: The amendments enable municipalities to appoint employees to carry out the duties required under the development permit system by delegating to them the necessary powers. We applaud this, but strongly recommend that delegation be assigned only to a qualified planner on staff or retainer. This wording would enable municipalities that so choose to use qualified consulting planners for delegated approval functions. The definition of "qualified planner" could be set in regulations and it should include, as of right, any full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Should the bill be revised to permit delegation of any other approval authority to staff, as we have suggested, we would propose that the same approach be used.

Thank you very much for your time, and we wish you every success in your deliberations.

1150

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, and thank you for your brief. The area I want to zero in on is "Official plans: prescribed process," with regard to section 9 of the bill, in terms of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. You say the definition of "prescribed materials" is left entirely to regulation, but we haven't seen any regulations yet. I'm wondering what your view would be with regard to what type of regulation we should have there to implement that.

Ms Marni Cappe: In our previous submissions and throughout the process of commenting on planning and development reform we had offered to work with the ministry to help flesh those out.

With respect to regulations, we have not, in our minds, designed the type of regulation that would be appropriate. I would echo the comments made by the previous speaker, the commissioner of planning for North York, to suggest that what we're looking for is a clear and unified system so that one approval only would be necessary. We would certainly like to see that assurance, that we would not have to go both through the Environmental Assessment Act and through the Planning Act to get approvals. That would be the ultimate objective we would be aiming for. With regard to the specifics, I think we would like an opportunity to sit down and help flesh those out.

Mr McLean: The other question I have is with regard to delegation to staff. You indicate, "Many upper-tier municipalities currently benefit from staff approval of undisputed subdivision and local official plan amendments." Would you say there are many subdivisions that are undisputed? I've never heard of very many.

Ms Cappe: The area I'm most familiar with is the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and we have been very successful in getting subdivisions approved. There are many, and I'm sorry I don't have the figures at hand, but we do monitor on a yearly basis our subdivision applications, and we have been able to knock anywhere from two to six months off the process through delegation to staff. We've enjoyed that privilege for a while and it has been a benefit, yes.

Mr McLean: The other area is the upper tier and the lower tier. In your brief you say every municipality should have an official plan. The lower tier's, however, would have to coincide with the upper tier's official plan. The question that's being asked is why it is necessary that perhaps all municipalities of a county put out an official plan when we're going to be dealing on the basis of what the upper-tier plan will be? Do you think it's necessary that every municipality should have an official plan?

Mr Usher: I think our view on this, Mr McLean, is that every area that is within a municipality should be covered by a plan that at least deals with lower-tier issues. It is true, we have never endorsed mandatory upper-tier plans. I don't think we have any problem with mandatory regional plans, but we have never endorsed mandatory upper-tier plans for counties, and of course there are a lot of single-tier municipalities, cities, and all through the north.

I think we have been realists about trying to force upper-tier planning all across the province, and we've never called for that. However, in those situations where there is no upper-tier planning, we still feel very strongly that some kind of plan or planning is required, and at least a plan that covers lower-tier subjects is a minimum. If they don't have upper-tier planning in those areas, so be it.

Mr McLean: I think the ministry, though, in its set of policy statements, is recommending that all upper tiers have an official plan within five years. That would cover what you're discussing.

Mr Usher: I stand to be corrected, but did they say that with respect to counties? They're leaving in the act that they're saying they'll be prescribed?

Mr McLean: Yes.

Mr Usher: Okay. There are still, of course, many areas that are in neither a region nor a county, again particularly in northern Ontario.

The Chair: Mr McKinstry would like to clarify a specific point.

Mr McKinstry: Just to clarify the requirement for upper-tier plans, there's nothing in the legislation that would require all upper tiers to have plans within five years. I just thought I'd let the committee know that.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much for your presentation. I found it very stimulating and it raises a number of points that I'm glad you highlighted.

The one I'd like to focus on has to do with your suggestions about county planning in conjunction with the planning for other jurisdictions within a county. You have a suggestion that you would like to see the county, I guess, have the priority. It's page 3 where you have the suggestion.

We've heard some strong submissions, as you probably would expect, from larger townships in particular, that question the ability of counties to plan for their circumstances, and then they're supporting the municipal planning authorities as being a sensible way of going. I'm just wondering, when you suggest that the region or the county could appoint the members of the municipal planning authority, how would that mechanism work, especially where a separated city is concerned in the county?

Ms Cappe: I think the intent of our recommendation was to apply to the establishment of municipal planning authorities where county planning exists, and this was in our particular model where we're supportive of joint planning between municipalities and abutting counties. In order to maintain the principle of keeping that power of planning at the county level where that already exists, we would recommend that the county then have a role in establishing a municipal planning authority for parts of its county abutting another county.

Mr Gary Wilson: You're confident then that the county can take into account the disparate interests, say, where it's lightly populated in one area but heavily populated in another -- that the plans the county comes up with could encompass both those interests?

Ms Cappe: I think we're confident, based on the success of many county plans that we've seen in Ontario, yes.

Ms Harrington: Thank you both very much for coming this morning. On the basis of my past experience sitting on the city council in the city of Niagara Falls, I have very high regard for professional planners and the job they do in trying to help politicians make the right decisions for the future. I believe planning is one of the very most important things that municipal councils do.

Two things I want to reinforce that you have said -- reinforce to our ministry -- is at the top of page 2, the fact that other ministries and provincial agencies are not bound by section 2 of the act. I think that is something very important that you've brought forward, and other groups as well.

Secondly, you're concerned with, "shall be consistent with." We know we have to have strong guidelines and consistency across the province -- I think that is very important -- but what you are asking for is implementation guidelines which would help the lower-tier municipalities, or municipalities in general, deal with this. That is a fair type of request and I think you are not objecting to "consistent with" but trying to make it work. Maybe you'd want to comment on that.

The other thing I would like to just ask you to comment on is if this legislation goes ahead, with certainly some adjustments here and there, do you think it will help or hinder the competitiveness of this province?

Mr Usher: Maybe in response to your first point, Ms Harrington -- although it's one of these things, like with municipal planning authorities. You will never get 2,100 planners to agree unanimously. I think the mainstream opinion in our profession will accept the wording, "shall be consistent with" when it's coupled with a flexible, to a reasonable degree, understandable implementation process.

We have always been concerned that throughout this process we have been asked to accept one half of the bargain without knowing what the other half of the bargain is, but we're not fundamentally -- we have never been fundamentally advocating that we should stick with "have regard to" or some other formulation. If, at the end of the day, we have a good process, we're happy with "shall be consistent with" and we will want to help the government make it work.

With regard to your other question about competitiveness, maybe my colleague might -- I don't know whether she is more willing to touch that one than I am. Although some of us are economists by training, I think planners very much believe that planning is there to support three -- it's a three-legged stool: environment, economy, social. We have often spoken out when we felt that planning policy is veering too much in one direction or the other of those three stools. So we very much support the economic as one of the primary objectives of planning reform and I think in our work we try to keep that as one of the primary focuses of what we do.

That said, most of us, I think, do not consider ourselves economic experts. We leave that to economic consultants, to economic development officers, to politicians who often in many cases have a more global sense, and to applicants.

I think we would be reluctant to give you a blanket opinion as to whether these reforms will improve the province's competitiveness. If they are good reforms, and we believe that a great deal of it is good, and if it is improved in the directions we suggest, then it will contribute to all three legs of the three-legged stool. If we have a better economy, then that's going to increase our competitiveness.

1200

Mr Grandmaître: You did have an opportunity to listen to the previous presentation, Mel Lastman. Mayor Lastman would love to have an exception for Metro and you say no exemption. Can you amplify on this?

Mr Usher: We didn't hear all of Mr Lastman's presentation.

Mr Grandmaître: Maybe I can give you his last comment, "For God's sake, don't give it to Metro, leave it in provincial hands." That's a great statement by Mr Mayor. Sorry, go ahead.

Mr Usher: Again, it's one of these things where we're never going to take a position that every planner in the province is going to agree with, including my colleague Ms Dill, the new commissioner who was sitting here a few moments ago and is a member of our institute. But I think generally we try to take mainstream positions that support comprehensive and equal treatment. That is what the majority of the planning profession wants and seeks. We're democrats and we're egalitarians and on that basis we find it difficult to see why Metro should not be given an approval power that Peel, when it gets an OP, or Oxford or Durham are going to get.

There is no question in the minds of many of us that there are governance problems in Metro, that there are coordination problems within the GTA, and we could probably talk about these at great length, but they're beyond -- although at the beginning of my presentation I mentioned that municipal organization is the quiet unseen issue behind this. None the less, with respect to Bill 163, we understandably remain silent on these points. Within the limits of Bill 163, we don't feel we can take any position other than say Metro should get the same treatment that other regions get.

Mr Grandmaître: Let's get on with joint planning. You don't necessarily agree that counties, for instance, should have joint planning privileges, if I can call them privileges. That's on page 2 of your submission, joint planning.

"This section causes us concern with respect to the principle of empowerment, and to a lesser degree, to streamlining." Can you amplify on this comment? That's point 1.5, joint planning.

Ms Cappe: I think the principal concern that we articulated in this section was that there are, as I've stated before, many counties in Ontario where there is a county plan and good county planning ongoing. The concern we had with the legislation is the ability of municipalities wholly within that county which is governed by an official plan, to themselves establish a municipal planning authority to deal with the separate issue without necessarily having regard for the county official plan.

I think we were concerned that this could lead to some confusion as to which took precedence, the county plan or the plan of the municipal planning authority -- furthermore, could lead to confusion and duplication.

What we offered by contrast was the opportunity for some joint planning exercises between municipalities while still respecting the counties who currently have or are in the process of developing their own official plans.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry, we've run out of time, Mr Grandmaitre, and Mr Hayes has to add a comment to clarify some other matter.

Mr Hayes: Really, on behalf of the government we're pleased that we do have the Ontario Professional Planners Institute that is involved in the implementation committee and on the technical committee. We certainly appreciate that and we think, with your assistance, a lot of these questions will be answered.

However, a question that Mr McLean asked in regard to the delegation of staff, I just want to mention that on September 6 we did hand every member of this committee an amendment dealing with that particular issue and if the Chair will bear with me, I'll take just a moment to read it. It says the Planning Act, amendments to enable:

-- upper tiers assigned with the subdivision approval power to further delegate this power to a committee of council, to staff and to the lower-tier municipalities.

-- separated municipalities assigned with subdivision approval power to further delegate this power to a committee of council and to staff; and

-- upper tiers assigned with the official plan approval power to further delegate this power to a committee of council and to staff.

We are actually addressing that and I hope it will clear this up a little bit.

Mr McLean: When will the other amendments be ready so we can have some clarification on some of the other issues?

Mr Hayes: They're on their way, Mr McLean, and they're being worked on real diligently.

The Chair: Very well, thank you. Mr Usher and Ms Cappe, we thank you very much for a well-informed brief and thank you for coming.

The committee recessed from 1206 to 1335.

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order.

CITY OF TORONTO

The Chair: We welcome the city of Toronto, Commissioner Robert Millward, Councillor Barbara Hall, Councillor John Adams and Mr Dennis Perlin, city solicitor. You have a half an hour for your presentation. I'm sure some of you have done this before. Leave as much time as you can for the members to ask you questions.

Ms Barbara Hall: I'm starting and then Councillor Adams will make some comments and then the four of us would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today on proposed changes to the Planning Act. We're generally supportive of the province's initiative in introducing these amendments. However, we do have some areas of concern and I'm going to highlight them very briefly.

First, with respect to provincial policy statements in section 2, there are a number of important areas listed there. We would like you to add clear statements on the protection or improvement of air quality and the remediation of contaminated sites, both issues of urgency in the city of Toronto.

In terms of section 16, official plan preparation, we would like to see some integration of how the preparation of an official plan and official plan amendments could be integrated under both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act. We believe that this kind of integration would offer opportunities for resolving more issues through consensus and would potentially streamline approvals and avoid lengthy and costly hearings before the various tribunals.

With respect to delegated authority and official plans and plans of subdivision, I believe you have a letter from the mayors of the six Metropolitan Toronto area municipalities --

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt you, Ms Hall, but are you directing us to any particular page in this document or are you reading from some other --

Mr Grandmaître: Yes. Can you help us follow your presentation through this book?

Ms Hall: No.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

Ms Hall: This is section 5, which deals with Planning Act amendments, tab 5.

As is laid out in the letter from the mayors -- and I would point out that a letter signed by six mayors in the Metro Toronto area is a fairly rare expression of unanimity -- it says that we believe local area municipalities in Metro Toronto should be delegated the authority to approve their own official plans, plan amendments and plans of subdivision, provided, of course, these plans and plan amendments are in conformity with the regional plan, consistent with provincial policy and the criteria for subdivision approval stipulated elsewhere in the Planning Act.

We believe the delegation of these powers to local municipalities would avoid confusion and duplication of overlapping authorities between Metro and the local governments, and again importantly, reduce costs and avoid unnecessary delays in the development approval process.

With respect to site plan control, subsections 34(5), 41(7) and 41(10), there are a number of items that we would like added to allow us to address environmental issues. Subsection 41(7) should be amended to permit a whole list of items, which is on page 8 in tab 5 -- I won't read through them all -- running from an air quality plan, soil remediation plan, noise impact plan etc.

Another area many of you may be familiar with, and I'm going to leave you some press clippings and brochures about the city's very successful public art program which we have been able to implement over the past few years -- we believe that the results have been impressive. Artists, tourists and Toronto citizens all enjoy the wonderful creations on our streets, in our parks and on our buildings. We believe that public art is one of those things that helps to make a healthy, enjoyable city with a lot of urban activity.

The ability to deal with public art as an element of site plan control is vitally important to all urban centres in the province, not just to the city of Toronto. We would recommend that subsection 41(7) be amended further to permit a municipality with an official plan which contains appropriate policies and provisions to require public art as a condition of site plan approval for large development projects.

Another issue related to site plan control is our need to be able to require easements for the Toronto District Heating Corp, one of my colleague Councillor Adams's very closely held activities at the city. Without this power, we're unable to implement our energy conservation policies and we'll be stuck with single-building furnace systems for ever. Again, we think that other urban centres in Ontario are struggling with the same issues. We would like subsection 34(5) of the proposed legislation to be amended, to be explicit about our capacity to require easements for the TDHC as a condition of site plan approval.

The proposed section 45, dealing with minor variances, would eliminate the current right to appeal a minor variance decision by the city of Toronto committee of adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. The city of Toronto doesn't want to be in the business of hearing such appeals. On the other hand, we're committed to due process, preserving the right to appeal minor variance decisions. We believe that the current appeal system works quite well, with a couple of exceptions.

We think the OMB could be equipped with additional powers to dismiss appeals without a hearing, for example when there's no apparent planning reason for an appeal or if an appeal is frivolous or vexatious or made solely for the purpose of delay, a situation which occurs much too frequently in the city at the present time, and I'm sure around the province, something that not only delays things we want to be happening but also is costly for the OMB as well as for the applicant.

These are just a few of the points of the city of Toronto submission. Some of you have held it up and clearly there are a lot of other items in it which I don't intend to go through today. We would also, however, like to offer to work with your officials, at your convenience, on any issues that need clarification, that need real-life examples or further documentation.

I'm going to pass it over now to Councillor Adams and I'll be happy to answer any questions at the end. I also have some materials here on the public art program that members might be interested in looking at. You can come for a tour any time you want.

Mr John Adams: I appreciate this opportunity. I will just highlight a few of the additional recommendations. This government bill bridges two important sets of values, one having to do with good planning for Ontario in the future and the other having to do with honesty and ethics in government. I'm going to focus on some of those honesty and ethics issues in government.

I want to say that the city does share the province's goals in introducing the new Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994. Toronto has been one of those municipalities in the forefront of introducing a code of conduct for its own members, myself included, financial disclosure requirements regarding assets and liabilities and rules with regard to the acceptance of gifts.

I think that ethics in government are very important, and actually the important bridge here to the Planning Act. In my view, one of the most important things that local government does is regulate the creation of wealth through the process of the Planning Act, rezoning -- its official plan amendments. That's why a certain breed of real estate developer takes a very special interest, an undue interest in some cases, in who the members of local municipal councils are.

I want to say that I was a new member of Toronto city council in November 1991. My life changed when I won an election. My life changed again on April 1, 1993, when someone tried to bribe me in my office at city hall over a real estate matter, and that was the one time, so far in my life, I had an occasion to phone the chief of police and report that; I made an official complaint. Project 80 continues the investigation of that particular matter.

So I think it is important to regulate the conduct of politicians. We've had some recent court proceedings and some other proceedings that remind us of those needs. I think it's in that context that I'm here to encourage you to press forward with this noble task.

Standards for ethical conduct should be tough, but they should also be user-friendly and easily understood by the first-time reader of the legislation, whether that is an elected person such as myself and yourselves, whether that is a voter or whether that is a journalist.

I would offer the following specific suggestions, if I might. Some of the definitions are problematic. You're creating the possibility of a daisy chain. You have to not only read this legislation but to understand what the definitions really mean, and what they apply to you have to read other pieces of legislation. If you want to make this user-friendly, you're going to have to find a way to write the appropriate definitions into this piece of legislation so it can be sat down, read and understood without knowing other pieces of legislation.

Secondly, in terms of the committee, we have many different kinds of committees. We do advertise in a variety of ways for people to help run Toronto city hall. We want to create lots of vehicles for people to participate in decision-making processes at the local level.

I think actually some of the rules are too tough, and you haven't completely understood how it really works at the local level. We would propose that you delete from its coverage those committees comprised solely of citizen members or a mixture of citizen members and councillors if those committee are not final decision-making bodies.

Let me give you one specific example. In my own ward in midtown Toronto, there's a major official plan amendment and rezoning application under way, the Marathon lands at Yonge and Summerhill, 18 acres. We have established, through our planning advisory committee, an official working group which had many, many meetings. We wanted to invite the developer, Marathon Realty Co, to the table. We invite local home owners and ratepayers and resident representatives, local business association representatives, the ward councillors, planning staff to act in a support role if the rules apply. But this working committee has only the power to consider matters, the power to make suggestions or recommendations. It can't make any decisions under the Planning Act.

Under these rules, it would be virtually impossible to have that kind of forum to see if issues can be clarified, that people can come to an understanding, agree or perhaps work out some agreements at the local level, and at least if they are going to disagree that they be informed disagreements, as opposed to poorly considered or ill-informed disagreements.

I suggest to you that our long-established practice of inviting citizens and real estate developers to sit down at the same table will be made much more difficult, if not impossible, to actually work out in practice if these ethical rules are applied in that kind of participatory context, recognizing that they don't have the authority to make decisions under the Planning Act.

1350

At the very least, we would suggest that the legislation be amended to permit non-council members on committees and working groups which are not final decision-making bodies to remain in the room, to participate in the discussion and to vote on matters even if they have declared a pecuniary interest. It's clear that Marathon has a pecuniary interest in the matter, but we would like them to be able to participate in a working group process.

The legislation should also be clarified with respect to the meaning of the term "committee." "Committee" is defined, but the legislation, in our view, is unclear as to whether the committee, as defined, is the "committee" also referred to in the definition of "local board." This gets a little esoteric, but I know the researcher assigned to this committee will want to delve into it deeply and give good advice to the committee in writing your final report. Our more detailed brief goes into that issue in some detail. I commend it to the attention of the appropriate officials.

On the question of the local board, we think the definition of "local board" should be amended to delete the words "or any other local board, commission, committee, body or local authority." We think there is a problem in the overlapping and gapping definitions of "committee" and "local board." We have a variety of committees: a film industry liaison committee, industrial coordinating committees; we have had a land disposition subcommittee. We think because of the many different "hybrid varieties" of committees at the local level, it might be best to have them covered by regulation as opposed to the all-embracing definition in the statute.

On the Toronto District Heating Corporation Act, which Councillor Hall has referred to, it was a source of great controversy. Certain aspects of district heating in Toronto were also the subject of a Project 80 police investigation which I have some knowledge of. In this case, I think it's really important that the Toronto District Heating Corporation Act, which is an act of this Legislature, be amended to provide that it is a local board for the purposes of the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act. There is no statutory rule for declarations of conflicts of interest by the 10 board members of the Toronto District Heating Corp and we submit that there ought to be. This committee has the opportunity to address that gap in the regulatory framework. At least the corporation should be included in the schedule to the regulations made under the new legislation whereby the heating corporation would be subject to these conflict rules.

On the question of the powers and duties of the commissioner under the act, we suggest that the commissioner, in addition to the power to issue guidelines, should be given the power to provide advice to members, to boards and to municipalities in the same way that the commissioner of election finances provides advice to members in municipalities on election finance matters and in the same way that the commissioner appointed pursuant to your own Members' Conflict of Interest Act provides advice to members of the provincial Legislature. The commissioner should be requested to issue guidelines respecting gifts, hospitality and personal benefits which may be considered appropriate as gifts or benefits when they are received by members as incidents of the protocol or social obligations that normally accompany the responsibilities of office.

My next point concerns the conduct of members of municipal councils in influencing employees or other persons interested in a contract within the jurisdiction of the local board or the municipal council. I think the legislation should be amended to make it apply to all matters in which a member has a pecuniary interest, not just a matter of a contract with a local board or with the municipal council. As well, I'd suggest that the legislation should be amended to clearly prohibit a member from exercising influence on officials, that is, employees of the municipality or board, and be expanded to clearly prohibit a member from exerting influence on officials of other public bodies, municipalities or provincial or federal bodies, which may have an interest or be involved in a matter where the member of council has a pecuniary interest.

It's clear to me that when I call someone at another level of government as Councillor John Adams for the city of Toronto, it gets, frankly, a level of attention. If I happen to be advancing my private economic interest at the time I think, frankly, I should be criticized for abusing my public office. I ask the committee to direct staff to deal with that.

On the question of the definition of "spouse," I think the Legislature has considered this matter in another context. I happen to serve on Toronto city council with Councillor Kyle Rae, who is not shy about telling us about his sexual orientation. If Kyle Rae has a spouse, and I don't know whether he does or doesn't, I think his spouse should be subject to the same rules on conflict of interest as my spouse. I would ask the committee to deal with that out of a sense of fairness and a level playing field.

Also, to make this law on conflict of interest user-friendly, there should be a central registry in each municipality. There shouldn't have to be a different registry of declarations of interest for every local board and committee and agency and corporation and council. That makes it virtually impossible for a concerned citizen to become fully informed about whether members of council have been fully compliant with all of the terms and conditions of the legislation.

On the question of the Municipal Act itself and the disposal of property, the city of Toronto is frequently involved in land exchanges with both public and private sector bodies to acquire property for municipal purposes or to facilitate the achievement of broader public benefits. Often the city enters into long-term lease arrangements of city property to support city objectives, but the property involved in such transactions is not surplus. We think the legislation needs to be amended to make a distinction between the property which is surplus and property which we are contemplating disposing of but which is not surplus for municipal or public purposes.

I want to tell you a very concrete example. This is in my ward, on Marlborough at Yonge Street. This is the public road, Marlborough Avenue; this is Yonge Street. There's a little laneway here and there's a little 800-square-foot stub of a public lane that Marathon has asked the city to acquire. That's 800 square feet. In exchange for that, a little further west on Marlborough there's 18,000 square feet of land which is presently leased to the city, in part as a park, and the other part is being used on an informal basis by local residents to park their vehicles.

I think it's reasonable for the city of Toronto to come to an arrangement with Marathon for a land exchange, providing our appropriate officials attest as to the fair value, without having to go through all the hoops that you're contemplating imposing upon us in this kind of transaction. This is not surplus to municipal purposes. The principal purpose of such a land transaction would be to facilitate another public purpose, to allow a site to become more developable, to allow the residents to have the benefit of parking where they have no parking on their own property and to preserve in perpetuity a piece of land as a public park and green space.

As well, before dealing with surplus real property, our city does first determine whether another level of government would be interested in the acquisition. The requirements in the legislation would be that real property be declared surplus and that notice be given to the public of any proposed sale. This would severely limit the city's ability to negotiate with affected parties. It would also unduly impact the length of time required to complete transactions such as the one on Marlborough.

The city recommends that the legislation be amended to clearly define "property" and "surplus," and to limit the application of the legislation to real property which is not required to support any direct municipal purpose.

The legislation requires every council and local board to pass a procedure bylaw with respect to the sale or disposition of real property. In addition to establishing procedures with respect to sales, procedures must also be established for the giving of notice to the public with respect to such sale or disposition. The city of Toronto recommends the deletion from the legislation of the requirement for public notice in sales between levels of government or other public bodies, in sales related to lane and road closures and in sales of small parcels of undevelopable land to abutting land owners. A public report process could be required instead of the public notice.

No time limit has been set in your legislation with respect to when those procedural bylaws must be passed, although it appears that no new sales or dispositions may occur after the coming into force of your legislation unless the procedural bylaws are in place. The city recommends that a municipality or local board be given at least 180 days from the coming into force of this act in which to pass the necessary procedural bylaw. This would be consistent with the period of grace allowed to councils and local boards to pass procedural bylaws consistent with open meetings, another part of the legislation.

How's my time, Mr Chairman?

1400

The Chair: You can go on, but I should tell you there won't be time for questions so you might as well just complete your submission.

Mr Adams: All right. My apologies for that.

The Chair: No, that's all right.

Mr Curling: This bill is too large for half an hour.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Adams.

Mr Adams: And it's quite important.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It is, really.

Mr Adams: With respect to site alterations, section 4 of our brief, the city would like to have the ability to pass bylaws that would clearly allow us to prohibit the dumping of refuse, debris, excavated material or construction material in any defined area or on any class of land. I believe you have heard from others about the problem. There is a real problem in the city of Toronto and other places with unregulated or not well regulated dumping, and we would ask for your assistance in that regard.

We would also like to have the ability to pass bylaws to require that refuse, debris etc be removed by the person who dumped it or placed it or who caused it or permitted it to be dumped or placed. Your legislation does not address the issue of a dumper who is not the owner of the land on which the material has been deposited, and we would definitely ask you to deal with that omission in the legislation.

We also think that the fines have to be made real.

The Chair: I just want, as the Chair, to thank you, Mr Adams, Ms Hall and the city of Toronto officials, for coming and for submitting a very thorough report to this act.

Mr McLean: I have two short questions.

The Chair: No time, sorry.

Mr McLean: All right.

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE ETOBICOKE WATERFRONT

The Chair: We will invite the next deputants to come forward, Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront, Mr Michael Harrison. Mr Harrison, we welcome you and we ask you to begin as soon as you're ready.

Mr Michael Harrison: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing us the opportunity to come and speak to you today. We are a public environmental group of concerned citizens in the city of Etobicoke, and we are an incorporated, not-for-profit corporation. We formed in the fall of 1989 and since that time have been involved in a number of development and planning issues in the city of Etobicoke.

We've been involved in two major Ontario Municipal Board hearings. The first one was the Etobicoke motel strip, which we attended daily and participated fully in, and the second one was the Humber College/Management Board Secretariat's development proposal for lands on the Etobicoke lakeshore of the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and the adjacent Humber College lands.

In addition to that, we've also been involved in a number of local environmental issues and policy items -- wetland re-creation, habitat restoration, parks policy -- and as such we're familiar with the planning process carried out in Ontario under the Planning Act as it touches on so many things. As an organization, we have always been interested in the planning process, and so when the opportunity came to participate in the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, otherwise known as the Sewell commission, and in the review of the act, we did so fully.

What we've done today is review Bill 163 and we'll bring to the attention of the committee a number of things that we are concerned about. But on the whole, in general, we're very pleased with the results of the Sewell commission and the bill that's before you today.

One of the first items is policy statements issued under section 3 of the act. As you know, the current wording of the Planning Act is that municipalities only have to "have regard for" policy statements issued under section 3 of the act, and this new bill will change that to "be consistent with." We feel that's probably the most important change in the whole bill. We heartily endorse it. As such, it's the only way to ensure that provincial policy statements are complied with across the province, especially as now the idea is to delegate more of the authority to municipalities.

The second point is the application of policy. In reviewing the bill we discovered that Bill 163 contemplates amending the act so that only the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would be bound by provincial policy statements. That's in a number of pages. We feel that such policy must apply to all provincial ministries and government agencies, including Ontario Hydro, especially as nowadays many ministries and agencies seem to be getting into the job of land development on surplus lands, which is something we're familiar with in the city of Etobicoke with the Humber College/MBS development proposal. Just on a point of being fair with everyone, if you expect private developers to abide by the policy statements, you should have your own ministries abide by them.

The next point is rights of appeal. We noticed that in a number of locations appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board have been amended in that one of the grounds for dismissal would be if the person requesting the referral did not make an oral or a written submission to council before the plan was adopted. While we can understand the need to streamline the development review process and encourage individuals and groups to identify their concerns as soon as possible in the planning process, we think this provision goes a bit too far and is quite dangerous. It's a very blunt instrument that could be used to repress legitimate concerns. For example, what if an individual was away over the summer or for some reason was not aware of an issue, or what if they've just moved into an area and just discovered the issue?

As we see it, there are already a number of grounds available in the act to dismiss appeals that would have no legitimate planning grounds attached to them and therefore we see no need to have this additional provision in the act. So our recommendation would be that you would delete that.

Again, as part of Mr Sewell's commission, he proposed that meetings be held by the OMB within 30 days of an appeal to discuss the appeal and whether or not it had legitimate grounds to continue, and at that time it could be dismissed.

In addition, we understand that Bill 163 amends the right of appeal from committee of adjustment decisions in that you would no longer be able to appeal them to the Ontario Municipal Board and that council would have the final decision. We think that's a dangerous provision. In many cases, as I'm sure you're aware, sometimes committees of adjustment give little more than minor variances, and we believe the right of appeal should remain in case things like that should happen.

On the issue of intervenor funding, as part of Mr Sewell's commission he made a number of recommendations about intervenor funding and that it should be available to certain groups in certain cases. For example, I can tell you, appearing daily at the Etobicoke motel strip hearings on behalf of the public interest, we were limited in some respects because of our lack of adequate funds to hire expert witnesses. We think it's an issue of equity and fairness, because in most cases, without expert witnesses, one's evidence just does not carry any weight with the board no matter how clear or accurate you are.

We strongly believe in intervenor funding and that it must be available to assist groups at the OMB, and therefore we would ask that Bill 163 be amended so that such funding could be provided under the process that Mr Sewell has outlined.

Comprehensive planning: As one of the groups active in development issues on the Etobicoke lakeshore, we can tell you that one of the more important issues discussed over a long period of time has been the issue of comprehensive planning and whether or not incremental decisions on development, made in isolation from each other, are not leading us to some unforeseen and cumulative impacts that just weren't expected.

One way Mr Sewell tried to deal with this was that he had a recommendation that when preparing new plans, municipalities should identify and review options and alternatives. Now this has been used in the city of Etobicoke in its plan for the Parklawn Road/Lakeshore Boulevard secondary plan area. A variation of this process was tried, and I think it worked quite well. Two options were presented for consideration, along with a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of each, and it was clearly explained to the public so that they'd have all the information before them. We think that such processes should be a requirement, especially when large areas are considered for redevelopment. As we understand it, the current bill, though allowing for that option, doesn't make it mandatory. We only see it as an innovative win-win process and we'd like to see it in there as being mandatory, not optional.

1410

Site alteration: Another problem with the current Planning Act is the lack of power that a municipality has to prevent land owners from the large-scale removal of vegetation and trees on recently acquired land. As you're probably aware, these things crop up from time to time in the local media. We understand that during the Sewell commission many municipalities, individuals and groups expressed a concern in that area. As such, Mr Sewell recommended that municipalities have the ability to regulate such activity. We notice that while Bill 163 contains provisions to enable municipalities to regulate placement and removal of fill, it seems to be silent on the protection of trees and vegetation, so we would request that the bill be amended to include that.

Contents of official plans: Another issue that was raised in the Sewell commission examined what matters official plans should address. Currently there's an inconsistency, especially when it comes to protection of the environment, in many official plans in the province. Some municipalities are very advanced in that area while others are not. To remediate that situation the commission recommended that the Planning Act be amended to include a list of matters that would be addressed in official plans.

From watching these hearings and reading the newspapers, I understand some of these matters might be addressed when the regulations are drafted, but those aren't yet available for review. I would ask the committee to monitor that, and if it's in the regulations, that's fine. But if it's not, then we would request that it be in the bill.

Finally, on the issue of public notice, the Sewell commission made a number of recommendations on public notice, such as having a registry and that type of thing so that people would be aware of things and they wouldn't slip by without being noticed. Again, we understand that this might be in regulation. If it is, then that would be okay. If not, we would ask that it be put in the bill itself.

That's our presentation to you today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr Harrison. We'll begin questions with Mr Eddy, five minutes.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've covered many of the same items and submitted many of the same recommendations that many other groups have submitted for our consideration. Your point about regulations is well taken, and the only thing I would say is that you said they're not available now for review, and that's true. They will be available later, at some time probably after the act is passed, but they will not be available for review. So that certainly is a problem, and we've asked that they indeed be prepared sooner so that we can look at them, because there are also a number of amendments being prepared that we'll be looking at before very long.

I was very interested in your comprehensive planning paragraph. The other items are important too, of course, and we've covered many of them in discussions, but your comprehensive planning recommendations here are very interesting, and I can see the advantage of them. How do you think they could be put in the bill to provide for them in -- I was going to say, "in urban municipalities," but actually in rurals too?

Mr Harrison: In fact, it might even be more important for rural municipalities --

Mr Eddy: Yes.

Mr Harrison: -- if an urban area was expanding and was taking over huge chunks of land. But since we're from an urban municipality, we were thinking of it from that point of view.

As I understand it, recommendation 47 in the commission's report would require, at the start of a secondary planning process or that type of large planning study, that a report would be written that would deal with the options and alternatives and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option, so that when the public is involved in the process they'll have the document before them which would outline all of the issues. They would be better informed, which would mean that the municipality would get better input from the citizens. So I think that's the way it could work.

Mr Eddy: It would certainly give members in the community a better opportunity to participate, wouldn't it, in the future of the municipality.

Mr Harrison: It does. The more information that you can give to the public and inform them as best as possible, the better input you'll get back.

Mr Eddy: I also note your statement that "we feel that the government must be bound by such policies, not just as private developers are," and you mention the Ministry of Municipal Affairs only and you feel quite strongly that the other ministries should be bound.

Mr Harrison: Yes.

Mr Eddy: We've heard this on several occasions as well.

Mr Harrison: I'm sure you have. I think it's important, especially now, to alleviate problems with the provincial treasury, that the government seems to be in some instances getting involved in land development deals. So if they're involved, I think they should have to abide by the same policies and the same provisions in the act as any private developer would have to.

Mr Eddy: Of course there's always the chance that the government will go around the act, and we've seen that on occasion as well. Thank you for your views.

Mr McLean: You talked with regard to the rights of appeal and that the person requesting the referral did not make oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council before the plan was adopted. You indicate that the individual could be away or not there. What do you think is the alternative of what's being proposed in the act -- a longer period, or what?

Mr Harrison: Well, no. I think there are a number of provisions in the act currently, the way it is today, where you can dismiss appeals that are frivolous, vexatious or appeals only made for the purpose of delay. So I think there are enough grounds that you could dismiss an appeal if it had no legitimate planning grounds.

Now, in speaking to someone in the ministry when we were reviewing the bill, I understand that it was put in because you don't want to go through a long planning process and then think everything is satisfied and at the last minute someone comes out of the woodwork and says, "I'm not happy with it," and they want to appeal it.

But, again, even for those of us who really watch these issues, sometimes something gets very close to getting by us before we realize what's happened, because in some cases municipalities aren't as forthcoming with information as they should be. We just felt that that provision is a little too blunt. There are other ways that you could dismiss illegitimate appeals.

Mr McLean: You talked a fair bit about the Sewell commission and a lot of the recommendations, and an awful lot of them that were left out, and were hoping that they would be reconsidered and put back in. Well, they had all these recommendations from the Sewell commission before this legislation was drafted and they were not put in the legislation. I think the hope of having them put in now is pretty slim, in my opinion, when we look at the recommendations that Sewell made, and he was appointed by the government to bring in some recommendations.

I guess the area that concerns me most is with regard to some of the environmental policies that Mr Sewell had brought in with regard to some of the systems around our lakes, our septic tank systems that are perhaps not as up to date as they could be. In this bill there's nothing to say that they should be inspected or anything should be done about that. Does that concern you, that that's left out?

Mr Harrison: Yes. I can tell you that when we reviewed this bill we reviewed it, I guess you could say, mostly from an urban municipality's perspective and how we could use it or how it would affect us in our local dealings with municipalities. So we didn't touch on the septic tank issue.

Mr McLean: The other issue is, you talked about what you've been involved in and the environmental aspect on the Etobicoke strip and the Humber College. Are the Toronto Islands in wetlands?

Mr Harrison: I'm not sure.

Mr McLean: You're not too sure. But as an environmentalist in the city of Etobicoke, you would be able to look across pretty near at those islands, I would think.

Interjection: If they're not under water.

Mr McLean: If they're not under water, that's right.

Mr Harrison: We're a city of Etobicoke organization that deals with issues in the city of Etobicoke.

1420

Mr McLean: What other recommendations specifically should we be looking at with regard to intervenor funding? You touched on that. I think Mr Sewell had recommended that that be part of the bill. It's not in there. You strongly believe that it should be. What would you look at as a watered-down version of intervenor funding to have it accepted?

Mr Harrison: We would like to see the recommendation Sewell made put into the bill, and again I can understand that there's some concern that you'd be actually funding people who are fighting against you, but the same process, intervenor funding, is allowed under the Environmental Assessment Act and I think that there's a good process in place there to make sure that those funds are used in the proper way. As I understand it, groups have to submit a budget so that people know where the money's going to go before they give the money to them. In many cases, especially now that the environment is taking on the importance that it is in planning and development, that funding should also be available to --

Mr McLean: Who should the funding be approved by -- the OMB?

Mr Harrison: Probably by the OMB. They'd have almost like a pre-hearing conference where the group, like us, would say, "These are the issues we're concerned about and we'd like to hire an expert to do this, this and this, and this is how much it would cost," and then they would decide.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Harrington and then Ms Haeck.

Ms Harrington: Thank you, Mr Harrison, for coming. You certainly bring forward the citizens' groups' point of view. It echoes some of the concerns that I heard from my local citizens' group in the city of Niagara Falls when we were there a couple of weeks ago.

There seems to be a diversion, quite clearly, between what some of the municipal delegations are telling us, what the developer delegations are telling us and what your groups are telling us. You have brought forward, in my opinion, some very good points.

First of all you say that "to be consistent with" is important wording to have.

You also go on to say that the policy must apply to all provincial ministries and agencies, and I think that's something we are looking at.

Thirdly, you say that you have concern that a committee of adjustment does more than minor variances at times, and that this you believe should have a right of appeal. The intervenor funding is something that we discussed in the city of Niagara Falls as well, that certainly to be able to have citizens' rights heard, they do need to have expert testimony.

Lastly your concern about the removal of vegetation and trees is something that a lot of citizens' groups are telling us as well. So I thank you for that.

My question to you is, at the beginning of your presentation you said, "We are pleased with the streamlining of the planning process." Do you believe that this process that we are proposing here will make the province less competitive in an economic sense or more competitive, which is a concern of the developers?

Mr Harrison: I was watching this morning and I saw you ask that question of a number of people, so I was thinking you might ask me as well. I think what this bill does and what the commission tried to do was try to make things as clear as possible for everyone involved. In some of the things that we've been involved with, a number of times developers or whatever were saying, "Just tell us what the rule is or what you want," because it keeps changing on them, and if it's changing on them it's changing on us too, and we'd like to know where we stand as well. So I think the policy statements along with the amendments to the act in many cases clear up those issues.

So for example, in areas where it says there's no possibility of development, like in significant ravines and all these other things, then no one is fighting about that issue because everyone knows that's off the table and you just talk about what's left. I think it's going to take a while for municipalities doing their official plans to decide what the significant ravines etc are that are untouchable, but once that is done everyone will know where everyone stands, and it would allow the planning process to work in a much quicker way because everyone understands the rules.

Ms Harrington: Thank you. Ms Haeck has a question.

Ms Haeck: Good. I wasn't sure if I had enough time. I too want to thank you for your comments with regard to the vegetation and trees because it is very much a concern for folks in Niagara. But your last comment relating to public notice is one that a number of ratepayer groups in my area of the province have been very, very concerned about, particularly getting even copies of agendas of meetings. Regular agendas of council meetings are sometimes harder to get a hold of than you would necessarily imagine.

Do you feel that it would be important for residents to have as full information as possible? Public participation is something I feel very strongly about and I think that when there is an application on the part of a developer or even at times on the part of the municipality, it's important for the residents of the particular area to know exactly what's on the table and what those impacts are going to mean. How do you feel about that yourself?

Mr Harrison: I think it's very important, and as I said earlier, the more informed you can make the public, the better the response will be from them; it'll be an informed opinion. In my experience dealing with the city of Etobicoke, sometimes you'll get a staff report which will have an application in it. You read the report and you go through it all and then you show up at the public meeting and the applicant has changed the application. So that means all the comments that you worked on are now no longer relevant and no one knows what the new application is. So basically it's a total waste of time and effort on behalf of the citizens and the committee. In many cases, there are people who are heads of citizens' groups who know this process and do the best they can, but the people who might think that they might want to get involved in something think: "This is ridiculous. Why am I going to all this effort?" So then people don't get themselves involved as they would. So no, I think it's critical.

Ms Haeck: You're really bearing a lot of concerns on the part of my residents. Thank you for your remarks.

The Chair: Mr Harrison, thank you for coming and thank you for participating in these hearings.

We invite the regional municipality of York. The Ontario Real Estate Association. We will have to recess for a short while until either of these deputants arrives.

The committee recessed from 1428 to 1436.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

The Acting Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the standing committee on the administration of justice back to order, and I believe we have the regional municipality of York before us. I am told that Mr Craig MacFarlane will be making the presentation. I notice a look of doubt on the presenter's face. I would hope you would introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard and indicate who will be making the bulk of the presentation. Do you wish to begin?

Mr Craig MacFarlane: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Craig MacFarlane, York regional solicitor, and with me is Mr John Livey, the region's commissioner of planning. Mr Livey and I will be splitting the presentation. Mr Livey will go first and provide a submission on the planning aspects of Bill 163, to be followed by my submissions in connection with the legislation changes on the conflict of interest and Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act provisions.

The Acting Chair: Just before you continue, would you introduce the third member of your party. My name isn't Rosario Marchese, by the way. I'm pinch-hitting for him, but if you would please introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard so we all know who everyone is.

Mr John Livey: To my immediate left is Al Saunders. He's one of the members of the planning department staff and has prepared some of the reports before you today.

If I could, can we have the indulgence of the committee and submit the report that we've taken through our planning committee and on through council?

The Acting Chair: Are these the documents?

Mr Livey: Yes. I guess they have been passed out.

The Acting Chair: All members now have copies. The clerk has distributed them. It looks like I have two copies of the same thing. No, I have a legal planning and a planning department. Which one are you starting with?

Mr Livey: I will speak to the planning department submission.

The Acting Chair: Very good.

Mr Livey: We have participated thoroughly in this process and we commend the province for undertaking the Planning Act reform initiative. The council of the regional municipality of York has considered five reports from the planning department and the solicitor on this particular matter of the Sewell commission and the bill. Our council and our inhabitants are supportive of the bill. We feel that it's important that there be a clear definition of the provincial interest, that there be a clarification of upper-tier and lower-tier interests, and we believe that the legislation is good for a start in that connection.

For the information of the committee, York region adopted its first regional official plan on April 14 of this year and has that plan before the minister for his consideration. We're also very active on a number of fronts, important of which are the review to the development charges bylaw that we're undertaking right now, and the idea that -- it's actually in a report that has gone through council in May, which was to adopt the idea of regional transit in principle.

So you have a region of 500,000 people, which we expect to be about a million people in 20 years time, actively interested in shaping its growth under this new legislation, and for us it is singularly important that the legislation reflect the needs of a growing, large urban community and the very difficult pressures that we face on a number of environmental, transportation and social issues in our region.

We want to ensure that the bill leads to an expeditious and timely planning process. I think that's a laudable goal. It certainly was the object of much attention through the Sewell commission and is I believe the genuine intention of the legislation as drafted. It's important that there be timely planning decisions. The planning process typically takes many years to bring a major change about. If there's a major change to an official plan at the regional or local level, it takes many years under the current legislation, and it takes too long, in our opinion, under the present legislation unfortunately.

So we caution the committee on enshrining in the legislation too many procedural issues. This is a general comment, but I want you to reflect on the experience that we as the province of Ontario and the region have had with the Environmental Assessment Act and the ongoing review of that act to make it more efficient, but inherently buried in that act are a number of procedural requirements. If you recall the hearings on Ontario Hydro in eastern Ontario Hydro and the western Ontario Hydro hearings, they were delayed significantly, for years in fact, at horrendous cost to Hydro and to the applicants and to a number of people, over procedural issues, over notice and whether or not the actual act was being adhered to strictly. So every additional procedural matter that is included in the bill I suggest you ought to reflect on long and hard in the sense that a third party may use that to their advantage in delaying an application and we're very concerned about that.

Our other concern builds on this matter, and that is "consistent with." It is our submission and has been in all our reports that the words "consistent with" represent an overly prescriptive solution to not a particularly apparent problem. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest there have been some problems with "have regard to." I ask that you ask staff for a full and complete list of those cases where "have regard to" has been deemed to be deficient to see whether or not in fact "have regard to" -- which in my opinion has been working very well, that the Ontario Municipal Board has had a full and careful consideration of the implications of policy statements in the "have regard to" provision in the current act. I ask that you ask for some documentary evidence of that not working under the present legislation, because I think what's happened is "consistent with" is being used as a substitute, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly, for a feeling that there may be some potential abuse in the future.

In my opinion, what you want to have in this act is a reasonable set of conditions to make sure reasonable tests are in place, and I am fully confident that the Ontario Municipal Board is capable of applying the test of a reasonable man to any particular planning circumstance and "have regard to" is sufficient.

When you use "consistent with," I think you're into the whole ambit of third-party appeals, some third person, not people who are familiar with the act, not people who are well intentioned, but people who are intent upon some sort of delay or some sort of other end and are going to use "consistent with" as an excuse to achieve their ends in a very capricious fashion.

The possibility of third-party abuse of "consistent with" in my mind is significant enough to support the recommendation that AMO has made, and that is to add the words "consistent with the spirit and intent of" policy statements. I think that would put us in good stead to make sure the Ontario Municipal Board takes into consideration and gives full consideration to the policy statements in any decisions that they may render without leaving us open to putting all this into the courts and being challenged on a regular basis by people who want to use "consistent with" in a rather arbitrary way. My feeling is, "consistent with" means we are going to a more arbitrary and legalistic circumstance rather than a more reasonable man test situation, which I believe is consistent with the words "have regard to." So that is our concern with "consistent with."

I'm not going to go through all the other comments, but I do want to dwell on just a couple that you might be considering right now.

One has to do with the trees issue. I know I'm going from forest to trees, but we believe the bill is helpful in grading, filling and dumping, but the question of vegetative removal has come to a point in the history of this province that a more complete set of legislative tools should be available to municipalities in their bylaws. I commend to you the bylaw the city of Toronto enacts in its ravines. It has worked particularly well. It was subject to the allegation when it was first enacted under private legislation that it would be open to an awful lot of abuse, but it's worked reasonably well I and would urge you to look at that, or the equivalent that's recommended by the final report of the Tree Bylaws Advisory Committee, as ways of ensuring that we don't have wanton or in the middle of the night cutting of trees, removal of vegetation, simply to further a planning application. I don't think anyone would support that kind of action, but it happens in our region and it happens, I know, in other places in the province.

I'm going to just close by indicating to you that we've made some procedural suggestions on a number of things. On the "consistent with" argument, back to that for one second, if you're going to apply "consistent with" as it stands, please apply it to all provincial ministries and Ontario Hydro. A double standard of "have regard to" for provincial ministries and "consistent with" for municipalities would be, we think, completely unfair, and I think it highlights the nature and the importance of dealing with that issue fully. If the ministries are reluctant to live by "consistent with," why would one not expect municipalities to be feeling the same apprehensions?

Again, Ontario Hydro has enjoyed a relatively free ride in the 1983 act and is doing so again. The logic of it is not apparent.

Finally, I'd like to say that York region is very supportive of empowering municipalities through this new bill, very encouraged that the new bill is environmentally friendly, that it provides protection for the environment, and hopeful that the new bill as amended will streamline rather than further encumber the planning process. We believe the timing deadlines in that regard are important and should be supported. We're very pleased that the committee is moving expeditiously and will be reporting back. We're available if you need us. If you have any specific questions or anything that might be germane to York region that we can help you with, we'd be very happy to provide you with any information or materials. Again, we're encouraged that we are able to see the light at the end of the tunnel on Planning Act reform.

Thank you very much. I'm open to any questions you might have, but I think Craig will go first and maybe we'll do the questions at the end.

Mr MacFarlane: I'll deal with the new legislation embodied in the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act. There are about nine points of a primarily technical nature which we believe ought to be amended and addressed in a revised bill.

First of all, there's a definition of interest in the draft bill which is not consistently used. There is a use of interest and a separate concept of pecuniary interest. The proposed definition that we're submitting is that interest be defined to include both a direct and indirect pecuniary interest of a member and a pecuniary interest deemed to be that of a member so that you have a consistent definition throughout the bill.

1450

Secondly, one provision that exists in the existing Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is a saving provision. If there is inadvertence or a clear error of judgement of a member, then a judge now has the ability to avoid sanctions. However, there is no saving provision in Bill 163 for inadvertence of a member of council and the judge has no discretion, or in this situation, the legislation provides for a mandatory suspension of a member without pay. In our submission, there should be a continuation of the saving provision that now exists in subsection 10(2) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the current legislation.

A third point is, when does a member have to leave a meeting? The draft bill does not give us any indication as to whether or not a member is permitted to stay in the council chamber during the deliberations or must leave the room. The legislation talks merely of the member "immediately" having to leave the meeting. We would like that clarified in the next draft.

A fourth point is that subsection 4(1)(e) of Bill 163 be amended to allow the completion and filing of the written disclosure both during the meeting and immediately after. Currently, there is the proposal just to have the completion and filing of the disclosure after the meeting. It would be a lot more convenient to members if the disclosure statement could be done during the meeting itself.

The commissioner who's appointed under the new legislation has an obligation to do a report where there is a complaint. There is nothing in the legislation that tells us what the report is. Is it a public document? Does it have to include written reasons? We are recommending clarification of that in our submission.

The new provision contained in proposed subsection 55(9) of the Municipal Act in Bill 163 states that the meeting of council "shall not be closed during the taking of a vote." Frequently in closed sessions there are directions given to staff as to how to complete sensitive negotiations or litigation strategy, and for those reasons we submit that the result of the vote not be made public until either the finalization of the transaction or the specific step in the litigation has been completed.

One minor point is that in the property disposition provisions, the appraisal provisions are required to have an undefined level of property appraisal for the disposition of municipal property. In our submission, we recommend that an appraisal or letter of opinion be a satisfactory level of appraisal. Appraisals are very expensive, and in the case of dispositions of a lot of municipal property, there may not be the need for a full appraisal.

Another point, the final point I'd like to make, is that there is now a requirement proposed that every council and local board establish and maintain a public register listing describing the property owned and leased by the municipality or local board. There is a tremendous range of property that is owned by municipalities, everything from one-foot reserves to easements, and the cost of having to record these wide-ranging interests in real property would be significant. Perhaps the solution would be to prescribe a threshold of property size, interest or monetary amount to be included in that register, but not to cover the full range of all types of real estate interest, which is pretty sweeping legislation.

In conclusion, the region supports the general thrust and intent of the legislation. It brings the disclosure provisions more in line with the provincial requirements. However, a caveat is that there be at least a saving provision carried forth from the previous legislation, and the other technical changes that we're submitting. Thank you.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I appreciate your brief. With regard to the written disclosure, I also see in the act that if a member is absent from a meeting in which he or she has a pecuniary interest and if at the next meeting, then or soon thereafter, they've got to file the disclosure of what interest they had, sometimes that may be difficult, if you're not at a meeting and not aware of what's taken place. From what I'm reading in the act, that interest has to be disclosed as soon after, in writing.

Mr MacFarlane: That's a very good point. I think it would be appropriate to have the requirement for disclosure in that case tied to the attendance at a meeting.

Mr McLean: Would your interpretation of this act also be that any school board representative would have to do the same, that they would declare orally a conflict immediately after the meeting, and would have to then fill out a form indicating what their pecuniary interest is?

Mr MacFarlane: Yes.

Mr McLean: It seems to be a little tougher than what some others have, in my estimation.

There's something under the planning I have a question about. It has to do with the regulations for cutting trees. Most counties and regions do have bylaws with regard to tree-cutting, but do the larger Metro areas have the same type?

Mr Livey: Yes, York region has a bylaw under the Trees Act. The difficulty with the bylaw under the Trees Act is that its primarily a bylaw that was drafted with forestry in mind, really intended to try and manage forests for potential harvest.

Mr McLean: I remember reading in here the under two acres. Is that where yours would come in?

Mr Livey: Ours come in over that.

Mr McLean: Okay. But I read something in the brief -- I forget what page it was on, but I do remember reading it.

Mr Livey: It's page 7.

Mr McLean: Two acres or less. Is that Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr Livey: Yes. The city of Toronto has a local bylaw that was empowered by special legislation in the late 1970s or early 1980s which allows the control of vegetation removal, tree removal, in the ravines. The ravines of Metropolitan Toronto are protected by a piece of special legislation and it makes sure that you don't have extensions or enlargements of existing lots going down into the ravines on city property or Metro property or MTRCA property, or that vegetation is removed without a permit. There is a system for permitting it, and some permits go ahead and some don't, depending on the nature of the resource that's being protected.

Our problem in York region is with singular stands of heritage trees. We have very few forest and tree resources left in the region; what agriculture hasn't taken, much of our urbanization has. So we're very concerned about the difficult transition the development community is going through right now in understanding that it is an important resource that the local people want protected. They see it as an impediment to their development, and they'll go in and clean the trees out on us.

1500

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Your official plan was long in the making. My wife was an employee of the region some 15, 16 years ago and participated in that process at that time. You finally got to the conclusion, and I understand it's been reasonably favourably received at the ministry.

In the final stages, during the last six, nine, 10 months, many of the materials in this bill were already effectively governmental policy. Did they in any way slow up your process or impede it, or did they in some ways perhaps, if anything, facilitate it?

Mr Livey: Our latest version -- this is the third version of the region's plan -- was initiated just a little less than two years ago, in the fall of 1992. The province has supported that effort. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has provided us with grants and assistance on it. We were involved as intensively as any region with the Sewell commission: Our chairman sat on the working committees; we were on working committees as staff. The spirit and the objects of that exercise and the legislation are consistent with what we have in our plan. So in many respects, this York region plan is an example of a plan that would be enacted, I believe, by municipalities post the third reading of this bill, so it's lockstep with the bill in that regard. I think it's understandable, given that we've had such a high level of public consultation on your process and on the York region process. We've inevitably had to be understanding of the provincial objectives, and vice versa of the regional objectives, at this current time.

Ms Harrington: First of all, thank you for support of this legislation, and we do understand what great pressures the region of York faces at this time. I have two brief comments.

First of all, the phrase "to be consistent with": I am told by some experts that it is much easier to define for a board like the Ontario Municipal Board than "have regard to," which took many years to get a real handle on.

Second is with regard your concern about the list of properties a municipality owns. Five years ago when I chaired the mayor's committee on housing, we asked the CEO for a list of all the municipal properties with regard to affordable housing sites, and you got one-foot strips along various places. I would agree with you that that doesn't make sense, to have every detail, but just the major pieces.

Mr Grandmaître: On definitions and also on regulations: Maybe my question should be directed to the parliamentary assistant, Madam Chair. I know there is a committee in place, the advisory task force on implementation of regulations and also definitions, if I'm not mistaken. This committee is in place, right?

Mr Hayes: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: It is working on regulations?

Mr Hayes: Yes, it is, on the guidelines; on the implementation of the regulations, yes.

Mr Grandmaître: So they're working on the regulations?

Mr Hayes: The guidelines. I'm sorry: the guidelines.

Mr Grandmaître: Guidelines or regulations?

Mr Hayes: Do you know specifically what they're doing, Philip?

Mr McKinstry: The task force which AMO sits on and which therefore York region is in some way represented on is working on the implementation guidelines for the policy statements. As well as that, they are going to be reviewing all the regulations as they are prepared and developed.

Mr Grandmaître: So this committee has access to all those definitions they're referring to, the definitions that aren't clear, and they also have a list of regulations in order to implement this legislation. Otherwise, they're working with an empty tool kit, right?

Mr McKinstry: The committee certainly has a list of regulations, but they don't have the regulations yet because they are not prepared.

Mr Hayes: Because they're being worked on.

Mr McKinstry: As the regulations are prepared, they will be brought before the task force.

Mr Grandmaître: Then how can we call this an implementation task force if they don't have all the tools in front of them, the regulations and the definitions and all of these great things? How can they work on the implementation of this bill?

Mr McKinstry: The committee is working through all of the implementation activities for Bill 163. Part of that is the implementation of the policy statements, but the other part will be the implementation of the regulations. The committee is working as well as it can through all this material, and it's being brought forward to it as it's available.

Mr Grandmaître: So it's a two-tier implementation process.

The Acting Chair: Mr Grandmaître, I'm sorry, but we do have other deputants who wish to come before us.

I want to thank the deputants for coming. Before you leave, Mr Hayes has a quick clarification.

Mr Hayes: On the question about disclosure and when a councillor, for example, would have to leave the chambers, it says immediately. That hasn't changed. It's still the same rules as under the existing conflict of interest act. It's already there.

Mr MacFarlane: It would be appropriate, in our view, that that be clarified. It may be there now, but now that we're reviewing the legislation --

Mr Hayes: Immediately. Forthwith, if you like. I'll put it that way.

The Acting Chair: Thank you to the deputants. Any other of these comments could be talked about with the deputants outside, or the ministry staff can definitely work with the deputation.

ONTARIO REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: I now call the Ontario Real Estate Association, Ross Godsoe, Jim Flood and Rose Leroux. Please introduce yourself -- I hope you'll take the opportunity to introduce the entire panel -- then please begin your presentation.

Mr Ross Godsoe: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Ross Godsoe, and I'm the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association. With me this afternoon are Mrs Rose Leroux, who is our chairman of the political affairs committee, and Mr James Flood, who is the association's director of government relations.

Before beginning our substantive comments, I'd like to provide a brief background of OREA and a summary of our association's activities in the planning reform process.

Our mandate includes working with government to increase consumer protection through improved education and business standards for the real estate profession, enhancing the opportunity for all Ontarians to own and enjoy real estate and protecting the rights of property owners in the province. OREA has two main areas of concern with Bill 163 as presently drafted.

Our first concern relates to the effect Bill 163 will have on private property rights. It is our belief that the rights associated with property ownership constitute one of the most important foundations of a democratic society and are the single most important principle underlining our free enterprise economic structure.

The importance of property rights in terms of economic growth and social stability were recognized over 200 years ago in the United States, which enshrined them into its founding constitution. As you know, last year the state of Russia also enshrined property rights in its first true democratic constitution. Russians and Americans understand that property rights promote social stability and economic growth. Unfortunately, what seems to be so important to people in those parts of the world seems to be out of fashion in the province of Ontario.

In this province, the growth of government at all levels has led to more and more regulation, including regulation of private property. The most recent excuse for restricting property rights is to save the environment. Unfortunately, some environmental groups claiming to represent the public interest have found an audience, and often a partner, with governments that believe property owners can't be trusted to conserve and protect the property they own, often purchased with their life's savings.

The combination of regulations and anti-development environmental groups has resulted in a growing number of property rights violations, justified in the name of preserving the environment. Unfortunately, we believe Bill 163 perpetuates the myth that environmental protection can only be achieved by restricting private property rights.

In an effort to restore a balance, we asked both the Sewell commission and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to acknowledge individual property rights when amending the planning process. Specifically, we suggested that the purpose section of any new legislation include a clause recognizing legitimate rights of property owners. We were politely ignored.

1510

Today, we ask that section 4 of Bill 163, which inserts a purpose clause in the Planning Act, be amended to add a section acknowledging the government's responsibility to respect the property rights of its citizens.

If refusal to include such a clause can be considered an error of omission, section 20 of Bill 163 can be considered a deliberate violation of property rights that has the potential to affect every property owner in this province. Why? Because section 20 uses subjective words like "significant" to outlaw all forms of development or land use in any "significant natural corridor, feature or area." That section alone can be interpreted to include every square foot of the province of Ontario.

If you bought a cottage lot, for example, on the shore of a lake that some bureaucrat subsequently decides is significant, not only would you not be allowed to build your cottage, you won't even be allowed to camp overnight on your own land. That isn't environmental protection, it's legislative theft.

OREA looks to the members of this committee to protect property owners from this type of treatment, not endorse it. Good legislation should provide for balance and fairness.

OREA supports the legitimate goal of environmental protection, but this goal needs to be balanced against the legitimate rights of property owners. Fairness demands that if individual rights are taken away in the public good, public funds should be used to compensate those whose rights were taken. That is simply fair.

It is our hope that this committee shares that view and that it will amend Bill 163 to protect the citizens from those who would restrict property rights. Those who saved, bought, planted, worked and developed land have no interest in destroying it. They are the true stewards of the land, not special-interest groups who seek to impose their own values by wrapping themselves in the cloak of environmental protection.

Mrs Rose Leroux: Our second concern relates to the effect that Bill 163 will have on the cost of housing.

When the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Dave Cooke, announced the appointment of a provincial facilitator, he stated that the planning approvals process did not work, that it was too long, too confusing and was costing Ontario jobs. We couldn't agree more.

Late last year, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Ed Philip, identified one of the goals for the changes being introduced as streamlining the approvals process. The minister justified that goal by saying: "We cannot continue to support a costly and inefficient land use planning system. The impact of delayed decisions amounts to billions of dollars of delayed economic activity and potential employment." Once again, we couldn't agree more.

As Ross mentioned earlier, one of our mandates includes promoting policies and programs that enhance the opportunity for all Ontarians to own and enjoy real estate. For most of us, that means owning our own home. For too many Ontarians, the cost of a home is beyond their financial reach.

The land use approvals process, with its red tape, duplication and bureaucracy, adds thousands of dollars to the cost of housing in Ontario. We don't know exactly how much -- it's difficult to quantify -- but the approvals process and taxes are estimated to make up about 25% of the cost of new housing. Everyone agrees that simplifying and speeding up the approvals process will lead to more affordable housing in Ontario.

We believe this committee should act boldly to cut the red tape, streamline the process and thereby lower the cost of housing. Unfortunately, we do not believe that Bill 163 will provide more affordable housing, as presently drafted. Let me briefly outline a few problems.

First, section 9 of Bill 163 provides for a new integrated planning and environmental approvals process. While we applaud the idea behind this section, the wording states only that the materials developed in the preparation of the plan "may be considered" under the Environmental Assessment Act. We would recommend the wording be amended to read "shall be considered." This would eliminate ambiguity, discourage duplication and could well save months in completing prescribed planning requirements.

Second, section 28 of Bill 163, subsection 51(14), introduces a new series of public meetings "if required by regulation." The regulations for Bill 163, as we have just heard, have not yet been drafted, so it's difficult to comment. But we do not understand why public meetings should be required for consideration of a plan of subdivision application. Proposals for subdivision have already been subjected to public scrutiny at both the official plan and the zoning stages. A third set of public meetings is simply not necessary. They will only create a delay and thereby increase costs. The current process provides ample opportunity for public consultation and should be retained.

Third, section 28 of Bill 163 sets out the process for dealing with changes to a plan of subdivision, proposed new Planning Act, subsections 51(34), (35), (36) and (37). At the present time, changes involve only the applicant, the agency involved in the condition, the municipality and the approval authority.

Under Bill 163, that process will be expanded to provide that notice of each and every change be given to all interested persons and public agencies; they then being given a 30-day opportunity to request referral to the Ontario Municipal Board. We predict that attempting to comply with this proposed new subsection of the Planning Act will lead to administrative chaos and unnecessary delay in the approvals process. The current system should be retained.

Fourth, Bill 163 provides that upper-tier municipalities such as counties and regions may be granted authority for subdivision approvals, as well as local official plans and zoning bylaw amendments. We believe this section should be expanded to include delegating authority to upper-tier planning staff where qualified. In some areas of the province -- for example, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton -- this delegation to staff is in place now and works well. Unfortunately, Bill 163 is silent on this subject.

If the province is really serious about streamlining, including an amendment to allow delegation to qualified staff would be an excellent way to proceed. Delegating approval authority in instances where applications are undisputed can save weeks of time and therefore thousands of dollars. The example of Ottawa-Carleton should be emulated and not prohibited.

Fifth, we believe further delegation of approval authority for condominiums to capable lower-tier municipalities would be another positive step. Condominium approvals are largely a process of site plan review. Since that process is already within the purview of lower-tier municipalities, our recommendation for further delegation would make sense.

By way of closing remarks, the Ontario Real Estate Association wants to congratulate the government on launching the planning reform initiative. As they and we have discovered, it is a massive undertaking encompassing complex issues and interrelated issues.

We urge this committee and the government to take the time to get it right. The planning process affects all of us and it's important the legislation that finally results at the end of the day is fair, balanced and workable. That concludes our comments. We'd be pleased to answer any questions.

The Acting Chair: We have eight minutes per caucus. The government caucus is first.

Mr White: I very much appreciated your presentation. There were, as you mentioned, a couple of different points. I think some of the technical points that you brought up in terms of the planning process are very valid and might well bear some consideration.

1520

I was a little curious about another issue. When we were talking about the issue of private property rights, and that's an issue that's been discussed at some length before the committee, the issue of a Trees Act, which might have been a permissive part of this legislation and has been proposed -- that would effectively give some control to a regional or a local municipality to prohibit the cutting down of trees, the removal of vegetation on people's private property, whether it's a woodlot or their own smaller lot in a subdivision area. Do you have any comments on that issue?

Mr Godsoe: Just before maybe Mr Flood goes ahead -- with regard to the property right issue, you're absolutely right. We've been working on this issue, by God, for years and years and years, as long as I can remember, probably back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Obviously we've made a lot of presentations before many governments of the day, and objectively we hope that you folks will listen today and maybe it'll all start here.

As far as the Trees Act is concerned, I'm not quite as familiar with that. Jim, maybe you want to comment on that.

Mr James Flood: About all I can suggest to you is that we did not support the proposed amendments to the Trees Act that the government brought forward some six to eight months ago now, I guess. I don't know that the government still supports the proposals that it brought forward. They have not seen fit to bring that legislation forward. We might, at the present time, have the position that there is adequate protection, especially in rural Ontario, and that the proposed legislation the government advanced isn't necessary at the present time.

Mrs Leroux: I would also like to make a comment there. I feel that for most property owners, trees are valuable assets to their property and add value to the property, so you don't under normal circumstances find people removing trees without just cause. I would like to concur that, in most instances, I think the legislation that is in place would adequately protect trees.

The other thing I would like to point out is the fact that what we are advocating is a balance, a balance of private property rights and public interest. We realize that in some instances private property rights have to be looked at for the greater good of the whole, but we feel that, in many instances, that is not done. When it does have to be done, we would also stress that those individuals whose property is in some way either confiscated or jeopardized should be fairly compensated. That is really the point we would like to make, that we advocate a balance.

The Chair: Ms Harrington, there's time for a quick question, because we don't have as much time as we thought we did.

Ms Harrington: I just had to respond to your comment with regard to Russians and Americans understanding value of property rights more so than here. Certainly, we have a much more important role for our future and our environment and our natural resources than I think either Americans or Russians have, and it's something that all people I believe in Canada value. Public interest and collective rights, I think, people see as overarching of property rights for the good of our children and for the good of this planet. I just want to make that statement for the record.

Secondly, I believe it's very important that we ensure the involvement of our citizens in the planning process. You may wish to comment on that.

Mr Flood: We agree with you.

Mr Grandmaître: On delegating authority to upper-tier levels of government, you say on page 14 that "upper-tier municipalities such as counties and regions may be granted authority for subdivision approvals" and so on and so forth. Counties and regions -- you know that in Bill 163 it exempts Metro from having the same power of authority. Do you agree with Bill 163 that Metro should be exempt?

Mr Flood: I guess if you want me to take a whack at it, the short answer is, in trying to analyse the legislation, we did not look at it from the perspective of Metropolitan Toronto. It's my understanding that Metropolitan Toronto does not agree, but we did not develop a position on it.

Mr Grandmaître: Do you agree that all regions and counties should be treated equally and fairly?

Mr Flood: I think it's pretty difficult to disagree with that statement.

Mr Grandmaître: I was glad to see Ms Leroux mention that in Ottawa-Carleton this delegation to staff is in place and it works well. But being from the Ottawa-Carleton area, I am told that it doesn't save any time and it doesn't save any money. It's very little improvement when that power was delegated to Ottawa-Carleton.

Mrs Leroux: Then we're getting conflicting reports.

Mr Grandmaître: Is that right?

Mr Flood: The people we talked to, and I suspect particularly the home builders and the developers, in the Ottawa-Carleton area might suggest otherwise, that allowing staff the ability to approve relatively straightforward uncontested applications does speed up the process and does save some time.

Mr Grandmaître: Thus saves them money if it speeds up the process. I'm glad to hear this and I'll check my source of information.

Mr McLean: I see you've made two separate briefs to the Sewell commission. You made a third response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs draft policy statements last November and you made a fourth in response to the consultation paper released last December entitled A New Approach to Land Use Planning.

I see where the Sewell commission -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs acknowledged individual property rights when amending. They were asked to amend it so that property rights would be in the planning process. I understand you were both politely ignored on both of those occasions. Would I be correct in stating that?

Mr Eddy: Being ignored is not polite.

Mr McLean: The other issue is with regard to the word "significant," with regard to a cottage lot on a shore of a lake. What definition do you believe should be in place instead of the word "significant"?

Mr Godsoe: I think the word "significant" is very broad and the interpretation of it leaves a lot to be discussed. I think it should be more concise and more meaningful to explain exactly what we're talking about.

Mr Flood: It would be helpful, in our opinion, if perhaps somebody like the implementation committee could go back and revisit some of the wording that's in some of the clauses to take some of the ambiguity out of the legislation, and how to define a term like "significant" would be a good place for them to start.

Mr McLean: We would like to know what the regulations are going to be, and once we had an idea what they were going to be, we could determine what's going to be the wording in those. I understand the facilitator is working on some of those regulations now, and we will probably never see it until after the bill is passed.

The environmental impact study: what concerns do you have with that with regard to -- now, they tell me it's not in the bill, that you could have a minor variance and you don't have to go through an environmental impact study. Is that your interpretation of the legislation?

Mr Flood: We did not address the question.

Mr McLean: You did not address minor variances.

Mr Flood: No, as you mentioned, it's not in the legislation.

Mr McLean: It's not in the legislation. Thank you for appearing today, and I can tell you that when you talk about the provincial facilitator and stated that the planning approvals process did not work, it certainly leaves some room for consideration of what's going to be in the regulations he brings in. Thank you for appearing.

The Chair: We thank you for coming and thank you for the presentation you made to this committee.

Mr Hayes: Comments?

The Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Hayes wants to make some clarifications.

Mr Hayes: Yes, there were two concerns that you had, and the one in particular was delegating the authority to the upper-tier planning staff. That is being dealt with. We've circulated an amendment to deal with that particular issue and that will be part of the act.

Mr Flood: Wonderful. Speedy service, thank you.

Mr Hayes: No problem. Actually, we just wrote it up after you brought it up.

1530

Mr Flood: We understand perfectly.

Mr Hayes: Your other concern was that delegation of approval authority for condominiums to capable lower-tier municipalities would be another positive step. Actually, the minister does have the authority to do that now and it is in section 4 of the current act. It's already in there.

The Chair: Thank you.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Chair: We invite the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, councillor Howard Moscoe and Mr John Gartner, commissioner of planning?

Mr John Gartner: Yes. Chairman Tonks is somewhere between our offices and here.

The Chair: All right, very well. Welcome to you both.

Mr Gartner: And he's not being held up by taxicabs.

The Chair: It's okay. I think, Mr Moscoe, you're probably very familiar with this process so you know that if you want the members to ask you some questions, leave as much time as you can for them to do so. Please begin any time you're ready.

Mr Gartner: My name is John Gartner and I'm the commissioner of planning for Metropolitan Toronto. On my left is Councillor Howard Moscoe, who is the chair of our economic development and planning committee, and hopefully on my right will be Chairman Alan Tonks, who's the chairman of Metro council. In his absence, I will make the portion of the presentation that he otherwise would have done.

The presentation you've got before you today is what is being represented by the three of us, but also attached to the package that you're receiving is the actual council report and recommendations that were approved by Metro council, which is a longer version. We have intentionally kept our comments in a very brief fashion, unlike some of the other briefs that you've received, and tried to focus on the things that are most important to Metropolitan Toronto and specifically to our level of government.

By way of introduction, I'd like to commend the province on its prompt response to the final report of the Sewell commission and on its efforts to implement the reforms to Ontario's land use planning system, as well as its adherence to the three basic reform objectives of empowering municipalities, protecting the environment and streamlining the planning process. All these objectives are laudable and we obviously at Metro, both council and staff, commend the province for these actions.

On June 1, 1994, Metro council adopted a new official plan, the thrust of which is consistent with the province's planning reforms under consideration today.

While it's in a prepublication form, a limited number of these have been given to your assistants. We will, as soon as we receive them from the publisher, send the requisite 30 and as many as the members of this committee and members of government would wish after that. It's unfortunate we just have not received the document for the full circulation.

The new plan has anticipated the policy direction of the province -- it was developed in consultation with the provincial officials as well as local municipal officials -- and is generally in keeping with the new legislation and its policy statements as we understand them. There are five areas of concern that we would like to bring forward to you today, however.

The first and probably most important in terms of Metro's relationship both with the province, the other regional municipalities and our own municipalities is something which has at least twice today been raised -- in fact three times that I'm aware of -- and on several other occasions has been and will be raised at these hearings. It's the matter related to either the delegation under the current system or the assignment under the future system of official plan approval powers for local area municipalities.

It's Metro's strongly felt position that the treatment and the isolation of Metro relative to the other regions in Ontario, by reason of the fact that it was the first, the largest and arguably the most sophisticated region, is counter to the province's stated objectives of empowering municipalities, and it's also counterintuitive.

The second is the denial to Metro of some of the tools necessary to effectively implement the policy directions contained in the planning reform package, and thereby undermining some of the province's objectives potentially, particularly in the area of environmental protection and the streamlining of the planning process. This item was referred to in the previous presentation, actually.

The third is the undue emphasis on greenfield development rather than the redevelopment and intensification of existing builtup areas, which has resulted in insufficient attention being paid to the challenges facing the urbanized communities. The situation here is that in Ontario, by reason of the fact that -- Chairman Tonks has just arrived -- we are a province that now has a considerable history measured in centuries rather than in decades. A large portion of the province -- in fact approximately 70% within the regions -- is urbanized. In our reading of the legislation, while it deals with greenfields and new development areas, it really misses an opportunity, which we hope will be taken up in subsequent investigations, of dealing with what happens in second-generation development when an urban area is going through a second stage of urbanization, which is in fact what's happening in Metro Toronto.

The fourth item is potential coordination problems between provincial ministries frustrating efforts to streamline the planning process. We'll make specific reference to each of these items in more detail in the presentations of Chairman Tonks and Councillor Moscoe.

The fifth is the potential for delay in approval of Metro's new official plan, which would have the effect of impeding implementation of the proposed reforms by reason of the fact that it was developed at the same time as these policies and is in our understanding coincident and consistent with them.

So with that general introduction, also perhaps a note that in my concluding remarks -- and I will also be making the concluding remarks -- I'd like to make reference to some comments that were made by North York this morning which we feel are at least misrepresentational and probably a direct error, if there is time.

Mr Howard Moscoe: Very briefly, to put this in the historical perspective, the premise of the Sewell report is to streamline the planning process. We support that and we support the major objectives that Sewell has brought forward. Nowhere did Sewell say that Metropolitan Toronto should not be delegated the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else; in fact, he supported the opposite principle. I want to use this as an example.

Metropolitan Toronto, more than any other region in the province, has been supportive of the provincial initiatives, and I'm talking about all three levels of government. For example, under the Bill Davis government, when group homes were a local issue, it was Metropolitan Toronto that essentially said, "There shall be group homes in Metropolitan Toronto." Metro said that as part of its official plan, and as a result of that and Metro's strong persistence in that in the face of local objectives, there were group homes and there are group homes throughout Metropolitan Toronto. It has ceased to become an issue.

During the last Liberal government, the government came to Metropolitan Toronto and said: "We're thinking about delegating planning authority to Metropolitan Toronto as a first step. Would you be interested in taking it?" We discussed it and debated it, and then the government changed. So here we are again facing exactly the same issue: the delegation of planning authority. But the delegation of planning authority is for some very specific reasons.

The province essentially is saying in this act, and what Mr Sewell is saying is, "We're going to get the province largely out of the planning business by taking provincial objectives, clarifying what they are, making sure they're easily understood, and requiring the regional municipalities to build them into their official plans." Planning across a broad region like Metropolitan Toronto, you must understand, requires coordination. That's the job of Metropolitan Toronto: the subway systems, the sewage systems, the kinds of services that are necessary across a broad base rather than the narrow, specific interests of the local municipality. That's why we're puzzled, we're dismayed and we're kind of angered to think that Metropolitan Toronto has been singled out and told, "You don't have the same responsibility as every other region in the province." That flies in the face of the objectives of this report. That means that Metropolitan Toronto is singled out and will be dealt with from the desk of the minister rather than, as all other regions, through the policy statements. So it's a mystery to us why this has happened.

My friend Mr Lastman this morning cited a couple of examples and, I want to tell you, exaggerated them. Number one, he talked about a laneway. That laneway has resulted in a delay of one week, and it's under Metro's responsibility to ensure that there is access to transportation for the new subway station that is being built. In fact, on Friday I faxed a letter to the site planning committee saying the issue has been clarified and cleared up after consultation with the committee; Metro no longer has a concern. Presto. The only other example of delay he could come up with this morning Mr Commissioner might want to briefly comment on before Mr Tonks takes over.

Mr Gartner: I think I'd rather deal with the Bridgehome incident if there is in fact time. It's a very complicated incident. The fact is that most of the delay was related to Metro once again implementing provincial initiatives. It's a situation where there's an industrial site, very substantial, that's being reurbanized for residential purposes on a municipal boundary, and the adjacent municipality had objected to this proposal. The fact that there was an objection from an adjacent municipality and it was a change of use from industrial to residential in our mind seemed to merit some consideration of the facts. The reality is that Metro didn't hold it up at all, because it's been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by the developer himself and by third parties. It's still there, and our decision was made over two years ago. So I don't think there's a serious problem in that regard. I just wanted to clarify that matter.

1540

Mr Moscoe: And if there was any delay at all, it's not three years that it was delayed; it's perhaps three months.

Mr Alan Tonks: First of all, thank you for giving us an opportunity to be before the committee. I'm sorry I'm late. I was in another matter.

Howard really has said most of what I was going to attempt to draw into focus. The Sewell commission report strongly supports the concept of the delegation of the approval of official plans of the municipalities to the upper tier, and the regional chairmen and the regional planners of Ontario support that thrust. I think what we have to ask ourselves is, why did we undertake the Sewell commission report in the first place if it wasn't to come up with mechanisms that would expedite the consideration of applications for development? Because, you know, the issue has been that the Ontario Municipal Board too many times is the final point of arbitration on these applications. They are highly legalistic. They get bogged down in detail. They're very costly. Sewell came up with the recommendation that the best way to deal with that is to not place the Ontario Municipal Board in the place of being the arbitrator, but to try to arbitrate the issues at the level that they are problematical, and that is between the two tiers of government.

The interesting thing was that the consensus from the regional chairmen -- from Ottawa-Carleton, from Sudbury, from I believe Hamilton-Wentworth -- was that where they have the powers of delegation already, the powers of approval already, the objectives of the Sewell commission have been attained. There are very much fewer high-level arbitrations that have to happen before the board. The two tiers work these things out and hammer them out in a manner in which mostly these things are hammered out between councils, with staff interrelating and so on.

So if the provincial government, whether it's this government or the next government, wants to continue to be the arbitrator of local concerns and, even more important, if they want to rely on the Ontario Municipal Board to determine what provincial interests are, then you're going the right direction to maintain the status quo. But if on the other hand you believe that the local levels of government are the best venues, if you will, to working out differences in terms of development, then I think that you delegate away that responsibility to the upper tier: We continue to interpret the provincial interests, be they transportation, social services, land use policies, intensification, whatever, and watch and see what happens. I believe what you'll see happen is that we will do what we have to do, and that's reach accommodations within given policy guidelines set down by the province, and in fact will do what Sewell felt and believed we could do.

So I'm here to tell you that if you want more of the same and you really don't care about intensification, you want to continue to see urban sprawl, you want to continue to see an irrational investment program for capital facilities like trunk sewers and water and sewage treatment and so on, just maintain the status quo and that's what you'll get. You'll get fragmented planning and you'll have area municipalities relying on a distant board to be the arbitrator of the public interest, and a higher order public interest, and I just don't think that's the direction Sewell had in mind.

I know it's a matter of turf. I know there's this concept of, well, a regional government is too powerful at the expense of the area municipalities. Those are valid issues for discussion, but I think we've gone a quantum leap past that in terms of what the objectives of the Sewell report were. The objectives were to remove the obstacles, bureaucratic and political, for the orderly implementation of provincial interests through the approval of developments according to pre-agreed parameters through the official plans of both the area municipality and the region.

I'm firmly convinced that if you can just get over the parochial sorts of arguments that have been put forward, you will come down on the side of Sewell, on the side of the regions, and say, "Yes, the best protection for these kinds of land use issues and broader planning issues, if we really want to make a difference, is to adopt the report for all the regions equally." I think the track record indicates that it has been working in all those regions that have been delegated authority. I have no reason to believe it won't happen in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Moscoe: The irony of all of this is that the province has effectively delegated the responsibility of implementing provincial policy to the regions, but in the case of Metropolitan Toronto it isn't, and Metropolitan has been the one that's most supportive of provincial policies. Accessory apartments is part of our official plan; we've supported that. Yet for short-term political gain, because of the yellers and the screamers, the minister has said, "We're going to treat Metropolitan Toronto differently. We're going to listen to the Lastmans of the world and to some of the local councils who don't want accessory apartments and deal with these matters ourselves," effectively nullified in your regional planning capability within Metropolitan Toronto, contrary to every single principle embodied in this legislation.

Wrong. A mistake. For the sake of some short-term political pain, the minister is guaranteed a long-term political gain, and every issue within Metropolitan Toronto will end up on the minister's desk or at the OMB rather than with the regional planning authority where it truly belongs if you want some kind of regional network of planning and delegated authority.

I want to very briefly address a couple of specific instruments in the plan in addition to this main theme which in fact create some problems for Metropolitan Toronto in being able to bring about regional policies.

One has to do with the site plan control. The site plan control of course is the method by which these objectives are assured, but Metro has no position in site plan control. We can't deal with minor variances. We can't refer them to the board. They've been left with the local municipality, and yet what assurance is there that Metro will be able to ensure that certain objectives are met, like access to subway stations, which are an integral part of the site plan control process? There has to be some mechanism to ensure that the regional objectives can be built into the site plan control process, and that needs to be done. It has not yet been done.

The same thing applies to development-related requirements. Since development is going to be done through -- what's the process called? -- development control, there's no way for Metro to intercede or the regional municipalities to get into the development control process because all those are done locally and there's no way to assure our interests. It's fine when you're talking about greenfield developments, but when you're talking about redevelopment, very little consideration in the plan has been given to the concept of redevelopment. That's where Metro needs to exercise certain controls or the regional authority needs to exercise certain controls to ensure that the regional objectives are met, particularly as it relates to regional developments.

The same thing applies to sort of the sunset provisions. In other words, you have a subdivision, and by agreement you say it has to be built within a certain period of time. But we don't do subdivisions any more in Metropolitan Toronto. We're doing redevelopment proposals. There's no provision in the act to ensure that those kinds of things happen, and those kinds of things are crucial for Metropolitan Toronto.

I think basically that covers most of the points. I want to leave some time for questioning, but I want to simply, in that regard, say that if you believe the regional interest is important, then the regional authorities have to have the mechanisms to be able to ensure that regional requirements are met, be they through development agreements or site plan control. That authority has not been paid attention to within this legislation. There need to be some amendments to ensure that those things are guaranteed, particularly if you remove Metro as the approval authority for official plans.

1550

Mr Gartner: If I could try to summarize and bring these things together, our principal issue, as it has been repeated several times, is this issue of assignment of powers, that Metro has been isolated and treated differently than other upper-tier municipalities without, in our opinion, any planning grounds. I'd like to clarify what I consider to be really a misrepresentation of this issue entirely. It's the issue of fact or fiction.

The history, and this is verified from each of the regions, shows -- and I have actually negotiated the delegation of approval authority to another municipality and administered it for a number of years -- there has not been a problem in those municipalities, as indicated by the real estate association. It has approved both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the process and there has not been the purported conflict with local area municipalities as indicated. You can check with Waterloo, with Ottawa, with Hamilton-Wentworth, and particularly with Halton. The facts are clear. What we're dealing with in Metro Toronto is a perception of what might happen, with no historical verification.

Secondly, the issue of sophistication: Are you prepared to say the cities of North York or East York or York are more sophisticated than the cities of Hamilton, Ottawa, Mississauga or Oshawa? Be careful. They aren't. I've worked in three of those four places and I would challenge that. The reality is not sophistication; it's consistency.

Thirdly, the issue of misrepresentation of provincial interests: You have created regions as a provincial Legislature to be a lower and closer-to-the-people level of government to implement provincial policy as well as local policy. One of the reasons why there's anxiety is that there's a natural tension between large-scale and small-scale issues. The regions have been asked to do that. That's the reason for the tension, not the issue of delegation. Delegation is an administrative process, but the tension will still exist if it's at the province.

The relationship with the surrounding regions: Metro is the largest region in Ontario; it's the largest municipality in Canada. Are you prepared to not grant it equal powers with the four surrounding regions with which it must negotiate? Our principal problems are boundary issues. Can we possibly be given an inferior position to the municipalities? In 1953, the surrounding municipalities around the city of Toronto created boundary problems. We have the same issue now. We must be given an equal foot to negotiate with those regions, if only for consistency's sake and for good planning.

We are visited weekly in Metro Toronto on an international basis by people who come to this municipality to test and experience first hand the results of the planning that's occurred over the last 40 years. It seems somewhat of a contradiction for us to not be recognized by our maker, the province, when in fact people from Australia, Thailand, China, all across Europe and the United States are visiting us on a weekly basis to emulate and learn from the experience which has arguably been internationally written up as being successful. This type of response from the province seems to be unjustified in our terms and, with respect to council, is very, very upsetting to them as well as to their staff.

Mr Moscoe: It's a position opposed by the regional chairs in a letter to the minister and several other planning bodies in the province which can't fathom or understand why this kind of political decision has been made.

Mr Gartner: Finally, the issue of site planning: In a reurbanizing situation, it's really important that the region, as in other regions, have access to this, if only, for instance, to implement the provincial programs for transit. The reality is that these are difficult integration issues. The local municipality admittedly is closer to the issue, but there will be situations where there is a conflict locally and where there has to be a balance between regional and local issues. Without direct access to the site planning process there is no guarantee, whatever the feelings of goodwill are, if there's no appeal process or no direct involvement process, that the regional interests will be administered. I understand all of the regions have asked for that. It's much more important in the urbanizing regions such as Hamilton, Ottawa and Metropolitan Toronto.

The mechanisms for effective coordination between provincial ministries: The issue there was raised several times. I won't repeat it other than to suggest that public bodies should be given the same responsibilities as private. It seems to me that there's been a general understanding that the responsibility should be equitably applied.

The rest is in our presentation. I think we should have an opportunity for some questions. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There are about two minutes per caucus, not much more than that.

Mr Grandmaître: We're hearing conflicting versions of planning in Metro. As you pointed out, this morning Mayor Lastman and this afternoon the city of Toronto, in a rare unanimity move, decided to keep Metro out of local planning. Surely to God, it's not only parochialism. There must be something else. How come six municipalities --

Mr Moscoe: Well, Metro doesn't want to be involved in local planning. Metro wants to be involved in regional planning. We don't want to do zoning, but we have a responsibility to ensure that there's some consistency across Metropolitan Toronto on a variety of issues, including transportation, sewage and other things.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Lastman this morning talked about local planning, and I was surprised that he used that word, "local" planning.

Mr Moscoe: I can't speak for Mr Lastman.

The Chair: One last question?

Mr Curling: Yes. Someone has to interpret greater Metro Toronto. As a matter of fact, I have concerns about transportation. Not very much has been said while we go around about transportation. When it comes to transportation in greater Toronto, it's very important. When it comes to transportation in Scarborough, even for the extension of the SRT, we have been left out, and if there are weak presentations by Scarborough, we lose out. We want somebody to interpret it who has an impact. Intensification also is another area.

What I'm trying to say then, I emphasize and support the role that Metro should have a stronger role in having actually the same powers given to the regions, because I think it is helpful for economic planning.

The Chair: That was a statement, I think. Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: Mr Tonks, I appreciate what you had to say with regard to your remarks, and it intrigued me when you mentioned about the Sewell report and what the aim was of his report, to streamline the whole process of planning. From your remarks, I don't gather that you feel it has happened in Bill 163. In your opinion, does Bill 163 improve on the planning, is it poor, or is it the status quo of what we have now?

Mr Tonks: No, I think it's an improvement, Mr McLean, but I don't think that the cross-Ontario objectives are going to be realized in Metropolitan Toronto if we're exempted or excepted from the recommendations of the Sewell commission.

Mr McLean: But you are exempted.

Mr Tonks: And we are exempted, yes.

Mr McLean: With regard to the remarks made this morning, does Metro have the final planning say over the six municipalities that are around it?

Mr Tonks: Not at the moment. We have delegated authority to our commissioner with respect to such matters as plans of subdivision and so on in order to get our responses back to the area municipalities.

But I would like to emphasize what Mr Eddy said in terms of the differentiation between local planning and regional planning, and Mayor Lastman. I think you have captured very clearly the difference in perceptions of what actually is happening here.

We don't want to get on the street-by-street fighting and calling meetings and so on of the area municipalities, but if we have a general philosophy, and as it comes down from the province, of, say, intensification, we do that on the basis of all of the objectives of stopping urban sprawl and a more cost-effective urban setting for transit planning and so on. What we want to be able to do is say, "All those area plans on these general areas have to be consistent with respect to those transportation or sewage or social services plans," and in fact they will probably mirror the provincial interest. We're saying we can do that better by sitting down with the area municipalities and getting those things worked out by consensus.

The Chair: Ms Harrington. If there's time, Mr Perruzza.

Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for your presentation today. I do agree with your concern about redevelopment and intensification of existing builtup areas. I think that's an important direction that we are going. I'm not sure I agree that there's insufficient attention being paid to that, but certainly it is an important issue here in Toronto that we need to work on.

1600

I have two questions to our staff here; first of all, the issue of Metro not being empowered as the other municipalities are. I need to have them state the rationale behind that. Second, I want to ask staff if in fact there will be a delay with regard to Metro's new official plan, which is one of your other concerns. Would staff be available?

Mr Eddy: Put a time limit on it.

Mr Hayes: You're out of time.

Well, the only thing I can really say right now is, the understanding is that Metro is actually looking at its own governance. I know there is some concern about whether we should deal with this immediately or wait until some other things are straightened out. That's the information I've got.

The other point is that I think we hear you loud and clear and we can raise these things with the minister. I can't tell you really what direction is going to be taken at this time.

Ms Harrington: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, a statement? Short?

Mr Perruzza: A very short question. I just want to ask how they would envision the region obtaining official plan authority to work with the local role, how they envision the local role in that. I guess the last question, if they want to comment on it, is the question of governance. Until you deal with the governance issue in Metro, I don't see how you can deal with any of these other matters in some meaningful way.

Mr Gartner: If I could possibly address this one, very quickly, there is a perception that delegation or assignment takes away local authority. It does not. Everything that happens at the local level happens under that situation. The only change is that the regional municipality, in this case Metro, is the approving authority as opposed to the province. That is it.

There are very strict conditions of delegation in the former system, and I'm sure of assignment in this system, which would require that the municipality act in a sensitive, reasonable and objective fashion in compliance with its own official plan. In this case the regional official plan will remain being approved by the province, and if we are abiding by our plan, which we can be legislatively and legally bound to do, then in fact there should be no problem, and there hasn't been in other regional municipalities.

So the local system remains the same. Any other representation is incorrect, just patently incorrect. There is no intention to interfere with local planning. It's to allow for one step in the process to be removed by people who have to review anyway. Metro's approval is required under the current system. You can't approve it if we don't agree to it. If it doesn't comply with our plan, it's not possible for the province, under the legislation, to approve the plan. All you're taking out is one hurdle. It's a complete misrepresentation of fact.

The Chair: We've run out of time.

Mr Eddy: We'll look forward to the amendments.

The Chair: We thank all three of you for coming and for sharing your concerns and ideas with us.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

The Chair: We welcome the regional municipality of Peel and Mayor Hazel McCallion.

Mrs Hazel McCallion: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I'm going to be dealing with one specific aspect of the bill, because I believe that you have heard from the regional -- oh, could I introduce --

The Chair: I think he needs to be introduced.

Mr Rob Candy: Rob Candy. I'm the acting supervisor of legislative services with the region.

Mr Rob Payne: Rob Payne, legislative coordinator with the region.

Mrs McCallion: I got delegated to this job. As I say, I want to deal with one specific, because I believe the region of Peel planner has been here. Tom Mokrzycki, commissioner of planning of the city of Mississauga, has been here to deal with the act and the concerns we have.

It's interesting to hear the Metro position -- it's all over the map -- because I take great exception that the city of Mississauga must --

Mr Perruzza: Let's call them back.

Mrs McCallion: No, I think he's on the right track. I take exception that the city of Mississauga must be governed by the region of Peel but the city of London is governed by nobody.

Mr Eddy: That's right.

Mrs McCallion: Right? You know, that's interesting. And here you are saying to Metro that they can't get involved. So it's the typical screwed-up system that we have in this province of everything, including planning. It doesn't make any sense that the city of London has no regional authority that deals with it.

I can assure you I'd challenge anybody, including Metro Toronto, to have the professional staff that the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel have in regard to planning, because we have handled more development than anybody else in the province, as you know, Drummond. But I don't want to concentrate on that. I think it's a joke what happens.

I'd like to deal with just a few items, but one specifically. It's interesting that Bill 163 would require municipalities to give notice of their proposed decision to approve an official plan amendment to any person or public body, which will have 30 days to refer all or part of the proposed decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Presently the minister is not required to give such notice under existing legislation. Consequently, the time period to approve simple or housekeeping amendments will be extended by at least two months. There's no need for this change.

Section 51 requires a public meeting for each plan of subdivision at least 30 days before a decision is made. The region of Peel has yet to receive any complaints regarding the lack of a public meeting over the last 20 years of approving plans of subdivision, in a region that has led the country in development. This requirement will add at least 90 days to the approval process, when the John Sewell commission was to streamline -- that's what we heard, "streamline" -- and give local autonomy back. Both are a joke. Furthermore, such meetings will have to be held at the council or committee level, and the advantages of delegated staff approval will be lost. This is counterproductive.

Section 51 also requires municipalities to provide notice when a change in subdivision conditions applies. This section allows any person or public body to appeal the changed conditions. These new requirements will lengthen the approval process by at least two months and will considerably increase staff and mailing costs. As you may know, conditions are usually changed at the request of a commenting agency, such as a provincial ministry, and are usually not significant. By the time it gets to that process, the changes should not be significant or something's wrong with the process. The public is rarely affected, and only two or three concerns have been expressed over the last 20 years. Where is the justification for this?

Now I want to deal with the item that is of grave concern to politicians at the local level: in camera meetings. Bill 163 requires that all council and committee meetings be open to the public except for certain in camera matters, namely security, personal matters, land acquisition, labour relations, employee negotiations, litigation, advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, matters where an in camera meeting is authorized by another act and consideration of freedom of information requests.

We follow that in the region of Peel and we follow that in the city of Mississauga; maybe there are municipalities across the province that don't. But I'll tell you, I'd like to see the cabinet open its discussions to the public. That would be very interesting. In other words, the message is: Don't do what I do, but do what I say. That's actually the message that is coming forward. And it's not just this government; it's been all the provincial governments, I have to tell you. It's not just this one. I don't want to be partisan in this regard.

For some unknown reason, you are prepared to dictate to us what we do at the local level, but you're not prepared to practise what you preach at the provincial level. Perhaps the provincial government should take some of its own medicine and conduct its cabinet meetings in public. Wouldn't that be interesting?

I challenge you to follow the same authoritarian rules that you are proposing for municipal governments in Ontario. Certain subject matters which municipalities are entitled to keep private in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, such as plans relating to the management of personnel or the administration of the corporation and confidential advice of staff or consultants, would be required to be disclosed in open council. Premature public disclosure of these matters could cause serious injury to the region's financial and legal interests.

1610

Regarding disposal of surplus real property, the region of Peel has already adopted its own land acquisition and inventory management policy which substantially conforms to the requirements of the proposed bill. Why is the provincial government interfering in a local matter which is presently governed accordingly by local governments?

Bill 163 will require mandatory public notice of any proposed land sale by municipalities. The extra costs of advertising and administration as well as the maintenance of a public register of all public buildings owned by the region imposed by this bill are significant. It should be left up to the municipalities.

You know, folks, municipalities have grown up. We're no longer children of the province. Sorry, but we're not. I would say that the city of Mississauga is better run than this province, because we're debt-free and you're not. We don't increase taxes, and we in fact give a reduction in taxes. Can you match that? I challenge you to do it.

With regard to councillors' conflict-of-interest rules, the new rules would require councillors, in addition to current regulations, to not attempt to influence persons interested in a contract with council; file a conflict-of-interest disclosure -- you know what you've done, or what the bill says -- file a gift disclosure certificate with the clerk if any gift is received over a certain amount.

Imagine. This is a joke, folks. I don't like being treated as a child. Sure, there are exceptions, but limit the number of exceptions there are in this province where it's necessary for this to happen. The proposed amount is $200. We're going to have to have an appraisal person at the city to appraise every gift that's given, making sure that it's under $200. Isn't it sad we're coming to that?

Councillors must file a financial disclosure statement with the clerk upon election and annually. You know what? What's going to happen, folks, and you better know, is that people you really should have in government, business people who should be running the municipalities and running this province, are not going to offer themselves for public office. In fact, you're going to have welfare people, and then they really have a conflict, because they're getting welfare.

It's sad that we're discouraging people we need so badly today to run government like a business and to get us back on a paying basis, to keep us from going bankrupt and paying the millions of dollars every year to international investors. I tell you, folks, we want good people in government and we should go out of our way to get good people to run for government. You're not going to get them. You're putting every roadblock in the way.

In fact this year I'm running for mayor again. I will have to disclose -- and I have no problem disclosing -- but the guy who runs against me will not have to disclose. Isn't that interesting? Mine will be a public document, but the little guy who put up his name, no problem at all. They know nothing about his. Isn't that interesting, how inconsistent it is?

It is important to note that the conflict-of-interest legislation governing MPPs -- now we're getting down to the real root of the problem -- does not prohibit MPPs from influencing persons interested in a contract with the government. Isn't that interesting? We can't, but you folks can. Nor are MPPs required to complete a disclosure-of-interest form. With respect to inside information, MPPs are prohibited from using inside information for their own interests but are not prevented from using information for another person's interests. A higher standard of conduct should not be expected of councillors than MPPs.

A new disclosure register, open to the public, would be required in every clerk's office, including all statements filed by councillors of conflicts of interest, gifts and financial information -- another administrative burden. Of course, you folks don't mind because it's not out of your pocket, it's out of ours. It's a cost to the taxpayers. The social contract has cut us down to the bare minimum, certainly in Mississauga's staff, so here's another administrative role that you're putting to us.

Finally, the new local disclosure commissioner is to be appointed by the province, empowered to investigate allegations, bring court actions, and approve requests by members to omit the disclosure of information that would reveal sources of income from services provided on a confidential basis or cause serious harm to a person or business.

Just imagine the power that you're putting into the hands of that individual. And of course, he'll be appointed by the government in power, so that's a friend to the government. In our opinion, the new commissioner will duplicate the existing commission on conflict of interest, which has a similar role for MPPs. Since the legislation does not address who will pay for this new commission, we have every reason to fear the province will simply pass on the financial burden to local municipalities just like supplementary assessments. I'm sure you all know about that. That's only $2.8 million to the city of Mississauga. And courthouse policing, for example. In other words, they'll set up a structure and they'll say: "Now, you folks pay for it. It's our idea." I'd love to come up with ideas that somebody else pays for. I haven't been too lucky with that. I haven't been too fortunate with that.

Bill 163 fails the test advocated by this provincial government of municipal empowerment, timely and efficient decision-making, and clear policies which integrate social, economic, and environmental values. Even John Sewell before AMO last week spoke out. He's very disappointed with the bill. I can't believe it. Imagine, one of their party people.

Interjection.

Mrs McCallion: I'm telling you, he spoke to the entire assembly.

It limits municipal decision-making authority and local accountability. Folks, we are the closest to the people. I know a lot of people in my city don't even know who their MPPs or MPs are, because we have 20,000 to 30,000 people move into our city every year. But I can assure you, they know who their mayor is and they know who their councillors are. They don't know who their boards of education are either.

Mr Sewell also expressed considerable disappointment with the contents of the legislation and the manner in which the legislation was introduced without prior consultation with relevant stakeholders. That's Mr Sewell speaking, that your government appointed. The draft legislation contains serious implications which will negatively impact the operations of local governments throughout Ontario.

Let me give you one that seriously impacts the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel as well, and that is, section 23 of Bill 163 amends the parkland dedication provisions to ensure that municipalities cannot require more than one parkland dedication in respect of a development unless an increase in density of the proposal occurs between the draft subdivision approval stage and the issuance of the first building permit. That lifts $11 million out of our pocket.

You know, it's interesting. I think it's a lack of understanding of how the municipalities operate.

The amendment also destroys equity in municipalities that have negotiated, in good faith with the development industry, a development charges bylaw. And I don't think you folks know that's in the legislation, because it's been sneaked in very nicely. I don't think you, the elected people, know it's in there. You better take a look at it. It seems that the UDI -- and of course, the NDP government is not that favourable with the Urban Development Institute -- talked to Dale Martin and convinced him to put this in without consultation with AMO. We've checked it and AMO was not consulted on it.

So I think you have serious problems with Bill 163 and especially -- I just couldn't believe John Sewell at AMO. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. You were there, Ron. You heard it. But the guy went around this province and talked to the people, and then the bill comes out completely against John Sewell's recommendations, or he raised a number of items. I just can't believe it.

I feel I'm wasting my time here because I've been before so many committees -- you folks have committees and Bill 120 is a good example. The fire chiefs were there, the municipalities were there, the GTA mayors were there. Who was there? Everybody was there. Bill 120 came out exactly the way you wanted it. Basement apartments all over hell's half-acre. I just can't believe it.

1620

So, I said today, I'm coming down, and I like a drive to Toronto the odd time. I don't like the traffic back. But it's a waste of time to come before committees. I've told my council; I've told the regional council -- you heard me the other day -- it's a waste of time but if you want me to go I'll go, because you're not listening. You're not listening to the problems of municipalities. You've got your minds made up and you're going to bulldoze ahead come hell or high water.

What you're doing is creating problems second to none. We know the problems and we're accountable, I can tell you, to the people. You folks aren't accountable, I've got to tell you, and I don't care which government you belong to: Liberal, Conservative or NDP. You're not accountable to the people. You're too far away; far too far away. Ed Philip was out Saturday and presented me with a cheque of $1.5 million to the Lakefront Promenade Park. All those citizens standing out there think, "Boy, is that province generous." I said to Ed Philip: "Yes, that's great, and on July 1 you whacked us for $2.8 million. It's just a bookkeeping item, and I can only assure you, Mr Minister, you're ahead and we're behind."

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor McCallion. There's time for a few questions, approximately two and a half minutes. Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: Again, Madam Mayor, you said it so well and directly, and of course this is important to hear this until they listen somehow. Of course I was a part of the process too. Your comment about the cabinet, not even our good parliamentary assistant who is here for the -- he's the ears of the minister and he can't even get into cabinet to hear what goes on afterwards. It's all so closed, and as you said, all government does that itself, and it's in kind of a closed section.

How do you respond, Madam Mayor, to some of the concerns I hear that all this delay that has been before the developers has cost so much money because the individual municipalities are holding up the process? Therefore, people say that they welcome this legislation because it will save time and the legislation is so needed in order to get these developments going and because somehow the municipalities are not doing the work the way they should be doing it. So the legislation will assist them with this kind of time frame, cutting out the red tape.

Mrs McCallion: There's one thing that John Sewell -- and I don't know if it's in the legislation. I'm not sure. I haven't asked my staff, but I can assure you we used to be held up for ages waiting for agencies to respond to development plans. I think John said it well -- I heard him one day saying: "There's a deadline. If you don't hear from the agencies, you bulldoze ahead." I think that's very smart.

Secondly, the ministries have to get their act together on development. It's very interesting. I've tried to get an answer on airport noise. I get the Minister of Municipal Affairs; he came forward and gave me an answer. The Ministry of Environment says, "Oh, we can't comment because there are two matters before the OMB." So there you sit, confused.

Let me give you an example. There's a development in Mississauga that went to a hearing because the Ministry of Environment with the owner next door appealed it. The hearing was last September -- no, I'm sorry. The hearing was last fall. The hearing concluded in February, and we haven't had an answer yet on it, and this is September 1994. I think it's 22 townhouses. Think of the interest that's piling up on that guy owning that land. A guy got sick, the chairman or whoever heard it, so there we sit. There's great delay. The OMB was backlogged to the point where you couldn't get hearings. That's why they came out with these preliminary hearings, and they did that in good faith, trying to eliminate the backlog.

Mr Eddy: In some municipalities.

Mrs McCallion: Yes. So it's very frustrating. To say that municipalities are perfect would be wrong. Sure there are delays, because we have to deal with the public. The OMB doesn't have to deal with the public; we have to. We try through meetings to satisfy the concerns of the public, because they don't like development. The public generally doesn't like development. It's natural for them to oppose it. You've got to go through a process to bring them along or else you end up with a costly OMB hearing. So the municipalities have a long way to go in trying to smooth the waters for the decision to be made; otherwise it ends up at the OMB.

What we do when there's a complaint to a bylaw that we pass on development is we again meet with the complainant and work with them to try to get their objection out of the way. We don't just accept it and say, "Well, I guess that's an OMB hearing." We now go back at it again to see "Can we?" We've been successful, in my opinion, in the last couple of years. Out of, say, 20 that were appealed to the OMB in the last two to three years, we've been able to eliminate about 10 of them by going back again and explaining to them that they're not going to win because there are too many strikes against their opposition.

We have to deal with that at the local level. We have to meet them at church on Sunday; we have to meet them in the shopping plaza. The OMB doesn't meet them there, but we have to. So we have to try to pave the way for development to move with some support.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Mrs McCallion, for coming before the committee today. You're not the only one who has brought frustration and concerns to this committee; it's been right across the province. If you think that you're wasting your time, I hope you're not wasting your time, because the viewers who are watching us and the people who are listening here today I hope will take some of your concerns into consideration, because they should and that's what it's all about.

The concern I had also is, when I was at AMO and Mr Sewell made his remarks on the platform, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. What bothers me is that there was supposed to have been a three-month consultation period with the stakeholders before any legislation was brought forward. It probably would have been wise for the government to have done that. I think it would have brought in a better bill than what we are dealing with here today.

One question I have is, do you think this piece of legislation puts the province in worse shape as far as planning goes or do you think it's any kind of improvement? I've talked to planners and consultants and they tell me that this is going to put us back.

Mrs McCallion: I think John Sewell had some suggestions that we supported. I don't think his report was completely negative. There were some grave concerns we had about it, but we were delighted to hear him say that if the agency doesn't respond within the 30-day period, you just move ahead. I think that's the only way.

Mr McLean: That's what it was all about. It's supposed to be streamlining.

Mrs McCallion: There were some good points to John Sewell's report, and you can't say that the entire bill is absolutely negative, but there are some very serious problems with it. It does not do what the government has said it did, that is, restore local autonomy. It's taken it away. No question.

Mr McLean: It hasn't streamlined it then.

Mrs McCallion: It has not streamlined it and it's taken it away from the local level. I've got to tell you folks that we're in trouble economically in this country and in this province and in this greater Toronto area. That's why I put together the GTA mayors, to try to get us on the track again. People are out of work. Why are they out of work? Because we've got such a convoluted process of getting things done. My staff say to me that by the time you get approval to do something today, you don't have the money to do it, because you've spent all the money getting the approval through the environmental assessment, OMB hearings. The lawyers are having a kill. The next time I come back, I'm coming back as a lawyer, no question about it.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Mayor McCallion. This afternoon there might have been times when I felt a little on the sleepy side, but listening to your presentation is just as good as a couple of cups of coffee. I always enjoy listening to you, Mayor McCallion, and I hope you don't really consider coming here to be a waste of time, because I certainly would miss your presentation tomorrow morning.

The issues that you're bringing up are very, very important, because of course the intent here with the legislation, as you've noted and as you were commenting from Mr Sewell's presentation and the good work that's gone through here, is to bring the planning process back to the people, involving people with the open meetings etc, but also to speed up the approval process by making some sense of what goes to the OMB. I believe that minor variances cannot be appealed to the OMB and there are rules set out in terms of when the OMB can say, "No, no, we're not going to consider that."

1630

I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about your experience with those kinds of processes. Your town, your city, as you noted, probably had more development than any other municipality in the last 10 or 15 years. You've probably had more appeals, more minor variances going to the OMB than other jurisdictions, simply because of the amount of development in Mississauga. What's been your experience with the minor variance issue? I'd like to ask another question later on.

Mrs McCallion: We've been very fortunate. We have not had a lot of minor variances. We've got an excellent committee of adjustment. We expanded the membership of it. We've had very few come to the OMB in regard to minor variances. Our committee does an excellent job. Every one of them goes out and inspects every application that comes before it.

As you know, the city must appeal if they're really concerned. I think over the last five years if we've appealed more than two decisions of the committee of adjustment -- the city itself, in appealing it. So we have not had a problem with that. Now that it's coming back for us to make that decision, we don't see any major change in that. So that wasn't a grave concern of ours.

What we're concerned about, and the bill doesn't cover it, is that the region should have the authority to delegate the responsibility to the local municipality, because we get along well in Peel. We're not fighting like Metro and the boroughs or the cities. We don't have the zoo that they have in here.

We very clearly define our regional responsibilities, regional services and therefore the regional official plan must deal with those regional services. We take exception when the region, in any way, tries to interfere with local planning, and I think that's all that Metro is saying.

So we don't have the problem in that regard, but I can assure you that we feel, and our planner will clearly outline to you -- Mr Tom Mokrzycki -- that we have concerns about the bill. And I'm not sure that the people who write the bill are thoroughly familiar with the way municipalities operate, I've got to tell you. I'm sorry, I think that's the problem.

The Chair: Mr White, I'm sorry.

Mr White: The Chair's told me I've run out of time, but I want to thank you for your presentation.

The Chair: Mayor McCallion, we appreciate your coming to Toronto and we thank you for the presentation you have made to this committee.

Mrs McCallion: Thank you.

Mr Hayes: Two quick comments.

The Chair: I'm afraid that won't --

Mr Hayes: No, I think we should clarify something.

The Chair: Mr Hayes, some comments of clarification. Mayor McCallion.

Mr Hayes: Just on the issue about who's going to pay for the commission, that will be done through provincial government resources.

The other issue I wanted to mention is, I'm not arguing with you about what John Sewell said at AMO, but I think you should get a copy of the Hansard about what he said to this committee at a later date because he talked very supportively of what this committee is doing. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayes. Thank you again --

Mrs McCallion: He talked to the committee and supported --

The Chair: He spoke in this committee meeting.

Mrs McCallion: Well, that's a typical NDP approach.

Mr Hayes: Is he a card-carrying NDP?

The Chair: Since when was Mr Sewell an NDP member? Thank you, Mayor McCallion, nice to see you.

Mr Hayes: Mr Sewell is not NDP, for your information.

SWANSEA AREA RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We invite the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, Mr William Roberts. Mr Roberts, welcome to this committee.

Mr William Roberts: Thank you. Actually, John Sewell's parents are Conservative. The last card he ever had was Liberal. This much I know from being in Toronto.

I'm here on behalf of the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association. They've been around since before the First World War. They actually existed before Swansea was created and they've continued since Swansea was amalgamated with Toronto. I myself have been on the executive since 1974. I'm a lawyer. The perspective I'm bringing, actually, is that of more of a ratepayer person rather than a lawyer but with my legal background.

Actually, unlike Mayor McCallion, we do not agree that appeals to local councils on minor variance matters are appropriate. The problem is perhaps more so in Toronto, where the bylaws have been imposed on existing buildings and where you don't have planned subdivisions with appropriate setbacks, that a minor variance could have significant impact on an adjacent neighbour. Often what happens is, despite the delays that you have at the OMB, the people who go there have the feeling that they've been heard; they've had a fair hearing.

The problem is going to be that, when the matter goes before council, natural justice is specifically prohibited. That means you have a full right to a full and fair hearing before a committee of adjustment to be followed by a political decision. It'd be the equivalent of having a full trial at the Ontario Court (General Division) followed by Parliament deciding whether or not that decision should be allowed to stand based on political factors. No one would consider that fair.

The reality is, there are basically two types of appeals: neighbour-versus-neighbour appeals and then the broader appeals that may involve the consistency and continuance of the bylaw. The first type of appeal tends to be very low key: A neighbour wants to put an expansion on to their house. It may be higher than the bylaw permits; it may be closer to the neighbour's house than permitted; it may be bigger in terms of density than permitted. The adjacent neighbour may appear and object on the basis of affecting its light, air, views etc.

When you read the earlier board decisions back in the 1970s many board members said, "Where a neighbour says they're impacted, we'll take that seriously into consideration," because there is no right to light or air in this province any more since it was abolished in the 1880s. The only protection is in the bylaw. That bylaw sets minimum standards, not the maximum standards, in terms of separation.

The problem is going to be when these matters get before council. I'm not sure the council members will divorce themselves from their political process. Often on a zoning matter, you'll see city councillors wander in and out of the meeting, not listening to the people. When it's neighbour fighting neighbour and the council member wanders out and comes back, that neighbour is not going to assume that they have a good process. They're going to assume they have a kangaroo court. They're going to assume it's a political process. They're going to figure their rights have been denied. And they're right, because you've passed a law saying their rights are denied. Kangaroo courts are legal.

The real problem has become -- and I'll try to deal with this although I'm not completely following my report here -- back in 1977, the real gap came with the McNamara case or the Coles bookstore case, where a Coles bookstore expanded their building. The bylaw in Toronto required them to have a loading bay. They couldn't put it into the building. They provided a chute in place. It was argued that was 100% deviation from the bylaw; it shouldn't be permitted. The court said, "It's okay."

Since then, what are minor variances has become more and more tenuous. Now people are putting 60-foot-high buildings in 30-foot-height areas; they're having zero lot lines where you have a 10-foot side requirement and you wonder you've got more appeals happening. The reality is people aren't asking for minor variances. On top of it, there's been a gloss put on it by the board.

When you read the section of the act -- and actually I have 30 copies of the act that you may want to look at later on; I'll just pass this to the clerk -- it refers to minor variance. It sets out a series of tests. In the 1980s when it first started practising law the board said: "Is it minor? Fine. Now does it meet the four tests?" What I've noticed into the 1980s was that the board said, "Is it desirable?" If it's desirable then it must be minor, so the whole issue of minors disappear.

Now that means, hey, if I can convince the board it's desirable, then it doesn't matter if it's minor. Again, the types of appeals have expanded making it necessary for not just the neighbours to be present now but the ratepayers associations, local councils, other parties to become involved and debate the issue of what is or isn't minor.

In addition, what's happened is the local planners, knowing that there's a "minor variance" provision, have started making their bylaws more and more loose and less and less related to the reality. In the case of Toronto -- and I'll just do this very briefly to give you an idea what we're talking about here -- this first half is the general provisions of the city of Toronto. The second half is the exceptions to the general provisions. This doesn't include committee of adjustment applications. There is something seriously wrong when you start drafting bylaws where the exceptions outnumber the provisions. Then you get the minor variance applications on the exceptions and on the actual bylaw, to the point that citizens don't know what the bylaw means any more.

1640

To give you an example, when Swansea was amalgamated with Toronto back in 1967, we had 10-foot, 20-foot and 30-foot front setbacks. Toronto only had 20-foot setbacks. Instead of creating an exemption to allow the 10-foot setbacks to be the rule on those streets, 20-foot is the rule. That meant all the houses with 10-foot front setbacks were now legal non-conforming. When people apply for a building permit for in-fill housing, rather than going to committee of adjustment, they build a house with a 20-foot setback, so it was 10 feet behind all the other houses and the rearscape was affected accordingly.

Our position is that if you're not going to allow an appeal to an independent arbitrator body like the OMB, then cancel the whole minor variance proposal, force the planners to draft bylaws that actually reflect what's going on and go through rezoning processes where a wider public is involved.

If you're going to keep the minor variance procedures, then you may have to go to a regional body. Why not have a regional board to deal with these matters? Some of the implications have regional, not just neighbour versus neighbour -- and have maybe drawn from various committees of adjustment from the different boroughs and cities, and they would hear the proposals, rather than the OMB, but at least provide some sort of regional overcover for the area.

If you are going to follow the process that you've recommended, then we see a serious problem. The way committee of adjustment matters come before the committee is the applicant decides they want a variance. They hire their planners, their architects, their lawyers and when they're ready, they set the process in place. The present requirement says within 30 days you have to hold the hearing and there's 15 days' notice given. Since you have an appeal to the OMB, that's not that important, because if you're not happy with the committee of adjustment's decision, you get your full hearing and trial at the OMB.

But consider what's happening now. You're going to get the same process. The only hearing they're going to get a fair trial at is the committee of adjustment. The applicants there are fully ready, the neighbourhood finds out 15 days before the hearing, they've got to talk, they have to look at the plans, they have to decide whether to hire a planner, research the facts -- all within 15 days? Please; it's not going to happen.

I'll tell you what will probably happen, they'll start going to the courts saying, "We've been denied due process." The courts might start imposing things on the committee of adjustment in terms of full hearing rights and what you'll find is what happened to the OMB: Committee of adjustment hearings, instead of being 10, 15 minutes or an hour, will start being a day, two days, three days and four days, because that's where you get to argue your full set of facts. Understand, I have a right to a hearing. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act says I have a right to cross-examine. Most lawyers don't do it at the committee of adjustment level, but if that's the only place where I get to cross-examine whether that person's telling the truth or not, it's going to happen at the committee of adjustment level.

As I say, the other factor is simply that the old provisions were to deal with hardship cases, the pie-shaped lot among rectangular lots, the smaller lot, the uses that weren't caught. That's lost and I think the problem you need to really consider here is the definition of "minor variance." If you tighten that up, you're going to have fewer appeals. If you leave it loosey-goosey, the appeals are going to keep running.

If I was a developer, to be quite blunt, I'd go the minor variance route knowing I'd go to the council with probably minimal notice, only to the parties that appeared at the committee of adjustment, with very little opposition, instead of going through the rezoning process, which would have a full hearing as to the various factors, like environmental impact, traffic etc.

My one other comment -- I'm going to try to be quick on this because of the time frames -- is the "shall be consistent with." Our concern is that you're raising ministerial decisions to the level of law with no process equivalent to the passage of law. For heaven's sake, if it had at least been the Lieutenant Governor in Council, it would have meant the cabinet agreed to it. The more appropriate way, which some parliamentary jurisdictions have gone to for regulations, is it goes through a committee like this committee, which can hear deputations. That's the body that approves the policy, so you get a full hearing, different viewpoints are heard within the committee, not just the bureaucrats talking to the minister, the minister talking to their special friends and then producing the order which will then have the effect of law.

We're content with the contaminated lands and natural features proposals.

Conflict-of-interest provisions -- we're supportive of the wider definition. One cautionary note, however: We notice that there's no provision for honest mistakes. As a lawyer, it strikes me that you've got criminal penalties, fines and other punishments coming down the tubes for conflict of interest and you've made it an absolute liability offence, which is to say: "We don't care if you thought you had a legal right to do it, we don't care if you applied due diligence. You made a mistake; you're out; you're in jail. Thank you very kindly."

That's fine, but I don't think any MPP or any cabinet minister would like to have the similar policy applied to them: "You made a mistake. You're out. That's it. No discussion; sorry." Normally speaking, in terms of a criminal provision like this, you would put in due diligence or put in a provision that would allow an honest mistake. I'm suggesting that you may want to consider for the conflict-of-interest provisions due diligence or -- I haven't put this in; it only happened when I reread the provisions -- that you may want to include those sorts of factors.

Those are the submissions of the Swansea area ratepayers. They're really done from the perspective of -- we could have talked about other sections, but given the time frame, we concentrated on two or three key provisions that we thought were important. We thank you for allowing us to come and speak to you this evening.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Roberts. We do have time for some questions. First we'll begin with the PCs.

Mr McLean: Thank you for making your presentation. We've heard a lot about minor variances every day that we've been involved in this process and yours is another one adding to that.

On the first day of the hearings, when I asked the minister what a minor variance was, it was difficult to get an answer, but I've got an answer back from the ministry. It says, "The definition depends on the specifics of each application and the circumstances. However, both the current Planning Act and subsection 45(2) of the Bill 163 set out the following provisions on what constitutes a minor variance." Maybe this will be the first time you've ever heard from the ministry. "A local council may authorize a variance from a municipal bylaw if the variance is minor and it is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure and the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and of the official plan, if any, are maintained." The last one is, "Given the variety of local circumstances for which a minor variance may be used, it would not be appropriate or practical to define it further in legislation."

So as you can see, it's going to be pretty broad and all the time now I believe there is a need to have that final appeal to the OMB. Would you agree with that?

Mr Roberts: I'd agree with that. The other thing is that this interpretation of the ministry is obviously not involved in the reading of any recent OMB decisions in the last four years. They do not look to the term "minor"; they look to the term "appropriate" use or "desirable" as the critical factor.

To explain the problem that comes into that, a planner will say, "I view this as desirable." The planner is usually hired by the applicant. The citizens can't afford to spend $5,000 to have a planner there to say, "I don't think it's desirable." The board says, "Well, the only planning evidence we heard was from the area planner," or, "from the planner hired by the builder, who has found it desirable. Thank you," and the citizens sort of go, "Well, great."

The process when Chairman Kennedy was around was far more contained towards, "What's the situation here?" and a real respect for the bylaw, saying: "The bylaw says a three-foot side setback. You want two feet. Why do you need to have only a two-foot side setback? What's so special about your case?" In part, that's what's been lost. The onus is now on the people opposing it to hire the planners to prove that it's not desirable and that is into how many angels dance on the head of a pin; it's very hard to fight.

Ms Haeck: You raise a point that residents within my own area, when they came before this committee in Niagara Falls, have likewise felt very strongly about, particularly when projects in our area have gone from -- basically doubled in size. I think you're making some useful points. But I want to, if I may, put you on the spot just a bit longer.

1650

On page 6 of your presentation you make the point and you've highlighted it, "What is needed is a clearer definition of `minor.'" I agree with you and I have advocated very strongly for a glossary and an explanation of definitions. I think a lot of citizens when they want to really get involved in the process find themselves in some difficulty because they don't necessarily understand the process or the terminology. How would you define "minor"?

Mr Roberts: It is, as everybody has indicated, extremely difficult. "Minor," in my viewpoint, is both the mathematical situation which is usually in around up to, not less than. One of these disputes I had with the Sewell report was that the internal bureaucrats deal with it below 10%. I don't assume 10% as always automatically minor. But the one problem you get into, as in the McNamara case, is where you can't provide it. Whether it's a definition of "minor" or whether it's a definition of "hardship," somehow the way it's defined right now is unclear.

To deal with the OMB, it would be useful if the procedure of application was clear so the board couldn't put this gloss on it, that minor is your first step and once the board has found that it is minor, it must still meet the following tests. That's what the ministry says, but that isn't how you read the act. They fused the wording together. When you look at the section, a lawyer would interpret it that way. Minor would be that you would have to meet the criteria or provide a suitable alternate situation.

If I can try to deal with this, you will need to separate the mathematical aspects -- setbacks, heights and density, which are calculations -- from a different type of problem, which is you have to provide a loading bay, you have to provide a certain type of entrance into the parking space, you have to provide certain type of use. Those are different things and they're different types of minor variances. It may be necessary to actually relook at the sections and separate those concepts out and apply a different definition of "minor" to each.

One is a mathematical formula which you can look at. The other one is harder to deal with. In Coles bookstore, they had no other choice. They couldn't provide a loading by in the building without tearing the building down. They provided an appropriate alternate. I think the building code provides similar wording where they say, "If you can't meet the building code regulations you find an appropriate alternate method of meeting the criteria." Maybe that's what you need to do: separate the things out. I'm still working on it.

It actually was only when I started working on this submission that I suddenly realized what the real problem here was. So I thought about what was minor and why the appeals have expanded. I'd be willing to try to work something out, but what you may need to do is try to bring in different people, lawyers from the different groups, to sit down with the ministry to try and hammer something out. It's very difficult to come up with an easy definition but, in terms of my mind, I think if you separated those out, you might begin the way. It might require looking at the process and the types of variances that are being sought for.

For example, I've seen "a minor variance" including a body shop in the middle of an industrial strip where it's been specifically excluded. We had to go to the board and it was a three-day hearing. Finally, at the end of the hearing, the board member suddenly understood: "Oh, you mean they excluded it five years ago. I can't include it now. Yes, okay," and he excluded it. But we had to go through the full hearing.

Were the ratepayers wrong in opposing that or was the applicant wrong for even trying to raise the issue having had it specifically excluded by the council only five years before? I'll leave that for you to decide; but it cost the ratepayers a great deal of time and money to go there and oppose it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Roberts, for your answer, and now we have Mr Eddy, I believe.

Mr Eddy: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and raising the points you have. They're very important, and "minor variance" is a case in point. You've given us an alternative way of handling minor variances and you're saying, if we're going to continue to deal with applications for minor variances, we need to have the OMB appeal or go the other route in zoning. And then you've elaborated on that and said, "In order to define minor variances we'd have to have several categories," which I understand. I think you're getting to the root of the problem.

What do you think is the final solution? Do you think "minor variance" should be the technical measurement thing? The other system you mentioned was an appropriate alternative, which you run into in parking a lot.

Mr Roberts: Actually, if you look at the existing minor variance provisions and the sections that come below it, first there's the minor variance, it's followed by the provision dealing with legal non-conforming uses, and then there's the last section, which deals with adding uses not otherwise dealt with in the bylaw. It might be useful, following that pattern, to recognize the change that's occurred and --

Mr Eddy: But not include them all as minor variances; use different terminology. I think that's the answer.

Mr Roberts: Terminology, and to put a limitation on minor variances forcing anything over a certain amount to go through the rezoning process. Quite often technical rezonings go through the city of Toronto in approximately 180 days if nobody objects; if somebody objects, it's a different story. But I've seen technical problems come before a local community group and somebody explains, "Here's the technical problem, why you have to make the amendment to the zoning bylaw." They explain it carefully and people realize: "Yes, that's a technical amendment. We understand what your problem is. Sure, let's go for the rezoning." Nobody objects after the 30-day period of time and it's done.

If they go the committee of adjustment route, they may be there a lot longer. In fact, I've seen committee of adjustment matters take longer than the zoning matter to get to the board.

Mr Eddy: Yes, longer to get there, and then the problem is that after the hearing, the delay in getting the decision is even longer.

You mentioned provincial policies, your concern that they've been raised to the status of law, legislated documents. Of course we're not reviewing those and don't have the opportunity to review them, and you don't. There are some problems with them, we understand, even conflict between them. It seems to me we should back up and deal with the provincial policies first and really debate them and then determine what route we should go to have them used or require municipalities to use them.

Mr Roberts: The present formula works not badly because the board only has to "have regard to" and then you can argue and debate.

But the present social housing policies, as I found before the board, depending on the board chairman and who appointed that particular chair -- they regard them with more or less the authority of law. Some of the more recent appointments tend to view them as authority of law, regardless of Divisional Court and Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada decisions saying they aren't, that you have to apply your own discretion.

We do agree that the guidelines would provide an appropriate place so long as the method of developing them provides an appropriate security blanket, because it would be binding on the province as well. But if it's ministerial decision, the minister could override a minister's own decision where it's suitable for the province to override it, and that doesn't seem appropriate.

Mr Eddy: Yes, there's a great deal of concern about that.

Mr Roberts: If the minister had to come before a committee to say, "This is why I want to change it," the committee could say, "We're not going to make a change for you," or it would lead to public debate and embarrassment rather than somebody simply signing a letter saying, "I've changed it," and sending it off to the board.

Mr Eddy: I thank you for your suggestion regarding the conflict of interest act, too. That's important.

The Vice-Chair: Our time has run out. Thank you very much, Mr Roberts, for coming on behalf of the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association.

1700

ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITY GROUPS

The Vice-Chair: I call the Alliance of Community Groups, Mr Paul Crawford. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Paul Crawford: Thank you very much. A committee that actually runs on time? My compliments.

What I'd like to do is just give you a summary of some of the things we've put together that we consider important. Although the whole bill is important, we've tried not to deal with the total thing. We've tried to extract some things from it to point out our concerns.

One of the first things that was raised is that there were some reports that this bill does not include the region of York or Metropolitan Toronto. We're assuming that it does include Metropolitan Toronto and also the municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto.

There were fees mentioned. As a community group, we've never had to deal with fees. We just wonder what those fees might be. It should be very specific about what they are and who would be paying them.

Our concerns are related to what a lot of people have mentioned: the general wording of the bill and its lack of clarity, and the misuse of wordings within any bill that we have come up against when we've challenged certain things. We find that most bills' and most policies' wording can be taken out of context and cause a lot of trouble for ordinary folks like myself. That's why it's important that these things be crystal clear, not to just contain words but to contain numbers and specifics.

One of the suggestions that came out of this is that if a community group takes the time to read its primary plan, official plan and there's something in there that they don't understand, that requires clarification, I think it would be an excellent time for that group to go to the minister's office, not to the office of the municipality, and say: "We have some difficulty with the definition of this particular item. Would you please clarify it?"

When you know that, you can usually do something about an impending development prior to it going to the OMB or to a council, and then begin to argue the definition of certain wordings. Some of your material contains dictionaries in the back. There couldn't be a better idea than that. The only way it could be better is to make sure those definitions are clear.

One of the main things we've been concerned about when the word showed up a few years ago was "intensification." I'll be surprised if you haven't heard that before now. At the time, what we wanted to know was: What is intensification? What is the purpose of it? What is the thrust behind it? Just what exactly are you trying to do as intensification? Some people thought the word "intensification" simply means crowding, that it's just a nice word for crowding.

When we visited the Sewell commission, that was one of the things we concentrated on. I went to several of the meetings, and at the very last meeting I went to, the last meeting they had, I said: "I'm not going to talk any more about the whole scope of things. I'm only going to talk about intensification because that's something you can deal with. I want to talk about what you have here as your definition of intensification."

That definition is still here. Let me read it to you. "`Intensification' means the development of a property or site at a higher density than previously existed. It includes: redevelopment or development within existing communities; infill development, or development on vacant lots or underdeveloped lots within a built-up area; conversion, or the change of use of an existing structure or land use; and the creation of apartments or other accommodation in houses."

I asked the rhetorical question, "Would someone like to tell me what it doesn't include?" With this policy alone, how could I protect a stable residential neighbourhood or municipality?

If I could be anecdotal for a moment, I did go to the OMB to go against a humongous development, something way out of line with the official plan. A planner showed up to argue for this development, and one of his arguments was that this is in line with the intensification policy. At that time, either Metro or the Ontario government had put out one of these very useful pamphlets, which are usually written in pretty clear English, and I had it with me and opened it and said, "This is what they mean by it." It meant what most of us are probably thinking it means: a kind of a thickening up of a neighbourhood, some additions to a neighbourhood, not the destruction of a neighbourhood, not something that goes way outside the official plan.

When I pointed that out to him, he said: "Oh. But I'm using my definition of intensification." Up to five years ago, the word "intensification" didn't even exist. It's a neologism. When you look up the word in the dictionary, it doesn't say a "thickening up of neighbourhoods." It says, actually, exactly what it is: "something to create stress."

That's just one example. One of the suggestions I would like to make, rather than just bitch, is that I'd like to see a committee set up when something is just about complete, when the wording is complete, a committee of antagonists, protagonists, whatever the correct word is, so they could go through there and clean up the wording. That way, if you as a developer said, "Well, this is what I think this means, what I want it to mean," I as somebody trying to protect my neighbourhood could say: "Wait a minute. That's not what it means. This is what it means."

By the way, when I pick this up -- not this, but fairly good stuff like this, something written by someone who understands me -- then I know what's going to happen in the future. One of the things we asked the Sewell commission to do, and it's pretty basic, is that when a city puts together a primary plan, an official plan, it must stick to it. Don't have 200, 300, 400 amendments to it. An amendment should be a very, very serious thing. It should be something done only when someone can come along and say, "This legal document you've put together has a hole in it and it needs to be changed," not when someone comes along and says, "You want me to do this, but I want to do that, so give me an amendment so I can do it."

Some of our cities, some of our municipalities or areas, to me look like bar charts of history. In other words, when you look across the horizon, you see huge buildings that are out of context with the rest of the neighbourhood or the rest of the municipality. I'll bet that if I checked I would find that in that particular period, there was a big demand for condominiums or apartments etc and that was the driving force behind it. It had nothing to do with good planning, it had nothing to do with the official plan. I couldn't have looked at the previous official plan and said, "I can expect that to be there."

One of the arguments we get from planners, or development clerks, as I like to call them, is, "When you people moved into this neighbourhood, you or your lawyer should have checked your secondary or your official plan so you could tell what was going to happen." I think that's a little far-reaching type of thing to ask an ordinary citizen or a lawyer getting $450 to do. But let's say that's the way it is. At the very same time we had that particular discussion and that argument, a gentleman beside me said: "I've always done that, I've always gone and checked before I even buy. So what do you say to me when I say to you, `This is beyond my degree of expectancy; I expected this to be built in this area but you're telling me you're going to build that.'" The planner or the development clerk said, "Well, times change." In other words, he was quite willing to give the argument on one hand that all the documents are there for you to read and be prepared. On the other hand, "If we want to make a drastic change, tough buns."

As to the system being faster, I don't think there's a community group anywhere that cares if things are faster. We're not in the business of delaying things. I don't think you'll ever find a community group anywhere that delays it. We simply go through the process. If the process takes a year or two, that's not something that's our problem. We would just as soon get something over with as quickly as anybody else. That's fine to make things quicker. I think they would be a lot quicker if people had good primary official plans in place and stuck to them.

1710

As to the environment, it's got to be the single most important thing. It's mentioned in every document I ever get. It always speaks well of the environment and it speaks well of protection, but it doesn't get into the nuts and bolts of just how you're going to do it. Even protection of the environment can be used by people wanting massive development by saying, "If you let me put all these people here, it'll save agricultural land," or "If you let me put all these people here, it'll produce a need for rapid transit, and rapid transit's good for the environment."

If we're going to protect the environment, which is the air and the trees, we have to be more specific. I would suggest that if it hasn't already been done -- I can't find it in these documents here -- we should benefit by the mistakes we made before. I guess we've done it somewhat in wetlands. "Wetlands" in here is pretty specific. It says, "This is a wetland and you can't do certain things with it."

We need to know where we've made mistakes before. In my particular municipality we've learned that if you get too close to the edge of the bank you create problems, so we have a 10-metre or 30-metre setback. Those types of things people can get their minds around.

So you can ask me some questions, I'd like to make another suggestion, and it's to do with OMB decisions. When you go to the OMB you go there for 10 days or five days etc. You're part of the process all along. I would like to see it so that when that chair or the board is ready to make their decision and they've typed it out, instead of firing it out in the mail, why not take the time to bring the parties in and say, "I'm going to read you my decision," the same as another court or someone else would do. At that time, if there's something in there that is confusing it can be clarified right away so that you're not writing back and forth. If there appears to be a challenge in there and it needs clarification, it can be done at that time.

One might think, "But their time is valuable," but after you've gone through as much time as you have, to take all of that and put it into five or 10 or 15 pages and send it out is not good enough. The reason it's not good enough is that either we don't write English very well or we don't understand English very well or maybe we write it in a way that we don't want it to be understood. I'm not sure what the reasons are, but I do know we have a problem with the wording of most of the things that are produced.

If I can just skip through, on your backgrounder, A New Approach to Land Use Planning, the third paragraph says: "The reformed system will be more open and accountable. It will take into account the needs and opinions of a community's residents, who know best about where homes and factories should be built and where parks, schools and hospitals should be located." If you had asked us for input on this -- I guess you did, through the Sewell commission -- we probably would have said that. We would have said something like: "We're the ones who have to live with the results. In other words, the neighbourhood has to live with the results, and beyond the neighbourhood the community has to live with the results, and beyond the community the municipality has to live with the results. We're the ones who know best about the impact."

So it's a little difficult for these documents to say, "We are empowering municipalities and we would like you to write up an official plan, but it must conform to our policies." You have to be careful that those policies don't do to communities just exactly what you don't want to be done. Policies should be something that are very specific. Maybe they should deal with human rights, something like that, but they shouldn't interfere too much with a municipality planning its neighbourhoods.

I could say more, but you'll probably hear it all several times by the time you're finished. If you have any questions, I'd like to answer them.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much for the comments you just made. Just for my own information, I'd like to know what your idea of an urban neighbourhood is, or any other neighbourhood, for that matter, because you used that word a few times.

I'll just provide you with a brief explanation of what I think a neighbourhood is. When I think, for example, of Bay and Bloor, it's one kind of neighbourhood, which consists of a number of things. When I think of a neighbourhood inside a major arterial grid in the city of North York, I think of a substantially different kind of neighbourhood. When I think of a neighbourhood out in Vaughan or in Woodbridge, it's different again, or some of the neighbourhoods I saw out in Napanee were a different kind of neighbourhood once again.

I'd just like to get a better sense from you, because I, like you, am interested in protecting neighbourhoods.

Mr Crawford: Really, what you're doing is saying exactly what I'm saying about wording. What could be more simple than "neighbourhood," seemingly? A neighbourhood to me is that area that's immediately outside of your home. If the area where you purchased your home is usually noisy and bustling, then it's a noisy and bustling neighbourhood where you purchased your home. If it's quiet, with very little traffic on the streets and it has trees and it has space, then that's your neighbourhood.

I don't think it's a good idea for someone to say, "You live in a nice, quiet, spacious neighbourhood with trees and you have a 50-foot lot; therefore that should change and you shouldn't have that, it should be a 25-foot lot," because there are people in that other neighbourhood that you described, the bustling neighbourhood, who don't have that, or that it should strike some kind of a balance.

Mr Perruzza: This is it. This is where we're trying to get. How do we protect the kinds of neighbourhoods that people want to live in? You say a quiet neighbourhood. I'm not sure that in an urban setting such a neighbourhood exists.

Mr Crawford: There is no quiet neighbourhood. There used to be quiet neighbourhoods.

Mr Perruzza: Maybe I know of a couple of neighbourhoods that are quieter than others. How do you do that while at the same time recognizing -- for example, in Metro, certainly in the kind of community I've grown up in and that I continue to represent, most of the major arterial roads are in gridlock. During the peak hours, you can't get in and out.

Mr Crawford: Do you know why?

Mr Perruzza: The blocks are very large. The cul-de-sacs have been planned and constructed in such a way that you can't get buses into them, and the rest of it. People are almost forced by the nature of their development to use their cars and so on.

In that kind of setting and with "intensification," to use the word -- as Metro councillor Howard Moscoe said earlier, in Metro we deal mostly with redevelopment, and to enable redevelopment to happen, almost by its very nature you need to intensify. Otherwise, there's no interest in it, from a financial perspective.

How do you do all that -- have some regard to the environment, recognize that more and more people are being concentrated in a smaller and smaller land area -- and at the same time protect the concept of a quiet neighbourhood?

1720

Mr Crawford: One of the things we could do -- I've asked every planner I've ever talked to for this definition and I've never got one; I don't expect I ever will. One of the things you could do is put in a definition for "full" so you know the direction you're heading in and you know when you get there. We already know that some neighbourhoods in Toronto, for instance, are full and they've been full for a long time. When you redevelop those neighbourhoods, you don't need to redevelop them so they become fuller; maybe you need to redevelop them so they become less full, with more space. When we know we've made a mistake and we know what the definition of "full" is, as in "too full," why would we want to go to another section of a municipality and do the same thing again?

Mr Perruzza: Where do you locate the people?

Mr Crawford: One of the politicians said to me once, "People want to come to Metropolitan Toronto and we have to make room for them." Why?

Ms Haeck: I represent a riding that is urban and rural, one of the Niagara ridings, and it has a lot of agricultural land, a number of the wineries we've all grown to appreciate in recent years. In fact, I'm just perusing your document on how to protect tender fruit land.

This is the question: Where do we put the people? The development pressures have been such in the local area that very clearly the tender fruit lands are very seriously threatened. It's a unique area across the entire country, one of the most diverse agricultural areas across Canada. You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to recognize that. The question then comes from my residents, from my constituents, of how you end up, knowing what the planning criteria are and dealing with the official plan, which, the day after it's printed, in all likelihood someone's coming up with an amendment --

Mr Crawford: The day before, sometimes.

Ms Haeck: I would suspect it's been hotly debated for some time. The question that comes forward from my residents is: "How do we end up with that full set of knowledge about what's going to impact our neighbourhoods, and how do we as residents impact that process early on and make it reflect our view, not just the city's" -- and this is where I have a real difference with the Hazel McCallions of the world -- "of really and truly what a neighbourhood should look like?" It is not just up to municipal council, as much as they do good work, but it is up to the people. How do we do that?

The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately, I'm afraid we don't have time for an answer. We're moving on to the Liberal Party.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for a very interesting presentation on planning and the Planning Act and the results. Many times, I've wondered whether municipalities should spend the amounts of money that have been spent in some areas on official plans. They really haven't accomplished much, if anything, in my view, because there've been so many changes and the haphazard development has happened in spite of them.

I feel that you have a strong view that official plans should mean much more than they do and that they should be followed. Once the community has had input and the decisions are made about what should be in an official plan, that official plan should be followed much more than it is. I get that very strong feeling from you.

In the new Planning Act, the provincial policies play a very, very important role. I wondered if you'd had the opportunity to read the policies through and whether you think the wording is consistent with those policies that people making applications under the Planning Act will have to follow, although only the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is required to follow it. Do you have some views about those particular policies?

Mr Crawford: One of the main policies that everyone knows about, aside from intensification, is that -- once it was at 25%, now it's 30% -- you must have 30% affordable housing. It's difficult to know whether they're talking about 30% within a particular development, 30% within a particular neighbourhood, 30% within a particular municipality.

I've heard the definition that if a municipality has 30% affordable within it, it's fulfilled its obligation or begun to fulfil its obligation, whereas every application I've ever seen come forward in my municipality has had the stipulation in it that it must have 30%. Regardless of the neighbourhood it's going into or the municipality it's going into, that stipulation was always there, sometimes protected by other policies.

I think it's very negative for a government to impose something like that on a developer or a municipality. For one thing, there doesn't seem to be a lot of guidelines or parameters or restrictions on it. To just to say to someone, "You must make something 30% affordable," is just not good enough. It's a noble thing, and maybe if the market were left to do what it's supposed to do it would probably produce maybe more affordability than that. But it's quite an imposition on a municipality or a neighbourhood or a community group or anybody else when anything you do has that hanging over you, so to speak.

It would be much different if you could sit down and read it and say, "Here are the guidelines and the parameters and the restrictions, and here's where it will work

and here's where it won't work." Let me give you a perfect example. If someone lives in a 0.5 neighbourhood, like a 50-foot frontage neighbourhood, and some- body lives in a neighbourhood like mine that's got lots of town houses and 18-foot frontages, to take the two things I've been discussing, intensification and the 30%, would you impose that on this neighbourhood but not that neighbourhood, or both neighbourhoods? Would you impose intensification on a neighbourhood that's already got 18-foot frontages?

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your explanation.

Mr McLean: I heard you speak with regard to wetlands and I'd like to hear your interpretation. If you had a 100-acre farm, how would you determine what is wetland?

Mr Crawford: That ground which is wet plus the surrounding parts of it that are affected by that wetness, where of course grass would grow and bulrushes would grow, and then there would be 10 metres -- that seems to be a very popular thing -- beyond that. In fact, I would suggest that within already established wetlands it would be better to be a 30 or a 50. When you're imposing a 30- or a 50-metre area around those, around the designated wetlands themselves, you're offering much more protection. It's a little difficult to impose 30 metres within a municipality.

Mr McLean: That's not spelled out specifically in the legislation, is it?

Mr Crawford: I don't believe so. It does describe what wetlands are, but it doesn't say, for instance, that you can't come up to the edge of a wetland. We have the Rouge in Scarborough, for which we fought many years, but until the actual wording is in there, "up to and until," someone can come to the edge of the Rouge and it can create visual problems. You need a buffer zone.

Mr McLean: I like your definition of what you determine as a wetland. Unfortunately, a lot of municipalities and a lot of farms in Ontario have been classified as wetlands when there's no water on them or near them, yet they are classified through the Ministry of Natural Resources as wetlands. We've been trying to get an explanation of how to determine what wetlands are, so I was glad to hear your comments on it. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Crawford.

For those who are travelling tomorrow afternoon to Thunder Bay, there will be transportation provided to Pearson airport outside the front steps of the main building at 5 o'clock.

The committee is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1730.