March 25, 1998

 To:Special Committee to Review the Final Report

of the Toronto Transition Team

From:City Clerk

Subject:Existing Environmental Committees

and the Environmental Task Force

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee on March 25, 1998, concurred in the recommendation embodied in the attached report dated March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting existing environmental committees and the Environmental Task Force; and further directed that the report be referred to the Environmental Task Force for its consideration and recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

City Clerk

Trudy Perrin/es.8

Attachment

Sent to:Special Committee to Review the Final Report

of the Toronto Transition Team

Environmental Task Force

Urban Environment and Development Committee

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee

c: Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

(Report dated March 10, 1998, addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

This report outlines the role of existing special committees and citizen advisory groups with responsibility for environmental matters, and comments on their role in the new City and their relationship with City Council=s Environmental Task Force.

Recommendations:

 (A)That this report be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team, with the following recommendations:

 (1)that each of the committees listed in Appendix 1 be sent a copy of this report and the terms of reference for the new Environmental Task Force;

 (2)that each of the committees listed in Appendix 1 be asked to advise the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) on its work and potential role in the new City, including such matters as:

 (a)the ongoing need for its work, if any;

(b)areas of overlap involving its work and that of any other committee;

(c)the relationship of its work to that of the Environmental Task Force;

(d)its anticipated ongoing need for staff support from the City; and

(e)its budget and other resource needs;

 (3)that each Community Council be asked to advise the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team on the ongoing need for a general environmental advisory committee for its Community; and

 (4)that the CAO report back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team on the responses to recommendation (2), together with any recommendations he may deem appropriate, and that the responses to recommendation (3) be tabled at the same meeting; and

(B)that this report be forwarded to the Environmental Task Force, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for information.

Background:

 City Council, through adoption of the Striking Committee=s report at its January meeting, agreed to the Toronto Transition Team=s proposal that the new City establish a series of issue-specific Task Forces including one on the environment.

There are already numerous committees established by the seven former municipalities to provide advice on environmental matters. The purpose of this report is to document those committees and their work, and begin to explore how they will fit with the structures of the new City and how they might relate to the work of the Environmental Task Force.

As the Transition Team saw it (in their final report, page 103):

 AThe challenge is to ensure that the new City Council establishes appropriate new structures that:

-ensure continuing citizen participation in decision-making;

-focus citizen advice and input on priorities of the new Council; and

-make the most effective use of citizen time, talents and energy.@

Comments:

The Environmental Task Force:

Terms of reference for Council=s Environmental Task Force have now been drawn up by its Chair (Councillor Layton), and were adopted on February 13, 1998 by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team. The Task Force=s main thrust will be to create a comprehensive Environmental Plan for the new City. This will set out:

 -targets and recommendations to improve the environment;

-ways to prevent environmental problems;

-principles to make sure the City=s corporate and official plans are environmentally sound; and

-indicators of environmental performance for planning and monitoring.

The Task Force will also take short-term actions. It will recommend structural changes Ato ensure that environmental considerations are part of the very fabric of the corporation and the community@. It will launch urgent environmental initiatives. It will set up information resources. It will build a broad-based consensus of public and political support. And in doing all this, the Task Force will build on past initiatives, work with stakeholders, and set up Athe most effective vehicles for ongoing public involvement in shaping the City=s environmental policies, building upon the process of community participation established by the former municipalities@.

While the Task Force=s mandate has a comprehensive and long-range focus, it ties in with the work of 40 existing advisory committees throughout Toronto which are actively working on environmental matters.

Existing Environmental Committees:

 The City's existing environmental advisory groups and committees are listed in Appendix 1, with more detailed information on each provided in Appendices 2 and 3. The list is limited to advisory groups which include citizens, were established by a municipality, government or agency and have an ongoing existence. It therefore excludes processes that involve periodic public meetings with no designated membership (though some of these are described in Appendix 5). The list also excludes independent citizen groups, though many of these have representatives who sit on City advisory committees. Finally, the list is restricted to those advisory groups whose major concern is with the natural environment. This means excluding groups focused more on the built environment (e.g., Gardiner/Lake Shore Task Force, Guild Inn Advisory Committee) or for which environmental concerns, however important, are secondary (e.g., City Cycling Committee, Future Energy Needs Committee).

The City has 40 existing advisory committees, 39 of which are currently active or were active during 1997. These met on average of ten times per annum, not including the sub-committees attached to some of them which account for a further 120 meetings per year, bringing the grand total to about 500 meetings. Nearly 600 citizens participate in these committee meetings, an average of about 15 per committee. The staff time involved in supporting environmental advisory committees is the equivalent of between 11 and 12 full-time jobs. (See Appendix 3 for details.)

 The City's existing environmental advisory committees can be divided into four types:

 (A)General environmental advisory committees exist for five of the six former local municipalities and the sixth, Toronto, had an Environmental Sub-Committee of its Board of Health. (Toronto also had a Special Advisory Committee on the Environment from 1988-96, which focused mainly on climate change issues.) Each of these committees is unique but each has addressed a range of environmental issues, and all tend to emphasise public awareness-raising in their work. The concerns of these general committees have tended to shift with the prominence of different environmental concerns. The Etobicoke committee, for example, has focused at various times on recycling, airport noise, valley land protection and Environmental Management Systems. North York=s committee was unique in having a majority of councillors and a parallel staff committee, so it functioned more like a standing committee of the Council.

 (B)Issue-specific environmental committees were established by both Metro and the former City of Toronto. These pull together people interested in a particular environmental issue affecting the municipality as a whole such as recycling, contaminated soil, storm water or pesticides. Some of these committees were created as a direct result of citizen pressure, others because a municipality wanted to ensure it had a range of public input on a topic of widespread concern.

 (C)There are also numerous local area and site-specific environment-related committees. A high profile example is the Task Force to Bring Back the Don. Others include those established by the former Metro Works Department to contribute to the ongoing management of its major facilities and to form part of the Environmental Assessment process for planned changes. More of these may be needed over time - for example, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has a planning process for the Highland Creek watershed which calls for a Task Force to be set up in about September 1998, when initial studies have been completed.

 (D)Finally, the City participates in a series of external committees - that is, ones that deal with environmental issues that extend beyond the City's boundaries. Most of these involve the TRCA and other municipalities or levels of government. They include watershed groups for the Don, Humber and Rouge (notably the Rouge Park Alliance, created by the Province to guide it in operating and planning for the Rouge Park, the future of which will shortly be decided by the Ontario Cabinet). This group also includes the Keele Valley Landfill Site Liaison Committee, established by the Town of Vaughan, on which Metro politicians and staff have played an active role. Most of these external committees will not be directly affected by the new Council's actions on advisory committees, but they are an important part of the overall picture of environmental advisory bodies.

(Of course, public participation on environmental issues is not limited to the above committees. The former municipalities would typically hold a public meeting or series of meetings when an environmental matter seemed to warrant it. These are not included in this report, though Appendix 5, summarizing work of the former Metro Works Department=s seven-member professional Public Consultation Unit, includes some of the more high-profile examples. Also, Toronto is home to numerous environmentally-oriented citizen groups which make deputations to municipal committees, boards or agencies when an issue warrants it. The Metro Toronto State of the Environment Report=s ASurvey of Non-Government Organizations@ lists about 50 groups which have an interest in environmental matters and are in regular contact with Toronto municipal governments or the TRCA.)

 Transition Team's Proposal for Existing Committees:

 The Transition Team classified advisory groups (which it termed Aspecial committees@) in a different way. Its final report ANew City, New Opportunities@ divides them into:

 -program advisory committees (PACs), which Aprovide advice on specific programs and services, usually in close cooperation with departments@; and

 -other committees with a broader policy or issue-related mandate.

The Transition Team anticipated an ongoing role (with some fine tuning as necessary) for the PACs. Its report proposes that staff in each program area, working in consultation with their PACs, develop recommendations on the objectives, work and structure of advisory groups (refer to Transition Team Recommendation No. 33, page 104).

For the other committees, which it termed Agroups dealing with specific issues that cross program and departmental lines@, the Transition Team saw things unfolding differently. Its report seems to expect such groups to be placed on hold while each of the new Task Forces (including the Environmental Task Force) reviews its area of concern and develops a strategy for Council which includes Athe best ways to involve citizens@ (pages 104-105).

There are several difficulties with these proposals. First, it is not always clear which of the existing committees fall into which category. Most of the type (C) and (D) groups seem to be PACs, but some may not be. Type (A) groups all seem to fall into the Aother@ category while type (B) groups would probably be split between the two. However, any of these committees advise on services or programs that also cross departmental lines (a characteristic of many environmental issues), and certainly most find themselves wrestling with broader policies and issues.

 Even if existing committees could be neatly classified into the Transition Team's two categories, its recommendations would create an immediate hiatus for all the Aother@ groups, which would find their work placed on hold during the 18-month term of the Environmental Task Force. For some this might be entirely the right prescription, but for others it would be a damaging disruption which would cost them momentum and delay results.

 The Transition Team's proposals also fail to recognize the complexity of citizen involvement, at least when it comes to environmental issues. Existing advisory committees cover a spectrum from those that came into being purely as a result of citizen action to those that were deliberately created by a municipality or department to assist in its work. Even a temporary loss of a committee at the citizen action end could cost the City the energies and ideas of key volunteers, while loss of a committee at the department assist end could seriously affect plans or programs.

 An Alternative Approach:

 Although the Transition Team's specific proposals may not be appropriate, the City should not neglect the window of opportunity created by amalgamation and by the Environmental Task Force.

 Rather than getting departments to report on some committees and putting the rest on hold while the Task Force does its work, Council should ask all existing committees to rethink their own place in the larger City, in the context of the new structure and the work being done by the Environmental Task Force. Staff may assist in this task, but the feedback should come from the committees themselves.

 By treating all committees the same way, the City can ensure that nothing important falls between the cracks. By having all committees route their reports through the CAO, it can ensure that staff with an understanding of the larger picture look comprehensively at the committees= feedback and make appropriate recommendations. (Policy staff who report directly to the CAO would be expected to work closely with the proposed new inter-departmental environmental team in preparing their report.)

 Each existing committee should think about its role relative to both other committees and the Task Force. In particular, are there areas of overlap and is the committee=s geographic area of concern the right one? For example, do we need both a Storm Water Group and a Wet Weather Flow committee? Would the Toronto Recycling Action Committee be better with a City-wide mandate? To what extent does a new City-wide Environmental Task Force eliminate the need for general (type (A)) committees, and to what extent will they complement each other?

 In an era of tight budgets, existing committees should also be aware of the staff resources committed to their work. The figures in Appendix 3 are no more than crude approximations, but they imply that the full-time equivalent of 11 City staff is supporting these 39 committees. If anything, this is likely an underestimate. The Environmental Task Force will also need substantial staff resources, so where is the new City going to realize savings?

 There are also questions raised by the City's committee structure, some of which were touched on in the CAO=s report of February 11, 1998 on Terms of Reference for Special Task Forces. The Transition Team proposed that the new task forces all report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, yet many of them have mandates that seem directly within the purview of Council's other standing committees. In the case of environmental advisory committees, many have roles directly linked to Works and Utilities functional areas, but others relate more obviously to Community and Neighbourhoods or to Urban Environment and Development. Should there be joint reporting? The Environmental Task Force=s terms of reference suggest it will grapple with such issues, but what should happen in the meanwhile? In particular, should a report from the CAO on the existing environmental committees and their roles come back to the Works and Utilities Committee, to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, to the Special (Miller) Committee, to the Environmental Task Force, or to all four; and where do the Community Councils fit in when committees are locally based? Last year, North York staff proposed that each Community Council should establish an environment committee with a corresponding staff group, based on the North York model. Feedback from the existing committees and the Community Councils should help to determine if this is necessary or worthwhile.

 Since so much of what this report deals with stems directly from the Transition Team=s recommendations, it proposes that reporting back should be to the Special (Miller) Committee, which should make final recommendations. The proposed approach (of having each existing committee review its own role and report back on the ongoing need for its work, if any, and on its place in the new City) is essentially the same as that recommended for existing community safety committees in a January 27 report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, which was referred to the Miller Committee. It is also in line with the approach expected to be recommended for other advisory committees in a more general report, now in preparation, that will be going to the Miller Committee in April.

 Overall, this report's recommendations should generate information that can help the new City to make the most effective use of citizen time, talents and energy in dealing with environmental issues. The detailed information in Appendices 2 and 3 should be useful to individual committees in understanding their roles, and to the Environmental Task Force in its work.

Conclusions:

The new City has inherited an extensive infrastructure of committees and task forces through which citizens provide advice on environmental matters. Each one should be asked for input on its role and resource needs in the new City, and in light of the Environment Task Force's work program.

Contact Name:

Simon B. Chamberlain, Director, Policy Coordination

Phone: 392-7404, Fax: 392-1827