TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 3

1Political Structure for East York

2Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils

3Accessibility of York Community Council to the Public

4Selected Issues Respecting Agencies, Boards and Commissions

5Terms of Reference for the Homeless Strategy Task Force

6Terms of Reference for the City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity

7Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly

8Draft Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions

9Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 3

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

(from its meeting on February 26, 1998,

submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Political Structure for East York

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, did not adopt this Clause.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the East York Community Council, embodied in the communication (February 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to:

(1) striking out Recommendation No. (iii) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(iii) the Province of Ontario be advised of the City of Toronto's decision to hold a by-election and the City seek the immediate written concurrence of the Provincial Government with Council's position that a by-election may legally be held at this time, and, if the Province does not concur with this legal interpretation, that the Province immediately table the appropriate legislation to ensure that such a by-election can be held in September, 1998;" and

(2) adding to Recommendation No. (iv) the words, "as a transition cost", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(iv) the Province of Ontario be requested to fund the cost of the by-election to fill the third Councillor position as a transition cost."

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, that the portion of Hansard containing comments made by the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with respect to this matter has been appended to this Clause as directed by the Special Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (February 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council:

Recommendations:

The East York Community Council on February 18 and 19, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, the following:

(i) a third Councillor be granted to Ward One, East York;

(ii) the City Clerk be requested to conduct a by-election no later than September 1998, to fill the third Councillor position;

(iii) the Province of Ontario be advised of the City of Toronto's decision to grant the third Councillor and seek concurrence of the Province or initiate appropriate legislation to ensure the third councillor position is implemented; and

(iv) the Province of Ontario be requested to fund the cost of the by-election to fill the third Councillor position.

The East York Community Council reports, for the information of the Special Committee, having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to the Special Committee on various legal queries raised at the Community Council meeting including, but not limited to the following:

(i) the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing's exclusive authority under Bill 26;

(ii) the conditions under which an appointment can be made or an election can be held in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act; and

(iii) the status of using the federal boundaries for the municipal elections.

The East York Community Council also reports for the information of the Special Committee that it received the report (February 10, 1998) of the City Solicitor respecting the legal options for change to the political representation in East York.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on February 18 and 19, 1998, had before it a report dated February 10,1998, from the City Solicitor respecting the legal options for change to the political representation in East York.

The East York Community Council also had before it communications from the following in respect of the political structure for East York:

- (February 16, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;

- (February 15, 1998) from Dr. Alexander P. Lang, East York;

- (February 16, 1998) from Mr. Tim McDonald, East York;

- (Undated) from Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York;

- (February 19, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc; and

- (Undated) from Mr. Colin MacLeod, Team East York.

The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. John Papadakis, East York;

- Ms. Marilyn Churley, MPP, Riverdale;

- Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York;

- Mr. Colin Macleod, East York;

- Mr. Ian Cameron, Secretary/Treasurer, East York Action Committee;

- Mr. Jay Josefo, East York;

- Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;

- Mr. Steven Hellebust, East York;

- Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc;

- Ms. Susan Kaufman, East York;

- Mr. Norm Smith, East York;

- Mr. E. Wigglesworth, East York;

- Ms. Judy Lauzon, East York;

- Mr. Brian Barron, East York;

- Ms. Elizabeth Rowley, East York;

- Mr. Michael Tziretas, East York;

- Mr. Vasil Alexiou, East York;

- Mr. Mark Stoltz, East York;

- Mr. Gord Crann, East York;

- Mr. John Parker, MPP, York East;

- Councillor David Miller, High Park;

- Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto;

- Councillor Ron Moeser, Scarborough Highland Creek; and

- Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following excerpt from Hansard containing comments made by the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, during the Provincial Government's debate respecting political representation in East York, as requested by the Special Committee:

"Municipal Restructuring.

Ms. Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, you will know that I have a private member's bill before the House, Bill 144, which seeks to increase the number of councillors in East York under the new City of Toronto Act that you brought forward, the megacity legislation.

Having had extensive discussions with your House Leader and knowing how busy the House agenda is with government business from now until the end of November, I know there is next to no possibility for time to deal with that private member's bill, so I am going to be tabling - legislative counsel is working on it now - two amendments to your Bill 148, the City of Toronto Transition Bill, which would have the effect of increasing the representation in East York One, by three councillors, which is what they have asked for, although some people have said that would cause a problem in terms of ties on the overall megacity Council, so I'm going to put an alternative in that would increase it by four.

You know the problems, you know the issue. What I'm asking you today is for a commitment that you will at least consider those amendments from me and perhaps work with me to see if there is a way you could have the government support the amendments to give equitable representation to East York.

Hon. Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member from the third party for the question and I'd be pleased to consider her amendments. As a matter of fact, I'll make a commitment that I will provide a copy of her amendments to the Transition Team so they will be able to inform the new Council of the views of the member, because our position is that the size and shape of the Community Councils and how they're structured and how many represent certain areas should be the responsibility of the new City of Toronto Council.

If the member has advice she would like the new City Council to have, I'll make sure that advice gets to them through the Transition Team. I know the new Council will take that into consideration when they're reviewing the role of the Community Councils.

Ms. Lankin: Minister, thanks. I've already talked to the Transition Team. They are aware of that, I've made that position clear and I think some of them are quite sympathetic to it.

The problem with that, and I know you know this, is that fact any changes with respect to Ward boundaries and representation numbers wouldn't come into place until the next Municipal election, another three years from now.

When I was a Minister - I know you weren't here but you can check with your colleagues - I did work with opposition members when they add ideas. I did sit down with them and talk to them or have our legal counsel meet with them to see if there was a way I could help them make the amendment acceptable to the government so they could bring forward the idea and accomplish it.

Let me ask you, would you agree to meet with me with your staff, or if not you, your legal staff or policy staff who have carriage of this, and help me draft this in a way that's acceptable to you? The Citizens of East York deserve equitable representation now, in the next municipal election, not three years from now.

Minister, you can make it happen. I will be tabling those amendments. You'll have to deal with them. Please, let's get together so you don't have to vote them down.

Hon. Mr. Leach: I'd like to thank the member from the third party for her question, because it is an important issue, but it's an issue that we sincerely believe should be dealt with by the new Council, not by this government. We've set up the initial structure for the new City of Toronto Council and we have set up the ways and means in which the Community Councils should be established.

If the New City Council wants to make any changes to that organization or those structures and how they work, what their roles are, what their responsibilities are, how they're formed, how the boundaries would change, that's a role and a responsibility for the new unified City of Toronto. I think that is the organization and the body that should deal with it.

I'll be glad to work with the member to make sure any of her ideas are submitted through the transition team and ensure that the new City Council is made aware of them."

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber:

I would like to propose that we move collectively to strengthen the Community Council concept as follows:

Current Community Council Membership: Proposed Membership:

Toronto 16 Toronto 14

North York 14 North York 10

Scarborough 12 Scarborough 8

Etobicoke 8 Etobicoke 8

York 4 York 8

East York 2 East York 8

This proposal focuses on a more equal distribution of workload and geographic representation of the new City in order to provide the equal distribution of services.

I look forward to a discussion of this proposal.

________

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

- Ms. Marilyn Churley, MPP, Riverdale;

- Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;

- Mr. Colin MacLeod, Team East York;

- Mr. John Papadakis, East York;

- Mr. William Phillips;

- Mr. Ian Cameron, East York Action Committee, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Ed Wigglesworth, East York;

- Ms. Judy Lauzon, East York;

- Mr. Mark Stoltz, East York;

- Mr. Gordon Crann, East York; and

- Ms. Jane Pitfield, East York.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Frank Faubert, Scarborough Highland Creek; and

- Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland-Centennial.

(A copy of the report (February 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor, entitled "Legal Options for Change to Representation in East York", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 26, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and

Responsibilities of Community Councils

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (February 24, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) embodied therein to provide that the following communications be included in the consultation document:

(a) (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, and Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River; and

(b) (February 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, entitled "Budgets for Community Councils";

(2) that the aforementioned report, as amended in Recommendation No. (1) above of the Special Committee; and the communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, embodying the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council respecting this matter, be referred to the Community Councils for consideration and community consultation, and report thereon to the Special Committee;

(3) that a relatively small advertising budget be provided to inform the public across the City that the "Role of Community Councils" will be considered by the six Community Councils on a specific date;

(4) that Community Councils:

(a) be permitted to establish sub-committees;

(b) be authorized to delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to sub-committees of Community Councils; including delegating those matters under the City of Toronto Act, 1978; and

(c) be permitted to record votes at meetings;

(5) that City Council endorse, in principle, the idea of "consent agendas" for Community Councils; and

(6) that Section 32(1) of the Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998, be amended by adding the words "and signed by the Member", after the words "in writing", so that such Section shall now read as follows:

"32. (1) Except as provided for in Section 38, every motion and proposed amendment shall be in writing and signed by the Member and shall be moved before being debated or put to a vote."

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, respecting Recommendations Nos. (4) and (5) of the Special Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (February 24, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee:

Purpose:

To transmit a draft Discussion Paper and to propose public consultations on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of consulting with the public will be accommodated within existing budget allocations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the attached report, entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto: a Draft Discussion Paper," and a short questionnaire requesting public feedback, be made available to the public through the City's Civic Service Centres, libraries and other facilities, be distributed to everyone on the Special Committee's mailing list, be circulated to all Members of Council for distribution to their constituents, and be posted on the City's site on the Internet;

(2) the Special Committee utilize the following vehicles for obtaining public input on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils:

(i) one or more focused workshops on Community Councils;

(ii) deputations to Community Councils; and

(iii) deputations to the Special Committee; and

(3) the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council requested the Special Committee to "submit a report as soon as possible, but no later than March 4, 1998, on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils." This report and the attached draft Discussion Paper respond to Council's request.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Special Committee held its first meeting on January 28, 1998. At that time the Committee approved its workplan. Consideration of the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils was identified as a priority matter in the workplan.

On February 23, 1998, staff organized a half day workshop on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils for Members of the Special Committee and the Chairs of the Community Councils. All Members of Council were advised of the time and location of the workshop. A total of sixteen Members of Council participated in the workshop.

The workshop included presentations by staff on the context of legislative parameters and governance principles and objectives affecting Community Councils. With a common understanding of these contexts, the participants explored how the Community Councils have functioned through two cycles and how they might be made more effective. The workshop provided an opportunity for Members of Council to have an informal discussion with staff and to raise issues and explore solutions.

Consideration of the role of Community Councils by the Special Committee will benefit from the discussion at the workshop. It is also important that the Special Committee seek public input on the issues before finalizing its recommendations to Council. Therefore, staff have prepared the attached report, entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto: a Draft Discussion Paper," based on the presentations and discussion at the workshop.

I recommend that the draft Discussion Paper and a short questionnaire requesting public feedback be made available to the public through the City's Civic Service Centres, libraries and other facilities, be distributed to everyone on the Special Committee's mailing list, be circulated to all Members of Council for distribution to their constituents, and be posted on the City's site on the Internet.

Using the draft Discussion Paper as a focal point for obtaining public comments on the role of Community Councils, I further recommend that the Special Committee utilize the following vehicles for obtaining public input:

(1) One or more focused workshops on Community Councils. The workshop(s) would be modelled on the workshop held for Members of the Special Committee and the Community Council Chairs. They would provide participants with a clear understanding of the legislative parameters related to the Community Councils as well as an opportunity, through facilitated small group discussion, to explore and recommend practical ways to make the Community Councils effective and responsive to local needs.

(2) Deputations to Community Councils. Special evening meetings of the Community Councils could be convened to provide residents with an opportunity to express their views to their local Community Councils.

(3) Deputations to the Special Committee. Members of the public would be invited to make deputations to the Special Committee on the contents of the draft Discussion Paper.

The Special Committee will forward its recommendations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils to Council following its consultations with the public.

Conclusions:

Because of the complexity of the issues surrounding the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils, Members of the Special Committee, the Chairs of the Community Councils and a number of other Members of Council participated in a workshop to review the legislative and governance contexts. The common understanding derived from the workshop will contribute to a more informed debate of the issues. The debate will also benefit from public input. Community Councils are an innovative and relatively untested component of municipal government. It is important for the Special Committee to take the time and listen to the public to ensure that we get it right when we submit recommendations to Council.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, and Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown:

Please find enclosed the report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation.

These recommendations were adopted by the Toronto Community Council. We would like the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to adopt the recommendations, and direct staff to develop by-laws to operationalize the recommendations.

Thank you.

(Report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation

February 12, 1998.)

The Working Group on Citizen Participation recommends:

(1) The appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

(a) City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

(b) Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

(c) The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation.

(2) The responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

(a) As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

(b) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

(c) Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former Metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

(d) By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

(e) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan.

(3) The powers of Community Councils.

(a) In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide these powers.

(4) How Community Councils set and spend their budgets.

(a) City Council should establish spending envelopes for each community council, based largely on the local Council's own budget estimates.

(b) Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes.

(c) The Working Group discussed the division of budgets into three categories, for equality of service, service equity and local preferences, but reached no final conclusion on the subject.

(5) Staffing Structures.

(a) Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

(b) Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

(c) All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

(d) No Chief Administrative Officer would be required at the Community Council level.

(6) Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

(a) The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity

(b) Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

(c) The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge

(Citizen Participation Working Group

Report No. (1).)

Purpose:

To report on the work of the Working Group on Citizen Participation, and to recommend a model for the relationship of City Council to the Community Councils.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Toronto Community Council adopt the recommendations contained in Appendix "A", the report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation; and

(2) the Community Council forward its recommendation to the Miller Committee as a model for the relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

Comments:

On February 12, 1998, Citizens from across the old City of Toronto gathered in Committee Room No. 6 to review the issues and options for the formation of Community Councils where citizen participation was effective and meaningful. The 20 citizens present were each appointed by local councillors and represented all areas of the City. Councillors Rae and McConnell were also present, as were staff from two Councillors Offices. The working Group reviewed various proposals, including those contained in the Coalition of Concerned Councillors report.

Discussions focussed on the following areas:

(a) the appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils;

(b) the responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council;

(c) the powers of Community Councils;

(d) how Community Councils set and spend their budgets;

(e) staffing Structures; and

(f) Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

(1) The appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

In keeping with the intent of Recommendation No. (1) of the Community of Concerned Councillors Report, the Working Group believed that the City Council should focus on policy, and the Community Councils should be free to implement policy. However, they did not adopt the Coalition of Concerned Councillors' position on how to determine the dividing line between the roles of Community Councils (Recommendation No. (2)(a)). Though they were sympathetic with the intent the Working Group preferred the following model:

"City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation."

(2) The responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

The Working Group refined Recommendation No. (1)(a) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors report. They agreed that implementation at the Community Council level was preferable from a citizen participation perspective. They felt that the majority of functions should be carried out at that level and that only functions that could not be carried out locally should be carried out by City Council. They felt that it was useful to identify some responsibilities that should be clearly assigned, and were particularly ardent in their belief that as many roads as possible should be administered at the local level. They adopted the following recommendation:

"As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former Metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan."

(3) The powers of Community Councils.

The Working Group strengthened Recommendation No. (2)(b) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They agreed with the report, that it was impractical and undesirable to deprive the Community Councils of the structure and powers they need to carry out their mandates. They felt it necessary to add the ability to pass by-laws to the powers of the Community Councils, even if it required enabling legislation. They adopted the following recommendation:

"In order to carry out their responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide the powers to enact by-laws."

(4) How Community Councils set and spend their budgets.

The Working Group reviewed Recommendation No. (5) from the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They discussed the report's model of three budget categories, one covering basic costs, one compensating for special needs in areas of the new City and one accommodating local preferences. The Working Group reached no final conclusion on that model. The Working Group felt strongly that the Community Councils should play a significant role in setting the budget, and that, once set, the Community Council should have some latitude in how the budget was spent. The adopted the following recommendation:

"City Council should establish spending envelopes for each Community Council, based largely on the local council's own budget estimates.

Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes."

(5) Staffing Structures.

The Working Group strengthened Recommendation No. (6) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They expressed concern about the possibility of a staffing structure that put little authority into the hands of the Community Council. They felt that staff responsible for implementation should report directly to Community Council. They felt that, as the majority of implementation functions were at the Community Council level, the majority of staff should report to them. They recognized that a single staffing structure with a single Chief Administrative Officer was more appropriate than fragmenting the staffing structure in seven parts, but also felt that the senior staff levels should have a direct relationship with the Community Councils. They adopted the following recommendation:

"Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

No Chief Administrative Officer would be required at the Community Council level."

(6) Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

The Working Group had only a short time to discuss access to government, a topic not fully discussed in the Coalition of Concerned Councillors Report. The Working Group did conclude that greater effort should be made to make the information about Community Council activities readily available to the public and adopted the following recommendations:

"The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity.

Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge."

The Working Group chose not to comment on the Report's Recommendation No. (4) regarding East York, feeling that this was a matter best left to that Community. The Working Group did not address Recommendation No. (8) of the report dealing with border issues, or Recommendation No. ( 7) dealing with Boards and Commissions, feeling that the matter was too detailed to be included in the first meeting.

The Working Group expressed a strong interest in meeting several more times to flush out proposals in more detail and deal with the issues left outstanding.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, entitled "Budgets for Community Councils":

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on February 18 and 19, 1998, referred the communication (February 6, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, requesting the allocation of monies from City Council to each Community Council to undertake local initiatives.

Background:

The East York Community Council on February 18, 1998, had before it a communication (February 6, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York, requesting the creation of autonomous budgets for the Community Councils to allow them to undertake local initiatives.

Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council, on February 18, 1998, had before it a communication (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the Role of the Community Councils.

The Committee also had before it the following communications:

- (January 20,1 998) from Mr. John Sewell;

- (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk;

- (January 28, 1998) from the City Clerk;

- (February 17, 1998 from Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- (February 18, 1998 from Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- (February 18, 1998) from Phyllis Creighton;

- (February 12, 1998) Report on the Working Group on Citizen Participation;

- (February 19, 1998) from Liz Rykert;

- (undated) from David Vallance, CORRA;

- (February 13, 1998) from Lorna Marion and Janice Hillen;

- (February 18, 1998) from Jocelyn Stratton;

- (February 18, 1998) from William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Jutta Mason, Toronto, Ontario

- Mr. David Vallance, obo CORRA

- John Sewell, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Mary Scott, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Brenda Marks, Toronto, Ontario

- Mr. Robert Barnett, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Jocelyn Strattan, Toronto, Ontario

- Mr. William Roberts, on behalf of the Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association

- Ms. Julian Saweczko

The Toronto Community Council requested its Chair and Councillor McConnell to prepare detailed recommendations based on the following principles and to present those recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on behalf of the Toronto Community Council:

"(1) The Appropriate Relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

(i) City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

(ii) Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

(iii) The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation.

(2) The Responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

(i) As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

(ii) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

(iii) Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

(iv) By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

(v) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan.

(3) The Powers of Community Councils.

(i) In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide these powers.

(ii) Recorded votes should be permitted at all Standing Committee and Community Council meetings

(4) How Community Councils Set and Spend their budgets.

(i) City Council should establish spending envelopes for each community council, based largely on the local council's own budget estimates.

(ii) Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes.

(iii) No final conclusion has been reached on the division of budgets into three categories, for equality of service, service equity and local preferences.

(5) Staffing Structures

(i) Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

(ii) Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

(iii) All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

(iv) No CAO would be required at the Community Council level.

(6) Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

(i) The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity.

(ii) Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

(iii) The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge."

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber:

I would like to propose that we move collectively to strengthen the Community Council concept as follows:

Current Community Council Membership: Proposed Membership:

Toronto 16 Toronto 14

North York 14 North York 10

Scarborough 12 Scarborough 8

Etobicoke 8 Etobicoke 8

York 4 York 8

East York 2 East York 8

This proposal focuses on a more equal distribution of workload and geographic representation of the new City in order to provide the equal distribution of services.

I look forward to a discussion of this proposal.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following Draft Discussion Paper prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer, dated February, 1998:

1.0 Introduction

On January 1, 1998, the new City of Toronto replaced the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York. The elected Members of Council for the amalgamated City were sworn into office on January 2, 1998.

An amalgamation of this scale and complexity is unprecedented in Canadian municipal government experience. It is a massive undertaking. Therefore, a primary goal of the new City Council during its first and even second terms of office will be to build the new, integrated City of Toronto. This includes putting in place the committees and processes that enable the Council to make its decisions and that ensure that the people of Toronto can play a part in the government of their City.

At the same time as it is building the new City, Council must continue to provide municipal services that the public relies on and expects. Therefore, City Council has put in place an interim decision-making structure so that it can make the decisions necessary to carry out its day-to-day business. This structure is based on the recommendations of a provincial Transition Team that was disbanded shortly after the elected City Council took office. The City's interim decision-making structure includes committees called Community Councils that focus on specific geographic areas of the new City.

City Council established a Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team. The Special Committee must report to City Council on how the Community Councils are working. First, it wants to hear the public's views on the subject. The Special Committee has prepared this discussion paper to provide some background information about how Community Councils fit into City Council's decision-making structure, their current roles and responsibilities, and how they may evolve.

2.0 Toronto's Governance Challenge.

Community Councils form part of the governance structure in the amalgamated City of Toronto. This structure must be both robust and flexible enough to enable City Council to set policies and make decisions thoughtfully, responsibly, responsively and in a timely fashion. Therefore, the assessment of Community Councils must pay heed to the context of governance objectives and challenges that must be met by the City's decision-making structure.

The public debate about amalgamation during the past year brought four objectives for municipal government into sharp focus. Municipal government should be:

(a) effective, that is:

(i) able to identify and implement City-wide objectives and manage City-wide policies; and also;

(ii) be sensitive to local community objectives and have the flexibility to meet unique local needs;

(b) efficient, which means:

(i) having simple and understandable decision-making processes;

(ii) making maximum use of staff and financial resources in service delivery; and

(iii) Council can control all short and long-term municipal spending;

(c) accountable, which requires:

(i) responsibility for each municipal service to be assigned clearly; and

(ii) Council to have the authority it needs to fulfil the responsibilities for which the public holds it responsible;

(d) accessible, so that:

(i) the public can understand who is responsible for each municipal service and can easily contact those individuals;

(ii) all members of the public have opportunities to make their views known and influence decisions on City-wide matters; and

(iii) constituents in local communities have the opportunity to participate in decision-making and services of strictly local interest.

In addition to those general objectives that apply to all municipal governments, several factors are specific to the Toronto situation. Toronto's size and complexity pose particular challenges for the City's governance structures.

(1) The City's political decision-making structure has to cope with an enormous agenda. The structure must be organized in a way that manages the agenda so that items are dealt with and decisions are made within a reasonable timeframe.

(2) The City has many different communities, both geographic and interest, with different needs, expectations and priorities. The City's government must be nimble enough to respond sensitively to this diversity of needs.

(3) It follows that the City government must be founded on an excellent intelligence capability. It must be able to maintain "eyes and ears" in all of its communities.

(4) The best "eyes and ears" are community members themselves. Toronto's decision-making structures must be hospitable to their input. People need to feel comfortable speaking to their City government. The governance structure must take into account where people might feel most comfortable talking about very local concerns such as a neighbour's noisy dog or the truck that keeps blocking the driveway.

(5) Of course, this is also one big City with City-wide issues and priorities. It is essential to find the correct balance between City-wide perspectives and localized perspectives in the City's decision-making structure.

The above-noted challenges all point to the need for accessibility, sensitivity and responsiveness. When talking about an accessible, sensitive and responsive City government, it is important to make a distinction between the political and administrative structures. Both provide opportunities for accessibility and for tuning in to diverse communities' needs and interests.

On the political side:

(1) Ward Councillors are the starting points for accessibility. An advantage of amalgamation is that ward representation is more understandable in a single-tier City than having to work out who represents Metro versus local issues.

(2) Citizens can become involved in City government by speaking at committee meetings and participating in advisory committees and other bodies.

(3) The City can actively engage community participation and canvass public input through a variety of consultation and outreach initiatives.

On the administration side:

(1) Service delivery is decentralized and will remain so. Local service centres bring the City into people's neighbourhoods.

(2) Service delivery contracts with community-based agencies puts service delivery into the hands of people who are in the community and of the community.

Recognition of this context of municipal government objectives, Toronto's governance challenges, and political and administrative options for making City government more accessible provides a sound starting point for a look at the role of Community Councils in Toronto's municipal government structure. From this perspective, it is possible to be forward looking and try to assess the contribution that Community Councils make to the realization of the following desired outcomes for Toronto's City government:

(1) local communities have access to decision-makers;

(2) local voices are heard in decision-making processes;

(3) City services are sensitive to local needs and priorities;

(4) there is local participation in matters that have a local impact; and

(5) City Council has the time to attend to City-wide matters.

3.0 The Legislative Framework.

In order to have an informed discussion about Community Councils, it is helpful to understand the potential and limits of their role. These are defined by provincial legislation, which sets out what responsibilities City Council may delegate to committees in general and to Community Councils in particular.

The term "Community Councils" is misleading, as they are not in fact councils. The City of Toronto Act, 1997 defines Community Councils as committees of Council. Generally, municipalities must act by by-law. Under Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act, the Council of a municipality may, by by-law, delegate to a committee of Council or to an employee of the municipality any powers, duties or functions that are administrative in nature. In the by-law, the Council may impose conditions on the exercise or performance of the delegated powers, duties and functions.

Section 102.1 does not authorize the delegation of powers, duties or functions that are legislative or otherwise non-administrative in nature. These would include the power to pass by-laws, adopt estimates, levy, cancel, reduce or refund taxes, or appoint people to or remove them from offices created by statute.

A delegation by-law delegates the administration of a particular function to a committee of Council or to an employee of the municipality. It includes:

(1) the name of the committee or officer to whom the authority is delegated;

(2) the scope of the authority being delegated; and

(3) the parameters for the exercise of discretion so as to retain control over factors affecting decision-making.

The Community Councils have no inherent power. The City of Toronto Act, 1997 indicates the powers that may be assigned to Community Councils by by-law. These powers include delegatable planning functions, Committee of Adjustment functions and recreational facility management in the name of the City. Within their general status as committees, Community Councils can play an advisory role, have administrative powers, can conduct statutory hearings on behalf of Council and can be delegated a variety of functions, such as temporary road closures, for which statutory authority exists outside the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

Thus, provincial legislation provides a fair amount of scope for the assignment of responsibilities to Community Councils. The legislation also places fairly clear limits on what powers may be delegated. The following matters will always be outside the jurisdiction of Community Councils under present legislation:

(1) the authority to pass by-laws;

(2) the authority to restructure Community Council boundaries, alter ward boundaries or change councillor representation;

(3) the authority to levy taxes;

(4) the ability to issue debentures;

(5) the power to expropriate land;

(6) the power to enter into agreements, or to sue or be sued;

(7) the ability to hold title to property;

(8) the power to appoint municipal officers or to hire and fire staff; and

(9) the authority to make grants.

It is important to appreciate these limitations as they are what distinguish Community Councils from City Council and reinforce their status as committees of Council. In law, Community Councils are one part of the City Council decision-making structure. However, they are neither equal to nor an alternative to that structure.

4.0 What Community Councils Can Do Now.

At its first meeting, in January 1998, City Council approved an interim Procedural By-law. This by-law defines the mandates of Council's committees and sets out the rules and procedures for decision-making. Section 93 of the Procedural By-law specifies what Community Councils can do now.

Each Community Council:

(1) has been delegated the power and authority to hold the public meetings required under the Planning Act regarding proposed Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-laws and Zoning By-law Amendments that relate to land that lies totally within the Community Council area;

(2) has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to hear public deputations and make recommendations to Council on other neighbourhood matters requiring a municipal by-law or commitment of unbudgeted City funds, including:

(i) exemptions to fence, sign, ravine and tree by-laws;

(ii) Business Improvement Area streetscape improvement plans and traffic; and

(iii) parking regulations;

(3) has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to hear deputations on staff decisions regarding:

(i) construction-related permits;

(ii) billings related to snow removal, cleaning and clearing of debris and cutting of weeds and long grass;

(iii) encroachments on municipal property; and

(iv) requests to remove trees and damage caused by trees on municipal property

(4) has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to involve citizens in neighbourhood issues to:

(i) identify recreational needs and safety concerns;

(ii) monitor the well-being of local neighbourhoods; and

(iii) report to Council on how well community needs are being met;

(5) has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to nominate citizens as members of:

(i) the community panels of the Committee of Adjustment;

(ii) the community panels of the Property Standards Committee; and

(iii) local recreational facility boards of management.

5.0 How Well Community Councils Are Working.

If the legislative framework is compared to a tool kit, the City's Procedural By-law describes which tools have been picked out of the kit and handed to the Community Councils. How effectively are these tools being used?

5.1 Are Community Councils' Workloads Manageable?

A review of the agendas for the first two meetings of the Community Councils shows clearly that there is an uneven distribution of workload. Some Community Councils have a far heavier workload than others and have proposed that they should organize sub-committees, task forces or panels within their Community Councils to manage the workload. This could be a solution. Care would have to be taken to ensure that issues do not get mired in several time consuming layers of decision-making at the Community Council. Community Councils are intended to help Council manage its workload in a timely manner. In addition, the workload and staff resources associated with supporting a task force or committee of a Community Council would be significant.

Another option is to deal with the workload issue through changes to some of the City's decision-making procedures. The challenges include:

(1) how to deal with 4,000 planning applications per year in the new City;

(2) how to free up Community Council agendas from routine matters that can be delegated to staff, such as vending, trees and parking matters; and

(3) how to ensure that local communities and neighbourhoods continue to be involved in deciding the future and having a say in shaping development in their local areas.

The solutions could include:

(1) delegating as much as possible to staff to free up Community Council and City Council agendas;

(2) giving Councillors an option to have certain delegated matters, such as site plan applications, "bumped up" for consideration by the Community Council; and

(3) adopting a consistent City-wide planning approval process that maximizes citizen input.

This would include:

(i) a preliminary Planning report prepared for all applications for Official Plan Amendments and rezonings;

(ii) a Public Meeting held by the Councillors in the local community to obtain community input;

(iii) a final Planning report on the application along with draft by-laws to be considered as a deputation item at the Community Council; and

(iv) Community Council recommendation to City Council and the introduction of the necessary by-law.

5.2 Do Community Council Boundaries Make Sense?

An uneven or unmanageable distribution of Community Council workloads could be an indication that the current Community Council boundaries are incorrect. The uneven size of the present Community Councils does pose problems. The Community Councils range in size from a membership of two in East York to 16 members in Toronto. East York has encountered several practical issues due to its small membership. At the other extreme, a Community Council of 16 members may be too large for a committee of Council.

Following an extensive consultation process last year, the networks of agencies providing community and social services across the City proposed that the City be divided into "civic districts" that would align more closely with natural communities rather than be based on the borders of the former municipalities. Under this proposal, the number of Community Councils, based on civic districts, would increase.

5.3 Are Community Councils' Mandates Clear?

One of the advantages of Community Councils is that they provide a forum for consideration of matters that have a local impact. Some problems have arisen in determining what is properly before the Community Councils. The problem is most apparent when Community Councils deal with road issues and issues related to development of recreation facilities in parks. From the perspective of communities and citizens, every road is a local road and every park is a local park. All roads and parks have an impact on local communities and it is appropriate that community voices be heard. At the same time, different roads and parks perform different functions. The safety of children on a neighbourhood street is important. The effective operation of the overall road network is also important. Roads provide local access. They also move goods and buses. It has not always been easy to decide which roads and parks issues are properly within the purview of the Community Council versus other Standing Committees of Council.

It is important to remember that a key objective of Council's decision-making structures is to enable decisions to be made effectively, efficiently, accountably and sensitively. An unnecessarily complicated decision-making process would run counter to that objective.

One way to overcome the lack of clarity would be to define the purpose and functions of infrastructure such as parks and roads very clearly in City policies. Thus, issues relating to all types of roads and parks would come before the Community Councils enabling local community input and perspectives to inform decision-making. At the same time, clear city-wide policies would guide the Community Councils in terms of the options available for resolving issues in specific parks and on specific roads.

6.0 Enhancing the Role of Community Councils.

Last year, senior staff in the former City of Toronto wrote a paper that proposed a wider range of powers and responsibilities for Community Councils than they now possess. These proposals were subsequently endorsed by a number of Members of the new City Council.

The proposals are reviewed in the appendix to this report. As the analysis in the appendix shows, many of the proposed powers cannot be delegated to Community Councils under the present legislation. If it was possible to empower Community Councils to pass by-laws and approve budgets, it could be argued that Community Councils would simply be recreations of the former municipal governments. Some would see this as running counter to the principle of amalgamation and undermining the capacity of an elected City Council to govern on behalf of its constituents.

On the other hand, proposals for City Council-like powers for Community Councils reflect a deep concern that communities' voices will not be heard, their needs will not be recognized or met, and their unique identities and characters will be lost in the large city. This, in turn, may be a reflection of how disempowering the events leading up to amalgamation were. The circumstances surrounding the passage of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 were controversial; the preparation for amalgamation was undertaken by a small group of people appointed by the Provincial government. The process was not designed to be inclusive or instill confidence that voices would be heard. Therefore, it is reasonable that there should be nostalgia for the powers of the former municipal governments. They were able to guarantee that resources would be allocated in their respective geographic areas.

The challenge now is to reignite confidence that City Council's decisions and investments in services will be no less sensitive to different communities' needs and priorities. The challenge is to recognize that the people we elect are not either Members of a large City Council or Members of a Community Council. All Members of City Council are Members of Community Councils and all Members of Community Councils are Members of City Council. All of them must have both local sensitivity and a city-wide perspective.

Community Councils are part of the City government's decision-making structure. As such, how can their role be enhanced to ensure that local priorities form a legitimate and influential part of the Council's budgeting and resource allocation processes?

Community Councils currently have a responsibility to monitor the well-being of local neighbourhoods and report to Council on how well community needs are being met. This responsibility could be developed into a more formal way of flowing community priorities into the City's strategic planning and resource allocation processes. One way of achieving this could be through the preparation of Neighbourhood Report Cards by Community Councils. The Report Cards would provide a tool for gathering locally relevant information about neighbourhoods in a systematic way and using that information for decision-making at the community and municipal levels. Report Cards are also a way to make information that the City and others collect accessible to citizens and elected officials and, therefore, to reinforce accountability.

The purpose of Report Cards could be to:

(1) help neighbourhoods track how well/poorly they are doing in relation to other neighbourhoods in the City;

(2) help identify both gaps in service and capacities (i.e., what particular neighbourhoods do well and can build upon);

(3) help Community Councils set local service priorities; and

(4) help City Council address inequities across the City.

A Neighbourhood Report Card would be a report on the state of the community. It would use a number of indicators to highlight key outcomes (such as wide use of recreation services, high employment rates, low crime and fear of crime rates) and key conditions that have an impact on desired outcomes. The Report Cards would also identify community needs and propose how gaps in services might be addressed. Each indicator would have implications for resource allocation and service delivery.

Neighbourhood Report Cards could be a balance between a standard form, which would be comparable across the City, and a locally based decision-making process. As such, Report Cards would be developed in consultation with communities so that they can reflect community priorities, but also in relation to a common, City-wide template for Report Cards. Through the Community Councils, this information would then feed into the City's strategic planning, priority setting and budget setting processes.

As public documents, the Report Cards would help hold Council accountable for the impact of its decisions on local communities. The Report Card process would help to ensure that:

(1) local communities have access to decision-makers;

(2) local voices are heard in decision-making processes;

(3) City services are sensitive to local needs and priorities; and

(4) there is local participation in matters that have a local impact.

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (February 18, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers and Residents advising, that the new Toronto City Council serves a population larger than all but four Canadian provinces; that the ability to effectively operate a city of this size depends very much on the delegation of local matters to the Community Councils; and forwarding recommendations in regard thereto;

(ii) (February 5, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance, Chair, Confederation of Resident and Ratepayers Associations, forwarding the following motion that was passed by the Confederation of Resident and Ratepayers Association (CORRA) at its regular meeting on February 4, 1998:

"CORRA supports in principle strong Community Councils with real effective control over local issues or no Community Councils at all, with a letter of explanation.";

and advising that it was agreed that Community Councils will be essential if this government is going to have a chance to function with any efficiency at all; and forwarding reasons for this;

(iii) (February 25, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell, forwarding recommendations in an attempt to fairly implement the decisions of the Toronto Community Council on February 18, 1998, regarding Community Councils; and

(iv) (February 25, 1998) from Mr. Arthur Lofsky requesting that the memorandum, entitled "Decision Making in the MegaCity: Avoiding Amalgamation Cost Penalties", prepared by Mr. Peter Tomlinson, former Chief of Economic Development in the City of Toronto, be included as part of his deputation respecting the Role of Community Councils.

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Arthur Lofsky, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Robert Barnett, The Municipal Coalition on Local Government, and filed a document, entitled "Summary Report Card of Responses";

- Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc., and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, on behalf of Mr. Gary Collver, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government;

- Mr. John Sewell, and submitted four Recommendations for consideration by the Special Committee;

- Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

- Mr. William Phillips; and

- Mr. George Carere.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre; and

Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River.

(A copy of the Appendix attached to the foregoing Draft Discussion Paper; and the attachments to the communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 26, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 3, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

At its meeting of February 26, 1998, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Special Committee) requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on March 4, 1998 on several proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law. Certain amendments respecting the functions of Community Councils were recommended for implementation as soon as possible.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, referred several motions tabled at that meeting to the Special Committee for report to Council. Among those matters referred to the Committee were the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and amendments to the Procedural By-law. In its consideration of the roles and functions of Community Councils at its meeting of February 26, 1998, the Committee recommended a number of amendments to the Procedural By-law, By-law No. 23-1998, and requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on March 4, 1998, on several of the suggested amendments.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report will discuss certain of the amendments recommended to be made to the Procedural By-law by the Special Committee.

Sub-Committees of Community Councils:

At present, section 94 of the Procedural By-law prohibits Community Councils from delegating work to sub-committees, special committees or task forces. The Special Committee recommends that Community Councils be permitted to establish sub-committees and that Community Councils be authorized to delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to these sub-committees. In addition to planning matters, statutory hearings are required for several other municipal matters including dog muzzling/leashing orders, (can be delegated to a committee or to staff) road closings, rescinding vending permits, etc. The Committee has requested the City Solicitor to report on such delegation, including delegation under the City of Toronto Act, 1977 (the CTA, 1977).

Subsection 105(1) of the Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass a by-law delegating to a committee of the Council responsibility for holding statutory or other hearings, including hearings respecting planning matters. Subsection 105(2) of the Municipal Act requires the committee delegated the responsibility to hold hearings to, as soon as practicable following the conclusion of a hearing, make a written report to the Council summarizing the evidence and arguments presented as well as the findings and recommendations of the Committee. Pursuant to subsection 105(4), provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act including provisions respecting notice, the submission of evidence, summoning witnesses and cross-examination apply to statutory hearings delegated to committees by by-law.

Section 1 of the CTA, 1977, authorizes a similar delegation of the hearing function to a committee of council, however, this provision applies only within the geographic boundaries of the old City of Toronto. The provisions of the CTA, 1977, differ from the Municipal Act provisions respecting the conduct of the hearing and reporting requirements. The CTA, 1977, does not require a committee holding a hearing in Council's stead to submit a report to Council; the process is much less onerous as the committee can simply submit its recommendations. The conduct of hearings is also simpler as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to such hearings.

The general legal principle of delegatus non potest delegare provides that a delegated authority may not be further delegated. Therefore, without express statutory authority, Committees of Council cannot sub-delegate statutory hearing functions delegated to them by Council. If Council were to deem a sub-committee to be the committee for the purposes of holding a hearing, the sub-committee would have to report directly to Council; it could not report through a Community Council or standing committee without contravening subsection 105(2) of the Municipal Act.

While statutory hearings must be heard at the Committee to which they have been delegated by City Council, Council could authorize Community Councils to establish sub-committees and delegate administrative work to them. Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act authorizes the delegation of administrative functions to a Committee of Council or to staff. This work could include responsibility for the conduct of non-statutory hearings, such as hearings under a trees by-law, hearing deputations respecting the granting of vending permits, licences to operate boulevard cafes or hold sidewalks sales, the installation of fences, hedges, bicycle stands or other objects that encroach on the road allowance, etc.

Recorded Votes:

By virtue of subsection 117(1) of the Procedural By-law, the provisions of subsection 76(b) of the By-law prohibiting recorded votes apply to committee meetings, including meetings of Community Councils. If Council chose to do so, it could amend the Procedural By-law to allow for recorded votes at committee meetings, or it could decide to establish different rules and allow for recorded votes at Community Council meetings, but not at the meetings of other council committees. It is wholly within Council's jurisdiction to make this determination.

Consent Agendas:

The Special Committee has recommended that City Council endorse, in principle, the idea of consent agendas for Community Councils. The concept of a "consent agenda" refers to a system whereby recommendations of Community Councils on purely local matters would be adopted by City Council without debate, on consent. Council has always had the ability to simply adopt the recommendations of a committee, including a Community Council, without debate as long as the opportunity for debate, if desired, is not fettered. This is reflected in subsection 17.(4)(c) of the Procedural By-law, which provides that recommendations of a Committee or Community Council embodied in a report to Council are deemed to have been moved as adopted by Council without amendment unless Council decides otherwise. Accordingly, there is no legal impediment to Council endorsing, in principle, the concept of consent agendas.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench, Legal Department, 392-7245.)

3

Accessibility of York Community Council to the Public

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends that the Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998, be amended, if required, to permit York Community Council to commence the first day of its meeting at 7:00 p.m., rather than at 9:30 a.m., and, further, that York Community Council be requested to report to City Council as to the regular scheduled time they intend to meet.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (February 19, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber:

I am writing to you in regard to the accessibility of the York Community Council to the public.

As you know, outlined in our Procedural By-law governing Community Councils, reference is made to the responsibility of the Community Council to hear public deputations, involve citizens in neighbourhood issues and dealing with other local issues.

Since your Committee will be examining the role and responsibilities of Community Councils. I would like to suggest that the first day of a required meeting of a Community Council be held in evening sessions. This would in my view, facilitate greater accessibility by the public to these meetings as well as heighten awareness of the role of the Community Council and issues that come before it.

I know that providing the local option to a Community Council on convening evening meetings, has also been suggested by other Members of Council. In any event, in the York Community, evening meetings would be welcomed as providing a better opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following Notice of Motion:

Moved by: Councillor Nunziata

Seconded by: Councillor Mihevc

Whereas the Procedural By-law governing the duties of the Community Council refers to the responsibility of the Community Council to hear public deputations and to involve citizens in neighbourhood issues;

And whereas evening meetings of a Community Council would allow greater accessibility by the public to the meetings of Community Council and heighten awareness of the role of the Community Council and the issues that come before it;

Therefore be it resolved that the Procedural By-law be amended to allow each Community Council the option of convening their meetings in the evenings.

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (February 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, responding to the communication (February 19, 1998) from Councillor Nunziata, York-Humber, respecting the accessibility of York Community Council to the public; and advising that until such time as the Special Committee has reported to Council on the Role of Community Councils, it is appropriate for any Standing Committee of Council, or Community Councils, depending on issues being considered, to hold evening meetings.

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter.

4

Selected Issues Respecting Agencies, Boards and Commissions

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (February 19, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer subject to:

(1) adding to Recommendation No. (2) after the words, "which appoints them", the words "and until their successors are appointed,", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) the term of citizen appointments to Agencies, Boards, and Commissions be for the term of the Council which appoints them and until their successors are appointed, unless otherwise specified by legislation;"; and

(2) striking out from Recommendation No. (3) the words "through the appropriate Standing Committee", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(3) Recommendation No. (87) in the Toronto Transition Team Report be referred to the Board of Directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts for consideration within the context of developing and implementing the Centre's Business Plan, and that the appointment of citizen members be deferred until such time as the Board reports further on this issue;".

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To recommend the next steps in dealing with selected issues respecting Agencies, Boards, and Commissions.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council dissolve the Board of Management of the Guild and notice be given for the introduction of the necessary by-law;

(2) the term of citizen appointments to Agencies, Boards, and Commissions be for the term of the Council which appoints them unless otherwise specified by legislation;

(3) Recommendation No. (87) in the Toronto Transition Team Report be referred to the Board of Directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts for consideration within the context of developing and implementing the Centre's Business Plan, and that the appointment of citizen members be deferred until such time as the Board reports further on this issue through the appropriate Standing Committee;

(4) Recommendation No. (90) in the Toronto Transition Team Report be considered within the context of the potential integration of Ontario Place and Exhibition Place and that citizen appointments be deferred until this issue is resolved;

(5) the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments to the following boards when there are sufficient numbers of appointments to be made to warrant the cost of advertising:

(a) North York Performing Arts Centre;

(b) St. Lawrence Centre for the Performing Arts; and

(c) Toronto Economic Development Corporation; and

(6) the appropriate staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

At its last meeting on February 13, 1998, the Special Committee received a report detailing the outstanding issues respecting Agencies, Boards, and Commissions. This report addresses selected issues from that list to clear some items from the agenda of the Special Committee.

Discussion:

(1) The Board of Management of the Guild.

The Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto reviewed the need for the Board of Management of the Guild in 1996 and determined that the Board should be dissolved. The primary reason was that a 14-member governing board was not appropriate given that the budget was $200 thousand and there were only two staff members at the time and now only one. Metro Council requested that legislation be enacted to dissolve the Board which had been established by the Metro Act. Since that time, the property has been managed internally by the Parks and Culture Department and the Board of Management has agreed not to hold board meetings.

The Board of Management of the Guild was continued in Bill 148. Continuation of the Board requires that a separate annual audit be conducted and an annual statement prepared. This is an unnecessary cost to the municipality. Provincial Regulation 214/96 enables Council to dissolve the Board by by-law. It is recommended that the Board of Management of the Guild be dissolved and notice be given for the introduction of the necessary by-law.

(2) Term for Citizen Appointments.

The citizen appointment process usually takes as long as five months to complete and requires commitment of substantial financial and staff resources. In addition, citizens appointed for the first time to boards may experience a substantive learning curve to familiarize themselves with the specific issues, understand government expectations and process, and become comfortable in the role. Most boards meet monthly. As a matter of practicality, citizen appointees should serve for the full term of Council unless legislation dictates another course of action. All citizens serve at the pleasure of Council and can be replaced as the situation may warrant so there is no need to provide a shortened appointment term. In accordance with part three of Recommendation No. (70) of the Toronto Transition Team Report, it is recommended that the term of citizen appointments to Agencies, Boards, and Commissions be for the term of the Council which appoints them unless otherwise specified by legislation.

(3) Hummingbird Centre and Exhibition Place.

For some local boards, the process of restructuring was initiated independently of the City amalgamation process due to changes in strategies emerging during the normal course of business. These processes should be continued within the context in which they were begun. These include the business planning process for the Hummingbird Centre and the possible integration of Exhibition Place with Ontario Place.

The Toronto Transition Team's Recommendation No. (87) recommends a specific structure for the Board of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts which is essentially the structure recommended within the preliminary business plan for the Centre. The business planning process is continuing and the structure of the Board needs to be considered along with the business direction within the normal course of business. Recommendation No. (90) recommends that Council proceed with the integration of Ontario Place and Exhibition Place. Again, a process is already in place to deal with this issue through a Joint Interim Board and any future action should be taken within that process.

It is recommended that Transition Team Report Recommendations Nos. (87) and (90) with respect to these boards be considered within the context of the processes in progress. Since in both cases, the legislation permits the existing citizen appointees to continue until their successors are appointed, it is further recommended that the citizens currently serving on these boards continue until these issues are resolved in order to maintain continuity of the boards during the transitional periods.

(4) Additional Citizen Appointments.

There are no specific outstanding issues on the following board structures and the Clerk should be authorized to proceed with the citizen appointments process. The appointments process requires that specific qualifications be articulated by the organization for which appointments are to be made.

- North York Performing Arts Centre (8 citizens);

- St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts (12 citizens); and

- Toronto Economic Development Corporation (8 citizens).

During this first term of the new Council, many decisions must be made which may impact the composition of boards and the number of citizen appointments. These decisions may be spread out over the next three years. Advertising for citizen appointments is very expensive due to the size of the ads and the processes for selection. The Clerk should be given discretion in determining the timing of such advertisements to permit simultaneous advertising for several boards at one time in order to minimize costs. It is recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments to the above boards when there are sufficient numbers of appointments to be made to warrant the cost of advertising.

Conclusions:

This report recommends some specific actions to deal with selected Toronto Transition Team recommendations respecting agencies, boards, and commissions. These actions will clear these recommendations from the agenda of the Special Committee.

5

Terms of Reference for the Homeless Strategy Task Force

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Homeless Strategy Task Force, embodied in the following communication (February 20, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Homeless Strategy Task Force:

On January 2, 6 and 8, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee. In doing so, Council established a number of task forces including the Homeless Strategy Task Force. Having been appointed Chair of this Task Force, I am submitting a report on the Terms of Reference, including the proposed composition, through your Special Committee.

This report has been prepared in close consultation with Mayor Lastman, his staff, the new "Homeless Action Task Force" and its chair Dr. Anne Golden and many others.

Naturally, the proliferation of groups working on the homelessness crisis creates an element of confusion. This report attempts to dispel confusion and provide for Council an orderly process for developing, evaluating, coordinating and recommending to Council strategies, policies and programmes to deal with the housing crisis our city currently faces.

(1) Name of the Committee:

This report proposes that a core group of Councillors be constituted and called: the Council Strategy Committee For People Without Homes. This nomenclature has been developed through the wide-ranging discussions in academic and homeless advocacy circles in North America and was recommended by Professor David Hulchanski, University of Toronto's housing policy expert.

(2) Duration:

This Committee will make periodic as well as annual reports to the Standing Committee on Community and Neighbourhood Services. While it would be wonderful to suggest a date when the mandate of this Committee would have been fulfilled, I do not think that any of us would be willing to set that date today. I know that all Members of Council agree that one homeless person is too many and we will want to continue our work accordingly.

Members should note here that Dr. Anne Golden's Task Force, announced by the Mayor in January, is scheduled to complete its work in 12 months. I would expect that many of its recommendations will then be passed to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes for implementation.

(3) Mandate:

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes will:

(a) serve as Council's vehicle for developing, evaluating, coordinating and recommending to Council strategies, policies and programmes to deal with the housing crisis our city currently faces:

(b) report regularly to Council's Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee with recommendations;

(c) receive and assess communications, studies and recommendations from the Homelessness Action Task Force (Chaired by Dr. Anne Golden), the Alternative Housing and Services Committee, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, the Housing Stakeholders' Panel (to be re-constituted) as well as the public. Note: a detailed description of these various organizations appears below;

(d) assist in the coordination of initiatives to ensure the most effective use of resources;

(e) develop innovative housing supply strategies and demonstration projects with the help of housing staff, the development community and community experts;

(f) review and recommend proposals and programmes for addressing the full range of emergency needs of people without homes; and

(g) provide political leadership and build momentum for an all-level government and community response to all aspects of the homelessness crisis.

(4) Membership:

It is proposed that this Committee consist of Councillors. Community input to the Council Strategy Committee will be effectively provided through existing committees which will continue as well as the new Homelessness Action Task Force.

An invitation is extended to all Councillors to participate. To this point, the following Councillors are recommended: Mike Tzekas, Bill Saundercook, Gordon Chong (Chair of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee), Jack Layton, Chair.

(5) Chairperson: Councillor Layton

(6) Staffing and Resources:

The Committee will require the appropriate level of staffing from the Clerk's Department. In addition, a designated staff person from the Community Services Department should be provided to coordinate the work of the Committee. As well, relevant departments will be asked to provide their expertise and staff support for particular aspects of the work of the Committee. In particular, the housing policy sections and the hostel services sections of the new city's administration should have dedicated staff assigned to the Committee.

No special financial resources are expected to be required for the Committee itself beyond the usual coffee budget.

Several entities will be continuing their work and reporting through the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes:

Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons: This large group of front line workers, agencies, city staff and Councillors has met for two years, created initially by Metro Council under the leadership of Councillor Dennis Fotinos. I have served as Co-Chair and have been encouraged by Advisory Committee Members to continue in that role.

Meeting monthly, the group has spawned a wide range of initiatives: the homeless emergency fund, the evictions prevention campaign, the Housing Stakeholders' Panel, the "Ticket to Ride" campaign, the expansion of hostels and use of municipal buildings for emergency shelter, as well as a major forum on mental health issues and homelessness. Many other recommendations have been brought forward by the Advisory Committee to the former Metro Council. This forum has accomplished its work through the creation of very action oriented task groups and sub-committees. This will be its continued mode of operation.

Alternative Housing and Services Committee: the organization with the longest history of working in this field, this was a sub-committee of the former City of Toronto's Neighbourhoods Committee and developed innovative housing approaches for Toronto's homeless, isolated and hard to house folks for two decades. Chaired by Bob Yamashita of our housing staff, this committee is proposed to continue as a sub-committee of the new Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes. Its membership has always been open to a range of community members and staff from several departments. A good working relationship and division of labour has evolved between this sub-committee and the Advisory Committee mentioned above.

Housing Stakeholders' Panel: Formerly chaired by Councillor Dennis Fotinos. The Panel consisted of leading participants in the private rental housing sector (both tenants and landlords, large and small), experts in non-profit housing, housing policy specialists as well as staff and Councillors. The report from this Stakeholders' Panel suggested recommendations focused on how to facilitate the construction of lower rent private sector rental stock. Its excellent recommendations were heralded by the Toronto Star, endorsed by Metro Council and adopted in large measure by many candidates in the municipal election, including both major contenders for Mayor.

It is proposed that the Housing Stakeholder Panel be reconvened to pursue its mandate further and to continue to provide expert advice on this important sector. The Stakeholder Panel should also be asked to turn its attention to the lowest income groups which the Panel acknowledged could not be served by private sector rental housing providers. It is proposed that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes reconvene the Stakeholders' Panel with the help of City housing staff.

The Homelessness Action Task Force: Chaired by Anne Golden, the terms of reference for this 12 month Task Force is attached. You are asked to note its reporting structure on page 12. Also attached is the Background Paper for the Homelessness Action Task Force which will also serve as a basic research for the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.

(7) Process and Workplan:

This Committee will meet monthly. Typical agendas will consist of material from the various organizations mentioned above. Early meetings will also involve reviewing presentations and background material. Current emergencies such as the sale of OHC scattered units, rapid increase in the eviction rate and other matters will be addressed.

Thank you for considering these proposals.

(A copy of the publication, entitled "Background Paper for the Homelessness Action Task Force", prepared for Dr. Anne Golden, President, United Way of Greater Toronto by Ms. Barbara Emanuel and Mr. Greg Suttor - January 14, 1998, and the organization chart, entitled "Toronto City Council's Homelessness Policy-Making", which was attached to the foregoing communication from Councillor Jack Layton, was forwarded to all Members of Council and select officials only with the February 26, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Terms of Reference for the City of Toronto

Task Force on Community Access and Equity

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Anti-Semitism be included in the Proposed Terms of Reference for the City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity embodied in the report dated February 24, 1998, from Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity, as one of the issues which require attention; and

(2) the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the communication dated February 16, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Urban Environment and Development Committee on February 9, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that Councillor Pam McConnell be appointed as the representative of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to the Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights.' ")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (February 24, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity:

Purpose:

As directed by Toronto Council at its meeting of January 8, 1998, this report outlines the proposed Terms of Reference for this task force. The proposed Terms of Reference are the result of consultations with citizen members of municipal committees on Access and Equity, interested community groups, and staff.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Support for the Task Force will be provided by a staff team assembled from various program areas dealing with access and equity issues within the City. Secretariat support will be provided by the City Clerk. Further, each department will be requested to identify a staff liaison person to the Task Force to ensure that there is a comprehensive response from all departments and special purpose bodies.

Financial support in the amount of $20,000.00 is required to enable the Task Force to conduct community meetings and consultations, circulate required notices and cover expenses of community members, regarding participation and attendance at Task Force meetings (e.g., attendant care, interpreting, transportation).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the proposed Terms of Reference and proposed budget be adopted;

(2) the proposed budget come from the City contingency fund and be allocated to the City Council budget for Task Forces administered by the City Clerk;

(3) (a) the existing municipal committees on Access and Equity be continued and be authorized to fill vacancies using the Task Force selection criteria; and

(b) staff support and resources be provided to ensure continued input from these committees pending the final recommendations of the Task Force;

(4) the programs and policies on Access and Equity of the former municipalities continue to be in effect until Council formally decides otherwise;

(5) each Department be required, and each Special Purpose Body be requested, to assign a senior liaison person for the Task Force; and

(6) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect thereto.

Proposed Terms of Reference:

The City of Toronto is recognized internationally for its ability to embrace and nurture the diverse communities that thrive within it. This phenomenon is the result of changes in immigration, as well as the long working relationship between the diverse communities and local governments and institutions. This relationship fosters a spirit of mutuality, trust and respect among the various ethno racial communities, people with disabilities, women, Aboriginal peoples, lesbians and gays, immigrants/refugees. Members of the communities and local government have worked to ensure that the structures and services are accessible and equitable so that everyone may thrive economically, socially within a sustainable environment.

The work of the Task Force includes identifying issues which require attention, such as: racism, all other forms of discrimination, employment and pay equity; as well as developing and recommending new structures and an Action Plan built on:

(i) consultation with the people who live and work in the City of Toronto, City Councillors, City departments and Special Purpose Bodies;

(ii) research on best practices in Toronto and other jurisdictions;

(iii) development of partnerships between the City of Toronto, other levels of government, business and labour, community organizations, and residents;

(iv) development of a "root cause approach" which considers the origins rather than the symptoms of the problems being addressed, i.e., systemic issues and responses;

(v) linkages with other departments and Task Forces established by the City Council.

(1) Name:

The name of this Task Force is "City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity".

(2) Duration:

The Task Force is intended to be of limited duration and will present a final report to Toronto City Council in January 1999. The Task Force will meet on a monthly basis between April and December, 1998. Additional meetings may be scheduled at the call of the Chair. From January to March 1999, the Task Force will wind down its work as the new structures are put in place.

(3) Mandate:

As identified by the Toronto Transition Team and adopted by Toronto City Council, the mandate of the Task Force is to develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan of action that will recommend:

"ways or structures to ensure the voices of the City's diverse communities continue to be heard; and strategies on issues of concern to racial minorities, people with disabilities, women, Aboriginal peoples, lesbians and gays, ethno-cultural groups, immigrants/refugees."

Access and equity programs within the new City should continue to address the barriers to full participation experienced by all equality seeking groups, including those concerned with: race, ethnicity, class, disability, education, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion/faith.

The Task Force's report will include recommendations for measurable outcomes regarding the implementation of access and equity principles into the political and administrative structures, programs, and services of the City of Toronto. The report will also address issues of future community advocacy and mobilization.

In addition to a final report, interim reports will be submitted by the Task Force to the Special Committee to Review the Toronto Transition Team Report, or other appropriate committees, to advise on the progress of the Task Force and to address significant issues requiring Council's attention, e.g., Federal and Provincial policies on immigration, refugees, equity in education and training, pay equity, employment equity, race relations, literacy, and the ongoing work of the access and equity policies and programs established by the former municipalities.

(4) Task Force Process:

At all levels of this process, stakeholder input is necessary to ensure a commitment to the outcomes and, therefore, implementation of recommendations.

It is anticipated that the Task Force will operate with three sub-committees:

(i) Community Consultations;

(ii) Departmental Consultations; and

(iii) Political Consultations with Members of Council.

These sub-committees will be chaired by one of the Task Force members.

The Task Force may also strike work groups based on stakeholder issues (e.g., Status of Women, Anti-Racism, Accessibility for People with Disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, Literacy, Employment Equity). It is further anticipated that these work groups will conduct the necessary work and report on their findings, with recommendations, to the Task Force. The Task Force may invite other community members to join these stakeholder work groups, based on selection criteria for Task Force Membership.

At its first meeting, the Task Force will: review the Terms of Reference; set a schedule of meeting dates, including location; and, orient members as to the role of the Task Force and the City's organization.

All meetings of the Task Force will be held at accessible locations. All documents will be made available in alternative formats, and other supports such as attendant care, childcare and interpreting will be provided as required.

(A) Goals and Objectives:

The primary focus of the Task Force's work is to undertake a consultative process as a way of expanding upon the general directions recommended by the Toronto Transition Team. The Task Force will identify the necessary policies, structural functions, program priorities and evaluation processes by which the new City of Toronto can:

(i) strengthen civic society, and in particular empower those members of the community who face barriers to full participation in the life of the community;

(ii) take a more effective role in addressing the barriers faced by women, people of colour, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, lesbians and gays, immigrants/refugees, different religious/faith communities;

(iii) strengthen community involvement and public participation in the decision-making processes of the municipality, particularly for equity seeking communities;

(iv) continue the City's proactive role in linking and partnering with other institutions and agencies, as well as with the community, in engaging in initiatives in support of access and equity;

(v) ensure that the contributions, interests and needs of all sectors of Toronto's diverse population are reflected in the City's mission, operation and service delivery;

(vi) continue the City's leadership in the community as a model employer with a workforce that reflects the diversity of its residents and follows fair and equitable employment practices.

To achieve these objectives, the Task Force will need to consider a number of strategic directions that impact on:

(1) community and institutional partnerships;

(2) mechanisms for City Council monitoring and advocacy; and

(3) administrative responsibilities and accountability.

(B) Vision:

Following its orientation, where Task Force members will improve their understanding of each other and of the Task Force mandate, the members will participate in a visioning session. The visioning session will guide the development of both short and long term "outcome" indicators.

(C) Information Gathering:

In order to inform the work of the Task Force, a number of reports will be required. The Action Plan will need to address short-term transition and harmonization issues as well as identify long-term responsibilities. The Task Force will review:

(i) a summary of all submissions to the Toronto April / May 1998

Transition Team on Access and Equity;

(ii) an inventory of existing Access and Equity policies,

programs and resources from all municipalities;

(iii) an inventory of the achievements, outcomes and

impacts of access and equity activities;

(iv) current legislation, by-laws and municipal policies

on access and equity in the new City;

(v) identification of best practices within May/June 1998

municipalities in addressing Access and Equity issues;

(vi) benchmarks on effective access and equity programs.

(D) Analysis:

The Task Force will review all materials, submissions, and the results of consultation to determine the range of solutions, policies and practices that are possible. The Task Force will draft recommendations which include: mechanisms for community and institutional partnerships, including funding partnerships; "performance indicators" and mechanisms for review; and resource implications, i.e, human, organizational, financial (July/August, 1998).

(E) Draft Report:

A draft report will be circulated in September for consultation which will occur between September and November 1998. The final report will follow the principles of clear language.

(5) Membership:

The Task Force will be composed of no more than eighteen (18) members, drawn from City Councillors and representatives of stakeholder groups. This will include up to five (5) members of City Council with the balance drawn from the following stakeholder groups:

(a) individuals with special competencies in the general area of access and equity;

(b) community and advocacy organizations dealing with access and equity issues; and

(c) municipal committees dealing with access and equity issues.

The Task Force will strive to represent the diversity of the community as well as geographic considerations. Effort will be made to involve youth. Municipal employees will not be eligible for membership; however, the City's bargaining agents will be consulted on matters that impact their membership.

(6) Chair and Co-chairs:

The Task Force will be chaired by Councillor Joe Mihevc who will designate two community representatives as Co-chairs. These Co-chairs will be selected based on the criteria included in the Terms of Reference and must be individuals with demonstrated political and community experience in the access and equity field.

(7) Membership Selection:

After the selection of two community Co-chairs, the remaining community representatives will be selected through a public call. All community members will be selected by the Chair and Co-chairs. The selection process will be based on clearly understood and equitable criteria and members will be selected on the basis of the following:

(1) experience working in a task force or similar setting;

(2) leadership in the community on Access and Equity issues;

(3) history of public service such as volunteer work;

(4) proven ability to consult within and across their sector;

(5) demonstrated commitment, knowledge and understanding of access and equity issues;

(6) availability and willingness to attend meetings;

(7) skills in listening, analysis, learning; and

(8) ability to work in a team setting, including an interest and capacity to work through consensus.

(8) Staffing and Resources:

The Task Force will be staffed by administrative and professional individuals with the capacity to: gather, synthesize and analyse background information; write background papers, and assist in the writing of the draft and final reports; and, facilitate a community consultation process.

A group of core staff will work as a team to support the Task Force. The staff will be drawn from the municipal committees and departments dealing with access and equity. The City Clerk will provide secretariat support.

Other staff will resource the Task Force as necessary to conduct research, develop and implement communications and outreach strategies, and develop policies and background reports. In addition, it is anticipated that representatives from each department and from the City's special purpose bodies will be involved to ensure development of a comprehensive access and equity Action Plan.

The Task Force will require $20,000.00 to do its work. This will cover:

(1) meeting costs (mailing, etc.);

(2) community consultation and other communications costs, including translation and interpretation, sign language and accommodation costs for those requiring adaptive devices or other supports;

(3) preparation of public documents, including the Final Report; and

(4) direct expenses for community members (e.g., parking, transit, child care).

(9) Consultation Process:

During the course of consultations regarding these Terms of Reference, concern was expressed regarding the continuation of the work of the former municipal committees. A recommendation was made to request Council authorize the continuation of existing committees and provide staff support and resources while the Task Force is doing its work and pending the final recommendations of the Task Force.

(a) Community Consultation.

Individuals and community organizations will be consulted through a variety of mechanisms. Formal consultation meetings will occur at two points in the process:.

April - June - Vision and Information Gathering: identifying Community issues, problems, resources, capacities, and best practices;

The Task Force will review existing municipal responsibilities and activities, for example, in such areas as municipal purchasing, communications, human resources, business and economic development, grants distribution, facilities management, and transportation. The Task Force will also examine existing municipal supports to community advocacy and mobilization.

September - Reviewing the Draft Report

November

It is proposed that the consultation process with the community include discussion group sessions with various stakeholder groups, for example: people of colour/racial minorities, women, Aboriginal peoples, immigrants/refugees, people with disabilities, different religious/faith communities, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgendered, youth, poverty, social justice, literacy, labour, municipally-based and mayor's Committees, community reference groups, business, and academia.

Written submissions by residents and community organizations will be encouraged and other consultative techniques will be used including: focus groups or subcommittees on particular topics and surveys to stakeholder organizations.

The monthly meetings of the Task Force will provide additional opportunities for community input.

The Task Force may shift the consultation process as it listens to the voices of the stakeholders and as it develops recommendations.

(b) Departmental Consultation:

To ensure the City's administration has the capacity to address community issues and needs, as well as integrate access and equity principles, departmental consultations will be held to determine:

(i) staff positions whose primary focus is access and equity;

(ii) how to continue access and equity principles as part of the culture of the new city;

(iii) the kind of administrative and co-ordinating structures that are needed; and

(iv) the policies that require Council approval.

The internal process of consultation will assess the awareness and integration of access, equity and participation principles in the service delivery systems within departments and special purpose bodies.

(c) Political Consultation:

The Chair of the Task Force will obtain input from members of Council through addressing and seeking the advice of each of the Standing Committees, Community Councils and special meetings of Councillors. The dialogue is intended to ensure that City Council's decision-making structures will accommodate the diverse needs of all members of the community.

Conclusions:

City Council has established this Task Force to develop recommendations on the best ways to support communities concerned about access and equity, and to integrate the principles of access and equity into the fabric of the City's roles as policy maker, advocate, provider and regulator of services, contractor and employer.

In addition to its final report, the Task Force may submit interim reports and reports on urgent community issues to the Special Committee for consideration and for Council's attention.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 16, 1998) from the City Clerk addressed to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, forwarding the Recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee from its meeting held on February 9, 1998:

Recommendation:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on February 9, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that Councillor Pam McConnell be appointed as the representative of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to the Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following communications:

(i) (January 21, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, requesting that each Standing Committee designate a member to either serve on the Task Force or to act as a liaison between the Task Force and each Standing Committee; and

(ii) (January 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor Joe Mihevc, York--Eglinton, from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, putting forward her name as a representative from the Urban Environment and Development Committee to sit on the Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights.

(Communication dated January 21, 1998, addressed to

the Mayor, Chairs of Standing Committees,

Community Councils, Task Forces and Members of Council from

Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, Task Force on an Access

and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights)

The Report of the Transition Team recognizes that Toronto is a city that has high expectations of municipal government regarding access, equity, anti-racism and human rights as well as the involvement of citizens in these municipal programs.

In adopting the framework outlined by the final report, Council has embraced the necessity for the inclusion and integration of the principles of access and equity into all municipal programs and activities.

To assist with meeting this fundamental objective, I am requesting that each Standing Committee designate a member to serve on this Task Force or to act as a liaison between the Task Force and each Standing Committee.

Please advise me as soon as possible of your interest in serving as a member of the Task Force.

(Communication dated January 27, 1998, addressed to

Councillor Joe Mihevc, York--Eglinton, from

Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River)

I refer to your memo of January 21, 1998, with respect to the above-referenced matter.

I would like to put forward my name as a representative from the Urban Environment and Development Committee to sit on the Task Force, and I am advising Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, of my interest by copy of this letter.)

7

Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Develop

a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following Members of Council be appointed to the Task Force to Develop a Strategy on Issues of Concern to the Elderly:

Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre,

Councillor Ron Moeser, Scarborough Highland Creek,

Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale-Thistletown,

Councillor Michael Prue, East York,

Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South,

Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto, as Chair, and

Councillor Bill Saundercook, York-Humber.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly, embodied in the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, Chair, Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly:

I am pleased to forward for your Committee's consideration the Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly.

________

Terms of Reference

Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly

Origin:

The Task Force on Seniors was established by Council adopting Report No.1 of the Striking Committee at the Council meeting held January 2, 6, 8, and 9, 1998.

Introduction:

We are extremely fortunate in the city of Toronto to have many seniors who are willing to help the new City establish new structures and initiatives. Toronto has approximately 300,000 seniors and many who are willing to share their experience and wisdom in this time of change.

Seniors wish to have input into issues that affect their special concerns but also wish to be included and consulted about a broad range of issues. The Seniors' Task Force is a mechanism which can begin to shape a process to involve seniors and seniors' groups as partners on issues which effect them and the community.

As identified in the Toronto Transition Team report: "The Task Force should bring together seniors from

across the new city.... to identify the key issues for seniors in the new city and develop a

plan for the City's future actions to address these issues."

Duration:

The Seniors' Task Force is intended to be of limited duration with a report to Council by year end.

Mandate:

The mandate of the Task Force is to identify emerging needs of senior residents in the City of Toronto and to develop a seniors' strategy to address priority issue areas, which are to:

(a) develop structures to advise City Council on issues affecting seniors and to involve seniors in this process;

(b) ensure that policies, programs and services developed and delivered by the municipality meet the needs of seniors;

(c) value the involvement of seniors in the life of the City;

(d) identify a role for the City in the International Year of Older Persons - 1999; and

(e) provide a process for rationalization of all previous municipal seniors committees.

Membership:

City Council has appointed Councillor Anne Johnston as Chair of the Task Force.

The Task Force will be composed of six City Councillors to ensure geographic representation and a Seniors Reference Group consisting of representatives of coalitions, networks and individuals with special expertise.

The members will be as diverse as possible, in terms of geography, gender, race/ethnicity. Barriers to attendance will be eliminated.

Input is being sought from the Community Councils and includes a request for lists of all seniors groups in their areas.

Staffing and Resources:

An interdepartmental staff team has been developed, drawn from the Healthy City Office (lead), Social Development and Management Services Division and Public Health.

In order to assist the task force, staff from the following areas will be included as needed:

(i) TTC/Wheeltrans;

(ii) Parks and Recreation - Seniors Programs;

(iii) Housing - Homes for the Aged and Metro Toronto Housing Company;

(iv) Public Library; and

(v) others as appropriate.

Budget:

Through the budget process, a fund has been requested to cover those costs of the four interrelated Task Forces falling under the Community and Neighbourhood Services area, including the Seniors Task Force. These are additional funds to those that can be absorbed by the relevant departments.

Task Force Process:

General Principles:

The Task Force meetings will be open to the public. Further more focussed community consultation will be important in order to maximize effectiveness, build partnerships and to increase access to good ideas and solutions.

The Task Force will utilize a full range of consultation processes including, focus groups, surveys, community public meetings at a variety of locations, information on various way to reach task force members or staff for input, partnering with community organizations for inclusion at conferences, meetings or events and other mechanisms.

At a minimum, individuals and community organizations should be consulted at these points in the process:

(i) issue identification;

(ii) information gathering;

(iii) vision; and

(iv) review of draft report

Steps in Process:

(1) Information Gathering:

(i) literature review, including recommendations contained in relevant reports from the former municipalities;

(ii) research on best practices i.e., service delivery, models for citizen input, etc.

(iii) inventory of existing resources in the corporation and in the community, i.e. an inventory of seniors' services, programs and supports; and

(iv) relevant demographics and statistics.

(2) Issue Identification:

(i) in consultation with the community, identify priority issues.

(3) Vision:

(i) development of short and long term solutions that would address the major issues identified by the stakeholders; and

(ii) what would be a "healthy city" for seniors.

(4) Analysis:

(i) gap analysis by issue, demography and geography. Identify best policies, practices and programs for the city;

(ii) assess duplication. Identify resource implications in terms of human, organizational and financial; and

(iii) ensure opportunities for community partnerships, including funding partnerships are explored.

(5) Draft Report:

(i) develop draft issue paper and recommendations and implementation work plan;

(ii) develop performance indicators and outcome measures that will help to evaluate success; and

(iii) ensure full consultation of draft report by the community and appropriate staff, seniors agencies and relevant groups.

(6) Final Report to Council:

(i) prepared and reviewed by Committee and Reference Groups including key comments from stakeholder groups.

Opportunities for Youth

One of the priorities for the City of Toronto is to develop training and job opportunities for young people. The Seniors' Task Force offers an opportunity to connect with youth through ongoing intergenerational projects that currently operate in a number of communities. The Task Force will examine this possibility.

8

Draft Terms of Reference for the Task Force

on Agencies, Boards and Commissions

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (February 19, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To report on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards, and Commissions and recommend issues to be referred to the Task Force by the Special Committee.

Funding Sources:

Resources will be drawn from existing staff.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Task Force be renamed the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions;

(2) the draft Terms of Reference attached as Appendix I be considered at the first meeting of the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions;

(3) the following recommendations in the Toronto Transition Team Report be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions and subsequent report to Council through the appropriate Standing Committees:

(a) the second part of Recommendation No. (71) which states that all major boards should be required to provide an annual report. The form of the annual report and any other reporting requirements should be considered within the context of determining the accountability mechanisms for Agencies, Boards, and Commissions;

(b) the first part of Recommendation No. (70) which states that Council should ensure that there is citizen representation on all of its Agencies, Boards, and Commissions;

(c) Recommendation No. (91) regarding the necessity for and composition of TradeLink Community Development Corporation; and

(d) Recommendation No. (92) regarding the future role, mandate and composition of the Toronto Economic Development Corporation;

(4) the last part of Recommendation No. (104) in the Toronto Transition Team Report, which deals with political representation on BIA's, and Recommendation No. (105) which deals with Boards of Management of community centres, arenas, and recreational facilities be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions for recommendation to the Special Committee; and

(5) the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Background:

At its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council established the Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards, and Commissions and appointed the following seven Councillors:

Councillor Dick O'Brien (Chair);

Councillor Gerry Altobello;

Councillor Brian Ashton;

Councillor Ila Bossons;

Councillor Elizabeth Brown;

Councillor Ron Moeser; and

Councillor Frances Nunziata.

No specific mandate was established for the Task Force and the Chair was requested to develop a Terms of Reference for the Task Force and report to the Special Committee to Review the Toronto Transition Team Report.

The Task Force has not yet had an opportunity to meet to discuss a Terms of Reference and workplan. However, staff have developed a draft and consulted with the Chair of the Task Force, and the draft has been circulated to Task Force members.

This report presents a draft Terms of Reference for the Task Force, outlines a general analytic framework for studying Agencies, Boards, and Commissions and recommends that specific issues before the Special Committee respecting Agencies, Boards, and Commissions be referred to the Task Force for study.

Discussion:

This Task Force was established through a Striking Committee recommendation and was not included in the list of Task Forces recommended by the Transition Team. However, the Transition Team did make more than 40 recommendations regarding Agencies, Boards, and Commissions, many of which arise out of the normal course of the business of government rather than directly from municipal amalgamation.

The first issue in considering the mandate of this Task Force is to determine what might be included in "Smaller Agencies, Boards, and Commissions". Size could be measured in many different ways and small may range from anything smaller than the TTC, Police or Hydro to as small as arena boards. Size may not be the most important factor in developing a process to review the mandate, structure, and relationship to Council of its agencies. If some basic principles and a framework for review can be developed which will provide guidelines in these areas, they may be equally applicable regardless of size of the agency. It is therefore recommended that the name of the Task Force be changed to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions.

To distinguish between the work of the Special Committee with regard to Agencies, Boards, and Commissions and the work of the Task Force, it may be more appropriate to look at how the individual issues arose. The Special Committee's priority concerns must necessarily rest with the issues arising due to amalgamation. These are the areas where focused attention is needed to ensure that business continues as smoothly as possible and the appropriate structures are formed from the beginning. The Task Force could then deal with issues which are common across all agencies, issues which existed regardless of amalgamation, and an overall review of mandate, structure and accountability of agencies.

Recommendation No. (69) of the Toronto Transition Team Report states that Council should address the issue of the appropriateness of service delivery through its Agencies, Boards, and Commissions within its initial term. Over the years and through various City Councils, numerous Agencies, Boards, and Commissions have been established. The rationale for continuing these structures and changing the mandates and scope of such boards needs to be reviewed in the context of the amalgamated City and new methods of service delivery which may evolve as a result of restructuring. This is an ongoing process which may extend beyond the immediate integration period and could be assumed by the Task Force.

In addition, there are some issues which may be common to all Agencies, Boards, and Commissions regardless of whether there are specific recommendations in the Transition Team Report. Remuneration of citizen appointees who serve on boards or advisory committees varies considerably among the former municipalities and even within them. Many pay no remuneration except to reimburse out of pocket expenses, some pay a per diem, and others offer a stipend in recognition of the value of the citizen contribution. Previous attempts to develop a consistent approach to this issue have met with considerable barriers to implementation. However, a new policy should be established. This issue could be included in the workplan of the Task Force.

It may also be desirable to refer to the Task Force some of the issues mentioned in the Transition Team Report which apply to agencies which are common across the City. These could include a review of recreational facilities boards and structural issues respecting Business Improvement Areas. The Task Force could review the role, mandate, and composition of these boards. Specifically, the last part of Recommendation No. (104) should be referred to the Task Force, which deals with the legislative requirement for Council to appoint a political representative to BIA's, and Recommendation No. (105) which deals with the review of community centre, arena and other recreational facility boards of management.

A number of recommendations from the Transition Team do not arise out of the amalgamation process, but rather are ongoing actions which should be pursued in the normal course of government business. Rather than attempting to complete such reviews within the short-term mandate of the Special Committee and because these issues do not arise as a result of amalgamation, it is recommended that the following issues be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions for consideration within the longer term review of all Agencies, Boards, and Commissions:

(1) Part 2 of Recommendation No. (71) of the Transition Team Report which states that all major boards should be required to provide an annual report. The form of the annual report and any other reporting required should be considered within the context of determining the accountability mechanisms for Agencies, Boards, and Commissions;

(2) Part 1 of Recommendation No. (70) which states that there should be citizen representation on all Agencies, Board, and Commissions;

(3) Recommendation No. (91) respecting the necessity for and composition of TradeLink; and

(4) Recommendation No. (92) respecting the role, mandate and composition of the Toronto Economic Development Corporation.

The Terms of Reference of the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions attached as Appendix I was developed to encompass all of the issues addressed in this report.

Conclusions:

This report presents a proposed Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions established by Council and recommends that selected Transition Team recommendations be referred to the Task Force by the Special Committee to include in its ongoing review of Agencies, Boards, and Commissions. The Task Force should review the draft Terms of Reference and workplan at its first meeting.

________

Appendix I

Terms of Reference for Task Force on Agencies Boards, and Commissions

Mandate:

(1) to review the mandate, structure, and accountability mechanisms of ABC's and make recommendations for changes where needed; and

(2) to study issues which are common to all or most ABC's such as remuneration of citizen appointees, selection processes, and community representation objectives.

Timeframe:

Studies to be conducted throughout the initial term of the Council of the new City of Toronto.

Membership:

Seven Members of Council appointed at the Council meeting of January 2, 6, 8, and 9, 1998 as follows:

Councillor Dick O'Brien (Chair);

Councillor Gerry Altobello;

Councillor Brian Ashton;

Councillor Ila Bossons;

Councillor Elizabeth Brown;

Councillor Ron Moeser; and

Councillor Frances Nunziata.

Staffing and Resources:

Resources will be drawn from existing staff within the seven former municipalities, coordinated by the Chief Administrative Officer. It is not clear at this time whether external consultants will be required to study some issues.

Task Force Process and Workplan:

(1) review the draft Terms of Reference and workplan;

(2) develop an analytic framework for studying the composition of boards based on the outline attached as Appendix II;

(3) conduct an initial survey of Councillors, staff, and agencies to collect data and identify issues;

(4) construct a comprehensive database of agencies, boards, and commissions as a reference for comparing similar agencies, grouping issues, and prioritizing the required study areas; and

(5) conduct discrete short-term studies and make recommendations as required.

Much of the database information has already been gathered by staff of each of the former municipalities. Information on what processes other governments have used to undergo similar reviews is also available.

________

Appendix II

Analytic Framework for Determining Composition of Boards

There is universal support for involvement of citizens in advisory capacities. The more difficult issue is the degree to which government should delegate its decision-making authority to citizens who serve on local boards. It is clear that Council retains ultimate responsibility for decisions which it delegates to local boards whether comprised of citizens or Councillors or both. When either Council policy or financial performance are at high risk, the full Council may need to retain decision-making authority and delegate authority where objectives are clear and outcomes can be measured and monitored. It is essential that appropriate accountability mechanisms are put in place to ensure that elected representatives continue to carry the full responsibility for policy and fiscal management while delegating the implementation responsibility to staff or citizen boards.

There are very diverse views on which government services should be managed by local boards, what structure is most appropriate and what scope of authority boards should be given. A framework for considering the numerous issues is needed to assist in making these important decisions.

The composition of a local board appears on the surface to be a straight-forward issue and is therefore often addressed as one of the first steps in establishing a board. However, to ensure that Council will be comfortable with the degree of delegation of authority, the reporting relationship, and the assurance of accountability, the determination of the composition of the board should be one of the last steps in a more comprehensive process.

In considering the composition, there are several questions which need to be answered and a process can be developed to methodically consider these questions. The following provides a brief outline of a process in draft form.

Step 1 - Why is the service being provided?

This question is raised not so much to determine whether it should be a government service or not, but rather to articulate the specific reason the service is being offered by the City. Along with the funding method, this reason can then be used to determine how much authority should be delegated and what accountability mechanisms are appropriate.

Step 2 - To what degree is the service used to implement policy of the government?

Policy in this context refers to program policy and objectives rather than administrative policy. It must be determined whether the municipality sets the policy or whether policy is determined provincially and what discretion the municipality has in further defining policy. A distinction must also be drawn between delegation of implementation of a policy or delegation of policy setting.

Step 3 - What are the financial impacts on the taxpayer?

It is important to know whether any revenues collected are intended to earn a profit, offset costs, or be subsidized by the tax base. Where the service is an exclusive universal service such as hydro and water, user fees can be considered a financial impact on the taxpayer. These are distinguished from user fees for services which are selected by choice of the taxpayer such as recreational services. Generally, the reason identified in Step 1 and whether the policy should be set to encourage or discourage use of the service will determine how the business is funded. There are many ways of considering costs and funding and some "ground rules" need to be established to ensure consistency in determining the impact on the tax base. The issues include how capital is treated, how user fees are handled, how government grants are considered, and whether centralized costs are included.

Step 4 - Control and Accountability

Before determining the degree of independence, the type and degree of control Council needs to exercise needs to be determined. Types of control include:

(a) Regulatory Control;

(b) Policy Control ;

(c) Budgetary Control ; and

(d) Service Delivery Control.

For each type of control the following questions need to be answered:

(1) who is the entity accountable to? - Council, other government or regulatory body, general public, clients/users;

(2) who is ultimately held accountable to the public? For personal liability, financial debts, property damages;

(3) is success clearly measurable and attributable to the entity?; and

(4) what action is possible if objectives are not met?

Once these questions are answered, the possible level of independence will become clearer.

Step 5 - Is there a need or requirement to operate at arm's length?

A distinction needs to be drawn between management of a service at arm's length and delivery of a service at arm's length. Delivery of any service may be partially or wholly contracted out, even if it is a core government service, if it is efficient and effective to do so and if there are sufficient quality and service checks and balances. Management of the service consists of defining goals and objectives, developing strategies, assessing delivery mechanisms, determining the appropriate funding and measuring results. The critical issue is to what degree services can be managed at arm's length.

Considering the reason for providing the service, the policy content and financial impact on the taxpayer can be used to classify the type of service and determine to what degree the service can or should be managed at arm's length from the core government. Generally, the more entrepreneurial a service (low policy content and low financial impact on the taxpayer), the more arm's length the management of the service from the core government administration. Core government services are those which have a high policy content and a high financial impact on the taxpayer. In order to establish an arm's length relationship, however, it is essential that the type and degree of controls are considered so that Council can be assured that appropriate accountability mechanisms can be put in place wherever authority is delegated.

Based on the reason for providing the service, the policy content and tax base impact can be used to classify the type of service as follows:

Other situations where it may be appropriate for services to be managed through entities independent of direct government management include:

(1) where the service area is multi-jurisdictional;

(2) where patrons, donations, and voluntarism are key requirements; and

(3) where the function is quasi-judicial or otherwise must be independent of political influence.

Step 6 - What size and composition of the board are appropriate?

Size of a board may be determined by considering:

(a) diversity of opinions required;

(b) required expedience of decision-making;

(c) amount of fund-raising and voluntarism desired;

(d) number of other citizen input methods being used; and

(e) complexity of decisions to be made, size of budget and staff.

The balance of citizen and Councillor representatives on a given board is one of the most critical decisions. This may be primarily a function of how independent the board is from the core government and the reliability of the accountability mechanisms.

Another key issue is whether certain groups should be asked to nominate members or whether citizens should be selected from the public at large. Some specific consideration should be given to citizen representation for the following reasons:

(a) to provide a variety of business perspectives;

(b) to represent stakeholder groups;

(c) to bring specific skills to the task of managing a service;

(d) to be influential in bringing external funding, sponsorship, volunteers, or social profile to the service; and

(e) to represent specific groups of service users.

Summary:

This framework is not intended to be rigid, but rather to provide a convenient and simple way of focusing the thinking process on the various issues which need to be considered in determining the composition of a local board.

9

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Delegation of Authority to Community Councils

to Hold Public Meetings Regarding Plans of

Subdivision and Community Improvement Plans.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having received the following communication:

(February 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted, without amendment, a Motion moved by Councillor Miller, and Seconded by Councillor Pantalone, delegating authority to each Community Council, as an interim measure until such time as the Special Committee has reported to Council regarding Community Councils and Council's Procedure By-law, to hold any public meeting regarding plans of subdivision and community improvement plans as required by ss. 28 and 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1991, c. P.13 and O. Reg. 196/96, in respect of land within the part of the urban area it represents and that the Urban Environment and Development Committee is delegated the authority to hold such meetings in respect of land that is within the geographic area represented by more than one Community Council.

(b) Organization of the Licensing Commission.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having been advised by the Mayor's office that the report respecting the Organization of the Licensing Commission will be submitted to a future meeting of the Special Committee.

(c) Toronto Transition Team - Final Report (Recommendation No. 110)

Respecting the Toronto District Heating Corporation.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report for six weeks; and

(2) requested the Chief Administrative Officer:

(a) to obtain a valuation of the City's assets currently utilized by the Toronto District Heating Corporation;

(b) in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor, to report to the Special Committee on the governance of the Toronto District Heating Corporation, and potential City position on future governance and related issues; and

(c) in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to report to the Special Committee on the City's road allowance and other City property used for the purpose of district cooling distribution pipes:

(February 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and City Solicitor recommending that:

(1) the TDHC (Toronto District Heating Corporation) be requested to submit business plans to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the City of Toronto to support the proposed expanded mandate of the TDHC, encompassing heating, cooling and co-generation, with such business plans to be the subject of a further report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(2) in conjunction with Recommendation No. (1), above, and before any legislative amendments, the TDHC be required to enter into a revised agreement to fully repay the existing $30.6 million loan, such agreement to be the subject of further review by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(3) the Province of Ontario be requested to ensure that any change to the TDHC Act require as a condition precedent an agreement satisfactory to the City for the repayment of debt that predates the legislative amendments and that until the City is no longer required to guarantee the long-term debt of the TDHC, no debt for capital purposes be issued without the express approval of the City of Toronto and title for property utilized by the TDHC rest with the City until all debt owed to the City is repaid; and

(4) a request of the former City of Toronto to the TDHC be reiterated, requesting the TDHC to recommend required changes to the composition of the TDHC Board to fulfil the proposed mandate of the Corporation.

(d) Draft Terms of Reference - Task Force on Community Safety.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having:

(i) directed that the draft Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Community Safety, attached to the following communication, be forwarded to the following existing Committees, with a request that each Committee comment to the Special Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 3, 1998, on the ongoing need for their work:

- East York Safety Council;

- Emergency Planning Advisory Committee (Metro);

- Etobicoke Crime Scope;

- Safe City Committee (Toronto);

- Safety Council (Etobicoke); and

- Taxis on Patrol Committee (Metro); and

(ii) requested the Co-Chairs of the Task Force on Community Safety to submit a further report to the aforementioned meeting of the Special Committee, qualifying the mandate of the Task Force, identifying financial resources needed; and staff support required:

(i) (February 13, 1998) from Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton, and Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre, forwarding the draft Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Community Safety; and advising that the report will be finalized once the Committee members have had an opportunity to meet and review the document; and

(ii) (February 16, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on February 10, 1998, gave consideration to a report (January 27, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services recommending that when the Terms of Reference for the new Task Force on Community Safety have been prepared, they be sent to the East York Safety Council, the Emergency Planning Advisory Committee (Metro), the Etobicoke Crime Scope, the Safe City Committee (Toronto), the Safety Council (Etobicoke), and the Taxis on Patrol Committee (Metro), together with a copy of this report, and that each committee be asked to comment on the ongoing need for their work, if any, on their relationship to the Task Force, and on their ongoing staff support needs; and that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee took the following action:

"(1) referred the foregoing report to the Co-Chairs of the Task Force on Community Safety and to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to review the financial implications of continuing the committees listed therein and to report back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee; and

(2) requested that the forthcoming report include information on staff time and other costs related to continuing these committees and that this matter be dealt with in a timely fashion."

(e) Re-Examination of the Role of the

Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

and the Corporate Services Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Special Committee:

(February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk, enclosing for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No. 2 contained in Report No. 2 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "Separation Program for Executive Management and Non-Union Staff", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998; and drawing attention to the amendment by Council found at the beginning of the Clause, viz:

"(2) the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be requested to re-examine why the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee review and make recommendations respecting Human Resources issues, given the existence of a Corporate Services Committee;"

(f) Naming of Service Clusters.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Special Committee, together with the following suggested names for the Service Clusters, as proposed by Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina:

(a) that "Commissioner of Social and Health Services" be renamed "Commissioner of Human Services";

(b) that "Commissioner of Community and Economic Development Services" be renamed "Commissioner of Community Development";

(c) that "Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services" be renamed "Commissioner of Planning and Urban Services"; and

(d) that the following Service Clusters remain the same:

(i) Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(ii) Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(iii) Commissioner of Finance:

(February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No. 3 contained in Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "City of Toronto Administrative Structure", directed, in part, that the issue of the names for the Service Clusters be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further review and, in no instance should the word "strategic" be used as part of such names.

(g) Streamlined Process for Considering Budget Matters Prior

to Council Approval of the Capital and Operating Budget.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having:

(i) amended the request from the Corporate Services Committee, embodied in the following communication, to read as follows:

"(2) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to consider a more streamlined and open process for dealing with budget items that require Budget Committee approval prior to final approval of the Operating and Capital Budget, and report thereon to Council."; and

(i) referred such request, as amended, to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Special Committee:

(February 16, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Corporate Services Committee on February 16, 1998, inter alia, took the following action:

"(2) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to consider a more streamlined process for dealing with budget items that require Budget Committee approval prior to final approval of the Operating and Capital Budget, and report thereon to Council."

(h) Proposal Respecting the Committee of

Adjustment for the New City of Toronto.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having:

(1) referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services for report thereon to the Special Committee; and

(2) requested the Committees of Adjustments for the former Area Municipalities to submit their comments respecting this matter to the Special Committee:

(January 30, 1998) from Mr. Douglas H. Lee, Chairman, Committee of Adjustment, advising that the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto, was pleased to read in the report "New City - New Opportunities", the Toronto Transition Team's proposals for the Committee of Adjustment for the New City of Toronto; noting in particular that until the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team can be more fully implemented, the existing Committees such as his, should continue to operate for each Community Council; further advising that among the proposals put forward by the Toronto Transition Team is the suggestion that the City should review the possibility of delegating certain minor variance decisions to the Chief Building Official in accordance with criteria set by City Council; offering several comments in the belief that they may prove helpful to the Special Committee should the Special Committee be preparing guidelines for City Council to enable the Chief Building Official to make minor variance decisions as well as proposing amendments to the Planning Act allowing for this to take place.

(i) Downtown Toronto Harm Reduction Task Force.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the Medical Officer, Board of Health, for report thereon to the Board of Health:

(February 9, 1998) from Ms. Lorraine Purdon, Co-Chair, Downtown Toronto Harm Reduction Task Force, advising that the issues of substance abuse affects all parts of the new City of Toronto; that there is concern on the part of communities, agencies, police, citizens and government to want to address these issues; that the Downtown Toronto Harm Reduction Task Force is a coalition of individuals, organizations and groups who endeavour to find a variety of innovative ways to reduce the harms associated with drug use and distribution in the downtown Toronto area; that their mandate is to facilitate co-ordinate harm reduction strategies in downtown Toronto with a focus on encouraging strong community involvement, as well as seeking innovative approaches and techniques for harm reduction; and submitting recommendations in regard thereto.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER.

Chair

Toronto, February 26, 1998

(Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)