Reports on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Finally Released

The Ford government has kept secret a series of reports it commissioned on climate change impacts and the government action needed to protect us.

A group I belong to, Seniors for Climate Action Now (SCAN!), worked tirelessly to get these reports released.

SCAN!’s months-long Freedom of Information campaign finally achieved the release of these documents on December 8th. You can find the reports at https://seniorsforclimateactionnow.org/ontario-adaptation-campaign/

Earlier in the year I wrote about efforts to get the reports. See the following.

-----------

Looking for the Reports

I have just submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Ontario government. This is a first for me.

The origin of the legislation that put FOIs in place goes back many years. It was part of the Accord adopted following the 1985 election when the NDP agreed to support David Peterson’s Liberals for two years.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) legislates access to information held by public institutions in Ontario subject to specific requirements to safeguard the personal information of individuals

Adapting to Climate Change

All governments brag about transparency. The current Ontario government is no exception. In fact, Premier Doug Ford, a chronic embellisher, claims there has never been a government as transparent as his.

So, you could say that my FOI request is a test of that assertion. My interest is getting information on Ontario’s climate change plans. With the country burning this summer, people losing their homes, firefighters being killed and extreme weather events now common one has to wonder what government has planned to respond to such conditions in the future. So that is what my FOI request is about. How does the government plan to adapt to climate change?

There is a bit of a story to this.

A group I’m involved with took some initiative. The Ontario Project of SCAN! (Seniors for Climate Action Now) has members knowledgeable about adaptation strategies. They were aware that the Ford government had done some work on this matter.

In fact, the Ford government has put together major reports on the urgent task of anticipating and reducing the impacts of climate change. In November 2019, the Ontario government appointed an Advisory Panel on Climate Change led by Paul Kovacs, a professor at Western University and an expert in the field of disaster risk reduction. The creation of this panel was no secret. It was announced publicly.

It seems most of the reporting was completed nearly two years ago. But the reports were kept secret until recently. One of them is now available likely because of public pressure.

This past January, Jennifer Penny, one of our members who previously worked as a climate change adaptation researcher, submitted a FOI request to find out what had happened to this reporting.

“Ontarians want to see these reports! But even more, we want to know what the government is doing to protect us,” says SCAN!’s Jennifer Penney.

She got a response of sorts.

FIPPA: “What is the name of the report?”
Jennifer: “We don’t know. It is being kept secret.”
FIPPA: “What was the date of the report?”
Jennifer: “Don’t know that either. It’s a secret.”

This seems to be how the FOI process works - transparent government in action, much like looking for light through a brick wall.

So, an open letter and petition entitled Release the Report was prepared and circulated. Over a few weeks in the summer more than 1,300 people signed the petition.

Then on a Friday afternoon in late August with no fanfare the Provincial Climate Change
Impact Assessment appeared on the Government of Ontario’s website.

Its 530 pages are filled with what the CBC called “grim details about the expected effects of climate change in Ontario.” We’ll have a soaring number of days with extreme heat, more extreme flooding and more frequent wildfires. The agriculture sector faces risks of declining productivity, Climate risks will be highest for Ontario's most vulnerable populations and this will “continue to amplify existing disparities and inequities."

In some ways the report tells us what we already suspected. But such suspicions are confirmed by experts.

The report does "the best job that's been done to date describing the impacts of climate change and extreme weather," Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo told the CBC.

SCAN! had been looking for two reports. One was released. Imagine our surprise. Turns out there are actually four reports. Three companion reports, including one on Best Adaptation Practices, are still hidden by the government.

Those reports are what I’m asking to see in my FOI request.

Bob Wood
October 6, 2023

"Truly Troubling"

Back in the day when I was a municipal councillor there was no such thing as an Integrity Commissioner.

Now, according to the Municipal Act, municipalities must have such a person.

That individual is expected to report to Council in an independent manner on a number of local government functions.  For example, they will look at the application of the code of conduct for Council and local Board members and the application of any procedures, rules and policies governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards.  There are other functions set out in the Act. 

The concept of promoting transparency and ensuring codes of conduct are adhered to is a good one.   There are detractors of course. Cost is an issue.  But that is beyond the scope of this brief post.  

Let’s take a quick look at the 2020 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner for the Corporation of Norfolk authored by John Mascarin.

The report  can be found beginning at page 31 at https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CIC-Agenda-April-13-1.pdf

Here are some highlights.

Complaints

Three complaints were examined in 2020. 

1. It was alleged that Mayor Chopp offended the Code and the County’s Procedural By-law when she displayed a cartoon image of a fecal sandwich in a meeting with provincial staff.  The Commissioner found “when considered in context, however crude and juvenile the display of the cartoon may have been in a formal meeting it did not amount to a breach of the Code.”  We trust that this wasn’t a lunch meeting.

2. A second complaint grew out of the first one.  That complaint “related to the improper disclosure of the identity of the complainant on the part of the Mayor.”  A Norfolk County bylaw is clear.  The Integrity Commissioner shall identify all complainants to the individual who is subject of the complaint and require that the subject maintain the identity of the complainant as confidential. (See Section 14.6 of By-law 2018-33) Mayor Chopp contended that the Commissioner was the one who had breached confidentiality. The Commissioner “concluded otherwise” and determined it was the Mayor who had breached. 

3. This complaint alleged that the Mayor Chopp contravened three provisions of the Code of Conduct in interactions with members of the public in Port Dover on May 2nd.  The Commissioner concluded she hadn’t.

Inquiries

The report summarized  inquiries received over the last year.  They fell into three areas.  People were concerned about that fecal sandwich cartoon and the Mayor’s public square haircut stunt but most importantly, in my view, were concerns regarding the dysfunction of Council. 

Haircut Protest - Photo from blogTO.com

The Commissioner called this situation “truly troubling.”  

Council Relations

The November 17, 2020 Council meeting is cited. Many will recall that the attempted addition of the topic of Council Relations to the Agenda prompted the mayor to make allegations of a witch-hunt, axe and replace the Deputy Mayor, and exit the building in the midst of the meeting.

In an understatement the Commissioner wrote that  “the acrimony between members of Council was never more apparent than at this meeting.” And if you thought that was bad the Commissioner noted that “we have been advised that the level of discord has not abated in 2021.”

Should the average Norfolker care if Council members get along?

For sure.

The report notes: 

• The lack of team unity.

• The “dread” some feel about attending meetings of Council and committee.

• The adversarial and hostile atmosphere both inside and outside the Council Chambers.

• That Council operates in a debilitated state but also in a selectively secretive manner with a “complete disregard for the Code of Conduct, Council and staff policies, and policies that are put in place to protect members of the public.”

Council training and team building, agreed to some time ago,  have not happened yet.  It may be too late for the team of 2018-2022.  But when elections come around in October 2022 voters should expect answers from incumbents and contenders on how this will all be fixed. 

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton has, not surprisingly, caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens are outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.   

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.” 

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----