Ecological Fiscal Reform and Urban Sustainability
Case Study of the Ontario Provincial Government and
Greater Toronto Area Municipalities

August 2002
Prepared for:
National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy
By:
David Amborski
&
Steven M. Webber

i

Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6

Executive Summary………………………………………………..i
Introduction………………………………………………………..1
Province of Ontario………………………………………………..3
Municipalities…………………………………………………….13
Policies Working to Produce Synergies………………………….28
Policies Working at Cross-Purposes……………………………..35
Conclusions………………………………………………………42

Appendix A Government Officials Interviewed………………………...46
Bibliography………….…………………………………………………..47

ii

Executive Summary
Urban Sustainability is emerging as an important policy concern for all levels of
government in Canada. This paper specifically explores the “state of play” link between
federal, provincial and municipal fiscal practices and urban environmental issues. An
emphasis is placed on identifying situations where synergies exist or could be achieved
between levels of government. Additionally this analysis highlights instances where
revenue and expenditure practices work at cross-purposes to the detriment of
sustainability goals.
The research is prepared for the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy
with the express intent of setting the stage for a discussion on the importance of
Ecological Fiscal Reform (EFR) and Urban Sustainability. The research is structured as a
case study using the Province of Ontario and three municipalities in the Greater Toronto
Area: the amalgamated City of Toronto representing a mature urban centre, the City of
Mississauga which is a mature traditional low density suburb, and the rapidly expanding
suburban Town of Markham. In instances where two-tiered governments exist, the
upper-municipal level is also included because these institutions are responsible for
areawide infrastructure investments that shape local growth decisions as well as the
protection of large-scale environmentally sensitive lands. Consequently, the Region of
York (Markham) and Region of Peel (Mississauga) are incorporated into research. This
work is augmented by a series of interviews conducted with key government officials
affiliated with the case study subjects.
Province of Ontario
Ontario has several programs providing an economic incentive to purchase newly
constructed housing as opposed to existing structures. As a result this could potentially
attract residential demand to low density greenfield developments and away from
existing urbanized and serviced areas. This is counter to local efforts to promote
intensification and compact urban form. However, there are fiscal policies that do
encourage the reuse of urban land, most notably the Province’s brownfields legislation

i

gives municipalities the opportunity to use Tax Increment Financing as tool for
promoting urban redevelopment. Another practice related to sustainability is the
Province’s effort to use property tax reductions as an economic incentive for the
stewardship of environmentally significant land as well as agriculture land protection.
These initiatives are augmented by an effort to purchase land in areas such as the Oak
Ridges Moraine in the Region of York as a means to protect land from development
pressures.
Infrastructure investment through Ontario’s SuperBuild Fund does not have specific
sustainability criteria, which could be problematic given the scale of projects involved.
However, there are several public transit oriented programs that are designed to improve
service provision in cities across Ontario. In the area of energy conservation, the
Province offers incentives that encourage energy efficient transportation such alternative
fuel vehicles
Municipalities
Cities and regions are responsible for many sustainability-related policies including
defining the urban growth patterns, protecting environmentally sensitive land and
infrastructure provision. However, as the “Early Warning: Will Canadian Cities
Compete” report suggests, municipal actions are constrained by a very limited range of
revenue options. As a result municipalities are being asked to deal with complex
problems without the proper resources.
One agency with strong ties to sustainability is the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF).
Armed with a significant endowment, the TAF is actively involved in the funding of
studies, pilot projects and educational programs that promote reductions in greenhouse
gas production. This organization’s flexibility also allows for the creation of partnerships
and the pursuit of programs that otherwise might not be considered by a municipal
government.

ii

Municipal fiscal decisions often compliment local sustainable objectives. From the
public acquisition of environmentally sensitive land to promoting private stewardship
activities, initiatives like The Greening of York strategy use local resources to preserve
open space and promote healthy ecosystems. The ambitious Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization effort represents a cooperative intergovernmental effort to restore the local
lakefront.
The most common municipal revenue tool is the property tax. Case study municipalities
are showing a willingness to reverse unsustainable biases built into the application of
property taxes process. Most notably, low density residential properties have received
favourable treatment, usually at the expense of multi-residential developments. This
exclusionary practice is regarded as promoting sprawl, but several efforts in York Region
and the Town of Markham are attempting to level the field with the hopes of encouraging
higher density compact forms of growth. Additionally, municipalities use development
charges to finance growth, but these fees tend to be assessed on an average cost basis
regardless of the existing infrastructure context. Markham uses an area-specific
development charge based on the real economic cost of growth by taking infrastructure
availability into account.
Sustainable transportation investments are gaining popularity as municipalities seek to
implement a network that will move people and goods efficiently and in an
environmentally desirable manner. Broad projects such as the York Region Master
Transportation Plan are linking rapid transit with high density developments in the effort
to achieve their intensification objectives. Additionally, York is seeking a private sector
partner to invest in their local transit system, a move designed to secure the funding
necessary to implement the plan.
Municipalities participate in a broad range of sustainable practices related to solid waste
collection, recycling, water and wastewater services as well as energy efficiency
initiatives. Overall, the case study municipalities display flexibility and an ability to

iii

innovate and a willingness to form partnerships, which suggests that this level of
government is a key actor in the urban sustainability process.

Synergies
The case study highlights the existence of some beneficial synergies between the federal,
provincial and municipal governments. Federal programs do support provincial and local
actions, with a classic example being the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization effort.
Similarly the Province and municipalities display synergies in ecosystem conservation,
and the promotion of urban intensification.
Cross-Purposes
Instances exist where intentional and unintentional actions by the federal and provincial
governments serve to work against sustainable objectives. Fiscal practices such as the
application of the GST to renovation materials and infrastructure purchases increase the
cost of sustainability and is likely to discourage this activity. Another significant impact
are income tax and capita gains treatments that discourages the preservation of open
space and agricultural land. There are also numerous cross-purposes observed between
the Province and municipalities, particularly through Ontario programs that offer an
economic incentive to consume greenfields when municipalities are trying to promote
compact urban form.
Conclusions
Urban sustainability depends upon cooperative efforts between all levels of government
in Canada. Federal and provincial must work to identify revenue and expenditure
opportunities that will support sustainability. Once synergies are found efforts must be
made to ensure that proper funding exists, and where potential opportunities exist, steps
must be taken to ensure the link is made. But funding must also be consistent as one time
federal programs do not create the certainty municipalities need to finance their
sustainability agendas. When cross-purposes exist, all governments must work to
eliminate these conflicts.

iv

1

Introduction

This paper is presented as part of the National Roundtable on the Environment and
economy’s ongoing Urban Sustainability Program. Our research investigates the “state
of play” for Ecological Fiscal Reform (EFR) using a case study format based on the
Province of Ontario and a selected group of local and regional municipalities in the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA.) Results from this analysis will be applied to similar EFR
work completed for the federal government in order to identify the fiscal relationships
between the three levels of government in Canada. Of particular interest is identifying
potential synergies where fiscal instruments may combine in a supportive fashion as well
as contradictory instances where the different levels of government may work at crosspurposes. Ultimately the objective is to identify existing practices that necessitate new
policy initiatives from the various levels of government. It is important to stress that the
focus of the research is on tax and expenditure polices undertaken by the various levels of
government as opposed to regulatory policies.
Specifically, this project identifies the current “state of play” of tools applied by the
Province of Ontario and the GTA case study municipal governments that have are
relevant to the environmental sustainability of Canadian cities. Special attention is given
to measures that have the potential to be used in conjunction with, or are supportive of
federal government initiatives. Also where possible, the report identifies potential
measures that may be applied or existing applications that are not fully utilized.
Being able to properly address the study's objective required the completion of a number
of tasks that are detailed in this document. As a result, this work includes a survey on the
current “state of play” for Ontario and the GTA cases where tax and expenditure
instruments may have an impact on urban environmental sustainability. For the Province
of Ontario it is necessary to examine potential tax and expenditure polices that may affect
urban environmental sustainability in a number of ministries. This includes the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport,
Ministry of Finance, SuperBuild Funding, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Ministry of

1

Energy Science and Technology, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ministry of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
In a similar fashion, a number of municipal case studies regarding tax and expenditure
policies that impact on urban environmental sustainability are undertaken. These cases
include the City of Toronto, Town of Markham and City of Mississauga. Consequently,
the regional governments where two-tiered government exists were also analyzed. This
includes the Region of York (Markham) and the Region of Peel (Mississauga.)
In addition to the inventory of the “state of play”, follow up interviews were completed
with Provincial, local government and regional government officials. The purpose of
these interviews was to obtain feedback regarding the policies the subjects consider
supportive of sustainable development while also obtaining their ideas about additional
policies that could be adopted. The comments and information obtained in the interviews
is incorporated into the analysis and conclusion sections of this report. A list of the
officials interviewed is provided in Appendix A. Information and data included in the
report were obtained from specific government websites, official documents related to
various programs including budgets and public accounts, as well as thorough discussions
that were part of the site visits completed to each of the respective governments. In a
number of cases the program descriptions in the appendices to the report directly use the
language appearing in the public documents. This was done to ensure that the programs
are accurately described and they are not subject to our rewording or interpretation.
The report is organized such that the government “state of play” begins with the
information for the Province of Ontario in Section 2 which is organized according to the
issues that were addressed in the first EFR and urban sustainability workshop held in
June. Section 3 addresses the “state of play” for selected municipalities in the GTA.
This includes information for the City of Toronto, Mississauga and Markham. Where a
two tiered local government exists, the upper tier also known as regional municipalities
have been included in the presentation, i.e. York and Peel. In sections 4 and 5 the report
deals with an analysis of synergies and cross-purposes, including missed opportunities

2

that exist with current tax and expenditure polices. This is completed both in terms of the
relationship of federal policies with the other two levels of government, and the
interaction between Ontario and the municipal governments included in the case studies.
Section 6 presents conclusions based on the analysis and the information obtained in the
interviews with the government officials.

2

Province of Ontario

Context
The Province of Ontario has the potential to supports or work at cross-purposes with
Federal tax and expenditure policy related to urban sustainability. Though this
relationship may be intentional or unintentional it is important to identify these outcomes
and foster a cooperative response that builds on the opportunities while avoiding the
potentially negative impacts. To this end, it is useful to understand the general tax and
expenditure context within which the Province has been developing policy in this area in
recent years.
By going back to the early 1990’s it is apparent that environmental issues, and more
specifically those related to sustainable urban development, have been on the Province’s
policy agenda. This is particularly evident in both tax policy and planning policy. For
example in 1993, a section in The Report of the Ontario Fair Tax Commission report
addressed “ Facing the Environmental Costs of Our Behaviour” which led to
recommendations for increased reliance on environmental taxation. From the planning
perspective, Ontario established a series of Provincial Policy Statements. The earlier
Statements addressed aggregate resources, wetlands and floodplains while the most
recent version (1997), currently under review, includes agriculture, mineral resources,
natural heritage, water quality, and natural hazards. Despite that fact that planning
generally leads to regulatory policy, the importance of these issues suggests that they may
also be reflected in tax and expenditure policy.
More recently, in 2001, the Province embarked on its made in Ontario Smart Growth
initiative that is based on three driving principles: strong communities, a strong economy,
3

and a clean healthy environment. These principles also are reflected in other
complimentary Provincial policy areas and directly impact environmental fiscal
decisions.

The material in the remainder of this section is organized around a number of issues
identified in the discussion paper prepared for the June 4th workshop held by the National
Roundtable on the Environment and Economy Urban Sustainability Program Task Force.
The relevant Province of Ontario tax and expenditure items that are considered to have an
impact on sustainable urban development are identified and briefly discussed.
Greenfields vs. Urbanized Land (including issues related to Density)
This issue relates to the need to encourage growth on existing urban land while also
encouraging higher density development. Benefits associated with intensification
strategy include using existing infrastructure, increasing the viability of public transit by
increasing its ridership base, and reducing the pressure to develop greenfields comprised
of farmland and environmentally sensitive areas. It has been pointed out that based on
research completed for the Greater Toronto Area, savings on infrastructure costs between
22% to 32% could be realized for hard services through compact urban growth.1 An
example of this strategy exists in the proposed Official Plan for the City of Toronto in
which one million additional people are proposed to be accommodated in the city through
infill and brownfields development and intensification.
There is several Ontario tax and expenditure initiatives that provide incentives for
development in what might be viewed in either a positive or negative fashion relative to
the objective of urban sustainability. The Ontario Land Transfer Tax Rebate provides
first-time buyers of newly constructed homes with a rebate on the Provincial Land
Transfer Tax. This rebate applies to both freehold and condominium units and provides
an incentive to purchase new housing as opposed to the old/resale options due to the
presence of a relative price advantage. Consequently, from an urban form perspective,

4

this inducement has the potential to encourage the consumption of new housing
developed on low-density greenfield sites as well as higher density condominiums that
tend to be found in existing urban areas. In fact, the probability of the low-density
outcome is confirmed by the fact that a large majority of residential construction is
concentrated on freehold units as only 31% of the new housing share across the GTA was
condominium development.2
A similar incentive or bias toward the purchase of new homes rather then resale housing
arises through a tax expenditure program known as the Ontario Home Ownership Savings
Program. This is a Provincial tax expenditure providing tax credits for first time
homebuyers (with maximum incomes of $40,000 for an individual and $80,000 for
couples) to save for their first home. A tax credit is available for $500 per person or
$1,000 per couple per year contributed to the program as well as the interest earned on
the invested funds. As new homes on greenfield sites are generally more affordable since
they require lower down payments than resale homes, this program may support home
purchases on greenfield sites3. As a result, this program is likely to create sprawl rather
that more intensive forms of urban development.
Efforts to encourage development in already urbanized areas motivated the Province to
pass the Brownfield Statute Law Amendment Act, which empowers cities to provide
grants, or loans for the remediation of contaminated lands in municipally designated
community improvement areas. Incentives include freezing or canceling the municipal
portion of the property tax if a private landowner remediates a brownfield site. The tool
used to implement this activity is known as tax increment financing (TIF.) Although the
actual tax expenditure for this tool must be approved and borne by municipalities, it is
included in this section due to the required Provincial legislation, i.e. policy initiation in
order for municipalities to apply the tool. An exception has been made to the Ontario
1

“Ecological Fiscal Reform and Urban Sustainability: The Current State of Play and Possible New Fiscal
Measures, A Summary of Fiscal Policies Influencing Urban Environmental Quality and Possible New
Measures” May 2002.
2
Urban Development Institute, “ GTA Market Outlook”, April 2002

5

Municipal Act as it generally prohibits granting development bonuses or any type of tax
exemption or rebate by municipalities. The expectation is that TIFs will entice developers
to build on underutilized urban sites that may not have been economically viable to
redevelop in the absence of the financial incentives provided by municipalities through
this brownfield law. Urban form advantages include using existing infrastructure and
increasing densities to support public transit use. The new official plan for the City of
Toronto anticipates that brownfield sites can accommodate the estimated one million
additional residents. Some have criticized the legislation as not going far enough to
create the incentives needed to attract private development capital to inner city sites.
The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization initiative is five phase $1.5 billion plan designed
to link the city with the water, attract development to the city core and create a more
environmentally healthy lakefront. Costs will be equally shared between the federal,
Provincial and local levels of government with Ontario indicating its $500 million
investment will be taken from its SuperBuild fund. Expected benefits from this
substantial project include environmental improvements of the waterfront and shoreline,
providing better access to the waterfront for residents, and facilitating the high-density
development of waterfront lands based on intensification objectives that in turn will
provide increased transit ridership. In addition to this Toronto based initiative,
SuperBuild under its theme of urban renewal and making cities better, indicates in its
progress report that it will also spend $250 million for transportation, environmental and
urban revitalization projects in eight other large urban centers in Ontario. This investment
is intended to support urban development /renewal at relatively high densities.
The Ontario Tax Reduction for Heritage Property encourages the preservation of
heritage properties by granting eligible property owners a 10-40% reduction of the
municipal taxes levied. Properties must be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and
owners must sign an agreement respecting the preservation and maintenance of the
property. The amount of the reduction granted under this tax expenditure is left to the

3

With CMHC insurance for mortgage loans on new housing, mortgage financing may be obtained for 95%
of the purchase price as compared to conventional first mortgaging financing at a maximum of 75% for
resale houses.

6

discretion of individual municipalities. Therefore the tax base decrease will be borne by
the municipality but the Province will fund the education portion of the property tax
reduction. Though the major objective of this initiative is the preservation of heritage
properties it will also encourage the maintenance of buildings, as required in the
agreement. This may ensure that there will be an incentive to preserve stronger urban
neighborhoods and make existing developments in the vicinity an attractive option for
residents while also attracting new investment capital to already developed areas. For
example, in the hamlet of Buttonville (Markham) a real estate firm renovated and
occupied an historic property and acted as a catalyst for other investment in the
immediate vicinity. As a result, growth pressures could be channeled toward built up
areas and away from greenfield sites.
Open Space and Agricultural Protection
Several Provincial initiatives attempt to maintain land in agricultural or open space uses.
These efforts impinge on municipalities by requiring them to fund this tax expenditure.
The first of these initiatives, the Farmland Taxation Policy, requires that the farmland
property class be taxed at 25% of the municipal residential rates. Prior to the most recent
property tax and assessment reform, reductions in farm property tax burdens were borne
by the Province, but under the new system it is borne by municipalities. By reducing the
tax burden on agricultural lands, farming costs are reduced thereby making this activity
more viable while also helping to mitigate pressures to sell and convert land to urban
uses. Another program, the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP), is
designed to preserve privately owned environmentally significant lands. Through this
initiative property owners receive a 100% tax exemption for the eligible part of their
holdings if they are willing to protect it from development. This program is designed to
recognize, encourage and support the long-term stewardship of Ontario’s Provincially
significant conservation lands. The benefit of this program is that pressure is reduced for
low-density greenfield development on these lands and growth may be encouraged within
urban areas.

7

The Ministry of Natural Resources administers a program entitled the Natural Areas
Protection Program (NAPP) with similar objectives to the CLTIP. However, this
program targets Southern Ontario by funding the acquisition of land and capital projects
in the Niagara Escarpment, Rouge Valley and Lynde Marsh Areas. A variety of methods
may be used to meet the program objectives including fee simple purchase, acquisition of
easements, accepting bequests and donations, land purchase and resale of surplus
portions, and exchange of surplus lands. The program has been allocated $20 million
over four years, but partnering with other agencies is encouraged to lever additional
funds. This program helps to preserve environmentally significant areas from urban
development thereby preserving these lands for future generations. Additionally this
initiative may shift development pressures to existing urbanized areas.
The Ministry of Natural Resources also has the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program,
(MFTIP). This is similar to the farmland property tax expenditure program as qualified
managed forests are eligible for a property tax rate assessed at 25% of the prevailing
residential property tax rate in a given municipality. This is a voluntary program in which
participating landowners must agree to conserve and actively manage their forests. The
qualifying requirements include the size of the forest; minimum four hectares, a
minimum density of trees, and the forest cannot be part of a registered plan of subdivision
or are licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act.
The financial benefits from reduced property tax will act as an incentive to maintain and
sustain forests. It will also help to increase the owner’s knowledge and participation in
forest maintenance activities. As with the farmland program, the actual tax expenditure
is borne by the municipality but the province administers the required agreement.
Controversy in the Greater Toronto Area over the preservation of the Oak Ridges
Moraine has lead to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The moraine is an
environmentally sensitive landform in the Region of York that is currently threatened by
serious growth pressures. This plan includes the creation of a trail across the moraine and
the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation which has the mandate to fund a
range of activities including land securement, public education, research and monitoring.

8

The Province has committed $15 million in cash plus significant land donations to the
Foundation. It is anticipated the Foundation will become a partnership fund that will
receive donations from the federal government and the private sector.
Infrastructure Including Transportation and Transit
The Province through its SuperBuild Program is investing in the building of Ontario’s
future through a number of expenditure programs that include infrastructure,
transportation and transit. Ten billion dollars is earmarked for investment in both
renewed and new infrastructure, a goal that will be achieved through the use of publicprivate partnerships to lever Ontario's capital expenditure. Program objectives include
providing a physical foundation for sustained economic growth while also providing
better services to the taxpayers of Ontario.
One component of SuperBuild and its associated partnerships is the Canada-Ontario
Infrastructure Program where $680 million is being targeted for infrastructure financing
in the Province, but the approval process does not include any specific sustainability
criteria. Nonetheless, there are examples where a sustainability focus has been pursued,
such as the $9 million City of Peterborough wastewater treatment plant upgrade and
expansion been touted in a Provincial News Release as a “Green” infrastructure initiative.
Transportation expenditures are integral to sustainability and growth in the GTA and GO
Transit is an important part of the overall regional strategy. GO Transit is a Provincially
operated commuter rail and bus system that is often used by suburbanites working in the
City of Toronto. Provincial operating expenditures are made in accordance with the GO
Transit Act and 10 Year Capital Plan, but there are also plans to use SuperBuild funds to
finance a series of capital improvements. Ideally these investments will be based on
partnerships for financing. Among the planned GO capital investments are expansions to
existing stations as well as the addition of new stops in the attempt to enhance service
quality. One capital expenditure example is the decision to add a new station at York
University. Improving the system's quality of service should increase ridership and
decrease the use of cars for commuting in the GO service area, i.e. the GTA.
9

SuperBuild is also being used to make urban transit more appealing through the
Provincial Transit Investment Fund, a program created to encourage transit investments
based on Smart Growth principles. Included in this initiative is the $100 million Ontario
Transit Renewal Program that will fund the replacement of aging municipal transit
vehicles in 65 municipalities. In addition to the purchase of replacement vehicles, the
funds may be applied to refurbishing that will extend the life of vehicles in the existing
fleet. There are a number of benefits associated with this program especially the
replacement with new transit vehicles. These vehicles may be more attractive to riders
and therefore encourage public transit ridership. They may also become more fuelefficient and generate less air pollution.
The Ontario SuperBuild Fund's Provincial Transit Investment Plan was put in place to
support strategic investments and partnerships in transit infrastructure. Funding will be
made available to support Smart Growth objectives related to land use and regional
transportation objectives. To the extent that Provincial Smart Growth objectives support
sustainable development, this funding program will provide greater transit options with
the potential for increased service areas to help reduce auto use, traffic congestion and the
problems it causes.
In addition to the transit oriented SuperBuild programs, it is important to note that there is
also substantial SuperBuild funding that has been allocated for highway rehabilitation
and expansion. This includes significant expenditures for the 400 series of highways that
act as the major corridors throughout the GTA. To the extent that these investments
support auto use for commuters in urban areas rather than transit use they may tend to
work at cross purposes to the objectives of sustainable development.
In general the SuperBuild Fund has not yet been fully integrated with the Made in
Ontario Smart Growth program. If it is possible to reconcile any differences in the
objectives of these programs and have them work together, there is an opportunity to use

10

sustainable development objectives as the basis for integrating these two significant
Provincial initiatives.

Energy
A number of existing Provincial programs are identified in this section, however, it is
important to note that a Select Committee report completed in June 2002 makes a broad
range of recommendations for the use of alternative fuel and energy strategies.4
In the energy area there are currently several tax initiatives that could be considered to
support urban sustainability objectives. These initiatives, incentives and disincentives
focus on supporting the use of alternative fuels and discouraging the use of vehicles with
high fuel consumption. An example of this approach is the fact that Ontario does not
impose a fuel tax for automotive natural gas, methanol or ethanol. Propane is taxed at a
rate that is less than gasoline. In addition to reducing the taxes on alternative fuels, there
is also a program to reduce the cost of the clean energy vehicles themselves. Under the
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program purchasers and long-term lessors (12 months
minimum) of qualifying alternative fuel vehicles may obtain a rebate of the retail sales
tax. Qualifying vehicles that operate on electricity, propane, natural gas, ethanol,
methanol, or manufactured gas, may receive a rebate of up to $1,000. Electric hybrid
vehicles that meet certain conditions are also eligible for the rebate. This sets up an
obvious financial incentive to purchase or lease vehicles that use these alternative fuels.
This alone may not be sufficient to act as a strong incentive for potential users. However,
it is setting an incentive in a positive direction.

Ontario is attempting to penalize the use of inefficient vehicles through the Tax for Fuel
Conservation program. This is a flat tax imposed on specific vehicles that are inefficient
in terms of fuel consumption. This supplemental tax is imposed on passenger vehicles
using 6.0+ litres of gas or diesel fuel per 100 kilometres of highway driving, and SUVs
using 8.0 litres. The tax is calculated according to schedule published by the Ministry of
4

Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Select Committee on Alternative Fuel Sources: Final Report, June
2002.

11

Finance in which the tax begins at $75 and increases in accordance with the degree of
fuel consumption to a maximum of $7,000 for consumption greater than 18 litres per 100
kilometres. The tax becomes part of the taxable value of new vehicles bought or leased.
Conversely, there is Tax Credit for Fuel Conservation available to purchasers of new
vehicles that use less than 6.0 litres of gas or diesel per 100 kilometres. The maximum
credit is $100.
Consequently there is a system of taxes and credits (tax expenditures) at the Province that
advocates reduced gasoline consumption in automobiles. Alternative fuel automobiles are
also being encouraged as environmentally efficient transportation choices.

12

3

Municipalities

The Greater Toronto Area case study suggests that urban sustainability continues to gain
prominence as a municipal policy objective. This focus is entirely appropriate, as city
and regional governments possess the expertise and experience to directly address local
environmental issues. Municipalities make land use decisions and infrastructure
investments that shape the intensity and pattern of urban growth, protect environmentally
sensitive land, and provide infrastructure including water, wastewater, solid waste
collection/disposal and transportation.
The flexible character of municipal institutions coupled with knowledge of the local
policy context plays an important structural role in the pursuit of sustainable initiatives.
City and regional officials are able to respond to sustainability issues much more readily
than provincial or federal governments. Key local environmental initiatives funded by
municipalities include conducting feasibility studies, implementing pilot projects and
monitoring conditions through environmental indicators programs. Additionally,
municipal governments capitalize on their inherent immediacy to offer local stakeholders
and residents an impressive array of education programs designed to raise awareness and
promote sustainable practices.
Local efforts to implement strategic environmental initiatives are constrained by access to
a limited range of fiscal tools. This is an ongoing problem directly related to the
institutional framework defining the authority granted to city and regional governments
across Canada. The NRTEE "Early Warning: Will Canadian Cities Compete?"5 report
completed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities clearly documents the
challenges faced by municipalities seeking to address increasingly costly and complex
urban issues without the requisite resources and power to pursue local objectives.
Additionally, province of Ontario has downloaded an array of services to the
municipalities without granting a concomitant increase in revenue raising power. As a
result municipalities are expected to handle a new level of responsibilities with their

13

traditional limited revenue sources of property taxes, user fees, and grants/transfers from
senior levels of government
Another barrier faced at the local level is the longstanding support for unsustainable
urban practices associated with growth, transportation, energy use, open space
preservation and waste disposal. Efforts to reverse these well-entrenched trends
continue to face resistance from stakeholders intent on maintaining the status quo for
their own economic interests.
All of these factors combine to define sustainability efforts in the Greater Toronto Area.
Each case study municipality offers a slightly different perspective that gives a broad
range of sustainable initiatives.

City of Toronto
Population in the city of Toronto grew 4.0% between 1996 and 2001 to 2,480,000 with a
density of 39.39 people per hectare. Concerns continue to focus on environmental
problems associated with a large mature urbanized area, but the City has made attempts
to respond to these issues in a forceful way. An Environmental Task Force was created
in 1998 to identify the sustainability factors requiring attention in Toronto. After
extensive deliberations the Task Force identified a series of issues include promoting
mixed land use developments in a compact setting, a sustainable form of transportation,
improved local quality of life, an energy efficient city with a greater reliance upon
alternative fuel sources as well as a robust globally competitive local economy--all
supported by a serious commitment to environmental education and awareness.6 These
deliberations led to the Green Economy Plan as well as A Plan of an Environmentally
Sustainable Toronto, which boldly states city's objective to make Toronto a "world leader
in sustainable urban living."7
5

Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2001.
City of Toronto, 1998. “A Vision for the Future of the Environment in Toronto.”
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/council/environtf_visionwkshop.htm
7
City of Toronto, "A Plan of an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto", 1999.
6

14

Instrumental in the move toward a more sustainable city is the presence of the innovative
Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF). This unique arm’s length agency was initially created
by the pre-amalgamated City of Toronto to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
production. A $23 million endowment was established to finance the TAF in 1991, and
the agency is a source for total or partial funding for many of the city's pilot programs,
feasibility studies and educational efforts associated with sustainability issues. Another
major contribution of the TAF is an ability to freely enter into partnerships with public
and private sector interests. The presence of an entity dedicated to sustainability issues
clearly raises environmental awareness and promotes constructive actions that sometime
extend beyond the city's borders. Evidence of the TAF's GTA-wide contribution is the
annual Smog Summit where governments and stakeholders throughout the region gather
to discuss strategies for greenhouse gas reduction.
City of Mississauga
Mississauga is a suburban municipality located to the immediate west of Toronto. As city
is the seventh largest in Canada it grew at a rate of 12.6% between 1996 and 2001 to a
total of 612,945 with a population density of 21.25 per hectare. As an older sprawling
suburb based on the traditional principles of master-planned communities, the city faces
the environmental challenges associated with its prototypical low-density form of
development. The City's current Official Plan represents a shift in thinking as policymakers are expressing a desire to promote an ecosystem approach to planning, including
the protecting of environmentally sensitive land from the problems associated with
development. However, the City can still be characterized as very interested in
continuing to promote development where it does not conflict with natural areas.
Mississauga is more intent on regulatory approaches to sustainability as opposed to fiscal
responses.
Region of Peel
The Region of Peel is comprised of three municipalities--Mississauga, Brampton and
Caledon. The 2001 population total is 988,948 and the Region experienced a 16%

15

growth rate between 1996 and 2001. Peel provides Mississauga with a collection of
regional services including water and wastewater, transportation and solid waste disposal.
In Ontario lower-tier cities possess land-use planning authority, but the upper-tier regions
control the many of the levers of growth through the hard infrastructure. Peel is aware of
the impacts development could have and is still financing growth-related projects, but
there is also a commitment to preserving and protecting its natural environment.
Town of Markham
Located north of Toronto, the Town of Markham is a municipality of 208,615 people
according to the 2001 Census. The Town grew at a robust rate of 20.3% between 1996
and 2001 and shows little indication of slowing down. Mindful of the negative impacts
associated with the low-density sprawl associated with a population density of 9.8 people
per hectare, the town is making a concerted effort to encourage a more compact neotraditional with a traditional city center. Markham is also using development charges to
direct growth to already urbanized areas (this will be detailed in the Taxing and
Financing Growth section). The Town is also actively promoting environmental
educational programs designed to encourage a green approach to suburban living.
Region of York
The Region of York occupies the north-central portion of the GTA and consists of nine
lower-tier municipalities with a total population of 729,254. The 23.1% population
growth rate experienced between 1996 and 2001 far exceeds regional change experienced
elsewhere in the GTA. Consequently, York's rapid development has potentially serious
sustainability consequences that are exacerbated by ongoing threats to environmentally
sensitive land and the significant amount of open space throughout the region. In
particular, sustainability concerns rally around effort to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine
landform, which is a valued component in the regional ecosystem as a wetland and
natural habitat. Mindful of this danger the Region of York's is using municipal
expenditures, as is the Province, to ensure the preservation of the Oak Ridges Moraine
and other landforms through The Greening of York strategy. Additionally, York is
pursuing an active sustainability agenda that incorporates municipal fiscal initiatives.

16

Land Use
Municipal fiscal practices exert significant intended and unintended influence over the
location and intensity of urban land uses. A pressing issue faced by city and regional
governments is the protection of environmentally significant areas and open space as in
the face of continuing growth.
A major focus among the case study municipalities is the effort to conserve and expand
urban forests as carbon sinks absorbing harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The Greening of York Region Strategy allocates $1.8 million for the expansion of the
region's existing forest through the Regional Greenlands Property Securement Strategy.
The program prioritizes properties for public acquisition and is being carried out in
partnership with the non-profit Nature Conservancy of Canada and other agencies. York
also funds an information and education campaign to encourage land stewardship and
promote sustainable forest management among private property owners in the region. At
the local level, the Markham Environmental Land Trust and Securement Fund is
budgeting $2.1 million for the public acquisition of open space.
At a smaller scale the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) is funding reforestation efforts
through its Enhancing Toronto’s Urban Forests. The intent is simple, encourage
reforestation along major corridors and in environmentally sensitive areas to restore
natural habitats and ecosystems, while also creating more green urban recreation space.
Non-government organizations are eligible for this funding and readily take advantage of
this resource. For example Rouge Valley groups including the Friends of the Rouge
Valley and Save the Rouge Valley Systems Inc. received $72,500 in grants for
reforestation activities between 1998 and 2001. In addition to these actions, the 10,000
Trees for the Rouge Valley group planted trees as a result of funding received via the
federal EcoAction program in 2000. All the case study municipalities spent funds on
smaller environmental projects concentrating on ecosystem renewal and park
improvement plans such as tree planting, erosion control and park space enhancement

17

These programs fall under the responsibility of the Mississauga Urban Forestry Unit and
the Markham Parks and Recreation Department as well as Toronto Parks and Recreation.
Inattention to the environmental damage being caused by urbanization created many
problems in and around many cities. After years of neglect municipalities have begun to
enact plans focussing on the preservation of environmentally significant through costly
restoration projects. A major catalyst for these projects in the GTA has been the
landmark work on ecosystem planning completed by the Royal Commission on the
Future of the Toronto Waterfront, which later became the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
With a special emphasis on waterfronts and waterways, these publicly funded projects
seek to restore animal and plant habitats, clean polluted waterways and reconnect urban
dwellers with their local natural environment. The massive Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization discussed in the Provincial section of this report is receiving a $500 million
contribution from the City over the next 20 years to restore Toronto's lakefront.
Additional Toronto initiatives include Renaturalizing the Mouth of the Don River at a
capital cost of $1.3 million, will also be evenly divided between the federal government,
the Province and the City. Another noteworthy project is the $60.7 million Port Lands
remediation, which is a significant brownfield redevelopment initiative that could benefit
from Ontario's TIFs program. Eventually this reclaimed land will have a mixed-use high
development that will be serviced by public transit in a way that could attract growth
away from greenfields and to this prime land in Toronto's downtown core.
Fiscal tools have the potential to produce undesirable impacts on urban form as is evident
with the Ontario Property Tax Rebate for Vacant Commercial and Industrial Buildings.
Under this program municipalities provide landowners with a property tax rebate based
on the time during the year that a commercial or industrial building remains vacant.
Though the intent is to adjust property tax levels to compensate for the absence of
economic activity, this tax expenditure has potentially negative implications for
sustainability by providing an incentive to keep urban property vacant. Landowners not
pressured to reuse underutilized commercial and industrial property that tend to be
located in urban cores keep employment space off the real estate market and as a result

18

potentially force additional development pressures out to greenfield suburban land.
Conversely, an example of a fiscal program that can support intensification principles
exists in the Markham Heritage Fund. Under this program, property owners receive lowinterest loans of up to $15,000 for the conservation or restoration of qualified heritage
buildings. This program encourages reuse of buildings and revitalization of urban
neighbourhoods while diverting resources away from greenfield locations. Markham is
using this program as part of their ongoing strategy to bolster their town centre in the
hopes of lessening greenfield development pressures.
Property taxes are the primary revenue source for Canadian municipalities and its
administration can greatly influence the shape and intensity of urban growth. A
longstanding bias toward single-family residential property owners is a practice that
continues to define development patterns across North America. Specifically, lower tax
rates are assigned to single-family residential properties in comparison to multiresidential (defined as structures with seven or more units) structures. Consequently, the
property tax system provides an incentive to exclude new multi-residential structure from
suburban municipalities, thus reinforcing low density and unsustainable development
patterns. The GTA case study identifies several attempts to reverse the unfair treatment
of higher density rental housing by encouraging the construction of apartment buildings.
A new Multi-residential Property Class is a tax expenditure created by the Province to
permit municipalities to impose a lower than usual multi-residential tax rate on newly
constructed apartment buildings. Cities are permitted to grant the special class for the
first eight years after occupancy, but after that period the property must be subject to the
regular municipal rate.
The Region of York is aggressively making strides toward encouraging high-density
residential development by altering the tax ratios between property classes. These ratios
determine tax burden of all property classes relative to the single-family residential rate.
Ratios above one indicate that a comparably priced property in another class is taxed at a
higher rate in comparison to single-family residential properties. Traditionally, singlefamily residential has received preferential treatment, often at the expense of high-density

19

rental construction. To correct this imbalance, the Province has mandated a readjustment
through prescribed transition ratios to produce a fairer tax structure between the classes.
However, York is accelerating the transition with the intent of having a ratio of 1 for the
multi-residential property class by 2003. Consequently, York will have a tax ratio
equalizing single family and multi-residential properties, thus removing an economic
disincentive that could lead to greater intensification activities in the Region's suburban
centres.
Taxing and Financing Growth
Fiscal issues associated with growth are largely dealt with at the municipal level of
government. Cities and regions are responsible for imposing a cost on new development
through taxes and development charges and subsequently using the collected revenue to
finance the capital improvements required to service growth. Until the 1980s growth was
financed from general revenues and infrastructure continued to be provided on demand to
facilitate development. Absence of a fiscal discipline meant that growth was not paying
for the costs imposed on municipalities, resulting in a disconnect contributing to an
unsustainable form of low-density sprawl.
Development charges were introduced to directly charge growth a fee related to the costs
it imposed on municipalities. Revenues generated by these charges must be spent to
build the infrastructure demanded by new development. Standard practice for
development charges in most Canadian cities, including Toronto and Mississauga, relies
upon average cost pricing which applies the same rate to all new growth, regardless of
location or infrastructure availability. This is inefficient, as the true economic costs are
still not entirely borne by new growth. Markham is moving to rectify this situation by
utilizing Area-Specific Development Charges that are based on marginal cost pricing.
Through this alteration, Markham is able to calculate a more accurate cost on growth by
taking into account infrastructure availability. Development charges are lower in
serviced urbanized areas and higher in underserviced greenfield locations, creating an
economic incentive to intensify development and discourage continued sprawl.

20

Transportation
Public sector infrastructure investments generally cater to the needs of automobile users,
often producing or reinforcing an urban form that leads to the generation of harmful
greenhouse gases. Changes to municipal investment are beginning to recognize more
sustainable forms of transportation. The recently adopted York Region Transportation
Master Plan is based on proposals totaling between $5.6 billion to $7.3 billion in capital
investments over a thirty-year period. A framework is established for all regional
transportation decisions by integrating land use planning with rapid transit and
sustainable road investments. Part of the plan involves the stated objective to improve
York's rapid transit system, expand GO Transit commuter rail service, construct up to 15
new GO Transit stations and coordinate a bus service network linked to the rapid transit
system. Development patterns will be required to create suitable demand for mass
transit. Funding plans detailed by York assumes a contribution of one third from the
federal and provincial governments as well as a significant investment from a private
sector rapid transit partner.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a policy aimed at alleviating the
environmental problems associated with travel by encouraging public transit use,
carpooling, vanpooling, cycling and walking. Peel Region recently purchased property
for the potential creation of a new carpool lot and through the acquisition of future sites
could persuade suburban commuters to opt for ridesharing. In a more urbanized context,
Toronto is committed to fostering an inviting setting for cycling by adopting and
implementing the bike plan. A key component of the plan is the 1,000 km bike network
that is estimated to cost $66.8 million. The Toronto Atmospheric Fund contributed
toward the cost of formulating the plan, as well as financing a series of bicycle education
programs.

21

Energy
Cities are actively financing the use of alternative energy sources in the attempt to reduce
the quantity of greenhouse gases generated through daily urban activities. Many of these
initiatives are still under development, as is the case with The Toronto Atmospheric
Fund's participation in several innovative clean energy pilot projects. Most notably, it is
actively participating in the Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative's planning and
construction of the first urban wind turbine in North America. The Cooperative received
partial funding from the TAF for a project feasibility study. Additionally, the TAF is
providing bridge financing for the construction of the project. Once the turbine is
operational, residential consumers will be able to purchase energy generated by the
turbine and other renewable resources through a green power pool supplied by Citisource
Green Power, a retailer associated with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission.
District energy is another innovative alternative to traditional energy sources. Downtown
Toronto buildings have access to district energy generated by the Enwave District Energy
Corporation. Enwave was previously the city operated the Toronto District Heating
Corporation but it is now a private corporation that is owned fifty percent by the city of
Toronto and fifty percent by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Fund
(OMERS). Four steam generators are used to pump steam heat to public and private
buildings across the downtown core. The company, in partnership with the City of
Toronto, is currently evaluating the feasibility of expanding its district cooling
capabilities through the implementation of the Deep Lake Water Cooling Project.
Energy efficient buildings can potentially produce significant financial for property
owners and appreciable environmental savings in terms of reduced fuel consumption.
The city of Toronto is promoting energy efficiency in new construction, renovations and
retrofits through the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP), a public-private partnership that
also includes Enbridge Consumers Gas, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Toronto Hydro
and Ontario Hydro Energy. Thus far, the resulting reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
related to BBP programs is estimated to be 4.1 percent. BBP loans and services are
available through private sector Energy Management Firms approved by the city and the

22

TAF provides $2 million in loan security to improve access to the program. At the
residential level, the Toronto Green$aver program provides subsidized house audits to
encourage energy efficiency. Homeowners pay $200 for a comprehensive evaluation that
is able to identify drafts and the efficiency of the existing furnace, ducts and water
heating systems. Thus far over 12,000 homes have been audited and the TAF estimates
that the average annual reduction in carbon dioxide released per house is of 4.2 tonnes.
A strong educational component is essential in the effort to improve urban sustainability.
Municipalities in the case study offer a thorough collection of programs geared toward
informing citizens about the sustainable options in areas as diverse as water and energy
conservation, forestation, encouraging public transit and bike travel, and discouraging the
use of pesticides. One example involves the TAF funds "Cool Schools" which provides
lessons and class projects to educate students and fund educational projects in order to
encourage sustainable practices.

Waste Management
Landfills are quickly reaching capacity as solid waste creation grows as cities continue to
grow. The costs of solid waste disposal are evident, as new landfill sites are required to
solve the dilemma of garbage disposal. Municipalities are actively pursuing strategies
geared toward promoting waste diversion that is encouraging the separation of
recyclables by adopting programs that minimize waste generation. Peel Region and
Markham have taken a big step by implementing three bag limits for residential waste
pick-up. Extra bags require municipal-issued tags, and Peel will begin charging for
additional tags in September 2002 while Markham relies upon the inconvenience of
obtaining a tag as an adequate deterrent.
Peel continues to purchase and distribute backyard composters at a significant subsidy to
residents in order to divert organic waste from landfills. Since 1985 Peel has distributed
over 100,000 composters while also initiating a curbside compost pick-up that required
the design and construction of a processing facility at a cost of $12.6 million. York has a

23

centralized composting facility where residents are able to drop off organic waste for a
small fee. York sells the resulting compost to landscaping companies, which helps
defray the cost of operating an organic recycling program.
Recycling in Markham is facilitated by the Town subsidizing the cost of recycling boxes
purchased by local residents. The Town also uses a section of their subdivision
agreement that requires developers to purchase recycling boxes at full cost and then
distribute them to all new residential units. Mississauga and Markham fund programs to
provide and maintain recycling receptacles in public spaces such as arenas, libraries and
government offices in an effort to increase the convenience of waste separation.
Diverting as much incompatible waste as possible is another objective being pursued by
municipalities. One area being considered is the disposal of computer and other
electronics goods that occupy space in landfills while also containing toxic materials that
could create problems. York Region has implemented an Electronic Recycling Pilot
Project where the municipality collects items at no cost to residents and then pays a
private company to properly dispose of the items.
Overall awareness is an essential component in the recycling process and one strategy
involves educating the public on the value reducing the pressure on urban landfills. One
example worth noting is Markham's Environmental Services Department presentation of
recycling education programs in schools throughout the municipality. Markham and the
Recycling Council of Ontario jointly fund the cost of this program.

Water and Wastewater
Residential water services in the case study municipalities is mostly metered, meaning
the utility charges users by the amount of water consumed on a full cost recovery basis.
The use of this economic tool imposes a certain awareness of water usage and increasing
the cost can be a valuable way to encourage conservation. Recently, the city of Toronto
increased user fees by 9% to finance water infrastructure renewal, but also to serve as an

24

incentive to conserve. Older portions in the city of Toronto still have residential units
that pay for water on a flat rate. Through the Toronto Water Meter Program the city pays
for the meter installation and provides a bundle of water saving devices such as low flow
showerheads, at no cost to the homeowner. The subsequent water savings more than
offset the cost of the meter installation. York's Water for Tomorrow program is a public
awareness campaign offered to encourage water conservation, provide free landscape
audits, and supply residents with free upgrades of showerheads and toilets.
Rainwater and melting snow unnecessarily flowing into sanitary sewer systems creates a
burden city services that often leads to overflow situations that directly deposit untreated
pollutants into water systems. Several programs are being implemented in municipalities
to divert runoff away from the municipal sewer systems. Toronto is currently eliminating
combined sewers in the older sections of the city that carry both sanitary and storm
drainage. The solution is the installation of storm sewers that divert runoff away from
treatment plants. Additionally, municipalities such as Toronto and Peel Region have
Downspout Disconnection Program to reduce the burden on municipal sewer systems
and reduce the likelihood of flooding in certain areas, all at no cost to the building owner.

Monitoring the Environment
Data is an important component in the environmental sustainability planning process.
Being able to measure current conditions and establish a benchmark is essential for
monitoring environmental change over time. Ongoing indicator reports give stakeholders
a clear sense of what actions could be required in the future. The Region of Peel funds
indicators reports through its The State of the Environment Program that individually
focus on Atmosphere, Water and Land. Originally the reports were completed between
1995 and 1998, and the Region is currently in the process of collecting the next set of
indicators. Similarly, the Region of York released its own State of the Environment
Report in 2000 with the intent of measuring existing conditions. Access to this
information bolsters the decision-making process and also acts as a valuable tool for
educating stakeholders on environmental conditions.

25

House-In-Order
Evidence in the case study suggests all the municipalities are changing their own
corporate behaviour in order to enact more sustainable practices. Toronto is making a
concerted effort to improve its own practices through its Energy Efficiency Office, which
is developing a comprehensive energy efficiency and conservation strategy for all cityowned buildings. At the implementation level, the Better Buildings Partnership operates
the In-House Energy Efficiency Program to oversee the proper retrofitting of municipally
owned buildings in order to maximize energy and water savings. Additionally, the City
has set a goal to purchase 25 % of all its corporate energy needs from Citisource Green
Power, the agency that sells electricity generated in a sustainable manner. Additionally,
the City is encouraging all its agencies, boards and commissions to fill 25% of their
energy needs through Green Power program. This cumulative buying power is a strategy
designed to create a market that will quickly attract green energy generating companies to
Toronto.8
Green procurement is another House-in-Order undertaking in place in the case study
municipalities. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Green
Procurement involves purchasing products with the following characteristics: durable,
reusable or energy efficient, generate less pollution, contain the maximum level of postconsumer waste or recyclable content and provides minimal impact on the environment.9
An extensive guide to green purchasing is available from the FCM's Governments
Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse (GIPPER)10 Municipalities in the
case study, have, or are in the process of codifying green purchases into their by-laws.
The city of Toronto adopted an Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy in
1999. As one of the single largest purchasers in Canada, Toronto is intent on using its
buying power to buy green goods and services, when feasible in the acquisition and
tender process. The Region of York is reinforcing its commitment to green products by
incorporating the requirement into its purchasing by-laws. Markham is in the process of
implementing a Green Procurement program that will review its purchasing procedures to
8
9

Ibid.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities website

26

ensure environmentally friendly items are given preference in the purchasing and
tendering process.
Several municipalities are making an effort to purchase and operate city-owned vehicles
that are hybrid gas and electric or run on alternative fuels such as natural gas. Under the
Markham Green Fleets Plan the municipality is testing hybrid vehicles with $100,000
from the town’s Hydro Interest Income. The Toronto Greening our Fleet pilot program
is another example of a municipal effort to move away from gas combustible vehicles.
The Toronto Better Transportation Partnership (BTP) and the Toronto Atmospheric
Fund are jointly funding the purchase of the vehicles, with additional assistance from
Toyota Canada and Honda Canada. Since this is a pilot program the city is evaluating the
overall environmental and economic performance. York Region is currently studying the
feasibility of a similar program, but does have the Corporate Clean Air Initiative that
sells low sulfur diesel fuel for municipal fleets in the region.

10

Federation of Canadian Municipalities, G.I.P.P.E.R.'s Guide to Environmental Purchasing. (3rd edition).

27

4

Policies Working to Produce Synergies

Synergies: Federal vs. Other Levels of Government
In this section key federal and provincial programs are identified to highlight actual and
potential synergies that would benefit municipal sustainability efforts. It is essential to
recognize these links because cost-cutting and downloading can take these positive
connections for granted. As a result existing links could be eliminated or potential
benefits might be overlooked.
TABLE 1:
SYNERGIES: FEDERAL VS. OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Federal Measure
Transit and Land Use
1. Moving on Sustainable Transportation (MOST)
2. Urban Transportation Showcase Program (UTSP)
3. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation
4. Affordable Housing Program
5. Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program
6. CMHC Mortgage Insurance for Non-Profits
7. Regional Watershed Rehabilitation Program
8. Canada Lands
Infrastructure Spending
9. Green Municipal Enabling Fund
10. Green Municipal Investment Fund
11. Smart Communities
12. EcoAction Community Funding Program
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewables
13. Federal Fuel Tax
14. District Heating and Cooling
15. Climate Change Action Fund
1.

Provincial

Municipal

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Transport Canada recently implemented MOST to fund studies, pilot projects,
workshops and educational programs dealing with sustainable transportation.
Community, non-government and private sector groups are qualified for the
grants, but municipalities are not eligible. However, MOST encourages

28

applicants to partner with cities in order to maximize the benefit of these grants.
Synergies exist as a MOST recipient can take their Federal funding and join up
with government agencies such as The Toronto Atmospheric Fund on feasibility
studies, pilot projects and educational programs. In fact the TAF cites MOST as a
potential funding source for the City's bike plan.
2.

This Transport Canada initiative is a partnership program with provinces and
municipalities that is structured to advance the cause of sustainable urban
transportation. The federal government plans to use the results of selected pilot
projects as the basis for a national Greenhouse Gas emission reduction program
by 2010, while also establishing an information network for interested
stakeholders. Though this is a one-time funding opportunity, it provides a model
for federal expenditures being directed toward urban sustainability.

3.

The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization is a noteworthy example of a synergy
based on collaboration between the Canada, Ontario and Toronto. Each level of
government is committed to contributing $500 million toward the lakefront
revitalization. Expenditures will be managed by a corporation comprised of
representatives nominated by all three levels of government.

4.

Canada and Ontario recently signed an agreement to provide $480 million for
affordable housing throughout the Province in partnership with municipalities as
well as the non-profit and private sector. Since most affordable housing is high
density and concentrated in urbanized locations, this initiative compliments
municipal fiscal actions such as the Province's enabling legislation to reduce the
York Region's property tax adjustments to level the playing field for multi-unit
residential structures. A problem exists in this area in that the Province of Ontario
has only committed a contribution in the form of a grant that is roughly equal to a
rebate of the provincial sales tax, a sum that is slightly less than $2,000 per unit.

29

5.

RRAP is another affordable housing example, in this case dealing with subsidies
to renovate rooming houses and other structures geared toward low-income
households. Again, most units of this type are located in urbanized areas, and the
creation of more units will intensify existing cores.

6.

CMHC mortgage insurance improves access to financing for non-profits
organizations. In combination with a favorable multi-unit municipal tax structure,
the feasibility of non-profits is improved, thus attracting more high-density
residential development to urban centres. Since non-profits cater to a broad mix
of residents, there is likely to be a group of residents that would have the
opportunity to live in urbanized areas who otherwise might only find suitable and
affordable housing in greenfield developments.

7.

Environment Canada geographically targets specific watershed restoration
actions, but a synergy could exist if the parameters are expanded to urban
locations. Work done by the Toronto and Region Conservation Agency could
qualify for federal assistance.

8.

Canada Lands Corporation has significant urban land holdings and could
contribute toward local sustainability issues by making development decisions
that support local and regional sustainable land use goals. The federal
government is not obliged to adhere to local land use planning designations, but a
synergy could exist through the disposition or utilization of land to meet
municipal objectives. This is a federal house-in-order objective with beneficial
local outcomes.

9.

Funded by the federal government and administered by the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities the Enabling Fund's mission is to enable the pursuit of
innovative environmental projects. Synergies exist as the Enabling Fund finances
municipal and private sector feasibility studies--four grants were awarded in the
case study area in 2002 including Generating Methane from Municipal Waste for

30

District Energy in Toronto, the Toronto Zoo Biogas Generation Project,
Supporting the Development of Integrated Mobility Systems in the GTA and an
Energy Conservation Study for Uxbridge Arena and Swimming Pool (Region of
York.) This link provides funds to municipalities that are excellently situated to
use their unique local knowledge as a basis for innovative ideas.
10.

The Green Municipality Investment Fund utilizes a $200 million permanent
revolving loan fund provided by the Federal government to supply low-interest
financing for environmentally significant proposals. One loan has been granted in
the case study area for the City of Toronto's Humber Arboretum Sustainability
Project, which is an extensive educational facility operated in conjunction with
Humber College and the Toronto and Region Conservation Agency. These
initiatives provide definite synergies by facilitating innovative plans that
otherwise might not have access to the necessary funding.

11.

The Smart Communities program promotes the urban expansion of information
and telecommunication technology. A potential synergy exists with the Ontario
SuperBuild that could integrate this program into its infrastructure expenditures in
the attempt to reduce commuting and other travel trips in urban areas. Smart
Communities could also be integrated with the Ontario Smart Growth Program.
For example, the Town of Milton is attempting to develop an “Eco-Tech Village”
development, which will incorporate the principles of both initiatives.

12.

Funds are available for non-government groups involved in environmental
projects, enabling citizens to make a positive contribution toward local
sustainability. A strong synergy exists, as is discussed in the Rouge Valley
example, as local interest groups interested in environmental activities can attract
additional money and interest to city and regional ongoing city and regional
ecosystem-based initiatives. Local applications ensure that projects deemed to be
the most worthy by citizens receive assistance.

31

13.

Greenhouse gas generating vehicles are the source of the Federal Fuel Tax. A
portion of this revenue could be used to support sustainable transportation
initiatives as a way to defray the environmental costs created by internal
combustion vehicles. The province's GO Transit and municipal systems such as
the ambitious York Region focus on rapid transit could benefit from this revenue
source.

14.

The Community Energy Systems Program offered by Natural Resources Canada
through the CANMET Energy Technology Centre provides funds to promote
district heating and cooling technologies through feasibility studies, management
plans and system testing. A synergy exists with efforts such as Toronto's Enwave
that could help defray their current feasibility studies and eventual pilot testing.

15.

Organizations addressing climate change issues, including the Ontario Climate
Change Fund and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund could collaborate on relevant
initiatives. Synergies exist as all three entities focus on pilot projects as well as
comparable educational and awareness campaigns. Cooperation could reduce the
likelihood of duplication, while also leveraging their resources to strengthen their
impacts.

32

Synergies: Provincial and Municipal Governments
Fiscal tools utilized by the Province of Ontario have the potential to make positive
contributions toward municipal sustainability. Several initiatives reinforce city and
regional objectives and if properly linked with the Province they can help municipalities
overcome the fiscal limitations they continually must face.
Land Use
Local and regional goals related to intensification and the promotion of compact urban
form could potentially benefit from several fiscal tools implemented by Ontario.
Through the Brownfield Statute Law Amendment Act municipalities can use Tax
Increment Financing to remediate contaminated sites and offer an economic advantage to
development interests by reducing or waiving local property taxes. This supports in
principle the rationale underlying the adoption of area specific property taxes currently
being used in Markham. By attracting investment to already serviced areas,
municipalities are able to increase densities with minimal infrastructure costs.
The Ontario Tax Reduction for Heritage Property enables cities to offer an economic
incentive to rehabilitate historic properties that tend to be located in urban centres. This
tool compliments local efforts such as the Markham Heritage Fund that are intended to
attract investment to existing urbanized areas and away from greenfield developments.
Open Space and Agricultural Protection
A variety of fiscal initiatives are in place to augment municipal efforts to protect open
space and agriculture from development. The Province's Conservation Land Tax
Incentive Program and Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program creates synergies with the
stewardship goals stated in the Greening of York's Regional Greenlands Property
Securement Strategy. These programs offer private property owners an economic
incentive to conserve land in accordance with the Region's plan. The Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, which is applicable to the Region of York and the Natural
Areas Protection Program, are examples of specific legislation designed to preserve an
environmentally sensitive landform that is subject to significant growth pressures. In this

33

case the Province is stepping in to use its resources to achieve an urban sustainability
objective that would be difficult to fulfill at the local and regional levels.
Transportation
Public transit is seriously under funded at the local and regional levels due to the limited
financial resources available to municipalities. However, a viable transit system is
essential in the pursuit of a sustainable transportation plan. In response, the Province of
Ontario is allocating a portion of its SuperBuild Fund through the Ontario Transit
Renewal Program to improve local public transit vehicles. Furthermore, the SuperBuild
Fund also includes the Provincial Transit Investment Plan, which is supportive of the
capital investments outlined in the York Region Master Transportation Plan. If a
sustainable component is indeed incorporated into the Ontario SuperBuild program, a
wide range of local initiatives related to cycling could improve local and regional
transportation provision.
The primary focus in this section concentrates on the interaction between Federal
government polices and those found at the Provincial and local levels. Additionally, the
Provincial–municipal synergies is important for defining the potential responses to
Federal action and inaction.

34

5

Policies working at Cross-Purposes

This section of the report conducts an analysis of the current situation in terms of crosspurposes and sustainable urban development policies. This reflects two types of
situations. The first case involves governments that have made conscious policy decisions
that are in conflict and work at cross-purposes toward supporting measures to support
sustainable development. The second case deals with situations where one level of
government approves a policy with the intent of supporting sustainable urban objectives
while other government(s) choose not to make appropriate supportive policy decisions.
The first part of this section addresses the relationship between the Federal level and all
other levels of government, while the second section examines the relationship between
the Province of Ontario and the municipalities included as case studies.
Cross Purposes: Federal vs. Other Levels of Government
This analysis is based on a comparison of the short list of measures that were identified
by the Experts Panel Meeting on the July 4th with the policies that were identified by the
case studies for the Province and the municipalities. Table 1 includes all of those
measures, both high priority and longer term that worked at cross-purposes as indicated
above, with Provincial or municipal polices. The measures are grouped by the issues that
were used in the reporting of the Expert Panel meeting. In addition to identifying the
existence of the interaction in the table, a short description of the nature of the interaction
is identified after the table.11

11

The short list of measures resulted from the second Expert Panel meeting on July 4th, 2002, which
followed the first meeting on June 4th. These meetings examined the working data and information
assembled by both this research and an analysis of Federal government policies that effect urban
sustainability.

35

TABLE 2:
CROSS-PURPOSES: FEDERAL VS. OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Federal Measures
Transit and Land Use
1. Fiscal incentives for Residential Renovations
2. Taxation of Urban Land: to encourage Redevelopment
3. Stable Capital and Operating Funding for Transit
4. Capital Gains Taxation of Farmlands
5. Capital Gains Tax on Ecological Land Gifts

Provincial

Municipal

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Infrastructure Spending
6. Adopt Standardized Sustainability Criteria
7. Fund Innovative Sustainable Community Projects
8. GST on Municipal Infrastructure

X
X
X

X

Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewables
9. Sliding Scale Tax for Vehicles
10. GST on Hybrid Vehicles
11. Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy
1.

X
X
X

Since there is a GST charge on residential rehabilitation materials it is useful to
indicate that waiving the tax would be supportive of at least one City of Toronto
program that among other activities assists in the rehabilitation multi-residential
non-profit buildings. The program is the Better Building Partnership that focuses
on the energy efficiency component of rehabilitation. Its addresses all
components and types of building rehabilitation that could reduce CO2 emissions.
If there was no GST on the work preformed the money in the program could
encourage more rehabilitation to meet the program objectives.

2.

The Federal government imposes a capital gains tax on the sale of non-residential
urban land. This would appear to be a disincentive to sell land for redevelopment
that winds up working at cross-purposes with Provincially enabled and locally
funded tax policy through Tax Increment Financing and forgiveness of property
taxes that may be used to encourage urban redevelopment and intensification.

36

3.

The cross-purposes in this measure are related to the lack of Federal funding for
transit. Cross-purposes were not identified with local governments as they have
the prime responsibility for transit funding. However, the Province of Ontario is
mentioned as they have initiated several funding programs including transit
renewal. Perhaps most significantly they are funding the operating costs of GO
Transit and have a ten-year capital plan in which they hope to have Federal
Government financial participation.

4.

The concern of this measure is the elimination of the capital gains tax on farmland
in order to maintain the viability of agricultural uses. The absence of this
exemption works at cross-purposes with Provincial legislation and local
government funding of property tax reductions on farms that supports farming
enterprises. Farm classed property in Ontario is taxed at 25% of the single-family
residential rate.

5.

The taxation of capital gains on land given for ecological reasons to governments
works at cross purposes to programs and efforts by municipal governments such
as Markham and York Region that are making efforts to have the private sector
contribute to lands for parks open space and ecological purposes. This includes
efforts like the Rouge Alliance and other York Regional Forest acquisition
initiatives.

6.

The Federal –Provincial Infrastructure Program has not adopted sustainability
criteria for the approval of projects. However, the Province via its SuperBuild and
Smart Growth initiatives has indicated that it supports infrastructure investments
related to sustainability. However, there needs to be a common criteria and
standard to be consistent and strengthen this approach. One might expect that the
Province may not apply the criteria if Federal funding is available for a project
that they deem to be important. Therefore, there is the need for consistent
sustainability criteria to be applied to project funding.

37

7.

While the Federal government has not explicitly undertaken this approach, there
is some evidence that this has been undertaken by the Provincial government in
some of its SuperBuild funding in conjunction with municipal initiatives. For
example, funding for what has been termed “Green” infrastructure for the City of
Peterborough’s wastewater treatment system. However, it is not clear that this is
actually a consistent approach undertaken by the Province in its infrastructure
funding allocation.

8.

Whereas municipal governments pay GST on infrastructure expenditures,
Provincial governments and territories are not subject to the GST. This means
that Federal and Provincial Infrastructure grants do not buy as much infrastructure
as they could if this tax was eliminated. There is a benefit in this system if the
Provincial government undertakes the infrastructure, which is not subject to the
GST. Municipal governments do get a rebate but still pay effectively 3% tax.

9.

Despite the lack of this approach by the Federal Government, the Province has a
program called ‘Tax for Fuel Conservation” in which there is a sliding scale of tax
(or rebate) related to the sale and long term leasing of vehicles. The amount of
the tax or rebate is determined by the fuel consumption of the vehicle. The
program would be more effective in terms of the quantum of the financial
incentive, if a similar Federal program supported the Provincial government.

10.

Once again the Provincial government has the incentive while the Federal
government does not have a similar motivation. In this case, the Province has a
program entitled the Alternative Fuel Incentive Program in which rebates on the
retail sales tax are provided for qualifying vehicles that are hybrids or those that
use alternative fuels. As with the last measure the financial incentive would be
enhance with a compatible Federal program.

38

11.

Although a specific Provincial program is not currently in place to support the use
of renewable energy, it is important to be aware that there have been some
recommendations made to support renewable energy at the Provincial level by the
recent “Report of the Select Committee on Alternative Fuel Sources”, June 2002.
Section A.12 of the Report addresses that relationship to Federal energy policies
and makes six recommendations, which are generally regulatory in nature. If any
of the recommendations in the report are implemented the lack of Federal
initiatives may work against them.

Cross-Purposes: Provincial vs. Municipal Governments
Although the main focus of the study is the relationship between Federal policies and
other levels of government, it also useful to comment on the interaction between
Provincial and local government policies. This is important to understand because in
considering Federal government policy alternatives, it is important to know when they
will be received positively by both lower levels of government, or whether a new policy
will have differential impacts due to conflicting Provincial and local policies in major
cities.
Since the Province and municipalities have different taxing responsibilities and
expenditure/service areas, the most useful way to make the comparison between these
two levels of government to identify cross-purpose urban sustainability polices in each of
the issue areas used to organize existing Provincial polices in section 2 of this report.
In the area of “Greenfields vs. Urbanized Land” Provincial polices such as the Land
Transfer Tax rebate favour the purchase of new housing which supports greenfield
development that is associated with sprawl. This not only tends to work at cross purposes
with municipal regulatory land use policy that tends to encourage intensification and
compact urban form, but it also works against the benefits of area specific development
charges which should support lower charges, i.e. marginal costs, adjacent to built
up/serviced areas. It also works against those municipalities choosing to apply tax

39

increment financing to support intensification, and those municipalities choosing to apply
lower property tax rates for new multi-family residential buildings.12
In the area of “open space and agricultural protection” there does not appear to be any
cross-purpose tax or expenditure policies that exist between the Provincial and municipal
governments. Perhaps the municipalities feel that there may be missing opportunities or
the need for greater Provincial expenditures in some areas of open space/ ecological land
acquisition in joint purchase such as those for York Region’s Greenlands Property
Securement Strategy or the Rouge Alliance. This could be achieved by increasing
allocations to the Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Areas Protection Program and
perhaps expand the eligible geographic locations. We do recognize that the funding for
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is an important contribution for the entire
Greater Toronto Area, but there may be other specific municipal needs as well as this
broader need for the moraine.
The major cross-purpose issue regarding “infrastructure including transportation and
transit’ has to do with transit expenditures. Too much of this burden has been
downloaded on the municipalities despite new post-downloading funding such as the
Provincial Transit Investment Fund and the Ontario Transit Renewal Program. There is
also the question of road improvement expenditures by the Province being
counterintuitive to supporting municipal public transit ridership and high-density urban
form. If ridership decreases it will affect transit fares and the user fees that will be
charged may affect municipal expenditures in financing public transit. Again new and
improved transit is essential to support higher density built form.
The last area is “energy” where the Province has some initiatives relating to fuel usage
for automobiles, and the use of alternative fuel automobiles. However, the Select
Committee on Alternative Fuel Sources Report is recommending that municipalities use
alternative fuels in their vehicles and buy vehicles that support this approach, the
12

The Ontario property tax legislation permits municipalities to undertake this approach at council’s
discretion. It would be expected that multi-family residential property tends to be built in more fully
developed areas, including infill, and where transit exists as opposed to greenfield sites.

40

Province may need to provide some fiscal incentives for municipalities who currently do
not undertake this approach or to accelerate fleet replacement for those who may
undertaking these imitative independently. Some municipalities are already pursuing
alternative fuel approaches under general greening type programs.13 Municipalities may
support the reduction of automobile use by altering parking rates in municipal garages in
peak periods, or if they could place tolls on certain roads to reduce driving in urban areas.
This as well as obtaining and perhaps increasing the gas tax in urban areas would require
Provincial legislative approval. It has also been suggested that an approach could be to
place a toll on all 400 Series highways coming into Toronto as a potential approach to
reduce congestion and raise revenue that could be directed toward financing public
transit. The Province could also support other municipal energy measures such as
Toronto’s Better Building Partnership. Finally, there is no Provincial support for district
heating such as that originally undertaken by the City of Toronto, and now Enwave.
In conclusion, the main focus in this section should be on the interaction between Federal
government polices and those observed at the Provincial and local government levels.
However, the Provincial–municipal government interaction in terms of cross-purpose
policies and lack of consistent support may be instructive regarding interactions,
relationships, and responses to Federal polices that may be considered.

13

The “Select Committee Report on Alternative Fuel Sources” has a section A.11 devoted to the municipal
sector with a set of recommendations that are mostly regulatory. However it does recommend a 25%
Provincial contribution toward the municipal purchase of alternative fueled vehicles.

41

6

CONCLUSION

There is a clear range of tax and expenditure policies related to urban sustainability that
currently exist across the Federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government. They
fall into three different categories with regard to potential interactions: they can create
synergies, they can work at cross-purposes, or they can be latent in terms of having the
potential to create synergies if one government is willing to take the appropriate policy
decision. It is important to identify and be aware of synergies across government policies
for two reasons: first, so that they can be built upon and improved in terms of outcomes.
In order to create this added value, the nature of the synergies must be understood.
Second, it is necessary to be aware and understand them so that polices are not changed
or funding is inadvertently decreased only to later realize the negative impacts involved.
With regard to policies that work at cross-purposes, coordination is necessary to ensure
that several levels of government are pulling in the same direction to meet a specific
policy objective. The same is true where the potential is identified. If one government
will simply examine a policy field and then make a positive step to undertake a new tax
or expenditure, enhancements may be possible. In either case, negotiation and
coordination may be required across various levels of government to achieve a positive
result.
There are some areas where synergies have been identified across all levels of
government. In particular this occurs with the Canada-Provincial Infrastructure Program.
However, despite the existence of synergies, this needs to be strengthened by adopting
environmentally sustainable criteria for the selection of programs. This is purported to
exist in the Ontario SuperBuild funding, but it needs to be strengthened from the Federal
perspective. The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is another area of
synergy. However, this may be a “one off” investment in the waterfront of a major city
rather than a model for continued development in major urban areas. In the transportation
area there is a Transport Canada pilot program focusing on sustainable urban
transportation. The program's primary objective is a reduction in greenhouse gases.
However, this is a limited pilot project with uncertainty about funding beyond the pilot
programs. There is also the Municipal Green Enabling and Investment Funds that
42

provide some synergies with municipal governments in attempting to meet common
environmental objectives.
The point is that all of these synergies need to be developed and matured either by
tightening up the criteria and relationships among the participating governments, or by a
willingness to invest more funding on a permanent sustaining basis. This is necessary to
provide other governments the opportunity to respond to the initiatives, and plan to have
the funding available for its use in future years.
In terms of what has been called “house-in-order”, it appears that most municipalities
have their own initiatives that amount to ”house-in-order” approaches although they may
not formally use this term. The information collected and discussions with officials sited
numerous “greening type programs” in terms of open space, water sustainability,
alternative fuels, fleet purchases etc. However, these tend to be stand-alone polices and
are not always integrated with programs at senior levels of government.
As we examine the hierarchy of synergies, they are most effective when not only the
Federal government and provinces work together, but also when municipalities share
common objectives and polices with the provinces. In the Ontario case, Local Services
Realignment has adversely affected this relationship as “downloading” has dismantled
the previous Ontario grant system to municipalities. Under the previous system, there
was a catalogue of known grants; many of which were conditional, and they lead to
similar policy objectives between the Province and municipalities. This relationship was
reinforced by the “conditional” requirement of matching expenditures. This led to
synergies in areas where the Province wanted lead by financial incentives. Under the new
system there is less potential for consistent polices to be applied across municipalities
throughout the province as SuperBuild funding tends to be more “one off” and strategic
than comprehensively available for all municipalities to meet a specific objective.
In examining the four areas of issues that were addressed at the expert panel meetings;
urban form (greenfields vs. urban development), infrastructure including transportation

43

and transit, open space (ecological) and farmland preservation, and energy, there is
consensus among the municipal officials interviewed for this study regarding the most
significant sustainability urban problem that exists and that the same problem also
presents the greatest need for synergies. This is the need for improved transit and
associated funding which includes the use of taxes to accomplish this objective. In
considering the issue areas referred to above, transit is not surprising choice as it relates
to all the other major of sustainable issues. It is central to the urban form and
intensification issue, particularly in this era when most municipalities are concerned with
encouraging higher densities to support public transit and reduce traffic congestion, and
address the negative effects it generates. Support for public transit by encouraging higher
densities of development will also help to protect the infringement of growth on
farmland, ecologically significant areas and open space. Also sustainable transit with
higher development densities will lead to energy efficiency as people may use public
transit rather than automobiles. Higher densities also provide the opportunity for the use
of district heating and cooling. Having considered these linkages it is not surprising to
hear officials identify public transit as the prime issue, and the area where synergies need
to be developed via expenditures and support from the Provincial and Federal
government. Financial support could be generated from tax revenues, by allocating a
percentage of the gas tax for public transit funding, or in the Greater Toronto Area
through the imposition of a toll on the 400 series highways with the revenue supporting
municipal public transit.
Another other type of synergy referred to exists through the use of public-private
partnerships. This is a message being delivered by the Province via its SuperBuild
program. Municipal officials considered this to be an important element to consider in a
number of areas including the acquisition of ecologically sensitive lands, and new public
transit facilities. The point is that we are in an era of fixed resources where cooperative
activities are important and partnerships, linkages, and synergies should be developed in
multiple directions, public and private. One of the most important areas where attempts
must be made to ensure that there are synergies and cooperation is between the Federal
and provincial governments. Urban sustainability is jeopardized when these two levels of

44

government assign blame to each other for their inaction on sustainable programs, or
claim that the other senior level of government does not want them to participate. In fact,
both the federal and provincial governments must consult with municipal decisionmakers who possess the knowledge and expertise needed to properly inform the urban
sustainability policy-making process.
This report has shed some light on policy areas where governments have performed well,
where there is the need for a change in direction to eliminate working at cross-purposes,
and where there are opportunities for cooperation to coordinate policies.
It is imperative for the well being of cities that positive steps are taken in these areas.

45

Appendix A: Government Officials Interviewed:
Jim Baird, Manger of Policy Planning, Town of Markham
Paul Bedford, Chief Planner and Executive Director City Planning Division, City of
Toronto
Chris Goethel, Senior Economist, Ministry of Finance
Patrick Moyle, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
David O’Brien, CAO, City of Mississauga
Almos Tassonyi, Policy Analyst, Ministry of Finance, Province of Ontario
Bryan Tuckey, Planning Director, Region of York
Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner of Planning, Region of Peel

46

Bibliography
General References
Blais, Pamela, 2002, “ Ecological Fiscal Reform and Urban Sustainability: The Current
State of Play and Possible Fiscal Measures: A summary of Fiscal Policies Influencing
Urban Environmental Quality and Possible New Measures.
Boadway, Robin W., and Harry M. Kitchen, 1999, Canadian Tax Policy, Third Edition,
Canadian Tax Paper no.103, Canadian Tax Foundation, Toronto
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2001. “Early Warning: Will Canadian Cities
Compete?”.
Ontario Fair Tax Commission, 1993, Report: Fair Taxation in Changing World, Queens
Printer, Toronto
Perry, David and Karin Treff. 2001. Finances of the Nation (2000). Toronto: Canadian
Tax Foundation.
Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues. 2002. "Canada's Urban Strategy:
A Vision for the 21st Century". http://www.liberal.parl.gc.ca/urb/ENGurbstrFINAL.pdf
Report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration:
Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City. 1992. Toronto: Queen's Printer for
Ontario.
Select Committee on Alternative Fuel Sources, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2002,
Report, Queens Printer, Toronto
Slack, Enid, 2002, “Municipal Finance and the Pattern of Urban Growth”, C.D. Howe
Institute, Urban Paper Series
Treff Karin and David B. Perry, 2001, Finances of the Nation, Canadian Tax Foundation,
Toronto

.

47

Ontario
Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association. December 2001. Bill 56: Brownfields
Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001.
http://www.apma.ca/client/APMA/APMA.nsf/web/2001-60!OpenDocument.
Canadian Automobile Association. 2000. 2000 Pre-Budget submissions from CAA
Ontario. http://www.caaontario.net/reports/prebudget_brief_00.htm.
Canadian Environmental Defence Fund. May 2001. The Ebb and Flow of Environmental
Enforcement in Ontario.
http://www.walkertoninquiry.com/part2info/partieswithstanding/pdf/CEDF3.pdf.
Conservation Council of Ontario. 2001. Missing Values 2001.
http://www.greenontario.org/cco/mv2001.pdf.
Government of Ontario. February 2002. Ontario Transit Renewal Program
(Backgrounder). http://www.newswire.ca/releases/February2002/20/c3666.html.
Government of Ontario. No date. Planning for Growth.
http://www.superbuild.gov.on.ca/english/Waterfront.htm.
Government of Ontario. February 2002. Provincial Help for City of Toronto (Facts and
Figures Update) (Backgrounder).
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/inthnews/backgrnd/20020225-1e.asp.
Government of Ontario. No date. Research & Development Infrastructure. Internet.
http://www.2ontario.com/facts/fact11.asp.
Government of Ontario. No date. Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships.
http://www.superbuild.gov.on.ca/english/newpartner11.htm.
Government of Ontario. No date(a). SuperBuild Millennium Partnerships.
http://www.superbuild.gov.on.ca/english/urbaninfrastructure.htm.
Government of Ontario. No date(b). SuperBuild Millennium Partnerships.
http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/english/news/archive2001/London061101_bd2.htm.
Government of Ontario. 2001. SuperBuild Progress Report 2001.
http://www.superbuild.gov.on.ca/english/PRTranstRefug.htm.
Greater Toronto Transit Authority. 2002. About Go.
http://www.gotransit.com/public/aboutgo/main.htm.
Green Ontario. No date. The Greening of the Car!
http://www.greenontario.org/strategy/autos.html.
48

Industry Canada. No date. Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/coip-pico/coip-pico.nsf/main!OpenPage.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). No date. The Tax for Fuel
Conservation in Ontario. http://iisd1.iisd.ca/greenbud/taxfuel.htm.
Northern Centre for Advanced Technology Inc. March 2000. NORCAT now an Eligible
Research Institute. http://www.norcat.org/html/eri.htm.
Ontario Centres of Excellence. 2002. Who we are. http://www.oceontario.org/centres/theprogram/whoweare.html.
Ontario Innovation Trust. 2002. About the Trust.
http://www.oit.on.ca/Pages/AboutTrust.html#Anchor-The-49575.
Ontario Management Board Secretariat. 2001. Province of Ontario Expenditure
Estimates, 2001-2002. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. April 2001. Farmland Property
Taxation Policy Program Questions and Answers.
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/infores/ftaxfaq.html#background.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. August 2001. Rural Economic
Development Initiative of OSTAR (Backgrounder).
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/ostar/backgrounder.html.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science & Technology. 2002. 2001-2002 Business Plan.
http://www.est.gov.on.ca/english/am/business_plan_2001.html.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science & Technology. 2000. Ontario Research &
Development Challenge Fund Annual Report 2000.
http://www.ontariochallengefund.com/english/annual_report/Report2001.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science & Technology. 2002. How Ontario Helps.
http://www.est.gov.on.ca/english/st/bio2002/bio_programs.html.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. 2000. Ontario Challenge Fund.
http://www.ontariochallengefund.com/english/opportunity/cfund.shtml.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. 2000. Ontario's Current R&D Tax
Incentives. http://www.ontariochallengefund.com/english/opportunity/current.shtml.
Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science & Technology. 2002. Premier’s Research
Excellence Awards. http://www.est.gov.on.ca/english/st/prea/prea_main.html.

49

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. September 2001. Air Quality and Climate Change:
Moving Forward. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/4143e.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Business Plan 2001-02.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/bp0601.html.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. November 2000. Increasing momentum through
innovative new ways to combat climate change (Media Backgrounder).
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/00811mb.htm.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. January 2001. Leading the Climate Change
Challenge (Media Backgrounder).
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/010126mb.htm.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. August 2000. Ontario’s Anti-Smog Action Plan Progress through partnership (Progress Report).
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/smog/action.htm.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. No date. Ontario Drive Clean.
http://www.driveclean.com/.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. November 2000. Ontario government recognizes
environment industry’s value in addressing climate change (News Release).
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/00811.htm.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. 2001 Budget (Budget Papers).
http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/bud01e/pdf/edoc_comp.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2002. 2002 Model Year: Tax for Fuel Conservation and Tax
Credit for Fuel Conservation. http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_tffc.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. The Basics of Retail Sales Tax.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_sbp901.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. Delivery Charges.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_602.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. Information Bulletin: Property Tax Rebate for Vacant
Commercial and Industrial Buildings (August 2001).
http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/ibevacancyinfo.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2000. News Release (January 12, 2000).
http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/nre-vac.htm.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. October 1998. Ontario New Technology Tax Incentive
(Ontario Tax Bulletin). http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/tb98e12.htm.

50

Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. Public Accounts of Ontario: Schedules & Ministry
Statements, 2000-2001. http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/pacc01/01pacc/01v1.htm.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. Refund for Ontario Retail Sales Tax for the Used
Vehicle Information Program. http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_1181.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2001. Retail Sales Tax Info Bulletin.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_2700.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2002. Sales Tax Schedules.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_0418.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. June 2001. Tax for Fuel Conservation.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_513.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2002. Vehicles Fuelled by Alternative Fuels.
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/images/rsie_702.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. May 2001. Brownfields Statute Law
Amendment Act, 2001 (Backgrounder).
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/inthnews/backgrnd/20010517-4e.asp.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. December 2001. Ensuring a safe,
clear water supply for Ontario.
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/inthnews/backgrnd/20011212-2e.asp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. No date. Conservation Land Tax Incentive
Program. No date. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/cltip.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. January 2000. The Managed Forest Tax Incentive
Program. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/forests/mftip/home.htm.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. No date. Natural Areas Protection Program.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/napp.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. February 2002. Property Tax Relief for
Heritage Properties. http://www.town.cobourg.on.ca/Hptax_re.pdf.
Ministry of Transportation. December 2001. Ontario invests $250 million to expand and
improve transit.
http://www.newswire.ca/government/ontario/english/releases/December2001/20/c8793.ht
ml.
Ministry of Transportation. December 2001. Ontario leads the way in transit investment.
(Backgrounder).

51

http://www.newswire.ca/government/ontario/english/releases/December2001/20/c8725.ht
ml.
Ontario Motor Coach Association. January 2001. Car, bus and truck association say that
Ontario government should come clean on vehicle emissions testing taxes (Press
Release). http://www.omca.com/pressreleases/012700.html.
Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. December 2001. Sustainable
Water and Sewage Systems Act. http://www.oswca.org/db.
Mississauga
Environment Mississauga
Building the Future – Partnering for Energy Efficiency
Mississauga Workshop Report
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/MissWkspReports.pdf
City of Mississauga Smog Alert Response Plan 2001
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/air/smogplan2001.pdf
Environmental Impact Studies - Terms of Reference
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/plan/EISTermsReference.htm
Environmental Planning
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/enviplan.htm
Go Green Program
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/waste/GoGreen.htm
Mississauga Air Quality Advisory (MAQA) Committee
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/air/maqa_cmte.htm
Mississauga Brownfields Success
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/PLANBLOG/publications/pdf/OfSpecial
Interest/Brownfieldsreview
Restoring and Stabilizing Creeks
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/water/creeks.htm
Waste and 3 R’s
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/enviwaste.htm
Trees/Urban Forestry
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/environment/envitrees.htm

52

Turn Your Key, Be Idle Fee
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/idlefree/main.htm
Finance
Mississauga Annual Budget and Forecast 2002
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/finance/pdf/2002%20Budget/2002%20Budget.pdf
Mississauga Annual Budget and Forecast 2002
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/finance/pdf/2002%20Budget/2002%20Budget.pdf
2002 Budget Highlights
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/finance/pdf/2002%20Budget/web%20pages.PDF
Planning and Building
NAS Fact Sheets
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/PLANBLDG/online_maps/pdf/Nas/Key_map/nasmap.
pdf
Recreation and Parks
Community Parks Week
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/rec&parks/html/parks/Naturalization.htm
Recreation and Parks: Encroachment
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/rec&parks/html/parks/encroach.htm
Transportation and Works
Builder and Developer Responsibilities
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/tranwork/html/builddev.htm
Design Requirements
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/tranwork/html/pdf/Section2.pdf
Development Requirements Manual:
General Requirements for Servicing Subdivisions
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/tranwork/html/pdf/Section1.pdf
Development Requirements Manual:
Design Requirements
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/tranwork/html/pdf/Section2.pdf
Erosion and Sediment Control by-law For Construction

53

http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/tranwork/html/erosioncontrol.htm
Mississauga Transit Bus Fares
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/transit/html/3mt0000.html
Transportation and Works Budget 2002
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/finance/pdf/2002%20Budget/Transptn%20and%20Wo
rks.PF
Other
A Vision for Mississauga’s Future: Strategic Plan
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/CORPSVCS/COMMUNIC/HTML/stratplan/stratplan.
pdf
Credit Valley Conservation
http://www.creditvalleycons.com/
Garbage Tag Exemption Periods Extended to Two Weeks
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/news/currentitem.asp?year=2002&month=3&day=18&file
=2002318.xml
Green Municipal Enabling Fund Summary of Feasibility Study Grants
http://www.fcm.ca/scep/support/Gmef/febfinal.pdf
Mississauga Cycling
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/cycling/index.htm
Municipal Performance Measurement Program
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/CORPSVCS/COMMUNIC/HTML/press/Issues/munp
erfmeas.pdf
OMB Development Charges By-law
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/corpsvcs/clerk/bylaws/OMBDevCharges.pdf
Securing Our Future
http://www.city.mississauga.on.ca/CORPSVCS/COMMUNIC/HTML/taskforce/securing
ourfuturemay02.pdf
Peel Region
Public Works
2000 Annual Financial Report

54

2001 Business Plan
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/finance/PDFs/gfoa-pdfs/VWastewater.pdf
2001 Water and Wastewater Rates
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/finance/waterrates-01.htm
Backyard Composting
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/resident/compost.htm
Brampton/Mississauga Yard Waste Program
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/resident/brmiyard.htm
Directions for Success: Investing in Peel’s Future
Drinking Water Provided by the Region of Peel Meets Provincial

Standards

http://www.region.peel.on.ca/news/currentitem.asp?year=2002&month=5&day=13&file
=2002513a.xml
Garbage Tag Exemption Periods Extended to Two Weeks
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/news/currentitem.asp?year=2002&month=3&day=18&file
=20
02318.xml
Grey Box Awareness Program
Grey Box and Blue Box Programs
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/resident/greybox.htm
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/resident/bluebox.htm
Long Term Waste Resource Management Strategy
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/reports/2000LTWRM.pdf
The Region of Peel Odour Management Strategy
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/water/clear-scents/index.htm
Peel Organics Composting Program
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/resident/organcal.htm
Peel Region Business Plan 2001

55

Peel Region Business Plan 2001
Water and Sewer York-Peel Agreement
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/water/york-peel/index.htm
Water & Sanitary Sewer Service Charges
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/finance/service-charges.htm
Regional Planning
2000 Financial Annual Report
Environmental Health Water Quality
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/environ/htmfiles/e_water.htm#9
State of the Environment Atmosphere Report
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/planning/soe/atmosphere.htm
State of the Environment Land Report
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/planning/soe/landreport.htm
State of the Environment Water Report
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/planning/soe/waterreport.htm
Finance
Peel Region Business Plan 2001
Conservation Authorities
Credit Valley Conservation
http://www.creditvalleycons.com/
Directions For Success: Investing In Peel’s Future
Peel Region Business Plan 2001

TORONTO
Environmental Task Force
A Plan of an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/council/etfepfin.pdf

56

Green Economy Plan
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/council/oct213.pdf
In diversity our strength: New mobility for the new millennium
Draft report of The Sustainable Transportation Working Group:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/pdf/etf_report99.pdf
Finance
City of Toronto 2002-2006 Capital Program: Council Approved Budget by Sub-Project
City of Toronto 2002 Capital Budget: Summary of Budget Review Process
2002 Operational Budget
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/budget2002/pdf/operating_approved_bkgrnd.pdf
2002 Operational Budget highlights
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/budget2002/pdf/operating_approved_bkgrnd.pdf
Public Health
Strategy to Achieve a Phase-out of Non-essential Outdoor Use of Pesticides
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/pesticides_strategytoachieve.pdf
Toronto Public Health: Pesticides
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pesticides_index.htm
Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Toronto Atmospheric Fund 10th Anniversary Report:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taf/pdf/taf10th_anniversary_report.pdf
Toronto Atmosphere Fund: Clean Air Council: Mission Statement
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taf/cac_missionstatment.htm
Toronto Atmospheric Fund: CAP:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taf/cool_school.htm
Toronto Atmospheric Fund: CAP
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taf/cleanairpart.htm
Toronto Bike Plan: Executive Summary
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/bikeplan/ack_toc_execsumm.pdf
Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission

57

Toronto Energy Services Inc: Introducing Green$aver
http://www.torontohydro.com/energyservices/green_power/project_details/home_energy
_audit/index.cfm
Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission: Citisource Green Power
http://www.torontohydro.com/energyservices/green_power/index.cfm
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Private Tree Planting Programs - Green Up York Project
http://www.trca.on.ca/treeplant2.html
Tommy Thompson Park – Master Plan
http://www.trca.on.ca/pdf/ttpexsum.pdf
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
http://www.trca.on.ca/ttp4.html
http://www.trca.on.ca/10.html
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: Private Tree Planting Programs
http://www.trca.on.ca/treeplant1.html
Toronto Transit Commission
Annual Report 2001: Toronto Transit Commission
Downtown Express Fare
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/premium.htm#1
Expanding Transit Priorities in Toronto
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/pdf/expanding_transit_priorities_in_toronto.pdf
Fare Collection Report
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/pdf/fare_collection_report_2000.pdf
Rapid Transit Expansion Study
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/pdf/rtes2002.pdf
Service Improvements 2002
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/pdf/service_improvements_2002.pdf
Toronto Transit Commission: Downtown Express Supplement
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/images/downtown_express_supplement.jpg
Toronto Transit Commission Fares and Rates

58

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/fares.htm
Toronto Transit Commission: GTA Weekly Pass:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/timestwo.htm
Toronto Transit Commission: Metro Discount Plan
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/mdp.htm
Toronto Transit Commission: The TTC Day Pass:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/family_pass.htm
Toronto Transit Commission: TTC Times Two
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/timestwo.htm
Waterfront Revitalization
Marking Waves: Central Waterfront Plan Part II
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/waterfront/pdf/waterfrontplansec4_c.pdf
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/waterfront/pdf/waterfrontplansec1.pdf
Works and Emergency Services
City of Toronto: Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan
www.city.toronto.on.ca/involved/wpc/wwfdocuments/finalstage1_consultationreport.pdf
Cycling: Bike Plan
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/bikeplan.htm
Energy Efficiency
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/energy/index.htm
The Energy Efficiency Programs
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/energy/office.htm
Environmental Impact Assessment and Policy Development
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/eia/index.htm
Emissions Trading Study
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/eia/emissions_trading_study_overview.pdf
Toronto Bike Plan Implementation and Evaluation
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/bikeplan/chapter10.pdf
Water Billing Harmonization
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/water_bill/wbharm.htm

59

Water Efficiency Plan
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/plan.htm
Water…Toronto treats it with Care
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/water/annual_report.pdf
Water Works: Water and Sewer News, Spring 2002
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/water_bill/waterworks_spring2002.htm
Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan:
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Community Workshop
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/involved/wpc/wwfdocuments/csodraft.pdf
Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Web Site
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/involved/wpc/pro016.htm
Works and Emergency Services: About the sewers on your street…
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/sewers/aboutsew.htm
Other
Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Other Special Purpose Bodies
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/depts/abcs.htm
Biomass District Energy Information Package
http://www.newenergy.org/biomass_info.html
Development Charge and Education Development Charge
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/building/devlchgs.htm
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_415.pdf
Enwave: Innovative Energy Solutions
http://www.enwave.com/enwave/
Green Municipal Enabling Fund Summary of Feasibility Study Grants
http://www.fcm.ca/scep/support/Gmef/febfinal.pdf
Transit Toronto
http://www.transit.toronto.on.ca/
Questions on Deep Lake Cooling
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/involved/supply/qanda.htm

60

York Region
Brooks, Michael. Project Manager, Water for Tomorrow Program, York Region. 6 June
2002. Telephone interview.
Hertel, Sean. Corporate Communications Services, York Region. 6 June 2002. Telephone
interview.
Cansult Ltd and Marshall Macklin & Monaghan, prepared for the Region of York.
January 2002. York Region Transportation Master Plan – DRAFT FINAL REPORT.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/oepxe6pcjlml6c6nuw4h6geoojvkuyqqmr4izl
gzeqh6iggnvj5j5vybgskrsjp2vklitseykcmpbgkna6a2xdxqbg/TMP++Draft+Final+Report.pdf.
IBI Group, prepared for the Region of York. 2002. York Region Transit 5-Year Service
Plan (). http://www.yorkregiontransit.com/downloads/YR5yp_exec_con.pdf.
Nicholson, Robert. Fleet Supervisor, Capital Assets Management, Community Services,
York Region.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. 10-Year Construction Program.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/Construction+Inform
ation/10yearconstruction.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Electronic Equipment Recycling Pilot Project.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/Electronic+Equipmen
t+Recycling.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Greening of York Region Strategy.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/figqrjgcxqvawrofnhfcrro3wkeilcwrfhoozvtjx
nc3fe6iq3b77ebtp4t5iivh5likphbgk5qwuvxwl2wg3jy2dg/GreeningStrategy.pdf.
Regional Municipality of York. 2002. Long Term Water Project.
http://www.yorkwater.on.ca.
Regional Municipality of York. 2001. Municipal actions to improve air quality in York
Region (Media Backgrounder).
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Council/Media+Releases/2001/june+11,2001+York+Regio
n+representatives+.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Regional Lands Property Securement.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Planning+and+Development/Long+Range+and+S
trategic+Planning+Overview/LandSecurementStrategy.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. 2002. Regional Municipality of York Development
Charges Summary.
61

http://www.region.york.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eg6ttjfzc2p46mcky3sziawbrqq6hwwu3xq2v
xffdv5tfhxplljas5663h47gpec73kufyewzemqzqhytrmt726t7g/DC+pamplet+May+7+2002
.pdf.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Vacant Employment Land Inventory.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Planning+and+Development/Long+Range+and+S
trategic+Planning+Overview/VacantEmploymentLand.htm#3.
Regional Municipality of York. 2002. Vision 2026.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Planning+and+Development/Vision+2026/default
.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Water for Tomorrow.
http://www.waterfortomorrow.com/programs.html.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. What can be recycled in York Region?
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/Solid+Waste+Manag
ement+Programs/recycling.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. Yard Waste and Composting.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/Solid+Waste+Manag
ement+Programs/yardwaste.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. 2002. York Region 2002 Business Plan and Budget –
Finance.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/lqntpgfvta3gnqrohz7afei7ncntas6nigqlga2ha
bvcpp2zx4uzhi22blin2whlbz632co6twnqy3pzdh4fmbm5oe/Admin+Finance.pdf.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. York Regional Forest.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/Forestry/forest_forest
ry.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. No date. York Region Transportation Master Plan.
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Services/Transportation+and+Works/tmpoverview.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. 1997. York Region Water Master Plan – Executive
Summary. http://www.yorkwater.on.ca/NewFiles/ExecSmry.PDF.
Silverstein, Jay. Waste Diversion Coordinator, Transportation and Works, York Region.
3 June 2002. Telephone interview.
Veiga, Peter. Program Coordinator, Environmental Services, Community Services, York
Region. 28 May 2002. Telephone interview.
York Region Food Network. 2002. Community Gardens.
http://www.yrfn.ca/fwp_09.htm.

62

Town of Markham
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2001. 61 Innovative Projects Awarded to Improve
Municipal Infrastructure (News Release).
http://www.fcm.ca/english/communications/may25-e.htm.
Regional Municipality of York. 2001. Municipal actions to improve air quality in York
Region (Media Backgrounder).
http://www.region.york.on.ca/Council/Media+Releases/2001/june+11,2001+York+Regio
n+representatives+.htm.
Town of Markham. 2002. 2002 Budget.
Town of Markham. 2001. Design Excellence Awards.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/newscentre/awards/designexcellencea
wards2001.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Development Charges.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/finance/development/devrates.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Events.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/resources/celebrateenvironment.pdf.
Town of Markham. 2001. Heritage Conservation in the Town of Markham.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/heritage/default.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Lateral Sewer Extension Program.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/resources/lat_sewext.pdf.
Town of Markham. 2001. Markham Conservation Committee.
http://www.cchweb.com/MEA/mcc.htm#mandate.
Town of Markham. 2001. A Message to Markham’s Property Taxpayers.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/resources/messagetotaxpayers.pdf.
Town of Markham. 2001. Parks Department.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/towncentre/communityservices/envir
onmentalservices+/parks/overview.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Waste Management.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/towncentre/communityservices/envir
onmentalservices+/wastemanagement.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Waste: Pilot Projects and Programs.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/towncentre/communityservices/
environmentalservices+/wastemanagement/programs.htm#3 BAG LIMIT.
63

Town of Markham. 2001. Waste: Recycling Program.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/towncentre/communityservices/envir
onmentalservices+/wastemanagement/recycledepots.htm.
Town of Markham. 2001. Waterworks – Capital Projects.
http://www.city.markham.on.ca/markham/channels/towncentre/communityservices/street
+services/waterworks/projects.htm.

64

65