1. rural
summit – final report sommet rural – rapport final |
That Council receive this report for information.
Recommandation du comité
Que le Conseil municipal reçoivent ce rapport à titre
d’information.
1.
City Manager’s report dated 16
February 2006 (ACS2006-OCM-CMR-0004).
Report
to/Rapport au :
Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des
questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
16 February 2006 / le 16 février 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick,
City Manager/Directeur des services
municipaux
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Moira Winch, Rural Summit Project Manager /
Gestionnaire de project, Sommet rural
City Manager's Office / Bureau du directeur
municipal
(613) 580-2424 x13360, moira.winch@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires
rurales et le Conseil municipal reçoivent ce rapport à titre d'information.
On January 12, 2005, in his State of the City speech, the Mayor announced the formation of a Rural Summit “that will examine how our city can be more responsive to the needs of our rural neighbours”.
Planning for the Summit began in April and culminated in a two-day event on November 15 and November 19. The Summit’s overall theme was “Ottawa--Proud to be Rural”.
Day One, “ The Rural-Urban Relationship”, was attended by over 400 people. Maria Van Bommel, Parliamentary Assistant to the Provincial Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Wayne Easter, Parliamentary Secretary to the Federal Minister of Agriculture provided perspectives from their respective Ministries.
Dr. David Freshwater, Program Manager from the University of Kentucky - Rural Studies, followed as the keynote speaker. In the afternoon, a panel of experts provided additional thoughts on the rural-urban condition bringing their own experiences to the dialogue. Many participants took the opportunity to query the presenters.
Day Two, “Strengthening Public Satisfaction in Rural Areas”, allowed participants to attend two workshops dealing with issues that were of primary interest to them. They reviewed the options for solutions identified by the sub-committees who had worked on the six areas of concentration: Governance; Access, communication and consultation; Agriculture; Rural Business; Policy; and Services, and prioritized the solutions that they felt were most worthwhile.
The Rural Summit Task Force, which included ten community representatives and all rural Councillors, was announced by the Mayor at the end of Day Two. Knowing that budget deliberations by City Council would be taking place very soon, they began their work immediately and had a comprehensive budget report ready for review by the Budget Committee. Council endorsed the Rural Summit Task Force Budget Report with an additional allocation of $1,895,000. Work is currently underway on the priority solutions identified in the report.
A comprehensive review of both days of the Summit is provided in this report. Appendices indicate clearly that most participants felt the opportunity to dialogue on rural issues provided to them was invaluable.
Le 12
janvier 2005, lors de son discours annuel sur l’État de la Ville, le maire a
annoncé la création d’un Sommet rural « qui permettra d’examiner comment
notre Ville peut répondre plus adéquatement aux besoins de la communauté
rurale ».
La
planification entourant le Sommet a débuté en avril et s’est terminée par un
événement de deux jours les 15 et 19 novembre. Le thème général du Sommet était
« Ottawa—Fier d’être rural ».
La
première journée, plus de 400 personnes ont assisté à la « Relation entre
les secteurs rural et urbain ».
Maria Van Bommel, adjointe parlementaire à la ministre provinciale de
l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, et Wayne Easter, secrétaire
parlementaire du ministre fédéral de l’Agriculture ont offert des perspectives
nouvelles provenant de leurs ministères respectifs. Dr David Freshwater,
directeur de programme de l’Université du Kentucky – Études rurales a ensuite
pris la parole à titre de conférencier d’honneur.
En
après-midi, un comité d’experts a apporté des points de vue supplémentaires
quant à la situation rurale et urbaine et les membres ont témoigné de leurs
propres expériences au cours de la discussion. Plusieurs participants ont saisi
l’occasion de poser des questions aux présentateurs.
La
seconde journée, « Renforcer la satisfaction du public dans les quartiers
ruraux », permettait aux participants d’assister à deux ateliers portant
sur les principales problématiques qui les intéressaient.
Ils ont
examiné les options de solutions déterminées par les sous-comités ayant
travaillé sur les six principaux enjeux : Gouvernance; Accès,
communication et consultation; Agriculture; Entreprises en milieu rural;
Politiques; et Services, et ont priorisé les solutions qu’ils croyaient les
plus utiles.
Le Groupe
d’étude du Sommet rural, lequel incluait dix représentants communautaires et
tous les conseillers des quartiers ruraux, fut présenté par le maire à la fin
de la seconde journée. Sachant que les délibérations budgétaires du Conseil
municipal auraient lieu très prochainement, ils ont entrepris leur travail
immédiatement et ont préparé un rapport budgétaire global qu’ils ont remis au
Comité d’étude du budget pour révision. Le Conseil a approuvé le rapport
budgétaire du Groupe d’étude du Sommet rural en octroyant une allocation
supplémentaire de 1 895 000$. Le travail sur les solutions
prioritaires précisées dans le rapport est présentement en cours.
Un examen
global des deux journées du Sommet est fourni dans ce rapport. Les annexes démontrent clairement que la
plupart des participants jugent que l’occasion qui leur a été donnée de
discuter des préoccupations rurales a été inestimable.
In January 2005, Mayor Chiarelli announced that a Rural Summit would be held to promote greater understanding between the City's rural and urban citizens and to identify specific ways in which the City could improve how it delivers services to its rural constituents.
The Mayor noted that the Summit would "examine how our city can be more responsive to the needs of our rural neighbours", and that "we will roll up our sleeves and deal with rural concerns head on.
In June 2005, City Council approved the approach for Ottawa's Rural Summit, a two-day Summit to be held in late fall. The theme for the Summit was - "Ottawa--Proud to be Rural". The focus of Day One was "The Rural-Urban Relationship" which included presentations and panel discussions with knowledgeable presenters involved. Day Two used a workshop format and involved rural participants in priority setting/solution seeking sessions that related to "Strengthening Public Satisfaction in the Rural Areas.
The first phase of the Summit process was issue identification, which involved comprehensive consultations held from late May through early July. Over 300 people participated in 16 facilitated consultation sessions. In addition, feedback was received by email, in writing, by telephone and by direct contact with the Rural Summit Project Manager.
The consultation sessions were designed to elicit as much feedback as possible. Participants not only looked at the problem areas during these sessions, but also offered insight into potential solutions to the issues raised. Overall, the Rural Summit consultation can be summarized with three underlying messages. Rural citizens wanted the City to understand that one size does not fit all, that common sense must be applied to service delivery and policy issues, and that the new City needs to respect rural citizens more.
Most of the specific views, concerns and issues as provided by the participants could be grouped into five major categories:
1. Access, Communication and Consultation
2. Governance
3. Service Issues
4. Policy Issues
5. Agriculture
In addition, rural Councillors felt that rural business issues should be added to this list, and endorsed a motion at a meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
Six sub-committees were structured, one for each of the categories noted above, and were tasked with the responsibility for research, investigation and developing options for solutions that could be considered by participants on Day Two of the Summit. Over 65 rural citizens were involved in the sub-committees. These sub-committees met weekly over a period of seven weeks for two to three hours each week, in order to provide clear, well defined options for solutions for review by Day Two participants.
The Day One and Day Two Steering Committees determined the theme for each day and the overall theme of the Summit: "Ottawa - Proud to be Rural". They endorsed the agenda and suggested speakers and panel members for Day One. Day Two agreed upon a workshop format and utilized the services of the City's Facilitators Network to facilitate workshops in all of the six categories. Sessions in both English and French were offered.
Approximately 400 citizens registered to participate in Ottawa's first Rural Summit.
DAY ONE - "The Rural-Urban Relationship"
Day One was held at the Nepean Sportsplex with approximately 400 people in attendance. The morning speakers, Wayne Easter, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Maria Van Bommel, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ontario brought interesting perspectives on the urban-rural condition and responded to questions from the floor (See appendix A).
Dr. David Freshwater, Program Manager from the University of Kentucky - Rural Studies Program, was the keynote speaker. Dr. Freshwater described urban and rural as the two solitudes, noting that most of the urban population has virtually no direct connection with the rural population, but simply sees "rural" while passing through an urban fringe.
Conversely, the rural population occasionally experience some aspects of urban life, but either have only a partial experience as they have been lifelong rural residents, or they have rejected the urban lifestyle and become new rural immigrants. They each see the other largely through images. He expressed that rural people see amalgamation as a loss of community and a loss of direct control of local government, while urban citizens note that it allows for greater control of development.
He noted that changes must be made in how cities govern when part of their geography is largely rural. Dr. Freshwater's presentation generated substantial discussion. (Questions & Answers Appendix B).
In the afternoon, a panel of experts discussed their perspectives of the rural-urban relationship, bringing their own expertise and experience to the dialogue. Involved were, Donna Mitchell, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Rural Secretariat; Charles Lalonde, Provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Bert Molenaar, a Cumberland dairy farmer; Chris Henderson, CEO of the Delphi Group and co-chair of The Ottawa Partnership (TOP), and Paul Reed, a senior social scientist from Statistics Canada. Again, interested participants asked leading questions and received responses from the panel members. (Questions & Answers Appendix C).
Many participants returned feedback sheets. Participants took the matter of providing responses seriously and many excellent suggestions were received. A summary of the information is attached (See Day One Feedback - Appendix D (a).
Participants at each table were also asked to discuss and then respond in writing to the following question: What are the top three things the City needs to take action on to increase satisfaction for rural citizens? Thirty tables responded. Participants' comments are incorporated and provided as Appendix D (b).
DAY TWO - Strengthening Public Satisfaction in Rural Areas
Day Two was held at Sir Robert Borden High School. This location was chosen to allow ample space for break-out groups to accommodate the workshop format. Participants had been asked to indicate at registration their first and second choices for workshops. Each workshop had twelve or less participants. Each participant attended two workshops. Small group facilitation techniques were used; facilitators and scribes were assigned to each working group to assist the process. This encouraged open discussion of the options for solutions that had been designed by the six sub-committees. (Written material had been sent to each participant, to enable review of the content prior to attendance on Day Two.) Staff Leads and Sub-Committee members were assigned the task of "content expert" at the workshops. They provided clarification of the options for solutions when needed. Each workshop allowed one hour and forty-five minutes for complete review and discussion of all material. Approximately 300 citizens participated in the workshops.
Participants chose their priority solutions in each workshop. This information was compiled and presented at the end of Day Two to all participants. Each sub-committee chair (or designate) took responsibility for presenting the information. Highlights of Day Two are attached as (Appendix E).
Mayor Chiarelli, City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick, and Deputy City Manager Ned Lathrop all took the opportunity to speak to participants to thank them for their participation and assure them that the City was listening and change would occur. They also indicated that issues that had not received a priority rating would not be disregarded.
These, along with others received on Day Two and indicated as "Parking Lot Issues" (Appendix F), would receive further review by staff, and where possible, would be implemented. It should be noted that many "Parking Lot Issues" had been identified during the initial consultation sessions and were addressed during the Day Two workshop sessions.
Mayor Chiarelli named the ten community Rural Summit Task Force members and noted that they would be ably supported by the staff leads who had been involved in the sub-committees, and would have the added advantage of having all rural councillors as part of the Task Force. This group met immediately following the Summit to begin to set their Agenda.
Again, participants took the responsibility of responding to questions on the feedback sheets seriously and provided confirmation that Ottawa's Rural Summit was a good venue to review and consider solutions to the many issues raised earlier in the year during the consultation process. They also provided useful suggestions that will assist the City should another Rural Summit be considered.
RURAL SUMMIT TASK FORCE
Community Members:
Glynn Chancey, Cumberland Ward
Bob McKinley, Rural Council of OC, CHAIR
Richard Fraser, Goulbourn Ward
Terry Otto, Osgoode Ward
Nick Tilgner, Goulbourn Ward
Rich McDonald, Rideau Ward
Shirley Dolan, West Carleton Ward
Dave Baxter, West Carleton Ward
Susan Flemming, Cumberland Ward
Anne Robinson, Rideau Ward
All rural Councillors are also members of the Task Force and it is supported by senior staff who worked closely with rural people on the sub-committees prior to the Summit. It is also supported by the Rural Summit Project Manager and members of the City Manager's staff.
The mandate of the Rural Summit Task Force is to review and refine the solutions chosen by participants on Day Two, set priorities, and work with staff to put in place practical and realistic implementation strategies. They considered, short, (immediate to April 30, 2006) medium, (during 2006), and long-term (after 2006) solutions, and provided action plans to support their recommendations.
The Task Force began its work immediately following the Summit. Knowing that some of the identified priorities required budget consideration by Council, the Chair convened six meetings in the course of three weeks to put together a report for consideration by Budget Committee which would reflect the priority solutions indicated by Day Two participants. Staff leads provided estimated costing.
These priorities were grouped in accordance with the six categories initially identified. Budget Committee and Council endorsed approval of $1.5 million in accordance with the budget proposal presented by the Task Force. After much debate, Council added an additional amount of $395,000 to be allocated to rural road maintenance. It should be noted that the Budget Proposal was provided to all members of Council and can be referenced to identify the Rural Summit Task Force priorities and costing.
The highest priorities identified were that the City should:
structure an enhanced Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) which would have increased authority to respond to the needs of rural citizens directly;
reinstate the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee;
introduce a Rural Affairs Office with appropriate staffing to meet the needs of ARAC, the agricultural community, the rural business community and rural residents, that reports to the City Manager;
develop training programs that improve communication and consultation with rural residents, and increase staffs' ability to respond effectively to enquiries from rural citizens;
increase broadband access for rural residents and businesses;
and, increase rural road and ditch maintenance.
Work is currently underway on all of these initiatives.
A draft report on the governance changes proposed will come before ARAC in February, with a final report to ARAC in March and then to Council for consideration. If endorsed by Council, the enhanced ARAC will be in place for the April meeting.
A Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee will be before ARAC in March with a new Advisory Committee in place prior to the May meeting. Not only will this committee support the work of ARAC, but members will also liaise with community groups, businesses and individuals and will provide information and advice from the rural community to ARAC.
The organizational structure for the new Rural Affairs office is now being considered and a job description for the Rural Affairs Officer is being put in place. Hiring for this position is expected to take place in May of this year.
The Task Force agreed with the Public Works & Services staff recommendation of using $270,000 of the extra funds allocated to undertake localized repairs to the roadway structure to improve the overall life cycle condition of gravel roads. As well, $125,000 will be used for surface enhancements. Staff are working closely with rural ward councillors to determine the best locations for this treatment.
One of the major priorities raised by rural residents during the Summit was making sure that City staff have the training they need to respond directly to inquiries that are rural specific. Callers noted that often questions on ditch improvement, drainage, spreading of biosolids, rural signage, etc. often had to be referred to several different staff members before an accurate response was provided.
This training program has been developed. It will train staff on how to "take ownership" of a call and direct it to the appropriate expert by introducing the issue before handing over the call. A new training workbook identifies a wide variety of areas that are at the root of many calls from rural citizens. This course is being taught to Client Service Centre staff and Call Centre staff this month.
Work is also underway to re-profile a number of positions as rural experts who can take an inquiry/case to the point of resolution. These employees will become experts to whom calls are directed when there is a requirement for specific and more detailed rural expertise and knowledge. In this instance, the rural expert would remain involved until final resolution of the issue has been achieved. This more complex training initiative will take place in May/June of this year.
In 2003, City Council approved the Broadband Plan, as part of the Growth Management Strategy. Part of the plan was to provide access to high-speed internet for the rural community, starting with an aggressive aggregation policy. By the end of 2005, about 40% of rural customers had access to broadband internet service. This includes most of the areas of population concentrated in villages and communities where service providers could provide the necessary infrastructure. Broadband continues to be expanded in Ottawa's rural areas, however, since most of those still not receiving broadband service are located in more remote areas, new towers and other infrastructure will be required to achieve 100% coverage. A tower inventory, a proposed policy and protocol for streamlining the tower application process and a master plan for moving forward once this information is available are all underway. It is expected that 100% coverage can be in place by the end of 2007. The City of Ottawa is a leader across Canada is providing broadband access to rural residents and businesses.
To date, the Rural Summit Task Force has reviewed all priority solutions identified by Day Two participants relating to five of the six categories and has provided direction to move forward on many solutions identified. Only Policy Issues still require review. This will be undertaken in February with a report to a future ARAC meeting. A final report from the Rural Summit Task Force will be available for Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee in June 2006.
The Rural Summit Project Manager and City staff are currently involved in moving forward those items that were endorsed during the budget process. As well, they are identifying listed items that can be implemented immediately. Reports will be brought forward for Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee information/approval on a regular basis.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
A major focus of Ottawa's Rural Summit was to listen closely to rural citizens and to identify and address the issues and concerns they raised. The Summit was well attended by rural citizens who took advantage of the opportunity to provide their ideas on solutions to the priority issues they raised. Rural participants expressed their commitment to continue to work co-operatively with the City to resolve rural issues. Task Force Members are rural citizens who have been involved on Summit sub-committees and they continue to provide expertise and a rural point of view as they review priorities and provide direction.
Ottawa's Rural Summit provided many opportunities on both days for consultation with participants. Open mic sessions on Day One encouraged citizens to query speakers on their presentations and on other general issues that they felt the presenter could provide an opinion. Presenters willingly provided responses. On Day Two, the format allowed open dialogue in the workshop sessions. Rural content experts, who represented the rural communities and who had been involved in sub-committees leading up to the Summit, provided clarification on options for solutions as required. An opportunity for participants to identify new issues as "parking lot items" at each of the workshops was provided. These, as well as any comments from participants, were compiled and form an appendix to this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Estimated costs to sponsor the Rural Summit were $150,000. This one-time contribution from the City-Wide Reserve was approved by City Council at its meeting on June 22, 2005. Financial and "in kind" contributions from sponsors was valued at approximately $10,000.
The Rural Summit Task Force presented a budget to City Council in the amount of $1.5 million. Those items indicated as the highest priorities were included. Council approved the $1.5 million and added an additional amount of $395,000 for improvement to rural roads.
City staff volunteers made up the bulk of the support group, and provided invaluable service to the Summit.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendix A - Questions/Responses - Maria Van Bommel, Wayne Easter
Appendix B - Questions/Responses - Dr. David Freshwater
Appendix C - Questions/Responses - Panel Presenters
Appendix D a) - Day One Feedback Sheets
Appendix D b) - Roundtable Comment Sheets
Appendix E - Highlights from Day Two Workshops
Appendix F - Parking Lot Issues
Appendix G – Results of Evaluation Forms
DISPOSITION
The Rural Summit Project Manager/Interim Rural Affairs Officer and the various staff leads who worked with Summit Committees and the Task Force are currently moving forward those items specifically identified in the Rural Summit Task Force Budget Report, and other items as indicated by Day Two participants. As reports are ready they will come forward for Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee endorsement.
Ottawa’s Rural
Summit
Day One - “The
Urban-Rural Relationship”
Guest Speakers:
Ø Maria Van Bommel, MPP and Parliamentary Assistant to the Provincial Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ø Wayne Easter, Parliamentary Secretary to the Federal Minister of Agriculture
Question 1: - Randy Hillier, President, Lanark Landowner’s Association
Kent Kirkpatrick, in his address about issues that divide and create the rural urban divide, noted that differentiating practices are the cause. Mr. Hillier referenced an action plan document he has which was signed by the Canadian Government in Vancouver. It notes that land, because of its unique nature, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset. This contributes to social injustice. In 1982, the government omitted the right to own property in the county; under attack included farmers markets and sawmills. In Mayor Charelli’s address he said: “what we need is trust”. How do we trust politicians thirsting after our water and land borders? A practice in law is a freedom to enjoy use of our land and own our property.
Wayne Easter – we have a policy in the farmer’s union and one statement/purpose is that land is to be considered borrowed from our children. I do trust the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the world and I don’t believe politicians want to do what you suggest they may do in terms of theft of your land. I work with these people in all parties and if we were to go down the road that you suggest or your point suggests, I don’t think we would deal with the reality of the rural urban divide.
Maria Van Bommel – you talk about trust with politicians and being newly elected in 2003, one thing I find at Queen’s Park is that we are all trying to do well for our constituents. Trust goes back to our voters when they vote and we trust the constituents to let us know and trust that I will take that information and make it work for them. Bottom line is that I go home to a farmer and children and I am responsible to them and my neighbours and trust goes both ways. I need them to trust me.
Randy Hillier – trust is important, but when the federal government has a document saying landowners do not own their property… protect our property and there will be no more issues.
Question 2: -
Bob McKinley, Past President, Rural Landowner’s Association
The City of Ottawa has been engaged for three years in litigation involving farming communities to regulate farming practices. The Water Nutrient Management legislation provides protection and the City feels in some circumstances it does not. Is it the position of the Ministry of Agriculture that nutrient management does provide protection to regulate farming products, economically in Ontario?
Maria Van Bommel – is it comprehensive enough to protect all communities? It is based on science and it too is an evolving issue and we didn’t know 20 years ago what we know today. I think it is comprehensive, we have a province-wide Nutrient Management Act for consistency across the board and the by-laws made are based on science as well. We want to avoid farmer-friendly municipalities and ensure consistency across the board.
Wayne Easter – I agree with what Maria has said, I believe we have the safest food supply in the world and environmental farm plans have to be in place based on sound science. Policy is at the national and provincial levels. Sometimes more difficult for politicians - it is based on emotion rather than on reality. If Canadian farms are going to compete in the world then you can’t have Canadian farmers restricted from using a product and Americans next door not restricted. If we can’t use it, then the product used to produce it next door shouldn’t be allowed either. We need a level playing field.
Question 3: – yellow question card from Peter Zorzella
When Manotick was amalgamated into Ottawa by the provincial government, we lost access to provincial grant money (OSTAR at the time) for infrastructure such as sewage. Residents of Manotick are faced with an average $60K per home to pay for central servicing for safe water in the “user pay” amalgamated Ottawa. Does the McGuinty Government have any initiatives that can help? Does COMRIF apply to us even though we are now part of the city? Please have someone contact us if COMRIF may apply to our situation.
Maria Van Bommel – it is a real issue when talking about infrastructure (old sewer systems) but in rural areas we are replacing septics with sewers. The COMRIF Program is currently seeking applications from municipalities; geared to small and rural communities. Things such as water, sewer, roads and bridges are part of the program.
Clarification on Question 3: Manotick lost its rural status when the City amalgamated and we feel we’ve been lost in the shuffle. With a new Ottawa we lost our rural area – can we not qualify as a “rural Ottawa” and still be eligible to qualify for funding?
Maria Van Bommel asked that she be approached after the session for follow-up.
Moira Winch (on behalf of Kent Kirkpatrick) noted that the City is currently petitioning the Province for rural community funding.
Question 4: – On
behalf of Richard Fraser
The Province has implemented the Nutrient Management Act and it supersedes any rules for hog farmers – can you protect our rightful farmland under the same rules?
Maria Van Bommel – the whole point is to have consistency across the province and the intent is to ensure all municipalities adhere to the Nutrient Management Act.
Question 5: – Unnamed
and Unknown Gentleman
A question on municipal taxes. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a municipal income tax? Each time increases happen to municipal taxes, renters are not taxed and see municipal taxes as not impacting them. Is there any way to have a greater number involved when we talk about property taxes?
Wayne Easter – I am not qualified to answer on the notion of municipal income taxes. As I understand it, it is the federal and provincial governments’ jurisdiction. The idea would need to be researched.
Question 6: – yellow question card
Ontario farmers are facing one of the most serious financial crises in recent memory. Massive US subsidies continue to drive down grain and oil seed prices to levels far below the cost of production. Recent numbers show that over the last ten years, our US counterparts have received an average of $46,000 per year. Obviously the US government realizes the value of maintaining a healthy agricultural economy. Our grain producer organizations here in Ontario recently presented a very well thought out proposal for a Risk Management Program. The response from both levels of government to date has been negative. Just a few miles from here, Quebec farmers have a program which guarantees them cost of production plus. As Ontario taxpayers, we even get to help pay for their program. Things have become so desperate that the Ontario Corn Producer had no choice but to take action to seek countervail on US corn. Mr. Goodale’s package of tax cuts and other proposed spending make no mention of any direct assistance for agriculture.
Do we have to sink to the level where as a nation we cannot feed ourselves before our governments realize the values of investing in agriculture?
Wayne Easter – that is a fair question. The fact of the matter is that the crises at the farm gate are global. US farm income was parallel to Canada and the returns and government pricing have been on the rise compared to Canada. They pick up the process at the floor and government takes this issue seriously. Minister Mitchell asked me to do farm income hearings last year to try to find the problems with the Program and has put money out to the farm community. Payments have never been higher but are not addressing bottom line. We are trying to place everyone on a more level playing field. It is recognized as a problem and we are continuing to work with the government.
Maria Van Bommel – We are continuing to work with the federal and provincial levels at the table to come to some resolution on this issue. A lot is beyond the control of the farmers. It is not because of what farmers are doing and we need to deal with it as governments. Proposed programs are long-term solutions and we need to get to the bottom of it to find out what we need to resolve to a point where the farmers are carrying home what they have. We want to do it in our own right.
Wayne Easter – In the US they farm the mailbox and Canada abides by the WTO rules and it is interesting that the two worst abusers are the US and the EU; not living up to the obligations they said they would and Minister Mitchell is trying to take them on.
APPENDIX B
Rural Summit
Day One – “The
Urban-Rural Relationship”
Guest Speakers:
Ø Dr. David Freshwater, Rural Studies Program, Department of Agriculture Economics, University of Kentucky
Comment 1: - Randy Hillier, President, Lanark Landowner’s Association
It sounds like fields and pastures are greener in Kentucky. You mentioned in Lexington there were three rural councillors and one at large. That is a far cry from what we have here and that is, indeed, one of the problems - effective representation. We have lost our accountable politicians and have traded them for unaccountable bureaucrats. Lexington realizes you can’t take things away from people; you buy it if you want it and that is what the rural revolution is all about – buy it and don’t take it away.
Question 2: –
Jack McLaren, President, Carleton Landowner’s Association
This is all an intermediate step. To have effective rural representation, the ultimate solution is the creation of Carleton County. Dissatisfaction continues after four years. It is not about taxes and services; rural people need control over their own destiny. That is why there has been a rolling referendum to ask people to support the formation of Carleton County. We have 90% “yes” in West Carleton, 94% in Goulbourn and, Rideau is expected to be better or as good as Goulbourn. If it could happen (to create Carleton County) I am sure the majority of rural people in Ottawa would be happy with it – what is wrong with that?
Dr. Freshwater – at one level, there is nothing wrong with that and at another level, it just creates different problems. It may be more attractable, but I am not sure. Niagara was not working before it was created and there was a demand for an Ottawa merger someplace (can’t imagine someone just said it would merge overnight), there hasn’t been in the rural minds effective representation and that begs the question that with five rural wards, have the councillors been unlistened to or ineffective councillors? How much is the responsibility of the people you send to represent you? In rural areas being elected was often a ceremonial function; talked about at the community rinks and church meetings. You do need people to be your advocate in this larger government and you need to ensure they do what you want them to or you unelect them.
Going back to your notion of Carleton Country, history in the US is that it is damned hard to undo them because the government is usually unwilling to undo it. Perhaps Carleton County – yes. You need to be engaged and maybe it would be better to try to find a more effective way to work within the system and pursue both caps.
Question 3: – Martin
Vervoort, Chair Committee of Adjustment
I live on a gravel road near Ashton and work in a high rise in Ottawa. Urban and rural do have something in common; they dislike the government. What has happened to Niagara region, how do you sustain the rural area and economy? It is not just farmers. There are small local businesses and economies and if you freeze development you just take it away. We need to sustain the farming economy and local businesses.
Dr. Freshwater – that’s a hard question. Development in rural areas has to be more than becoming a large subdivision. There was once a bedroom community and fruit farmers sold out and subdivisions went in its place. I think there has to be some intelligent government participation to limit and provide development taking place in a way more than just profit motivated. Usually means a subdivision where you could create a development that might cost more but will suit the character of the rural community and will preserve the rural community. Try to build that community - the people who understand that best are the people who live there. People in planning and zoning are not in those rural areas. The government has to be more sensitive to what is happening in those areas. There is no easy answer and most places don’t have it right but there are a few that have - look at them.
Question 4: – yellow question card
The conclusion of your presentation is that the major issue between urban and rural is development. What we, in Ottawa, are hearing is a clash of urban-rural values, not primarily development. What advice could you offer?
Dr. Freshwater – the values are how we see the places in which we live and don’t live. The rural-urban fringe is about development. How you have economic growth in rural areas is really about development. It may be about something else, but the pesticide law at the end of the day, is how you carry out your lifestyle in a community. It is almost always got money buried in it and whose money are we using to accomplish it? Greenspace is unfair because someone is getting what he or she wants and someone has to pay whether you encourage or restrict development.
Comment 5: – Bob Bloomfield, Member, West Carleton Rural Association
There have been three speakers today - each commenting about the problems in rural and urban development. I have never come across a problem between the rural and urban resident. I deal with a great number of people and they are sympathetic to problems imposed on us. Taking away my property rights and messing with my services - these things create issues. The urban have their own problems with possible exceptions; greenspace groups looking for action to take away more of our property rights.
There is a 20-councillor urban vote compared to three within the rural areas. The urban folks don’t take much interest in the rural issues. Rural are outvoted on every issue we come across.
APPENDIX C
Rural Summit
*not all questions received an answer due to time constraints
Panel:
Ø Chaired by: Bill Tupper, former Rideau Township Mayor & MP
Ø Donna Mitchell, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Ø Charles Lalonde, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ø Bert Molenaar, Cumberland Dairy Farmer
Ø Chris Henderson, CEO, The Delphi Group
Ø Paul Reed, Senior Social Scientist, Statistics Canada
Comment 1: - Bruce Webster, Richmond resident
Speaking about trust and credibility – if you have change in your pocket in trust and if people trust you, the change stays in your pocket and builds and as you lose the change you lose trust. Put change back into our pocket by building more credibility.
Charles Lalonde – the City has a petition before the Province to allow the City to have more power to tax. The City has a problem with by-laws right now, no definition as other class. Is the Province prepared to address the need for different by-laws for different areas? Unfortunately, I am not a municipal expert with what is permissible under the municipality in terms of dealing with all agricultural issues. It may be a short-term need to give exemption to by-law, i.e. pesticide. Very few people in the urban area realize that you must take a course to apply pesticides. I certainly understand the need for an agricultural community to be under a different by-law given the structure now.
Kent Kirkpatrick referenced Bruce Webster’s question, noting that the City asked the Province to look at about forty issues and they have agreed to look at two issues; the railway act for light rail and legislative authority to regulate their by-law to allow municipalities to regulate differently by place vs. function. This would enable a municipality to regulate differently in rural area vs. by function, which is what we have now.
Question 2: - Marilyn
Black, Goulbourn resident
Are you interested in protecting the farmer or suggesting improving agricultural business? Then open some sawmills and slaughterhouses. Understand the rural fact that we make a living off the land. You say the Nutrient Management Plan is helping our waterways.
There are huge cities producing waste and not being mentioned. Only seem to look at the farmer as root of the problem. Is there a study connecting the farm runoff to water quality; is the farmer the reason our water isn’t what it should be?
Charles Lalonde – you’ve raised a number of issues. Over the years, we have seen beach closures and cottagers point the fingers to agriculture community and wastewater treatment plants. The nutrients loads need to be looked at on different watersheds. Need to look at a number of stakeholders; farmers, cottagers, governments – look at what the sources are to integrate an approach to address an issue. Dealing with agriculture alone will not work; the Nutrient Management Act takes a huge step forward to address nutrients on the land.
Addressed to Donna Mitchell – incorporate into local governance/government.
Donna Mitchell – information for us is key. Governments are holders of information and when the Secretariat started there was very little aggregate information. We have done some research ourselves on our rural website and have done some research around breaking down the Stats Canada census information and have begun to disseminate that - have published a Rural and Small Towns bulletin. We are working with Stats Canada and recently looked at manufacturing in small towns. We are looking at taking Census data and making it meaningful, trying to manipulate the data to allow us to disseminate it. Socio economic culture for sustainability for small rural communities - there must be an open system to allow others to collect data and use their data on top of ours so as not to waste anything. This will prepare cities and communities to continue to grow that body of knowledge. We work with others to contribute to a body of information, a framework to build knowledge to have a broader understanding of rural Canada. We hope to inform and make people aware of how to deal with policy and programs from our Ministry.
Comment 4: – Mr.
Eastman, Osgoode dairy farmer
In 2003 there were some 300-400 sewage/manure spills. There were two charges laid.
Charles Lalonde – you raise an excellent point when you talk about farm and manure spills – the ugly file behind the Nutrient Management Act. Manure spills have happened and some spills are in the middle of the night and middle of winter. We have had a bad history in that regard. Since the Nutrient Management Act in 2002, our record has improved and this year it has been quiet with respect to manure spills. In terms of enforcement, the Ministry did lay charges and I don’t have all the details and in one case the producer had a nutrient management plan and a contingency plan. Hopefully they have the information required to support their case.
Question 5: – yellow
question card
You talked about your small share of the cost of a bag of corn flakes (the return you get) why are there not more cooperatives to share?
Bert Molenaar – probably because it would take a great deal of producers to implement the controlled costs of what a processor gets the corn for. If you control and provide the producers with a decent living there needs to be control in place.
Question 6: – Bob
Bloomfield, Member, West Carleton Rural Association
If you would like to know what the government could do to help, they could give us property rights vs. governing us by the constitution. There is a difference between rural and urban property values. In the rural area the principle governing body we need protection from is the Province. They restrict what you can do on your own property. We need constitutional support for our property rights despite the Province.
Donna Mitchell – I am not aware of a move at this point to reopen the constitution. It is a difficult area when talking about jurisdictions. Rural Canada is trying to work with provincial counterparts responsible for rural development; knowing development and agriculture are different. By working with provincial level people we hope to advance our mutual interest in rural Canada. We value perspective on land rights. There may be other ways to alleviate or mitigate problems that don’t go as far as constitutional.
Question 7: – Mr.
Walker, Goulbourn resident
Designation of property as wetlands. Numerous changes, provincial responsibility; understand doing some review of wetlands, what is previous planning and consultation process for landowners?
Charles Lalonde – the assessment of provincial wetlands comes under the Ministry of Natural Resources. They had an assessment of wetlands across the province and through provincial policy statement municipalities must include these areas in their plans. I am not aware of plans for review of the wetlands policy but would be happy to get an answer for you from the MNR.
Question 8: – yellow
question card
Longer term – transportation costs rising. Preserve farm land ….
Bert Molenaar – need to move to land where it is marginal then buy it and put houses there and preserve our farmland. Need to be careful where we are building and what we are doing.
Charles Lalonde – under the current provincial policy statement cropland has been identified principally in Niagara area and Essex County. It is an activity taking place over the next couple of years as plans are brought up to date. Through the planning process, the Province recognizes that cities need to grow and they identify water supply and sewage capacity for future growth. In Niagara Escarpment area agricultural land has been designated for agriculture only but not here in Ottawa. As municipalities and cities plan for source water protection there will be local efforts to address the availability of water to sustain development for agriculture and urban usages.
Perhaps people need a little clarification on the pesticides by-law. Any pesticide by-law that applied to agriculture would probably not stand up. That initiative has to address cosmetic use on lawns. My concern is about water. There are no riparian rights for underground water. At the March Rural Landowners Association meeting last Wednesday, people were saying that their water well went dry. I’m glad to see the focus is on agriculture today. What is being done to improve, protect and assess to ensure we have the water we need to water our farms and for people to drink? When we think about landowners’ rights we live in an inter-related world.
Charles Lalonde – the Ministry of Environment has produced a publication “Well Aware” and it is available to the public health units, etc. as a guide on how to manage your own well and ensure it is not contaminated by surface water. Having an adequate supply of water depends on the depth of aquifer you are accessing. We are just starting to understand the complexity of the different aquifers and efforts that municipalities have to understand to manage their own aquifers. There is still a lot of science to explore in this area to understand the entire impact. There is a problem with wells going dry when there is development in the area.
Another gentleman from the panel - the example is a much bigger issue and that is the way in which individual decisions can be accumulative (more than a landowner wanting to clear some forest). The issue of pesticides are in the paper and it is shocking. Individuals each make their own decisions but the collective public good affect more than one person.
Question 10: – Nick
Zoker, Forestry Association
One issue recently was a by-law for street and market vendors.
Chris Henderson - pleased to see we’re looking at rural business. In Bill C-25 under By-law Section 5, the concept of “one size fits all” and “one fee fits all” is defined in the City by-law. Be clear to establish trust in the City of Ottawa - is that part of Monday? No, but another solution. TOP looks at the size of the pie but what about business condition? The Business Advisory Committee meets monthly and interacts with City staff regarding changes and solutions to put you in touch.
Question 11: – yellow question card addressed to Bert Molenaar
Agricultural panel work and who to report to?
Bert Molenaar – group should have to be agricultural based, work within agriculture and publicly elected by peers or apply for position through the City and then report right to Council. Recommendations should carry a lot of weight.
Question 12: – Andy
Terauds, Vice President, Carp Farmer’s Market / Owner of Acorn Creek Farms
We are at the rural end of North America’s produce chain. Brokers know if they oversell these markets they will have a drop in price. When shipping into the smaller markets they ship elsewhere, i.e. Ottawa, which means Ottawa ends up with the poorest quality at the lowest price. The City has intentionally created this situation where producers have gone from several hundred to four or five in the Byward Market and four or five big enough to sell on the roadside. How can we continue to improve the horticulture industry in Ottawa?
Chris Henderson - suggest that at a future meeting of TOP we put on an item of rural agriculture use and try to figure it out together. Perhaps in Jan/Feb to see what we can do to go to federal and provincial governments together. Lets sit down and bang our heads together to think of solutions.
Charles Lalonde – from a provincial perspective the growing of produce needs to be an interest at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and we should participate in those discussions also.
Andy Terauds – probably attempts for farmers to provide value-added and sometimes overstep rules that the big guys have. Little ones can’t survive in the market.
A gentleman from the panel: top value of growing the economic pot bigger; decision as to what we can do as incentives for economic stability. Ministry of Economic Development is at our table, I think your community and others can develop this to place value-added, similar to another area, and provincial government is an ally in this in terms of economic development.
Question 13: - yellow question card
Are there municipalities that have passed pesticide by-laws ??????
*This question was not answered due to time constraints
Panel wrap up –
observations:
Donna Mitchell – wide variety of issues presented today demonstrates breadth of your concerns. What would a new body of Council do? Get the right combination and ensure presentation is key. Find a way to deal with the root cause not just the effects. Be fair and work for a solution going beyond your own context of the problem. Is it a development issue? Look at a broader context.
Chris Henderson – I’ll take away the economic development; slaughterhouses and sawmills; one size doesn’t fit all. Rural economy issues on TOP agenda value-added and nature of producers on agenda – Dec. 16th Forum.
Paul Reed – clear there are a mixture of concerns and separate strands; business development, regulatory issues, taxation and services need to be discussed separately. One size doesn’t fit all is a recurring mantra. Different approach, experiment with local decision-making giving more authority but local determination must be answer. Strive for as few sizes as possible and as few fits as possible.
Bert Molenaar – work together and come up with some ideas. Let people realize that we are Ottawa but with Ontario products and take care of what we are doing and where we are going.
Charles Lalonde – agricultural sector has taken strides forward to determine how we arrive at a government structure to meet needs and find some early wins. Look at new opportunities, i.e. recycling, is part of the solution. When producing energy for revenue, minimize scenarios for community - technology doesn’t need to be a limiting factor.
APPENDIX D (a)
RESULTS OF EVALUATION FORMS (161)
|
|
|
Rural |
Suburban |
Urban |
Observer/Guest/Other |
|
1) |
How would
you describe yourself? |
122 |
20 |
7 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all |
A little |
Substantially |
A great deal |
|
2a) |
If you described yourself as rural:
did Day One provide useful information that relates to concerns/
issues you are facing? |
12 |
50 |
34 |
20 |
|
2b) |
If you described yourself as
suburban/urban: did Day One of the
Rural Summit add to your understanding of rural issues/concerns? |
5 |
24 |
17 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Very Satisfied |
|
3) |
Did our presenters meet your expectations? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maria Van Bommel |
78 |
63 |
13 |
|
|
|
Wayne Easter |
16 |
56 |
86 |
|
|
|
David Freshwater |
17 |
62 |
78 |
|
|
|
Panel Presentation |
40 |
64 |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4) |
Please rate
the registration kit you received. |
8 |
96 |
53 |
|
|
5) |
Please rate
the Nepean Sportsplex as a choice of location. |
7 |
75 |
76 |
|
|
6) |
Please rate the organization of
Day One. |
16 |
80 |
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) |
Overall comments for Day One of
the Rural Summit |
||||
·
The
best part of the day was getting to know rural people with different challenges
and perspectives from mine. I learned
so much from the people at my table and from the open mic.
·
Little
time permitted for addressing questions from the attendees. These questions could be answered in writing
and posted on a website. Also, out of
400+ participants only a few were able to ask questions. This could be considered as limiting public
input.
·
Very
satisfied with the candidness of the presenters’ answers to the questions from
the public. There was a good mix of
discussion at the tables. The seating
format was very suitable and leads to an extension to balance differing
opinions.
·
Very
interesting speakers who added background and context to some of the issues
that create the rural divide.
·
An
excellent beginning, please keep them coming.
·
Too
much time spent on political jargon, need more opportunity to provide feedback.
·
There
was too much focus on “we love farmers” and not enough time on real problems.
·
I felt
Day One was wasted due to listening to, too many speakers. The rural issues
were brought forth by a rural committee and they should have been addressed
from the beginning.
·
Most
speakers were not really aware of the issues specific to Ottawa (rural and
urban representation concerns).
·
Some
good information, some wasted time!
·
There
was a lack of actual rural speakers.
·
Generally
well done! More time for speakers to
answer questions would be nice.
·
There
was a lot of discussion on agriculture; there are other issues to discuss also
for next time!
·
More
time for smaller groups to have open-ended discussions to get a key point more
quickly.
·
Well
done! Well worth my time.
·
It was
a very informative day, covering most issues.
·
A
great event - a good beginning!
·
People
at the microphone should be asked to state their question, rather than make a
political statement.
·
A very
well planned event!
·
The
panel should have focused more on the focus group issues collected prior to the
Summit.
·
More
time for questions for morning speakers and less for afternoon panel would have
been better.
·
Too
focused on agriculture. There is a need
for more expertise in other areas of discussion.
·
Informative
and well organized. Some of the
speakers were dynamic and effective while others were not.
·
More
emphasis could have been on the rural divide and how to bridge the gap.
·
It was
good that you went out of the Ottawa area for speakers. There was a good range of expertise. Many interesting points were made which
increased awareness of the different responsibilities of the rural and urban
population, in particular taxes.
·
Not
enough dialogue from the rural people.
The introductions were too long which overshadowed the issues that
needed to be discussed. Some questions
raised by participants were not answered.
·
More
time to listen to rural participant; they came to be “heard”.
·
Looking
for more content! Too many political generalities, and vague information
presented.
·
There
could have been more discussion about the oil cost crisis and the impact on
rural and agriculture areas.
·
Good
overall review of the challenges facing rural Ottawa.
·
Afternoon
was too long with panel talking. The
floor should have been opened for discussion.
·
Day
One offered awareness and a better understanding of the diverse issues.
·
More
discussion on de-amalgamation would have been informative. There could also have been more discussion
about the general rural dissatisfaction with the City for rural
participants. Did not address the
frustration of infrastructure, building codes, lack of knowledge of City staff.
·
City
Councillors present should have been identified.
·
Copies
of the speeches should be made available to the participants.
·
There
were many positive remarks regarding organization, content, and the overall
quality of the first day. There were also many comments about lack of time for
discussion and questions to speakers for Day One morning session. Numerous references were made about the
agricultural bent of the Summit rather than the general dissatisfaction of the
rural population and all the issues of the rural / urban divide.
8) |
What changes
would you suggest, if any, for a future Rural Summit? |
· More people in higher levels of government should take questions to ensure a buy-in and a commitment for change.
· Nametags would help with networking.
·
It would be helpful if
you provided a synopsis of each presentation long before Day One. An agenda
that outlined the issues for discussion would help really identify the rural
areas of interest rather than a presentation format.
· Giving the speakers specific issues to address would cut down on a broad base approach and lead to more progress on addressing issues.
· Limit time to answer questions to allow for more people to have a chance.
· More participant-led discussions on Day Two would help the rural people feel they were heard.
· Encourage participation from youth and elderly population so that a broader base of issues is discussed. It seemed to be narrowly defined by agriculture.
· Encourage brainstorming sessions that can be documented for City review. Good solutions can come from active discussion.
· Recognize Day Two is more orientated to input and will give more opportunity to rurals to be heard.
· Focus on resolution of issues rather than defining them.
· Limit the panellists to five minutes max.
· Have participants ask questions to panel rather than long-winded presentations. Question format.
· Plan a follow–up day to hear outcomes from the Summit. What are you doing to address issues presented?
· More specific experts to narrow down the issues would be helpful. A good example would be water expert or and energy expert.
· It would be nice to have a few rural leaders speak.
· Consider small half-day mini summit to continue the progress.
· Bring in people to talk about success stories and show how the rural / urban divide has been narrowed.
· Continue to provide information through articles in the newspaper, and TV to illustrate that the City is still working on the issues.
· Provide bus pickup for seniors or hold summit in a more rural location, as seniors are insecure about traveling in the city.
· Recurring comments were: limit panel time, more time for discussion on rural issues, agriculture is not the only rural issue – provide diverse and more issue-based experts, more time listening to rural issues, more discussion time in general.
9) |
Miscellaneous Comments |
|
|
|
|
Question 2a)
- Let’s talk about stewardship.
- Good morning – poor afternoon.
- Morning session produced nothing new.
- People at the microphone should be asked to ask or state their question – not make a “political statement” ie: “Pro-Carleton County” group.
- Maria Van Bommel should have stayed in TO!!!
Question 2b)
- Already aware.
- It was a great building block, but I could only decipher so much at a time. Speakers using terms that are very familiar to farmers or associated government folks, but not to the neophyte country dwellers ex. nutrient management. It’s about “waste” and not what I thought it was. Any chance to get copies of all the speaker’s notes?
- If the City planned for full human habitat, which includes the production of food locally and not only the provision of structures to sell there would be greater support for food grown elsewhere and appreciation of local farming communities.
Question 3)
- Bert Molenaar was the only one with solutions.
- Political platitudes, no suggestions, boring, rambling, not a new idea among them (Maria Van Bommel).
- Boring (Panel Presentation).
- Too political (Maria Van Bommel).
- Nice she came, but no substance (Maria Van Bommel).
- Did not address the 3 questions: generalities (Donna Mitchell).
- Too focussed on nutrient management (Charles Lalonde).
- Informative, practical & interesting (Bert Molenaar).
- Much too academic (Paul Reed).
- Talks about various studies but not a study that took place in Ottawa (Paul Reed).
- Patronizing and intellectually arrogant (Paul Reed).
- Very narrow focus re: economy in rural areas (Chris Henderson).
- More local representation needed…let’s hear from the people (Panel Presentation).
- Should have been made up of City staff and political representatives who were prepared to speak to participants’ concerns (Panel Presentation).
- Bert Molennar was great!
- What about PM panel?
- Waste of time (Maria Van Bommel).
- Chris Henderson and Bert Molenaar offered very good, practical suggestions and were excellent – the other three were less effective.
- Too long winded (Bill Tupper).
- What was he trying to say? (Paul Reed) We know why we came to the Summit - did he know we are not happy and we don’t need to hear 3 – 4 minutes of …
- Enjoyed hearing facts on income cost of running a family farm. Very pleased. Good speaker! Come again please! (Bert Molenaar)
- Bert Molenaar was awesome, too bad there were not more Berts.
- No comment (Christopher Henderson).
- Boring, not impressed for Rural Summit (Charles Lalonde).
- Not impressed, sounds not informed on why there was a need for a Summit. It has nothing to do with rural residents against urban citizens. Rurals need City Hall to listen (Donna Mitchell).
- The Minister herself should have attended.
- Not satisfied, except for Bert Molenaar whose presentation was clear and provided possible solutions (Panel Presentation).
- Bert was good, but the rest seemed to like to hear themselves talk. Get more “real people”.
- Absolutely terrible! Five people spoke for well over an hour and said nothing!!!!
- 1 out of 5 was pertinent (Panel Presentation).
- Did not answer questions.
- Answered 25%.
- Excellent agricultural body good ideas.
- Stated obvious but did not answer questions.
- Good - created awareness of TOP (Chris Henderson).
- Did not do his background research, thought amalgamation was our idea (David Freshwater).
- Felt we should have found someone from the Ottawa area who could have taken his place (David Freshwater).
- Much was irrelevant to the issue at hand (Panel Presentation).
- Ho-hum!
- Some better than others (Panel Presentation).
- Not satisfied – except for Chris Henderson – he was on target (Panel Presentation).
- Not at all! I would have preferred an assembly (package) of “success stories” exclusively Canadian.
Two examples: the City of Chatham-Kent or the City of Hamilton and, this is only Ontario!
Question 4)
- Not really necessary.
- Information not organized.
- “it’s in the mail” I would have liked to have had it before the Summit began.
- Very useful to get the material in advance.
Question 5)
- Facilities okay - should have been in a rural location.
- A great launch, easy access.
- Air quality poor – chlorine from pool.
- Satisfied, except washroom facilities.
- Cold room, the muffins were not put out at the same time as the coffee at 9:00 a.m.
- Not important.
- Air quality could have been better, but I know it’s hard to do.
- Note: with “rush” hour morning traffic it was a bit more difficult to get here, if the next meeting (weekday) could start at 10 a.m. SHARP so most could miss/avoid the congestion and complete by 3 p.m. it would be better for everyone… Day 2 could be a bit longer on a weekend.
- Catering carts removing lunch items were very noisy during the speakers panel – perhaps these items could be removed by the staff with trays – not the trolleys with “noisy” wheels! It should be noted that the lunch and beverages were very good!
- Um…. a bit urban, no?
Question: What are the top three things the
City needs to take action on to increase satisfaction for rural citizens? Quels sont les trois éléments
prioritaires auxquels la Ville doit donner suite afin d’augmenter la
satisfaction des citoyens ruraux?
Participants at Day Two of Ottawa’s Rural Summit highlighted many proposed solutions that are now before the Rural Summit Task Force. The Task Force will review and refine the solutions, set priorities and work with staff to put in place practical and realistic implementation strategies. They will consider, short, medium and long-term solutions and provide an action plan that supports their recommendations.
The Task Force must work quickly to provide direction to City Council with respect to the “Rural Agenda”, particularly for those items that require funding. Some of the solutions can be initiated and implemented internally by City staff without additional funding, some can be put in place quickly, by March 31, 2006, others can be achieved by year end 2006, and still others will require more detailed review before recommendations can be made. Those items requiring funding will be considered as part of the 2006 budget deliberations taking place in December.
Proposed solutions that garnered the highest approval by participants were:
1. Expand the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee’s current Terms of Reference to include additional responsibility with respect to various policy and/or service areas that directly or substantially affect the rural community.
2. Reinstate the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee.
3. Create the position of a Rural Affairs Officer, a new senior position that is part of the Executive Management Committee of the City.
4. Designate specific staff in existing departments to rural issues.
5. Consider a Borough Model of governance.
6. Consider Ward Councils to assist the Ward Councillor.
1. Staff should take ownership of calls from the public to the City’s contact centre.
2. When City staff are dealing with an issue that has an effect on rural residents and businesses, then staff should hold town hall meetings in rural areas.
3. Have dedicated and trained staff for rural areas to respond to rural issues.
4. Create a rural section on the City website (Rural Connections), which would contain all information relevant to the rural community.
5. All City staff should receive an orientation to the rural realities of the City of Ottawa.
6. Develop and implement communications plan for the rural areas that include input from the rural residents. The plan should have strategies that take info consideration rural realities and use methods geared towards reaching rural communities.
7. Establish specific, personal and direct contact and communications partnerships with rural community associations, landowners associations, farm organizations, rural service clubs, etc. and ensure elected officials are kept up to date.
8. Consider creating a “rural generalist” position based in Client Service Centres to act as a field agent.
9.
Develop guidelines for consulting with the public so
that consultation is effective and timely.
Consider
pre-consultation.
10. Establish meaningful forums for two-way communication by reinstating the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee and by consulting existing rural associations.
1. Reduce the costs associated with obtaining a building permit for pre-engineered farm buildings.
2. Re-establish means by which the farmer can access City staff located at the area works yard for maintenance work.
3. Develop and maintain a matrix/database of relevant regulations and identify contact names/numbers; relevant level of government/agency; applicability to agriculture; indication of City’s role/position – post the information on ottawa.ca, and have it available at Client Service Offices.
4. Amend the Official Plan and the zoning by-laws to remove the term “intensive livestock operation”. Replace it with the descriptor, adopted by the Province in the Nutrient Management Act, that refers to “agricultural operations” and includes different requirement depending on the size of agricultural operations.
5. Re-establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee with agricultural community representatives and Council representation to consider agricultural issues and make recommendations to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council.
6. Adopt the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment’s “Farm Visit (Bio-security) Protocol”. Until this is formally adopted by City Council, all staff should be required to advise the farmer of the visit in advance of the visit.
1. Enable toll-free calling across the city.
2. Ensure broadband access is available to all businesses and residents in the rural area.
3. Develop a scalable by-law licensing fee structure, with fees related to neighbouring rural communities.
4. Review and alter the basis of award of City contracts - for example, change the size of contract - to include small dollar purchases (less that $10K) give consideration to geographic distribution, and reconsider security and insurance requirements.
5. Support the expansion of farmers’ markets and the creation of Ottawa-grown brands to promote locally grown products.
6. Support rural business organizations in their activities to promote local businesses through funding, facilitation, project management and co-ordination.
7. Increase training and empowerment of front-line City staff.
8. The City should treat residents and businesses like clients/customers.
1. Ensure that the effectiveness of 9-1-1 services is not hindered by phone exchange boundaries within the city area.
2. Continue to monitor emergency services statistics in a manner that enables the identification of trends that may be different between the rural and urban areas
3. Clearly state and publicize the City’s commitment to the employment of volunteer fire fighters in the rural areas.
4. Allocate more of the City’s budget for road maintenance in rural areas.
5. Have routine inspections of Class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues.
6. Review prioritization criteria to ensure the criteria adequately take rural requirements into account.
7. Have a single point of entry for all public works services calls.
8. Have community associations act as focal points for dialogue between rural constituents and the City and to assist in resolving problems.
9. Facilitate the establishment of “voices” in the community. Review existing rural associations and determine what supports are needed and provide adequate level of staff to provide liaison, assistance, facilitation, etc.
10. Provide housing incentives for developers to provide housing alternatives for seniors in their community.
11. Provide support services to seniors in their homes. Coordinate between City and Province, to clarify ownership of this issue.
12. Explore a teen forum to understand needs/wants of teens with the objective to instill a sense of ownership.
13. Develop a full range of programs and activities for teens in rural areas that work within the rural context.
14. Tap into latent talent in the teen community to encourage leadership.
15. Review current meeting space availability, cost and policy on access for community-based groups with the objective to provide affordable space for associations to meet.
16. Review alternatives to provide affordable accommodation for singles.
17. The City needs to show it is listening to its rural constituents and acting on their input and recommendations where appropriate.
18. The rural area should continue to be serviced by individual septic and well systems.
1. The City should adopt a Policy Framework (provided by this sub-committee) to guide policy development and decision making to be used by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Council to ensure decisions reflect the needs and choices of rural citizens.
2. Petition the Province to review, justify, and amend as necessary, the wetland evaluation system and to provide an appeal process to the method of classification.
3. Develop a fair compensation policy for land that has been designated as wetland, but not acquired.
4. City should recognize and plan for the effects of City actions (e.g. devaluation, removal of rights, etc.) where appropriate by providing full and fair compensation for loss of value and lost rights under the same terms as expropriation.
5. The City should incorporate a clause into the Official Plan that states that the City cannot designate or rezone the use of private land without the consent of the landowner.
6. The Greenspace Master Plan should endeavour to keep rural impact at a minimum and compensation policies should be involved.
7. In consultation with the farming community and the rural settlement areas, define a “normal farm practice” – what it means and what it includes – as it relates to the Right to Farm legislation, and ensure that the definition used by various levels of government is appropriate and not too restrictive.
8. Ensure that rural residents have the opportunity to comment on by-laws related to the use of pesticides, due to the potential impact on well water. Increase parameters in current City well monitoring program to include those chemicals most commonly contained in pesticides. Ensure inclusion of testing for nitrates.
9. Ensure that the cumulative effects of water draw downs resulting from permit to take water and water discharge resulting from sewage works permits are considered by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources or the City, as appropriate.
10. Ensure that developments are not just considered in isolation, but are combined with other existing or future developments to determine cumulative impacts to water issues.
11. City should consider large-scale communal services in rural areas. Modify the Official Plan to allow for consideration of this.
12. Ensure that the 10% future growth in the rural area, as stated in the OP, is respected so that the rural areas get a fair share of new housing development. If there is a deficit in this area, allow some property adjacent to villages to be developed for residential uses.
13. Consultation should take place in rural areas – rural people should not have to travel downtown.
14. Demonstrate that something “needs fixing” before reviewing/proposing changes.
15. Keep Councillors’ contact with rural residents more direct; strive for better balance of power between staff and decision-making Councillors.
16. Hire more staff with rural background/knowledge.
17. In the case of proposed aggregate resource areas, owners should be notified early and have an opportunity for input. As well, staff should physically inspect properties prior to proposing a change in designation or zoning.
18. Review the issue of farm-related severances on agricultural land and develop viable alternatives.
19. Ensure new by-laws reflect the intent of what was in place in rural communities prior to amalgamation.
20. Ensure by-laws do not impose a “one size fits all” regulatory framework when not appropriate or required.
21. Raise the profile and improve the decision-making capacity of the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee by ensuring that all policy matters that have an impact on rural communities are put on its agenda.
22. Establish an Agricultural and Rural Affairs Citizens’ Advisory Committee to review and provide comment on policy matters before they rise to Council.
23. Ensure that public consultation, with sufficient lead-time, is undertaken to provide rural communities with an opportunity to comment on any policy change that may affect the rural areas.
24. Establish a rural committee (or subcommittee) to review certain by-laws and determine if changes are warranted before they go forward to any Committee.
25. Establish a better and more proactive communications process to ensure residents are informed on important rural issues.
26. Establish a rural call centre communication lead or specific number for rural needs/inquiries/complaints.
27. Councillors should establish or reinstate consultation stakeholder committees in each Ward to review and comment on rural issues.
28. By-laws should be separated into two areas: one for urban and one for rural.
29. Ensure consultation is undertaken and scientific/empirical information is provided in rural areas before any new regulations are considered on the cosmetic use of pesticides or the application of biosolids. Testing of water supply for nitrates should be included.
Community participants in the six sub-committees played an important role in developing these priorities. Participants on Day Two of the Summit clearly indicated their preferences. Community members on the Rural Summit Task Force will continue to represent the rural communities as they work toward the formulation of a Rural Summit Action Plan, which will see these preferences implemented.
APPENDIX F
Ottawa’s Rural Summit
Day Two Parking Lot Items
· More discussion on rural property use – especially for development.
· Wanted more info - Official Plan, particularly on how to have amendments achieved.
· Possibility of making changes to the Official Plan so we could realize our sub-division.
· Modify the Official Plan to include cash-in-lieu of parkland or recreational facilities i.e. pathways to connect new country lot estate developments to existing developments.
· The urban rural divide is not “clear cut”. This fact should be seriously reflected, if not in the “solutions” at least in the background material because urban people experience many of the same problems with access, geography, etc. Rural people often feel that they have fewer services, less access, etc. but this is not necessarily the case.
· As a preamble to any group approaching the City for any service, it should be stressed from the outset that many services and/or facilities are mandated from either federal or provincial statutes and also that 40% of the City’s tax dollars are sent to the Province. Most people do not know this.
· Police services in rural areas. By this time, stats should tell police what rural priorities are: slow or no response times, etc. More positive or direct solutions should be proposed.
· “Short and to the point” introduction message, identifying the person with whom you are about to speak i.e.“ You are about to speak with: Elizabeth Taylor”.
· Invite rural neighbors.
· Invite Lorne Elliott, Comedian, for next Rural Summit after lunch.
· There should be a complete change in corporate culture regarding how City staff communicates and how they deal with clients i.e. the client usually have an I.Q above room temperature.
· Make the City’s website less of a pain to use. Have a section on the site for each of the former municipalities.
· Encourage more dialogue between rural and urban residents. More urban people are moving into the suburbs, which then can create conflict between suburban residents and farmers (clashes over smell and noise).
· Practice “conflict avoidance tactics” before going public. Consider what conflict could arise from communication (or lack of) including certain individuals / communities / interests. Plan to avoid conflict.
· When people in the community have ideas, something innovative, creative happening somewhere else, etc. have a mechanism for people to call a public consultation and communicate with City staff and politicians instead of it only being one-sided - from the City to the public.
· Let people know that they can do this. Define methodology and process with rural and urban groups. City and public should be “us”, not “them and us” ads as are currently the case.
· Long-term calendar of events.
· Notice board in all locations where a CSC is not present.
· City should consult with other rural areas i.e. Chatham-Kent, Hamilton and Sudbury.
· Next Summit should have both rural and urban councillors.
· Mobile CSCs.
· Home visits by CSCs.
· Have rural information go out to urban areas and City information sent to rural wards.
· Locate rural expertise in Client Service Centres including phone access (not necessarily all existing Client Service Centers).
· Rural Affairs department in City Hall staffed by City staff that choose it as a career route.
· Clean out ditches on both sides of roads.
· Litter and garbage pickup and cleanup on rural roads.
· Some roads don’t need resurfacing as much as others. Is it a “political game”? What are the priorities and criteria that determine road repair?
· Reactive vs. proactive approach to “road work”.
· City does not maintain ditches properly. Difficult to maintain.
· Communication and consultation with rurals regarding road repair prioritizing criteria.
· High speed Internet services not fast enough in getting hooked up. Many people want high speed but can’t get it yet as it is not available in the area.
· More proactive communication between City and community is needed. Perhaps establish more community associations.
· Need facilities for teens to go to.
· Client Centres should be open at least three times per week. More access needed.
· Who monitors lights on roads and streets? Solution, have police report on lighting while on patrol.
· Will the City assume the toll costs referred to in connectivity # 1 in order to get toll free calling within the city?
· Communications - print media: should item #6 be accepted as a “must go ahead” item. The City should make an effort to negotiate with local rural papers to expand their client services (delivery) to areas that at present do not have a local paper delivered to them.
· Note that teen bus access is also an issue common to seniors and others.
· Establish common telephone exchange across the city to avoid long distance charge.
· Hall rental charges should reflect the size of the room. Currently a hall, small or large is the same price ($300).
· Review reliability of building so that maintenance is complete when being rented.
· Caution that not all community associations have a broad mandate.
· Caution about posting large documents on the website as many in rural areas cannot access high speed.
· III #2 states: “In consultation with communities”. Would like to ensure that this includes broad youth-based survey. Would like to see youth–led initiatives for youths; employing youth for facilitation of these initiatives and investigating as to how 40 hours of community service may be oriented to this.
· Policy guidelines for IV #2 - have developers put money into Community Associations if they do not develop their own parkland allotment.
· Do not assume that community associations are more than recreational. All are not and don’t have volunteer interest or time to do this. Recognize limitations of knowledge / info in the CA’s if they are dispersed more broadly or not.
· Rural road priorities: is there a volunteer fire station on it? Is there a community association on it? Is there a school on it?
· Review how fees are collected for community centers.
· Para Transpo: we need to have “pay as you go” service. Have transit tax on villages that require the service.
· Consider setting up an annual “Farm Fall Harvest Festival” to be organized jointly by the City and the farming community. Suggest consideration of using Lansdowne Park for the fall weekend.
· Need to have consultation time with drainage officials to discuss individual drainage problems. Should be held periodically at Client Service Centres.
· Future review of the Conservation Authorities Act as it affects the rural area (i.e. drainage).
· Roads in wards, ditches in wards, snow removal in wards, a say in rural issues and stop wetland rip off.
· Implement broadband service to all city residents by a certain date. Make linkages a priority at a reasonable cost like phone service.
· Citizen members should be true representatives of the rural people not appointed by the Council.
· Have mechanism for redress for extreme issues.
· Have a similar process in the future to enable continuous community engagement. People have to feel their input is welcome.
· Should strengthen the current RC and revisit in two years to determine progress.
· Accountability reporting, report card, (Council voting.)
· Better decision-making process.
· Local context is important - “access”.
· Ward issues vs. City issues e.g., servicing more important on a small scale.
· Want to have input on things when we have to pay for it.
· Rail is not rural – wide, very localized, not for all rural areas.
· Hydrant charges for proximity to fire hydrant – insurance.
· Rural areas have need for communication for community services.
· Use old rail lines for trails.
· Communication of new ideas, programs, consultation, etc. with rural communities.
· Pay as you go facilities are not equitable for teen facilities.
· Provide assistance for removal or renovation of deteriorating farm buildings that are an “eyesore” in the countryside.
· Healthcare system is important - work with provincial government.
· Community awareness of police services.
· Signage for yard sale and garage sale. Permit required, size of sign suggestions.
· Consider City putting a steel signpost in the roadside ditch for a farmer to attach a personal sign to.
· Re: matrix - put it on the City website and keep it up-to-date.
· Transportation levy should not be applied to farmland portion of tax bill. Even if residence is included.
· Matrix (info) put on an annual mail-out to farmers only.
· City should be aware that Ontario Farm Animal Council “OFAC” is an organization to deal with farm animal abuse. Has representation in Ottawa.
· Ward Council should be established in three rural wards with appropriate resources: maybe could apply for support funding once organized.
· If RC is expanded (Terms of Reference) it should be structured such that rural councillors have a majority. (Either in numbers or voters – two votes per rural councillor).
· Ward Council advises councillor, can go to standing committee (may need $).
· If someone changes a use of land that is currently working and the change affects your well, they need to be responsible. A policy needs to be developed to protect wells.
· A task force should report back to participants of the Rural Summit. Review in three years.
· Revisit the governance structure established now (2006) in three years in terms of meeting a set of criteria for performance set in 2006 (through a policy set by present Council).
· No notable recycling bins on Tuesday.
· Allow rural communities to develop their own transportation network or be more flexible. Maybe a smaller shuttle or minibus. We need to stop traffic west of the Corel Centre and east of St-Laurent to extend road life and defer upgrades.
· Maintain our minimum satellite office service to improve access and info to required staff.
· There should be good policies with procedures in place that will implement them efficiently and, a policies consultation process with the public.
· Setting up a Rural Affairs division should be done using existing staff and reallocating responsibilities at no additional cost to the City.
· Rural Affairs department not combined with City Manager, but not have staff for rural spread over city department. A Rural Affairs department with re-assigned staff.
· The evaluation of the results of the workshops should be sent out to participants for further input before going back through the process to Council.
· Environmental sustainable practices, e.g. drainage, road widening. Environmental sustainable policy is not trickling down to lower tier/issues.
· Developer parkland creation. Ask the developer to do it when developing a subdivision.
· Roads - public transit needs. All development should rely on public transit. Better co-ordination between developments and transit.
· Must seriously examine how we are allowing development to take place in rural areas - too many sprawling estate lots subdivisions. Not enough protection given to all categories of “wild lands”. Must change our priorities toward more environmental sustainability.
· Need to bring environmentally sustainable policy objectives down to practice on the ground. For example, “road work”, drainage issues, i.e. cutting of trees, damage to land by machines, water use protection.
· Need more info on who from rural communities are using transit and create a taxation to reflect this use.
· Rights of property owners, land use / environment, sustainability issues need to consider options to enable those who wish to remain living in the community do so. For example, support for seniors, affordable housing for young people to stay in the community.
· City staff reports to Council include a section on “rural features & considerations”. Requires focused study and rural consultation.
· Compensation for owners not important. Detail of how to maintain the wetlands.
· Volunteers - Community Association work - keep it simple and make tasks time-efficient. Recognize that volunteers have a full day already and their time is precious. Simplify funding requests and submissions. Have City staff work with Community Association President on this.
· Under issues identified for services, include services for people with disabilities so their families do not have to move to an urban setting to get services.
· Allot some funds to cover mileage costs for volunteers and paid workers to provide the service. If a trip to a rural home takes an hour round trip, then pay the hour. Otherwise, service providers will not service the most rural homes. I know I have experienced this.
· ARAC become secondary two-tier government made to manage local rural utilities, which don’t relate to overall city governance.
· New solution - One tier (like one big township) “Country Government” taking in all rural areas separate from Ottawa governing body. Carleton County.
· Rural areas and rural issues are not limited to rural wards. Rural areas are spread throughout and within the urban boundary. Many of the solutions proposed in the Rural Summit do not address and include all rurals (e.g. Governance: Issue #3) structure.
· Have agendas for Committee of Adjustment meetings posted on the City’s website to provide public notification of applications being considered. Like web posting for Planning and Environmental Committee.
· Ottawa farmer’s market limited to local growers - Aberdeen Pavilion, similar to Kars, and Metcalfe.
· Need to have a more integrated approach to enforcement. Reduce costs.
· Need smaller Service Centres closer to rural areas. Partner with other providers, federal and provincial. Canada Post standards for customer service. Use CMT standard for customer satisfaction level (4 factors -timelines, outcome, competence of staff). Establish a benchmark for current service and then continue to improve from year to year.
· Help farm community by setting up a website to market their products locally and have a link on the City site. The City has electronic road maps of the entire city. The City could allow a farmer’s website to use these maps free of charge on their website to indicate the location of farm product sellers to the public. A separate page could assign a number for the sellers with their name, phone number products available, etc.
· Consider doing a feasibility study to determine if free public transport would increase usage. Eliminating the user fee would eliminate the cost of administration i.e. cost of collecting. This would encourage increased usage and decrease the number of cars on the roads, and therefore, pollution, road repair costs, new roads and bridges.
· Continue cost exemption from building permit fee for manure holding tanks (concrete).
· There has been no mention of how the City’s bilingualism is going to affect (cost) rural business. This is another example of “one size” fits all. Bilingualism is a real “hot “topic in the rural areas and there is no transparency on behalf of the Mayor and Council. Why?
· The third day, taskforce returned. We should now hear results as to what you are going to do.
· City staff does not understand rural issues. Aberdeen Pavilion once a week – farmer’s market (Saturday). Also hook up with other fairs and markets.
· Establish a department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs with no additional funding by taking staff from other departments.
· Resource Centres should be open more than one day a week i.e. 3 days per week.
· City should have an electronic newsletter to Ottawa rural business that is linked to websites with more info. Use an integrated approach to public services (Fed/ Prov/ Municipal). Use Canada/Ontario business service centres to include Ottawa municipal business services.
· City of Ottawa to establish a venue for a produce-based farmer’s market run by the producers.
· Promotion of the sustainability of rural villages. Enable rural business by encouraging local sales of agricultural products – get more money into the hands of the rural people and support rural business.
·
An attempt
needs to be made to find a source of common sense to apply to policy issues.
·
By-laws for the rural - only 3 or 4 rural councillors
vote. Not a fair vote when urban
councillors have control of the vote.
·
Roads and cutting of weeds and grass in ditches.
Reinstate budget for cutting ditches.
Act to prevent spread of weeds. Safety – can’t see deer coming onto the
road.
·
Rights of property owners, Point 7 - addresses rural
villages but does not address that City support the re-vitalization of the village
centres (i.e. schools, offices, businesses, etc.) This vibrancy support by the City is key.
· Police staffing in rurals need to consider response time not just calls for service.
·
Use postal codes to create a visual map of Ottawa to
help City staff in answering/referring calls.
·
Move North Gower CSC to North Gower library.
·
Install bulletin boards in post offices, banks, and
stores in villages to list upcoming events.
·
Operate CSCs at full staff for a set number of days
but maintain a skeleton staff to provide basic services (e.g. kiosk idea to
provide service at times when office is not fully staffed).
·
Direct mail-out of bullet point updates of upcoming
issues/consultations to pre-registered subscribers.
·
Occasional local meetings are a must in an effort to
engage people in process and prevent disenfranchisement.
·
Quick reference guide to get to an area of interest
and know you will get an answer (i.e. talk to a person on road issues in
West-Carleton who will be available between certain hours).
·
9-1-1/3-1-1: 9-1-1 majority non-emergency calls. No
information from City on how to use 3-1-1. Voicemail, web voice all need to be
integrated.
·
Eliminate automated phone system. Have real people answer all phone calls.
They should have appropriate training and respectfully direct calls.
·
Have City set-up community/City bulletin boards in
areas where citizens normally congregate (i.e. post offices, CSCs). Bulletin
boards would contain relevant service notices, process documentation (e.g.
permit applications) as well as maps to nearest local offices and specific
contact information.
·
Staff need a better tool to re-direct calls to proper
persons.
·
Daily courier service from CSC so residents can fill
in forms and have them delivered to Centrepointe and back to CSC.
·
Encourage a local paper for Cumberland as there is in
other rural communities.
·
The Province has a great service standard for phone
service (3 rings, messages changed everyday, response within 24 hours).
·
Link CSC with federal and provincial service centres
5 days per week.
·
CSC need to partner with other service providers
already in rural areas.
·
Need high speed Internet in all parts of Ottawa.
·
Improve expertise of Call Centre staff.
·
Link Call Centre training to website (see
Canada/Ontario Business Service Centre).
·
Combine federal, provincial and municipal call
centres in Ottawa.
·
Hold ongoing consultations.
·
Hold consultations in evenings and on weekends.
APPENDIX G
RESULTS OF EVALUATION FORMS
(141)
|
|
|
Rural |
Suburban |
Urban |
Observer/Guest/Other |
|
1) |
How would
you describe yourself? |
110 |
12 |
11 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all |
A little |
Substantially |
A great deal |
|
2a) |
If you described yourself as rural:
did Day Two provide useful information that relates to concerns/
issues you are facing? |
2 |
38 |
37 |
32 |
|
2b) |
If you described yourself as
suburban/urban: did Day Two of the
Rural Summit add to your understanding of rural issues/concerns? |
2 |
14 |
13 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Very Satisfied |
|
3) |
Please rate the material you received in preparation for the workshops. |
11 |
67 |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORNING workshop |
|
|
|
|
4a) |
Please rate your satisfaction with the process to prioritize the options for solutions. |
20 |
67 |
42 |
|
|
4b) |
Are you
satisfied with the solutions that your workshop produced? |
14 |
84 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFTERNOON workshop |
|
|
|
|
|
5a) |
Please rate
your satisfaction with the process to prioritize the options for solutions. |
24 |
65 |
36 |
|
|
5b) |
Are you
satisfied with the solutions that your workshop produced? |
16 |
80 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6) |
Please rate Sir Robert Borden High
School as a choice of location. |
8 |
62 |
55 |
|
|
7) |
Please rate the organization of
Day Two of the Rural Summit. |
9 |
63 |
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8) |
Overall comments for Day Two |
|
|
|
|
·
I was
disappointed that the day was top down format with focus on the agenda as
opposed to driving the agenda.
·
It was
a learning experience. Some of us felt
quite frustrated in not knowing the voting process ahead of time. My home study of the issues would have been
handled differently. The focus would
have changed.
·
Okay
for a rubber stamp day!
·
Excellent
work! Thank you all.
·
Good
organization for a difficult process.
Having small groups made more opportunity to be heard.
·
I have
concerns that the Rural Summit has excluded rural areas in the urban wards in
recognition of the issues and proposed solutions.
·
The
workshops felt very rushed. I would have
liked fewer panel presentations by bureaucrats and more time for public input.
·
Very
interesting, hopefully we will have some changes in the rural areas.
·
The
process diluted the efforts of the initial group.
·
Prior
to Day Two, I thought that Council was underrepresented in rural areas. After Day Two, it appears that City staff
have been less than capable in acting in the interests of the rural area and to
a large extent have managed Council.
·
It was
good, but I was a little frustrated with discussing solutions without talking
about cost. It seems essential to talk
about the two issues together.
·
Good
facilitations for both sessions. Well
run and voting with dots is effective.
·
Well
organized. All issues good - worried
about prioritization process. It may
dilute issues.
·
Good
effort! There was lots of hard work
done by many people trying very hard to find a solution to most rural issues.
·
Should
have been in rural setting.
·
Parking
lot idea was a good one.
·
Way to
much time spent on speakers, explanations, moderator talking, etc. Need more time for workshop participants to
discuss / talk.
·
Time
was a great concern - too rushed. Less
formal format would work, more discussion time required.
·
Some
initial resistance from registrants who did not participate in the
sub-committees process about whether it was too late to get their issues “on
the table” or forever condemned to the parking lot.
·
Went
O.K, but the discussions done before voting priorities was not well organized
to identify issues the groups wished to discuss.
·
There
needs to be much more emphasis on water quality (wetlands preservation and
restriction of development and use of pesticides as fertilizer next to
waterways.) There is also the oil cost
issue and the impact that it will have on rural areas as the cost of living in
that area will make it too expensive for many to live.
·
Voting
was not discussed.
·
Good
working session, but the serious systems have not been thought out carefully
enough. There was too much room for
unquantifiable interpretation.
·
Not
much opportunity to discuss issues.
·
Thanks
to everyone. Very organized and productive.
·
Should
have had a second day to allow for more participation. Many important issues were quickly dismissed
yet other issues remained on the agenda that should never have been there at
all.
·
I
think the forum for discussion with representation of services to clear any
questions was well organized.
·
Very
well done – the first session was a bit “difficult” but some of the people were
“difficult.”
·
Not
enough time for discussion, need to find a better way to bring participants up
to speed.
·
In
voting for “options for consideration” in some cases there was no option I
could support. Additional or new
options were suggested through discussion for which there was no opportunity to
vote for.
·
Went
well, but interested in follow up.
·
Thanks
to the volunteers!
·
Well
organized, enjoyed the participation.
·
Generally
pleased. Morning session in policy
showed a lack of awareness on impact of re-designation. Example: wetlands on farm operation. Ottawa’s farmland is not urban parkland.
·
Very
worthwhile! Established many new contacts.
This should be just the beginning for better participation between rural
and urban residents.
·
Enjoyed
the interaction and the topics.
·
Well
done. Nice to have City staff and
managers there with the answers to questions in the same room.
·
Good,
I liked the practicality solution focus.
·
Structure
of workshops did not allow for much discussion, especially workshop on Access,
Communication and Consultation. There
was too much material and little time to address all concerns and
questions. Not all facilitators had the
same amount of energy and facilitating skills.
·
Policy
was too much to cover in one workshop…perhaps could be split. Contrast with Governance workshop where lack
of time restraints allowed for better discussion, which resulted in significant
consensus.
·
Good
workshop PM, too much in the morning to cover effectively.
·
With
the Services group there was not enough time to cover all the categories.
·
The sessions
were informative and provided good opportunity for input.
·
Good
organization and facilitation… had fair amount of time for discussion and
input.
·
Very
informative, and provided great opportunity to communicate.
·
There
were some issues where I could not support any of the identified options. No mechanism to vote for any new or
additional options identified through discussion.
·
Too
rushed! Sticker system not accurate, as
one person could use all stickers in one place.
·
Excellent
focus on key issues that need to be discussed.
·
Very
good, hope to have this more often.
·
Backup
data was very detailed and helpful.
Congratulations to planning groups.
Mix of groups (rural and suburban) was good. East, west, south!
·
Workshops
were not well facilitated. I found that
the discussion was disorganized and dominated by a few. One of the “experts” would have been better
facilitators.
·
Committee
head did not seem prepared.
·
Good
job everyone, especially Moira Winch.
·
The
structure of evaluation was restrictive due to insufficient time to delve into
issues properly. The issues tended to
be glossed over.
·
I was
not aware that I was voting on Day Two.
There was not enough time to properly understand and discuss options
prior to the vote.
·
None
of the issues discussed dealt with the obvious problem of apathy that the City
staff has toward the rural economy.
·
There
were many duplicate remarks regarding the excellent work and discussion of the
Rural Summit generally.
9) |
What changes would you suggest,
if any, for a future Rural Summit? |
·
A less
constrained format – I feel that the exercise was like a focus group,
discussion and then an opportunity for people to bring their concerns to the
table.
·
I
appreciate having the City staff and advisory group members etc. in each room
to help answer questions and concerns.
This should be continued. A
complete explanation of the process should be made available before the
beginning of the Summit.
·
The
Summit should remain a two-day summit, however, the first day should determine
why the summit is being held and the second day should stay the same.
·
This
is a wonderful opportunity for in-depth public consultation. I would encourage it to be an ongoing
process.
·
Larger
groups and a longer time to review issues would be nice.
·
Include
dollar amounts in discussing solutions.
I realize this requires a lot of research and would not be exact, but it
is essential to turn ideas into reality.
·
A
glossary would have been helpful to define some of the more technical terms.
·
Not
close to enough time allotted to deal with peoples’ comments.
·
Rural
location would be nice. Continue
summits on an annual basis to include feedback from previous summit.
·
Format
could be changed. Participants could
sit at tables as a group; bring up issues one at a time for the table to
discuss. Notes to be taken by one
person.
·
More
participation from the rural people who attend the workshops (especially rural
residents) the point was to hear from them and not for them to be talked
to.
·
Use a
non-urban term when designating the parking lot which is where we leave things
in the city.
·
I
would like to vote on parking lot suggestions.
I found them to be most insightful.
·
Spend
the money for a future summit on the salaries of an Agri-Committee or
Department of Rural Affairs.
·
Bigger
desks would be helpful.
·
Facilitation
training for the facilitators would make things more interesting. Our morning facilitator was excellent; the
afternoon was like watching paint dry.
·
Repeat
Summit in two to three years.
·
More
time is required for workgroups to talk about issues.
·
More
focus on problem solving rather than issues identification.
·
One
summit for the farmers would be appreciated to deal with farm issues.
· More opportunity for dialogue around urban – rural commonalities would be interesting.
· Follow-up from the Summit to see if it has affected change would be good. Perhaps an advertisement in the rural papers would provide positive re-enforcement that this had made an impact.
· Hold it in a rural area.
· Hold summit on two consecutive Saturdays.
· Allow a person only one dot per option. The current method allows a person to show the importance of a given option by placing many dots on the board. This does not reflect the “will of the people”. There should be one vote per person.
· There were many requests for more time for the workshops.
10)
|
Miscellaneous Comments
|
|
|
|
|
Question
3)
- No mention of what we would be doing re: voting with minimal discussion.
- Include processes by which decisions are made at City Hall.
- Time restraints - facilitator pushed. Not enough discussion amongst group for clarification of issues.
- should have had present structure of City outlined: people were confused about terms - Dept. head or Officer for example!
- Did not receive it.
- The voting issue was not explained previous to Day 2 – should have been.
- Very satisfied, especially with the backgrounder.
Question 4a)
- A rushed, inadequate method. Almost no discussion.
- Need more time.
- Time to add more of participant’s ideas/solutions to the “parking lot”.
- Very restrictive until challenged.
- Did not know about voting.
Question 4b)
- Need to be sure all items regardless of dots move forward, including parking lot items.
- Discussion focused on the results of policy issues rather than their cause and effect - it missed the point.
Question 5a)
- A rushed, inadequate method. Almost no discussion.
- Group too large, not enough discussion.
- Too many issues missed!
- Moderator raced through titles of topics and there were almost no words spoken by participants. I think everyone just decided to read through the material on his or her own.
- Time short.
- I spent my lunch hour going over my notes and therefore, was more prepared for the process of voting.
- Very bureaucratic and inflexible until group forced issues to be added.
Question 5b)
- Limited value beyond just handing in the sheets in advance.
- What solutions? Options are still options!
- Time short.
- I spent my lunch hour going over my notes and therefore, was more prepared for the process of voting
- Hardly satisfied.