70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-4210 (705 Area Code)

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

TO: Chair and Members Muskoka District Council

FROM: Jim Green Chief Administrative Officer

DATE: March 1, 2013

SUBJECT: The District Municipality of Muskoka Submission to the Province of Ontario Dispelling the Myth and Closing the Gap

REPORT NO: 3(2013)-1 ______

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report titled “The District Municipality of Muskoka Submission to the Province of Ontario - Dispelling the Myth and Closing the Gap” dated March, 2013, be submitted to the Premier of Ontario and other Ministers, as appropriate;

AND THAT the District Chair request a meeting with appropriate provincial representatives and the Area Mayors to present and discuss the report;

AND THAT copies of this report be circulated to the Area Municipalities and Norm Miller, MPP, Parry Sound - Muskoka.

ORIGIN

Services Review Recommendation CES-13 outlines the need for the completion of the Muskoka “gap” background paper in preparation for a meeting with the Province to discuss how Muskoka may better contribute to the social, health and economic fabric of Ontario, create jobs and address the needs of our citizens and businesses. The attached paper has been previously circulated to the members of Council for review and comment.

ANALYSIS

There has been much discussion about the challenges faced by, and within, the District of Muskoka as a result of its exclusion from provincial economic development regions, inequitable funding formulae in areas such as small waterworks and childcare, significant costs associated with the provision of hard and soft services such as roads and land ambulance, and implementation of legislation such as the Endangered Species Act.

The discussion paper titled “The District Municipality of Muskoka Submission to the Province of Ontario - Dispelling the Myth and Closing the Gap” is attached as Appendix “I” and is intended to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Province that would lead to a better understanding of

Page 1

the economic realities in Muskoka and stronger municipal-provincial relationships that would be mutually beneficial to the people and economies of both Muskoka and Ontario.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Strategic Priority 9 addresses the need to work with all orders of government … and to actively advocate for Muskoka with senior levels of government for programs and policies that will assist Muskoka to reach its goals.

This submission would respond to this recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Green Chief Administrative Officer

Page 2

Appendix “I”

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA SUBMISSION TO THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

“Dispelling the Myth and Closing the Gap”

March, 2013

Page 3

1. Introduction

This discussion paper is prompted by the need for the District and Area Municipalities of Muskoka and the Provincial government to work together more efficiently. It is intended to initiate a meaningful dialogue that would lead to a better understanding of the circumstances in Muskoka and how stronger Municipal- Provincial relationships would be mutually beneficial to both the Muskoka and Ontario economies. Background information is provided that is intended to dispel the common misconceptions that Muskoka is a wealthy playground of the rich and famous and to demonstrate that year-round residents in Muskoka face the day-to-day struggles that exist elsewhere in northern and rural Ontario.

On-going planning and consultation is needed in order to improve Muskoka’s economic and social health. Changes are being requested at the Provincial government level that would result in the inclusion of Muskoka in comprehensive economic development regions and programs that exist elsewhere in the province. These programs could build on the strengths of Muskoka to propel the economy forward and assist in the creation of living-wage jobs, investment in infrastructure and improvements to the quality of life of residents and visitors. Ultimately this would improve the economic health of the District, the Area Municipalities and the Province.

2. Muskoka’s People

Muskoka’s population can be described as about 40% permanent and 60% seasonal and the characteristics of each of these groups is significantly different. The seasonal population is generally much more affluent, with their home in Muskoka being only one of at least two that they own. On the other hand, the permanent population experiences similar challenges in housing costs and day-to-day living as occurs in other parts of northern and rural Ontario.

In this regard, over the last five years, the Ontario Works caseload in Muskoka has increased 95% from 526 in December, 2007 to 1020 in December, 2012. This is the highest caseload growth in any of the 47 upper-tier service providers (CMSMs or DSSABs) in Ontario and is expected to continue in 2013. Provincial average caseload growth in this same time period was 21% (Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012).

As well, there has been concurrent growth in the ODSP caseload in Muskoka, now approaching 1500 cases. The number of cases per 1000 population in Muskoka is 25.1, compared with a provincial average of 22.3 (Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2012). The number of children in social assistance families (ODSP or OW) peaked at over 1000 in the winter months of 2012.

The wait list for families who are eligible for social/affordable housing programs has almost doubled in the 2007-2012 period (364 in December, 2007; 621 in December 2012). This growth occurred despite an increase in supply during that same period of 170 units (affordable housing / hostels / rent supplement agreements).

The permanent population is older than the Ontario average, with 38% being over 55, compared to the Ontario average of 27%; and 22% being older than 65, compared with the Ontario average of 15% (Statistics Canada, 2011). In the 2013 Speech from the Throne, the Ontario Government indicated that an educated, skilled, and diverse workforce is Ontario’s greatest strength. In Muskoka, only 36% of the population has a post secondary education, compared with the provincial average of 43%. Year-round residents struggle to make ends meet on lower than average incomes and high housing costs, as outlined in the next section of this report.

Page 4

3. Muskoka’s Economy

The Muskoka Economic Strategy, 2008, identified a number of strengths from an economic development perspective. These include the natural landscape, resorts, recreational amenities such as golf courses and provincial parks and the “Muskoka” and “Georgian Bay” name. In addition, opportunities exist relative to the Highway 11 corridor, the Muskoka Airport and a supply of serviced urban lands.

However, the strategy also identified a number of significant challenges, including a lack of economic diversification, rising assessment values, labour shortages, lack of affordable housing, lack of telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas and the high costs of developing road, water and sewer infrastructure. The strategy noted that much of the job growth in the area has been low paying and/or seasonal, the area lacks cultural diversity and affording a home is ever more difficult at increasing market values and low wage rates.

In this regard, the tourism sector (much of which is part time and seasonal) employed 57% of the labour force in 2001 and this sector’s employment is projected to increase from 4,530 jobs in 2001 to 7,530 jobs in 2031, (Muskoka Economic Strategy, 2008). As a result, median earnings in Muskoka are only 78% of the Ontario average. Unemployment rates are also amongst the highest in the Province.

MUSKOKA ONTARIO Median Household Income (2006) $52,790 $60,455 Median Earnings (2006) $22,985 $29,335 Median Earnings of full time, full year $38,201 $44,748 employee (2006) Unemployment rate (2006) 8.7% 7.9% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006

To compound the situation, Muskoka’s housing prices are disproportionately high in comparison with average incomes and the District continues to have one of the largest gaps between median household incomes and housing prices in the Province.

Housing Type Costs Annual income Required Actual median for affordability incomes** Average non waterfront house price* $227,000 $53,000 $23,000 Average rent for 1 bedroom apartment* $740/month $28,000 (single earner) Average rent for 2 bedroom apartment* $870/month $34,000 $53,000 (household) More than half of Muskoka’s single person households or households where only one person is working (eg. single parent households) cannot afford to rent an apartment in Muskoka.

* Source: CMHC ** Source: Statistics Canada, 2006

In addition to housing costs, monthly utility rates are also higher in Muskoka than in other municipalities, and colder, longer winters result in higher overall costs.

Source: www.ieso.ca

Page 5

4. Muskoka’s Physical Setting

The District Municipality of Muskoka is located at the southern edge of the Canadian Shield and is approximately 4,761 square kilometers in size. It extends from Georgian Bay in the west to Algonquin Provincial Park in the east, and from the Severn River in the south to Novar in the north. The District’s landscape supports diverse ecosystems, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests, barrens and open fields. Interspersed in this natural setting are small to mid-size communities and rural and waterfront development.

Muskoka’s population density is very low compared to other upper tier municipalities.

Muskoka’s small towns are also widely dispersed, which has resulted in nine separate municipal water and wastewater treatment systems servicing very small populations. While the seasonal population represents significant strengths and opportunities in Muskoka, they also create the need for additional infrastructure expenditures in areas such as water and wastewater treatment. Increased investment in larger capacity infrastructure is required to meet the peak demands of the year, but use throughout the year is such that user rates for the permanent population are disproportionately high. This is particularly true for small municipal systems in small rural communities. These factors translate into high construction and operation costs on a per capita basis, and resultant high water and sewer rates, compared to other areas of the Province.

Water and wastewater treatment costs – Residential per 250 cubic metres Muskoka (Huntsville, $1,291 Bracebridge, Gravenhurst) Ontario average $897 Source: BMA Study, 2012

Muskoka’s dispersed permanent population and additional seasonal population also presents challenges for other service areas such as land ambulance and waste collection. The provision of ambulance services that meet provincial standards for response times and ensure that peak seasonal demands (cottaging, summer tourism, snowmobiling), can be met, results in one of the highest net costs per capita in the province.

Source: BMA Study, 2012

Page 6

In addition, waste collection operating costs per tonne are the highest of all the BMA surveyed regional municipalities at $238, whereas the surveyed average is $113. (BMA Study, 2012)

The District of Muskoka is also responsible for the provision of regional road infrastructure. Connecting small, dispersed communities over a large geographic area, together with the challenges of building roads on the Canadian Shield (eg. blasting) results in high road construction costs. Public transit, is for the most part, impractical and financially unfeasible.

5. Where Muskoka Fits into Ontario Government Structure

Ministry Organization

The maps in Appendix “A” illustrate the complicated myriad of individual ministry offices and regions which cover the District of Muskoka. Some ministries (Child and Youth Services and Community and Social Services) include Muskoka in the “Northeastern” region, with an office in North Bay. Some ministries (Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environment and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) include Muskoka in “Central” region, with offices in Toronto, Guelph and Barrie. Other ministries have divided responsibilities for Muskoka amongst a variety of offices. An example includes the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, which has identified the Thunder Bay office as the contact point for archaeological matters, and the Toronto office for tourism matters. RTO 12 identifies a tourism region that consists of Muskoka, Parry Sound, Algonquin Park and a portion of the County of Haliburton. (Currently, a review of the Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency is proposed in response to this, amongst other matters.) The Ministry of Health groups Muskoka in different areas for the Health Units and the LHINS, and our contact office for land ambulance is located in Sudbury.

Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund

The Northern and Rural Communities Grant provides funding to northern and rural communities in recognition of the unique challenges they face. To support this grant, a Rural and Small Community Measure (RSCM) has been calculated for each municipality to determine the proportion of its population residing in rural areas or small communities. In this regard, the District of Muskoka is identified as being 100% rural. However, the Rural Communities Grant Component only provides funding to lower and single-tier municipalities based on the proportion of their population residing in rural areas or small communities.

Muskoka has a much smaller population spread out over a much larger geographic area than other upper-tier municipalities. The BMA Municipal Study, 2011 documents Muskoka as having the lowest population and population density of the surveyed municipalities. As a result, infrastructure costs, on a per capita basis, are higher than in other upper-tier municipalities. In addition, the limitation of this funding to lower-tier municipalities in the Muskoka context does not promote coordination and collaboration, and associated cost efficiencies.

2011 2011 Population Upper-Tier Municipality Population Upper-Tier Municipality Density (per sq. km.) York Region 1,032,524 York Region 585.9 Durham Region 608,124 Durham Region 241.0 Simcoe County 446,063 Simcoe County 91.8 Haldimand-Norfolk 109,118 Oxford County 51.8 Oxford County 105,719 Haldimand-Norfolk 37.7 Grey County 92,568 Grey County 20.5 Bruce County 66,102 Bruce County 16.2 Muskoka District 58,047 Muskoka District 14.7

Source : BMA Study, 2011 (2012 data not available) and Statistics Canada, 2011

Page 7

Infrastructure Funding

The Ministry of Infrastructure Asset Management Fund is available to lower-tier municipalities with populations under 20,000 and upper and single-tier municipalities with populations under 50,000. Although Muskoka’s total population exceeds 50,000, nine public water and sewage treatment systems are operated, all of which serve populations under 20,000. In addition, the combined serviced population (which pays for the water and sewer assets) is only about 28,000.

Similarly, the Ontario Small Waterworks Assistance Program (OSWAP) assists small municipalities with funding for drinking water or waste water systems serving less than 5,000 residents. The Ministry’s web site for this fund states that “small communities face greater challenges in meeting their water and wastewater infrastructure investment needs. In particular, between 2001 and 2008 those communities serving 5,000 and fewer people have faced the most significant increases in operating costs, water rates and capital investments”. In Muskoka, the aformentioned systems serve approximately 28,000 residents in total. However, six of the nine systems serve significantly fewer than 5,000 residents and yet once again, Muskoka is not eligible for funding.

Economic Development Funds

In 2004, the District of Muskoka was removed from the Province’s geographic description of “Northern Ontario”, thereby excluding the District from eligibility for northern programs such as the Northern Heritage Fund. This action had significant negative impacts on the District. Since then, the Province has initiated a number of economic development initiatives, including the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, the Eastern Ontario Development Fund and the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. Muskoka is the only municipality outside the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) that is not included in one of these provincial initiatives.

Muskoka does not have the advantages of GGH municipalities – we don’t have the transportation networks, the industrial base, the high quality farmland or the highly educated work force. However, we are influenced by seasonal residents of the GGH Muskoka as they purchase their retirement homes and second homes in this area, driving house prices up, and creating a demand for additional services that are only used for a portion of the year.

Clearly, the District of Muskoka is at a disadvantage in the Province of Ontario as it is not eligible to receive funding under any of the above programs.

Childcare Funding

The Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services administers provincial funding for child care and children’s services. Muskoka has been underfunded in this area for more than a decade as shown by the table below. This translates into fewer services for special needs children, fewer parental resources, and other program operational challenges. This inconsistent level of funding has been previously pointed out to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services; however, the disparity has continued to grow.

Page 8

Per Capita Spending Comparison North East Region Districts

$5,000.00

$4,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00

perChild Cost $0.00 Timiskaming Parry Sound Nipissing Cochrane Muskoka $/Child $3,918.34 $2,181.45 $1,533.16 $1,290.05 $911.70

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006

Other Provincial Initiatives a) Transportation

On March 9, 2012, the Province announced that it would be developing a Simcoe Area Multi-modal Transportation Strategy for the County of Simcoe which would identify 30-year transportation planning needs of the area for passengers and freight, based on the policy framework contained in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The background material released by the Province describes a multi-modal transportation network as “an opportunity to limit impacts of transportation on the environment by managing congestion, reducing transportation-related air emissions and protecting natural habitats”. The background materials also discuss the need for “efficient use of all modes of transportation while addressing the province’s economic and climate change objectives”.

On April 16, 2012, the Province posted notice of its intent to develop a Northern Ontario Multi-modal Transportation Strategy for the area covered by the Northern Ontario Growth Plan. This strategy is to include “the development of an integrated air, rail, marine and road strategy”.

Muskoka is located between these two multi-modal strategies, but does not seem to receive any direct consideration in either. There is no reference to coordination between these two strategies and the decision to cancel the Ontario Northlander train service has been made in the absence of any recommendations from these studies. Passenger rail service has the potential to reduce congestion, promote tourism and economic development and reduce harmful emissions. In this regard, significant numbers of Muskoka residents routinely travel to Barrie, Orillia and the GTA to medical appointments, shopping, recreation and education. In 2012, approximately 2,000 Muskoka residents travelled to Barrie or Orillia for medical appointments and approximately 600 residents of Muskoka attended day classes at Georgian College campuses in Orillia and Barrie.

In addition, from a tourism perspective, the Canadian Tourism Commission Global Tourism Watch, 2011 report states that “multi-day group tours by bus or train are … gaining in popularity… rail journeys are one of the hottest travel trends for 2011 both in Canada and around the world.” Summer travel from Toronto to Muskoka and areas further north generates significant volumes of traffic on roads within Simcoe and areas to the north (particularly Highways 11, 400 and 69). It would appear prudent to take Muskoka into account in these studies and to ensure that all options, including passenger train service, can be considered in the development of the multi-modal strategies for both Northern Ontario and Simcoe. b) Health Care / Nurse Practitioner Clinics

The District of Muskoka shares many of the challenges to the provision of primary health care as other communities in Ontario. However, unique challenges also exist, including:

Page 9

i. A widely variable population ranging from approximately 60,000 people who live here year round, to more than double that in the summer months;

ii. A pattern of difficulty attracting and retaining a broad range of health care professionals;

iii. A geographic location and area which limits accessibility to service; and

iv. A population with a high incidence of seniors and persons with disabilities.

In order to address these issues, Muskoka District Council established a task force to look at Nurse Practitioner services and other arrangements that would address and improve service access in outlying areas. Successes in other jurisdictions such as Parry Sound represented the primary incentive to pursue similar solutions in Muskoka.

A program such as this would provide preventative, acute, diagnostic and supportive care, fully linked technically and administratively with the Family Health Teams and Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare. The intent of this outreach initiative is to provide the highest possible level of primary care in more accessible settings while ensuring sustainability, affordability, accountability and quality of care. Funding sources are clearly needed for this initiative and continued discussions with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN are necessary to move this initiative forward.

Environmental Protection

In addition, Muskoka is located in a hotspot of biodiversity in the province in an area known as “The Land Between”. “The Land Between” is an ecotone, or transition zone, which lies between the Canadian Shield and the St. Lawrence Lowlands, stretching across south-central Ontario from Muskoka and Parry

Sound in the west, to Frontenac in the east. Many of the Province’s endangered and threatened species are found in this area.

The Land Between

Source: thelandbetween.ca, 2009

The need to protect this biodiversity is high, but also comes at a high financial cost, as a result of expensive studies that are required to be undertaken by municipalities and developers, and long, unpredictable approval processes at the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Endangered Species Act (and in particular Ontario Regulation 122/12) results in significant challenges for the urban centre of Port Severn and the southern portions of Georgian Bay Township.

The Province and The District Municipality of Muskoka have invested heavily in water and sewer infrastructure in Port Severn and have identified it as a settlement area for growth. Section 2 of the Planning Act, which is further articulated through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), promotes strong, liveable, and healthy communities that balance the need for social well-being, economic prosperity, and a sound environment. Muskoka District Council knows well that the environment is the basis of our Page 10 economy. Through various municipal programs, Council has demonstrated leadership in environmental protection. In undertaking its Planning Act authority, Council has required the submission and peer review of technical reports that examine environmental issues with every application, where warranted. This ensures balanced decisions as envisioned and required by the PPS. While the importance of environmental protection cannot be underscored, the enactment of the aforementioned regulation appears to skew the balanced approach sought by the PPS by introducing barriers to the economic health and prosperity of Port Severn and the Township of Georgian Bay. Little guidance has been provided to the District, Township or landowners in this community as to the impact on existing, pending or future growth and development and neither a defined review and approvals process nor adequate staff resources appear to exist at the local MNR office.

Assurance is needed from the Province of Ontario that the approval function for the portion of the Township of Georgian Bay to be regulated by Ontario Regulation 122/12 will be adequately resourced with a clear local implementation process that will ensure timely approvals pursuant to Section 17 of the Endangered Species Act S.O. 2007 and that a balanced approach will be taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources to these approvals.

6. What Muskoka Can Contribute to the Province

Visitors and residents alike have been drawn to Muskoka for more than 100 years, attracted by Muskoka’s natural year-round beauty, pristine lakes, magnificent towering forests, and the pink granite outcroppings and shorelines of the Canadian Shield. In order to protect the more than 600 lakes in Muskoka, the District has the nation’s best recreational water quality program. This program ensures that development only occurs in a way which protects the water supplies, the ecology of the lakes, including fish habitat, and recreational opportunities, and ensures that it remains a premier tourism, recreation and cottaging destination. Approximately 8 million Ontarians who live in the Greater Golden Horseshoe are within a two hour drive of being able to experience nature in a relatively pristine state.

Muskoka’s cultural heritage also provides economic opportunities. One such opportunity that has implications not only for the provincial economy, but also the national economy, is the Bethune Memorial House. This historic site has assisted in promoting relations between Canada and China and has now attained an “approved destination status” for leisure tour groups from China. Approximately 12,000 tourists visit this site each year and 90 per cent of them are Chinese (Parks Canada, 2012).

The Muskoka Airport is a Canada Customs Airport of Entry and a Transport Canada Certified facility operating 365 days per year. The Airport’s paved runway is 1.83 kilometres (6,000 feet) long and rated for aircraft as large as the Boeing 737. The Muskoka Airport is also home to the Little Norway Memorial, which provides a history of this airport’s role as a training facility for Norwegian pilots during World War II, and also facilitates a relationship between Canada and Norway today.

Muskoka is home to two universities and one college – the University of Waterloo, Nipissing University and Georgian College. These post-secondary institutions are situated in safe and friendly locations only a two hour drive from Toronto, North Bay, Sudbury and Grey-Bruce and within an hour of Barrie, Orillia and the Parry Sound area.

Muskoka offers unique opportunities for semi-retirees to live, at least part-time, in Muskoka and contribute to both the local and provincial economies and to provide a wealth of knowledge, experience, interest and can be seen volunteering throughout our communities.

Other economic opportunities include natural resources such as forests and aggregates. However, these resources also form part of the beautiful natural landscape and habitat for native species, including endangered and threatened species, and can be extracted only with great caution.

Page 11

7. How We Can Work More Effectively Together

The people of the District of Muskoka need the Government of Ontario to live up to its promise as outlined in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to work with municipalities and to ensure that communities are involved and connected with one another. It was also noted in the 2012 Drummond Report that “the parts should work better together, so that the whole is greater than - or at the very least equal to - the sum of its parts…”

A coordinated, informed and integrated approach is needed from the Province so that Ministries can work with each other and with the District of Muskoka and its Area Municipalities to achieve:

A stronger, more competitive work force; Strategic investments in infrastructure; New investments in Ontario’s economy; and An improved quality of life for families.

In particular, Muskoka District Council submits that:

a. The District of Muskoka needs to be funded through the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Northern and Rural Communities Grant as a rural municipality in recognition of the tremendous financial challenges we face with respect to a huge geographic area with a low population density.

b. The District of Muskoka needs to be included in a regional economic development fund.

c. The District of Muskoka needs to be adequately funded through provincial childcare funding.

d. The District of Muskoka needs to be considered in the multi-modal transportation studies being conducted by the Province for Northern Ontario and Simcoe County.

e. The Province of Ontario needs to reorganize ministries so that a more knowledgeable, consistent and coordinated approach can be taken to the District of Muskoka.

f. Mechanisms for on-going dialogue, consultation and communication between the Government of Ontario and The District Municipality of Muskoka need to be established to ensure that the municipalities are informed about Provincial decisions affecting Muskoka. Recent examples of situations where better communication would have been desirable include the closure of the Ministry of Natural Resources Office at Arrowhead Provincial Park and cancellation of the Ontario Northlander rail service.

g. As an initial step, the Province and the District need to partner on a comprehensive socio- economic planning initiative for Muskoka that would result in the creation of living wage jobs, investment in infrastructure and improvements in the quality of life of residents.

8. Conclusion

Muskoka is considered neither north, south, central nor southwestern. It has been excluded from the positive economic development planning initiatives engaged in virtually every other major region of the Province. Muskoka needs to be intertwined with the economic, social and physical infrastructure of the Province so it may both benefit and contribute to the economic recovery of the Province. As recognized in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, “if Ontario is to prosper, then individual communities must prosper”. This discussion paper suggests new ways of working together for the betterment of Muskoka and Ontario.

Page 12

APPENDIX “A”

Muskoka

Muskoka Muskoka

Page 13

Muskoka Muskoka

Note: Maps represent approximations of boundaries based on available Page 14 information and are for illustrative purposes only