Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (2014).

I understand that the priorities for the new version of the PPS are to increase the housing supply, support jobs, and streamline approvals for development. The proposed changes appear to support the government’s Housing Supply Action Plan, but they fall short in other areas.

The comments below relate to individual portions of the proposed new document. They are given with reference to the page numbers of the revised version of the PPS posted at https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2019-07/EN_PPS%20P….

1. On the first page of the preface, the document says that the proposed changes are to support Ontario communities that “…protect the environment and important resources such as water and farmland”.
* It is important that mineral values, whether metallic or industrial minerals, be acknowledged here.
* Aggregate resources are essential raw materials for development.
* Availability of aggregate resources close to where they will be consumed is a critical factor in reducing development and infrastructure costs, and limiting environmental impacts.
* Physical and legal accessibility of mineral resources is important if the economy and jobs are to be supported – especially in the north.

2. On pages 10 and 11, the phrase “Intensification and redevelopment shall be directed in accordance with the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety” appears to have been deleted from statement 1.1.3.3. A similar deletion appears to have been made following statement 1.1.3.8.
* Since the proposed changes are intended to support the economy and jobs, and to protect the environment and public safety, it seems unwise to delete these phrases.
* Keeping the phrases as part of the PPS will provide direction to municipal planners with regard to intensification and redevelopment.

3. On pages 10 and 11, the word “shall” in policies 1.1.3.6 and 1.1.3.7 has been changed to “should”.
* This change should not be made.
* Experience has shown that municipalities adhere to a policy direction that they “should” adhere to only when it is convenient for them.
* If the Province truly wants municipalities to adhere to the guidance in policies 1.1.3.6 and 1.1.3.7, the word “shall” ought to be used.

4. On page 16, policy 1.2.6 is intended to ensure land use compatibility. There are situations – especially in Northern Ontario – where the surface rights and mining rights to a given property are held by different parties. Although rare, there have been situations in the past whereby a development proposed by the owner of the surface rights would have eradicated any opportunity for development by the owner of the mining rights.
* A policy should be added to direct planners to address the legal rights of those holding an interest in properties where development is planned if there are areas in the municipality where the surface rights and mining rights are held separately.

5. On page 16, policy 1.2.6.1 seems to relate only to the potential impacts of proposed developments on adjacent land uses and the environment. It does, however, indicated that it intends to “minimize risk to public health and safety”.
* It might be appropriate to include direction here that pre-existing human-made or natural hazards are to be avoided when development is undertaken, and to refer planners and developers to sections 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 of the PPS.

6. On page 21, policy 1.6.1 has been rewritten such that the phrase “shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner” no longer has the words “coordinated” and “cost-effective”.
* Although the essential word “coordinated” appears elsewhere in Section 1.6.1, the term “cost-effective” does not.
* The idea that infrastructure and public service facilities are “cost-effective” should be included somewhere in policy 1.6.1.

7. On page 34, a section has been added to policy 2.5.2.2 to allow aggregate extraction outside of the Greenbelt area in certain natural heritage features, provided that the long-term rehabilitation can demonstrate no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.
* This change enables the extraction of provincial aggregate in areas where it was not previously possible.
* The proposed policy may make aggregate available in areas where it could not be extracted under the previous PPS. If those areas are close to where aggregate is needed for development or infrastructure, it will reduce costs and the environmental impacts of trucking aggregate from sources that are farther away without having negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

8. On page 35, the addition of the clause “Where the Aggregate Resources Act applies, processes under the Aggregate Resources Act shall address the depth of extraction of new or existing mineral aggregate operations or their expansions” to policy 2.5.2.4.
* This change helps clarify for planners which legislation (i.e., the Planning Act or the Aggregate Resources Act) has authority with regard to aggregate extraction.

9. On page 37, section 2.6.5 has been changed from ”Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities...” to “Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests…”.
* This change clarifies who is responsible for the consultation with Aboriginal communities that is required in accordance with Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
* Municipalities may argue that such consultation is the responsibility of the Province and cannot be delegated. There may be case law available that provides direction regarding this, or – at the very least – the Province should provide guidelines advising municipalities’ about their roles and responsibilities related to consultation.

10. The preface to Section 3 on page 38 notes that “policies in this section related to natural hazards are subject to ongoing review by the Province’s Special Advisor on flooding. Further changes may be considered as a result of this review”. Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 also specifically prohibit development and/or site alteration to sites related to shorelines and areas subject to occasional flooding, as well as “hazardous sites”.
* Hazardous sites are defined in the PPS as “property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils (sensitive marine clays [leda], organic soils) or unstable bedrock (karst topography)”.
* Radon is a critical natural hazard that is not addressed by name anywhere in the PPS.

11. There should be a specific clause in Section 3.1 of the PPS related to radon as a natural hazard, and radon should be added to the list of naturally occurring hazards included under “Hazardous sites” in Section 6.0 (Definitions).
* A 2011 radon potential map for Canada indicates that the most populous areas of Ontario are at high risk for radon hazards.
* A survey of 3950 homes done by Health Canada between 2009 and 2011 found that of 35 health units tested in Ontario the recommended maximum amount of radon was exceeded in more than 5% of homes in 23 of the health units; and in 10% to 20% of the homes in 14 of the health units.
In 32 homes, the maximum allowable limit was exceeded by more than three times.
* Radon is the second highest cause of cancer due to environmental carcinogens in Ontario after solar ultraviolet radiation. It is also the second highest cause of lung cancer in Canadians, and the leading cause in non-smokers.
* According to Cancer Care Ontario, there are an estimated 1250 cases of lung cancer per year in Ontario related to exposure to radon.
* Treatment for lung cancer can range from $15,000 to $200,000 or more per patient, or from more than $18 million to $250 million per year in Ontario.
* Planning to avoid radon hazards, or reduce it where present, should result in significant savings in health care costs in Ontario.
* The Province should work with the federal government and other agencies to obtain data and release it to the public domain in support of a new policy related to radon.

12. On page 40, policy 3.2.3 states that “Planning authorities should support, where feasible, on-site and local re-use of excess soil through planning and development approvals while protecting human health and the environment.”
* The term soil is not clear. Is it intended to mean all earth, or just topsoil?
* The wording of this policy should be changed to clarify it and/or make it consistent with the Aggregate Resources Act, which applies to “earth”, but not to “topsoil or peat”.
* Excess soil is a natural resource, not a hazard. Although the new policy has merit it should not be listed in Section 3.2.
* Whether the new policy is intended to apply to all soil, or just topsoil, it would fit better elsewhere in the PPS. It could be (new) policy 2.4.2.3 in Section 2.4.2 (Long-term Protection of Natural Resources), or somewhere in Section 2.5, due to references to “earth” in the Aggregate Resources Act.

13. On page 41, the clause “Official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas” that was included as part of policy 4.7 in the 2014 PPS has been deleted.
* This policy was – and remains – important in ensuring consistency in the planning directions of adjoining municipalities. It should not be deleted.

14. On page 44, an enlarged version of the Natural Heritage Protection Line has been added to the PPS.
* This new map will provide needed detail for municipal planners in the area.
* Information should be added to indicate where interested parties can download a digital version of the line to incorporate into their GIS data sets.