This Bill needs a lot of…

This Bill needs a lot of work before it should be allowed to pass.

• Changing the definition of TOC is not clear. How can I trust that the Conservative government will create TOCs where they are actually needed vs where they just want or their developers want?
• This Bill is not the only one to include “Protect Ontario”. This is a misleading title and should be removed. A title should be concise and explicit. Adding “Protect Ontario” is not necessary and does not reflect the Bill. It will environmentally harm Ontario, literally as written in the proposal. That is not protecting.
• This Bill does not explicitly say how certain agreements will be made exempt from approval. This is too broad. How is the public to know what processes are being conducted? This is not transparent or trustworthy.
• While yes, transit is important. Toronto has a poor transit system in comparison to other large cities like New York and Tokyo. But the environment should not pay the price to improve transit; that will not result in a net gain to the environment. The existing environment should be protected and transit should be improved; that is what will result in a positive environmental gain. The environment sustains all life including humans. It provides us with clean food, water, and air, protects our infrastructure from erosion and climate disasters that are being fuelled by climate change caused primarily by human fossil fuels, provides us with economic opportunities, is part of our culture, improves our physical and mental health which reduces strain on the health care system, etc. Research has shown that protecting the environment has only net gains. This Bill flat out says that development may have a negative impact to the environment. This is counterproductive. Ontario is way behind on all its climate, environmental and biodiversity goals; this Bill just adds to the list.
• Why is this Bill only saying targeted stakeholders will be contacted regarding proposed amendments? Comments from any member of the public, environmental organizations, Indigenous groups, etc should be taken into account. The government should not simply propose this bill without any engagement or consultation; they should not propose amendments from themselves. This is not committing to transparency or the duty to consult. It is an example of dictatorship, when Canada and Ontario should be a democracy. Ignoring consultation also means that project proponents may not receive valuable information. It’s often the people on the ground, living in the neighbourhoods that might be affected, who know information that could make or break a project. It is in the best interest of the province and developers to follow proper protocol, e.g., environmental assessments, so that a project is fully scoped before it begins.
• This bill seems another example of the province rushing through processes that exist for a reason, in order to further development without just cause. The environment is not the red tape that needs to be cut. Continuing to attack the environment, like what Trump is doing, and being disrespectful to the public that this government serves will only delay processes and ultimately cost more in the long-run. Do things right the first time please.
• The proposal on the registry doesn’t seem to include everything that this Bill will cause, which is misleading.
• Bill 17 will strip the ability of municipalities to require developers adhere to local planning rules. This is an overstep of the province’s power onto city jurisdiction. Toronto has rules to make its infrastructure more resilisent to flooding, for example. We’ve seen extreme cases of flooding (e.g., the Don Valley), which are fuelled by climate change. Bill 17 will not help infrastructure be prepared to adapt and combat climate change, which will ultimately cause them to require fixing sooner than necessary and not buffer against events like flooding. This is a step back in history for green building standards that have come a long way and for good reason. Anotehr example is green rooves absorb water, preventing sewer backups and basement flooding. If developers are no longer required or encouraged to add things like green rooves, that will put more strain on an already-strained system.
• We have a housing crisis yes, but we have to build homes that are resilient to things like flooding. Otherwise it will be costlier for homeowners, communities, and taxpayers in the long run. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A flooded house costs insurance, takes time to repair, costs to repair, etc. It’s a better use of resources to build right in the first place. Don’t just build fast. Build right and that will be quicker overall.
• The government is trying to move this bill through quickly, without proper time or effort being put into reviewing comments from the public etc. A good government does not do this. Don’t repeat Bill 5. Do this right. Listen to the experts and concerned citizens.