The Canadian Environmental…

The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) has indicated that Bill 23 is the most extensive and biggest package of legislative changes they have seen in over ten years. We do not offer an analysis as it is impossible to do with our limited resources and time given. We do express our support and agreement from the groups listed in Appendix 1 who have made statements and have or will submit comments on Bill 23 and the various Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings. We acknowledge there may be good elements in the Bill but we are overwhelmed by the magnitude of regressive changes and fail to see how they are in the public interest in a climate emergency and affordable housing crisis. Some quotes for perspective.
“The proposed changes in Bill 23 will create a number of unintended consequences which roll back 70 years of successful conservation authority watershed management at a time when we need this work more than ever in order to address the growing impacts of climate change.” Conservation Ontario.
“Preliminary analysis of the Bill indicates the transfer of up to $1 billion a year in costs from private sector developers to property taxpayers without any likelihood of improved housing affordability. Similarly, the bill’s provisions designed to reduce environmental protection will benefit developers in the short term, with costs to the public and homeowners that cannot be calculated.
Members of the Committee and all Members of the Provincial Parliament will need to consider in whose interest they govern. Bill 23, as drafted, benefits private interests at the expense of public interests – at the expense of property taxpayers and Ontario’s natural environment.” AMO.
TIMING IS ANTI DEMOCRATIC AND HOSTILE TO STAKEHOLDERS
Recommendation: Slow down the process.
On October 25th, 2022 the day after municipal elections were held across Ontario’s 444 municipalities, the current government introduced Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act and posted numerous notices for public consultation on the ERO. Additional notices were posted on November 4th approving York Region and other municipal Official Plans as well as proposed amendments to the Greenbelt Act and redesignation of land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. Then 2 weeks later, on the day before the inaugural Council meetings of Niagara, Peel and York Regions, Bill 39 was introduced.
New Councils have not yet been formed, and have not been able to meet to approve or formulate responses to the Province. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), representing Ontario’s municipalities, was not provided an opportunity to present to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Heritage and Culture at the Bill 23 hearings. The official opposition did invite them to present their submission and it was shared with all MPPs.
Voters, especially those in two tier - regional governments, had no indication that the responsibilities of regional governance would fundamentally change or that the province would be appointing Chairs, likely extending Strong Mayor Powers to unelected Chairs of their choosing or initiate an ‘assessment’ of regional governance. It is unfortunate that the public went to the polls and elected a regional council without the knowledge that the province was going to fundamentally change regional governance. The province conducted a 2019 Regional Governance Review, which was never acted upon and the recommendations remain confidential advice to cabinet. The public does not know if what your government is proposing is consistent with the advice provided in that review. Thus there is no evidence, available to the public, to support the need for the aggressive changes to regional governance.
GREENBELT REMOVALS IN YORK REGION
Recommendation: Keep your promise; do not remove lands from the Greenbelt and be transparent about the downgrading that has already commenced.
Why are so many Greenbelt removals being proposed now outside of the ten-year review period, especially when a Greenbelt review and land removals were completed in 2017? The Ontario Government has quite simply lied to the people of Ontario by proposing to remove portions of the Greenbelt. Seven of the fifteen Greenbelt land removals and the only Oak Ridges Moraine land-use redesignation are located in York Region.
King Township lands:
The Greenbelt removal in King Township has received significant media attention due to the timing of land transactions and a motion by King Council in support of the Greenbelt removal to facilitate a new Southlake hospital. It is unclear if the province is aware or supportive of the hospital proposal, if this is Southlake’s preferred site or even a candidate site. There is also much concern about who knew what and when? The removal of Greenbelt protection and subsequent re-zoning would increase land value above the purchase price of $80M last September.
Upper York has no servicing capacity to give, existing 2010 growth can’t be fully serviced and the Upper York Sewage System, now abandoned, was supposed to be the solution for this growth. It is implausible that the lands in King Township would be an eligible candidate for new housing development; northern York Region doesn’t have a servicing capacity solution for what was just approved in the new Official Plan. Why do Minister Clark and the Mayor of King believe these lands meet the eligibility criteria for Greenbelt removal and that servicing capacity could be prioritized and feasible, ahead of all other development projects awaiting servicing allocation?
Markham and Vaughan Greenbelt Removals Plus Downgrading Greenbelt NHS:
The Greenbelt removals in Vaughan and Markham are adjacent to, or contain Greenbelt ‘fingers’ that are part of Ontario’s NHS and had land use designations downgraded from prime agriculture to rural to allow active parkland uses when Minister Clark approved York Region's Official Plan. These removals combined with Minister Clark’s recent decision in the Official Plan are not consistent with the Greenbelt Plan and do not uphold previous tribunal decisions that clearly identify that expansion of urban boundaries is not permitted into the Greenbelt NHS. Are accessory uses such as parks that support adjacent developments a settlement expansion in the Greenbelt NHS?
The Ontario government appears to have little regard for compliance with its own policies. The current government’s defense for inaction on Climate Change is, in part, because it is a policy that can’t be enforced. We are fearful that this attitude is percolating into land use planning, resulting in the destruction of Ontario’s NHS; a policy, not a land use designation protected by regulation. The combination of the multitude of legislative changes that reduce natural heritage protection - ie. redefining wetlands could permit the dumping of soil of questionable quality, combined with a reduction in resources and legislated authority of independent government-paid subject matters to comment and approve land use decisions, appears to leave little oversight or protection. This leaves us extremely fearful that even the portions of the Greenbelt that remain intact will fail to be protected due to multiple threats, undermining the purpose and intent of the Greenbelt Plan.
The general public does not yet understand that this government has already downgraded Greenbelt protection in York and Peel Regions Official Plan Approvals by downgrading land use designations. This is not a removal but it is a lowering of protection that does not require a change to provincial regulations. York Region’s Official Plan also concerns several alarming changes that indicate the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act regulations will be changed to allow future urban development in Vaughan and Stouffville. There’s also reference that some existing developments which meet certain criteria may not need to comply with certain requirements of the ORM Conservation Plan. The government has failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of localized and province wide decisions and legislative changes.

PROVINCIAL POLICY IN DISARRAY, DISREGARDED, DISRESPECTED
Recommendation: Provide evidence-based rationale for policy changes & clean up your own house first
The changes, even simple administrative matters, do not appear well thought out. It seems implausible that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the Ministry) has or will have the capacity, staff and administrative processes in place to be the approval authority for lower tier Official Plans and Amendments. The Ministry hasn’t provided basic data on whether the Growth Plan is effective or ineffective, if municipalities are meeting greenfield density targets or have adequate housing supply approved in the pipe-line. This Ontario government has failed to provide reasonable evidence supported by data, facts or figures province-wide to justify such broad sweeping legislative changes.
Provincial ministries with conservation, preservation, endangered species protection remain critically underfunded. The province has failed to address recommendations and shortcomings brought forward by the former Environmental Commissioner and now the Auditor General. Illegal land use is rampant on prime agricultural land, trees are being felled illegally. Our bylaws and penalties are ineffective, the province is absent or worse giving approvals in the absence of approved zoning and then expecting by-law officers to enforce nuisance and traffic impacts. The changes to CA’s will leave Ontario’s Natural Heritage vulnerable and exposed because there will be no publicly funded institutions with sufficient resources left to speak, and act to protect our natural heritage. It is reckless to make these changes in the absence of any real and meaningful attempts to address the already identified shortcomings that have forced CA’s to take on the very roles the province seeks to or has already eliminated.
MASSIVE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES
Recommendation: Consult with AMO and municipalities to ensure these changes do not bankrupt municipalities and do not affect the levels of services and park land that Ontarians have come to expect.
Municipal staff are warning of staggering losses as a result of reduction in development fees; the City of Markham estimates that property taxes would have to increase by 50 to 80 percent just to maintain existing services. It is foolish to believe that smaller municipalities with less resources will have or be able to obtain specialized staff with the expertise to adhere to specialized specific provincial policy plans and the knowledge to protect residents from natural hazards. Contracting out these services opens up a whole other set of administrative, financial and accountability issues that again do not appear well thought out. Reducing parkland requirements is the exact opposite of what we learn that we need most for our communities during the pandemic.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
Recommendation: Allow Conservation Authorities to maintain their current role in permitting in regulated areas and allow them to conserve land and reduce pollution via land use planning review and permits.
Ontario residents trust CA’s because they have demonstrated they have the staff, expertise and resources to comment on complex planning applications with environmental and natural hazard risks. Further, they have been responsible stewards for the conservation and preservation of the lands entrusted to them. To direct CA’s to put a list of land together suitable for development is nonsensical. Land comes into their ownership because it has been donated with expectations of having conservation status in perpetuity, or the lands contain environmentally significant features and natural hazards that require protection.
UPPER YORK SEWAGE SYSTEM
Recommendation: We support the Williams Treaties First Nations in their comment that a full Environmental Assessment of the southbound Duffins Creek route is needed.

We are pleased that the Upper York Sewage Treatment Plant is not proceeding, that the government recognizes the sensitive health of Lake Simcoe, the need to proceed expeditiously with the phosphorus reduction plant and the necessity of compliance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan. However, it is frustrating that $100M has been spent on the Upper York Sewage System Environmental Assessment with little to show. It is unreasonable to transfer this growth to Durham residents in the absence of a full Environmental Assessment and to suggest that York Region staff will be able to accomplish anything to approve and achieve the old or new growth targets set by the Province in the near future. Staff has been told to start over, develop a solution to deliver a third expansion of the York-Durham Duffins Creek Treatment Plant and pump water against elevations of 100m (twice the height of Niagara Falls). We are no further ahead to achieving growth in upper York.
Upper York Region is a case study in what not to do in infrastructure planning with stranded assets and unrealized growth creating burdens on capital budgets because development fees can’t be collected. This is a direct result of provincial inaction and inadequate, non-existent provincial support and resources provided to municipalities but still demanding growth targets be met. It is setting municipalities up to fail and Bill 23 will formally shift the blame for not achieving growth targets onto a lower level of government with no recourse to respond because they are ‘creatures of the province’ not recognized in the Canadian Constitution. It is unfair.
CONCLUSION
If Bill 23 is passed in its current form then the Ontario government will have failed to listen to professionals, subject matter experts, and ignored science and established best practices. It will have failed to protect land that will be critically important to reducing the impacts and adapting to climate change - CA regulated land, the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine. They will have failed to provide the type and diversity of housing needed by Ontario’s most vulnerable communities. The implications of Bill 23 place unacceptable fiscal and legal risk upon the Government of Ontario, municipalities and taxpayers - it is short-sighted and reckless.
We urge you to slow down. Do not pass Bill 23 or the proposed Greenbelt removals . Consult properly, and do the job that only the government can do: protect the public interest.