I take specific offence to…

I take specific offence to modifications proposed to Schedules 3, 5 and 10. As an elected government, it is your duty to act in the best interest of the public that you serve. Removing restrictions on home-based childcare providers (Schedule 3, Ministry of Education) to, allow additional children MAY make it easier for parents to find affordable child care, but what impact will it have on the quality of the childcare that these parents are accessing? This bill creates a dichotomous system where low-income parents will have access to crowded, lower-quality home childcare. The quality of care of our children should be of paramount importance, and removing restrictions put in place to increase the quality of that care is negligent. I have two young children and I directly feel the burden of finding and paying for affordable childcare; I do not support Schedule 3 of Bill 66, and any person purporting to represent the best public interest should not support it either.
With respect to Schedule 5 (MOECP), reducing requirements for adherence to toxic substances guidelines is never a good idea. To imply that this is merely a duplication of paperwork with federal requirements is negligent. Toxic substance use and reporting requirements were put in place to assure public safety, and safety should never be compromised for the sake of expediency and cutting red-tape. As an elected government, it is your duty to act in the best interest of the public that you serve and Schedule 5 of Bill 66 fails to do this.
With respect to Schedule 10 (MMAH), the proposed changes are is stark contrast to election promises to protect the Greenbelt. Removing adherence requirements for Official Plan and Zoning, removing the ability to use density bonusing and holding by-law provisions is short-sighted and fly’s in the face of decades of thoughtful municipal planning initiatives. Removal of current public consultation requirements and instead making this OPTIONAL is removing the RIGHT TO KNOW from the public. Notification after a by-law is passed is unacceptable, the VOTING PUBLIC has a right to know what their municipal governments are planning, with whom they are striking development deals and to be held accountable publicly. The condition that decisions are final and cannot be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (but allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to intervene before the by-law comes into effect, 20 days after its passing) is unacceptable; the voting public has a right to appeal decisions and removal of this opportunity is a violation of our rights. Removal of the requirement for decisions to strictly adhere to provincial policies and provincial plans serves ONLY to benefit big-businesses that want to push through development projects without doing their due-diligence in environmental work as required under the Planning Act. Species at Risk considerations, Sensitive Natural features, Significant Wildlife Habitat considerations would all be impacted and this is completely unacceptable to me. As a steward of the earth, I believe that we MUST preserve what little natural heritage remains and not allow the profits of big-business usurp the rights of our children. Using OPEN-FOR-BUSINESS rules to remove the stringent protections put in place by the Clean Water Act is negligent and abhorrent. The Walkerton tragedy was an eye-opening, gut-wrenching result of lax rules and poor oversight; the Clean Water Act brought in changes that are now studies as Best Management Practices across the globe. That is the kind of province I want to live in, where public safety is paramount and is lauded as an example for the rest of the world. Doug Ford and the conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for proposing these changes, As an elected government, it is your duty to act in the best interest of the public that you serve and you are failing to do so. I strongly oppose Schedule 10 of Bill 66.