I am writing to object…

I am writing to object strongly to Bill 66 and its provisions to amend the Planning Act. The Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, and municipal official plans work together to support land use practices that benefit Ontario residents. These benefits include efficient use of land to provide housing, employment and transportation; protection of the natural environment and conservation of agriculture lands and other resources; and protection of public health and safety. Bill 66 proposes to enable municipalities to exempt development associated with employment from following land use practices that benefit Ontario residents, and to do so without prior public consultation.

The legislation would allow municipalities to ask the Province for an enabling bylaw and to use it to approve employment development that may be outside the requirements of their official plan or provincial policies. Such a bylaw could be enacted by the municipality without consultation or notice to residents and residents would have none of the statutory rights to information and appeal provided in Section 34 of the Planning Act, since employment development approved under the bylaw would be exempt from these provisions. Moving planning matters to the back boardroom will create public suspicion of political interference, favouritism and profiteering regardless of how the elected officials behave.

In addition, setting aside the planning process and requirements for proposed employment uses creates pressures on certain types of land that now are ineligible for most types of development. These include all lands in the rural area just outside the boundary of settlement areas. Without policy protection, agriculture land, natural environment land, and land with mineral resources become inexpensive, eligible candidates for future business parks or other employment uses. Potential profits will likely encourage speculative bids for employment development on sites that would not be considered under the official plan or provincial policies.

In the fullness of time, approval of development on these sites—regardless of whether it materializes—serves to degrade the resource and expand the settlement boundary. At the same time, development is deferred on land required to be set aside for employment uses within the settlement area. As a result, more land is consumed less efficiently with residents paying the cost in terms of increased transportation and infrastructure costs, increased energy consumption and emissions, and loss of farmland and natural resources. Perhaps more importantly, however, residents also lose faith in their governments and how they plan and build their communities.

For the reasons stated above, I strongly encourage the provincial government to drop the proposed amendments to the Planning Act in Bill 66.