As someone who works in the…

As someone who works in the environmental assessment sector, I will say that there are many thousands of people with jobs like me (far more than the number of folks who recently lost jobs at GM) and any legislation that allows developers to avoid such studies is a bad idea. Indeed, it is killer of good, well-paying jobs that support families. The delays that emerge in development are seldom due to the system of checks and balances that are in place to protect environment and heritage. Industry studies have shown that the number one culprit for project delays is incomplete submissions on the part of developers. Furthermore, I think it would be hard after this recent boom to make the case that developers are not doing well. It's a very profitable business. Giving municipalities this option to pass "Open for Business" bylaws opens the door to a "race to the bottom" in which municipalities competing for business place quick gains ahead of sustainability. It's just a bad idea. Can you tinker with the rules regarding review and approvals timelines? Sure. But leave the environmental and cultural heritage protections alone. Each of those rules represents a response to something bad and expensive (Walkerton, Ipperwash, Caledonia, etc.) that went disastrously wrong. If you allow them to be ignored, you risk repeating the same problems over again.