I wish to object to the…

I wish to object to the current formulation of Bill 66, both for what I view as its general effect of using omnibus legislation to enable the effective repeal of selected current legislation which currently helps protect the interest of common people, in favour of development interests, and for the specific holes it punches in those protections. The declaration that it is simply a voluntary tool for use at the discretion of municipal governments is at best naïve, at worst disingenuous, as it will incentivise violation of hard-won protections for common people.

My rationale echoes the following excerpts from the CITY OF HAMILTON PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Planning Division, regarding e proposed open-for-business planning by-law:

“The proposed by-law could have impacts on employment land values and the City s transportation and infrastructure investments by creating uncertainty as a result of unplanned development.
There is a concern that the proposed by-law under Bill 66, which does not contain precise language on its purpose, could potentially be utilized for purposes beyond major employment development, which could undermine the City s planned urban structure and responsible growth strategy.”

Portions of their analysis of which I share concern follows:

“Staff have concerns over the exemptions cited in the draft Bill which identify certain sections of several Acts which do not apply to an open-for-business planning by-law. The exemptions of concern include: Greenbelt Act, Clean Water Act, and Great Lakes Protection Act.”

“First, although the option to pass the open-for-business by-law is at the discretion of the municipality, there is a concern that allowing for this option in the legislation will create significant pressure on municipal councils to permit development in areas that would normally be protected under provincial legislation.”

“Second, staff question the rationale for exempting development from these acts for the purpose of promoting economic development….”

“Third, staff have a concern that the inclusion of these exemptions may have the impact of incentivizing development in the Greenbelt Plan area, among others. “

“The decision on whether or not to utilize the open-for-business by-law rests with the local municipality. If the City of Hamilton chooses not to utilize the tool, other surrounding municipalities may choose to do so, and the concerns around impacts on natural areas, water resources and rural lands would remain valid.”

“By permitting development that is not consistent with the PPS, it is not clear how the City can ensure that the provincial interest is being met in the decision on a proposed development.”
“Staff have concerns with allowing development which does not conform to the Official Plan. Allowing new development to proceed which does not conform to the Plans not only undermines the planned urban structure, but staff view it as a slippery slope to opening the door to additional unplanned development. “

In the event of passage, I support these recommendations cited from the Hamilton Planning report:

(i) Remove the exemptions to Subsection 3(5) and Section 24 of the Planning Act, Section 39 of the Clean Water Act, Section 20 of the Great Lakes Protection Act, Section 7 of the Greenbelt Act, and the exemption to any prescribed provision".
(ii) Include the prescribed purpose of the proposed open-for-business planning by-law in section 34.1(5) of the draft Bill to restrict the prescribed purpose to major employment uses only.
(iii) Prior to passage of the proposed legislation, provide additional information on the prescribed information and prescribed criteria which must accompany a request to use an open-for-business by-law, which is currently referenced in the draft Regulation but without details.
(iv) When the Province proposes new regulations, the full text be provided to allow for meaningful review and comment.