To whom it may concern. I am…

To whom it may concern.

I am deeply concerned by the many changes proposed by Bill 66. I will comment briefly on what most disturbs me, which is with regard to the changes brought forward in Schedule 10. I would also like to register my disagreement regarding the government's use of an omnibus bill in this regard, noting that such a tactic has traditionally been used more for legislative housekeeping, so to speak, than for substantive changes of the sort currently proposed.

I would first like to assert that the wealth of Ontario is directly related to the health and well-being of its residents. The numerous Acts that Schedule 10 provides a method of over-riding are core to ensuring this health and well-being. Accordingly, if Schedule 10 is meant to promote the health and well-being of Ontarians, the objective and the method for reading it are not in agreement.

Continuing on this theme of method not fitting with means, the stated intention of reducing legislation duplication isn't support by the fact of the Bill, specifically Schedule 10, and the numerous assertions by members of the government, such as MPP Doug Downey and MPP Sam Oosterhoff, that the Greenbelt will not be touched. Why include a provision if there is no intention of it being used? Wouldn't this be an example of exactly the type of needless regulation the government has stated its the intent of Bill 66 to reduce?

I should clarify that I don't believe the assertion that certain provisions in the Bill won't be used. One of the big problems with Bill 66 is it places power in the hands of politicians, rather than vesting them in regulations. I know this has been the case with Ministerial zoning orders and whatnot, but Bill 66 takes it much farther by devolving the request point to the municipalities, which focuses pressure to develop on bodies often desperate for the funding that development can bring ( desperate for funding often as a result of past poor planning decisions), and by making the process by which said requests and approvals are committed far more opaque. Under these conditions there is no telling what might happen, either at the Ministerial level or at the municipal level.

Finally, I will point to the lack of need for employment lands, particularly in Simcoe County, where I live. The County's own land budget shows a surplus of employment lands forecast through 2031. There simply is no need to risk the protections afforded Ontarians by the Acts included in Schedule 10 - the cost, or risk, of doing so is far outweighed by the benefit of certainty those Acts currently provide.

Respectfully, I ask that Schedule 10 be removed entirely from Bill 66, and that the government re-commit to prudent and careful planning, including protection of water, Lake Simcoe, and the Greenbelt, that is so clearly in the best interest of Ontarians.

For your information I have attached the land budgets for the municipalities of Simcoe County, which show the forecast needs are easily met without requirement for the provisions included in Schedule 10 of Bill 66.