My comments concern Schedule…

My comments concern Schedule 10 of the proposed Bill 66, “Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act”. I am writing as a professional working in the field of land use planning and environmental consulting, and I submit these comments with this experience and knowledge in mind.

As written, Schedule 10 significantly changes the land use planning process in Ontario, often in ways that seem designed to limit public participation in the planning process. I understand that the “open-for business planning by-law” (OFBPBL) is designed to allow municipalities to act quickly in the interest of attracting new businesses and potential employers to an area. Given that there can be significant costs to municipal taxpayers in servicing employment lands that are not adjacent to existing communities, and given the broad suite of provincial policy, legislation, and regulation that this OFBPBL allows municipalities to disregard, it seems like there is ample justification for public consultation around these important decisions.

What does the Province see as the justification for not requiring public consultation, or even notification, around the decision of a town or city to request approval of an OFBPBL from the Province? Does the Province believe that public input into the OFBPBL request itself constitutes “red tape”? The OFBPBL, as conceived, is a powerful legal instrument, and municipalities should absolutely be required to notify the public when considering its use.

Furthermore, the problem that the OFBPBL was intended to address, namely that municipalities require access to additional employment lands beyond the existing supply, seems to have no factual basis. This is underscored by a 2017 report by the reputable Neptis Foundation (see supporting links), who found that over 125,000 hectares of land were available to accommodate housing and employment in the Province to and beyond 2031, the large majority of this supply being lands already designated as greenfield. I have also not seen any evidence that the Province consulted municipal governments in a meaningful way about the specific burdensome requirements that they might hope to rectify within the current planning legislation framework.

What, then, is the explanation for the major revisions to the Planning Act proposed under Bill 66? Could it be that development interests would like to capitalize on land holdings outside designated greenfield lands that cannot be developed under the existing legislative framework? The perception among everyone who has taken the time familiarize themselves with Schedule 10 is that the Ford government is catering to development interests to a degree that is unprecedented in this Province and, frankly, embarrassing in its brash transparency.

While the Province might hope that the expedited creation of employment lands in this manner would lead to more prosperity for Ontarians, the risks inherent to use of the proposed OFBPBL are immense. Haphazard development of the Greenbelt and rural communities would lead to greatly increased costs to municipal taxpayers in the form of servicing and transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, the creation of an avenue for municipalities to ignore carefully prepared plans to protect drinking water seems especially ill-considered in light of the Walkerton Tragedy, and also considering the extremely mild restrictions on land use activities (where and what) embodied in the source water protection plans. Finally, there are the myriad legal issues that a municipality may face in seeking to use an OFBPBL while maintaining conformity with the existing planning framework, as identified in a recent legal analysis by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (see supporting links). There is real potential that this mode of opening new lands for employment leads to increased confusion, and associated cost and time in finding a solution through litigation. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan were not only designed to help conserve natural heritage in the Province, but also to provide clarity and a common understanding to all parties, thus facilitating the development process in this area.

Recommendation: If the Province sincerely wishes to help municipalities restore competitiveness by attracting new employment, they would do well to remove Schedule 10 from Bill 66, in its entirety, and seek a longer and more meaningful consultation with municipalities and the general public. The instrument of the OFBPBL is extremely blunt and ill-considered. This government may not be able to anticipate all of the consequences such an approach would lead to, and would be better off seeking to change or modify the underlying acts to address perceived challenges than simply creating a route to by-pass so many important pieces of legislation, which is liable to increase confusion among developers, municipalities, and regulatory bodies, and the corresponding potential for drawn-out litigation.

I ask that the Province live up to Doug Ford’s promise made during the 2018 election that the Greenbelt will not be “open for development”. This government should not tarnish the Ontario PC party’s vision and legacy in creating the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. Bill 66 is an extremely important issue to me, my community, and my professional associations, and we will be watching this issue closely as the Province considers the feedback received and brings the bill up for a vote in the legislature.