Dear Ken Petersen: I am…

Dear Ken Petersen:

I am attaching below a copy of comments sent to Michael Helfinger as part of the consultation on Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018.

I would ask that you consider those comments – notably those on Schedule 10 –
as part of the consultations on –

• the New Regulation under the Planning Act for open-for-business planning tool (013-4239); and
• the Proposed open-for-business planning tool (013-4125)

My main point is that municipalities would be able under this regulation (013-4239), to develop open-for-business bylaws with reference mainly to a basic description of the area being developed, the proposed development and the hoped-for jobs impact. Nothing at all on why they want to set aside any relevant environmental regulations and what, if anything, they plan to do to avoid negative impacts.

In relation to the planning tool (013-4125), I would add that it is undemocratic and ill-advised to allow municipalities to deny public consultation on projects that depart from provincial and municipal norms and agreements, as reflected in plans and legislation that apply to every other project. It seems inevitable that this will produce all kinds of (costly) dissension. Removing the option of appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal seems certain to exacerbate the problem.

Thank you for your consideration.

******

Re: Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018

Dear Michael Helfinger:

The overall objectives of Bill 66 are fine:
• stimulate business investment
• create good jobs
• make Ontario more competitive by cutting unnecessary regulations that are inefficient, inflexible or out of date

Provisos on the objectives:
• We shouldn’t give away too much to get businesses to set up – businesses should not need to rely on public largesse in the form of free environmental assets, lowered standards of care, etc.
• No one needs cumbersome regulations, but businesses should still have to demonstrate that a proposal is well-planned; otherwise any initial benefits (e.g., jobs) will be short-lived and the public will be stuck with remediation costs

Schedule 3
• It seems fine to allow home-based child care providers to take on additional and younger children as long as there is some way we can make sure the care of each child meets our highest standards

Schedule 5
• I’m concerned about repealing the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009
• How do we ensure the objectives outlined in that legislation are met?
• If all of the objectives of the 2009 legislation are covered by “the robust and science-based Federal Chemicals Management Plan,” then perhaps Schedule 5 represents a gain in efficiency
• But why not have a measure that would ensure ongoing provincial oversight of application of the federal plan? The federal plan was only launched in 2016. What if the federal government should weaken its protection or find itself unable to enforce standards?
• I would suggest we not repeal, but instead pass an amendment to the Act that gives precedence to the federal legislation and regulations except in instances where there appears to be a gap in protection against toxics
• There is a statement in the Government’s summary (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4234) that “the Toxics Reduction Program has not achieved meaningful reductions.” Wouldn’t that suggest we need more protection rather than less? It seems premature to stop the provincial effort before we are sure the federal plan will cover the same range of chemicals and apply at least the same standards to business operations
• The exemptions outlined at https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4235 – allowing voluntary planning/reporting on toxics by some facilities, no planning/reporting by others; as well as a requirement for annual reporting by some facilities – seem quite uneven, unless the point is that all provincial reporting on toxics will be stopped by 2021 when the Act is repealed (not entirely clear)
• There is a statement (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4235) that federal action will have been taken by 2021 “on many toxic substances.” Again, shouldn’t we keep the provincial statute in place until it is clear all the toxic substances currently covered by provincial measures are in fact being covered as well or more effectively by the federal government?
• Have the federal and provincial governments agreed that federal agencies will take charge of managing toxics in Ontario? If we drop the provincial effort, we should ensure there is a seamless transition to federal responsibility

Schedule 8
• Modernizing and streamlining administrative requirements for the operators of long-term care homes seems fine
• But again (as with Schedule 3), we need to ensure administrative relief doesn’t compromise the quality of care: there is already evidence that the care of our elderly is not as effective and compassionate as it needs to be

Schedule 9
• In theory, individuals should be able to decide the hours they are willing to work – but that assumes they are in a position to say no, which may not be the case given financial exigency, precarious employment, etc.
• Individuals need to have their jobs protected by agreed societal standards
• Otherwise, why not, for example, say that each employee should be able to decide whether they want to accept dangerous working conditions as well?
• Rather than removing approval by the Director of Employment Standards for excess hours of work and overtime averaging, the Director should have a reserve ability to intervene if reasonable standards related to the health and well-being of employees are being circumvented by individual businesses

Schedule 10
• I think this section could have been written more clearly: it’s not really clear to the reader what is intended by terminology such as “non-application of listed provisions”; as well, merely listing numerous sections and sub-sections leaves the intent and effect of the section opaque
• Close reading suggests that the Government proposes to relieve municipal decision-makers of any need to consider potential negative environmental effects when they approve specific development projects – and that they can carry this ad hoc approach into lands and waters previously protected from development (e.g., greenbelts)
• It is not really an effective economic development/planning tool if environmental and related human resources that are also vital to our economy (agriculture, tourism, healthy habitats, thriving species, clean water, open spaces, etc.) and are not being taken into account:
• The planning regulation described at https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4239 doesn’t require a municipality to address any economic factors related to the natural environment (e.g., alternate economic uses)
• The only protection of environmental and related assets takes the form of a potential intervention by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to protect “matters like public health and safety” when endorsing these ad hoc development decisions – but he/she would have to move very quickly (20 days is not much time): https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4125
• I would strongly urge the Government to find another way of expediting municipal planning decisions related to new businesses. Again, the point is not to frustrate businesses, but they need to understand that thorough planning is actually better for long-term growth and profit: allowing deterioration of our natural environment creates costs that have to be borne down the road by governments, by the public and by businesses as local assets are lost or decline

Overall:
• Providing the public with a risk assessment of the proposed measures would give some clarity on the measures as well as a baseline for monitoring their success/failure (allowing us to remedy any downsides and capitalize on any upsides)

Thank you for your consideration.