Canadian Federation of…

Canadian Federation of University Women-Markham/Unionville Club
Response to Bill 108
On behalf of the Canadian Federation of University Women – Markham/Unionville Club, we wish to join with municipal government representatives from Toronto, Aurora, Markham, Newmarket, Richmond Hill and Cambridge in expressing our concerns regarding Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act. We are specifically troubled by amendments to Schedule 5 the Endangered Species Act and Schedule 12 the Planning Act.
Endangered Species Act
We do not support changes to the act which would introduce broad ministerial discretion to interfere with the science-based listing process, to suspend and limit protections, and to ignore legislated timelines for policies and reporting. Nor do we support allowing developers and other proponents of harmful activities to pay into a fund in lieu of fulfilling requirements for on-the-ground reparation for the damage they do to species and their habitats. Improving outcomes for species at risk requires enforcement, not weakening, of the law. It also requires investment in stewardship, ensuring that the forests, wetlands, lakes and rivers that provide habitat for species at risk would be protected.
Planning Act
In spring 2017, after significant advocacy from residents across the GTA, the Province announced sweeping changes to the development appeal process through Bill 139. This legislation replaced the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), an appeal body with limited power to overrule municipal decisions, and enacted new policies to give communities a stronger voice in the planning process.
We are concerned that if passed, Bill 108 will reverse many of the reforms, including:
2017 Amendments to the Act Proposed changes in the bill would broaden the power of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) to determine the planning outcome in development disputes rather than sending issues back to a municipal council for re-evaluation. Over the years, the OMB had sustained criticism from municipalities and residence groups that it was too friendly to developers. In 2017, the legislation to replace the OMB by creating the tribunal received unanimous support from all major provincial parties because it was recognized that municipal councils should have greater control over planning in their communities. We do not support proposed amendments that would give the tribunal powers similar to those of the previous Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
Community benefits charge by-law Under the current structure, Section 37 of the Planning Act, known as Community Benefits, requires developers to contribute to the neighbourhoods affected by new developments through provisions for community benefits such as park and streetscape improvements. These funds have supported vital infrastructure and social services such as community hubs, affordable daycare centres, playgrounds at parks and schools, and new tree planters.
Bill 108 proposes to make the costs more predictable for developers at the outset of the process by instituting a new authority that would combine and cap all community-related development charges. Parkland by-laws under section 42 Parkland Dedication requirements, known as Section 42 funds, and funds to enhance local infrastructure would also be included in the total capped amount. We do not support changes to Community Benefits and Parkland Dedication which would severely limit the City's ability to negotiate community benefits before approving an application.
Reduction of decision timelines The proposed planning decision timelines would reduce consideration of Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) applications from 150 to 90 days, and Official Plan Amendment (OPA) applications from 210 to 120 days.

We do not support reducing the time Planners have to review applications and report to City Council if that resulting in allowing applicants the ability to appeal to the more developer-friendly LPAT system much earlier in the process, thereby circumventing the City's rigorous development review process.
Respectfully submitted by
Judith Pownell, President of the Canadian Federation of University Women – Markham/Unionville Club
Rhonda Seidman, Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of University Women – Markham/Unionville Club
Vicky Choy, Chair of the Issues and Advocacy Committee, CFUW- Markham/Unionville Club