1) Through Schedule 3 of…

1) Through Schedule 3 of Bill 257 (the proposed Bill 257, Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021) it is proposed to amend the Planning Act, so that a Minister’s zoning order would not have to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

This legislation gives the Minister too much power to use MZOs to override the necessary planning rules outlined in the Planning Act/ Provincial Policy Statement, including agricultural and environmental considerations. The principles set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, are there to ensure that developments are properly integrated into the community without seriously detrimental impacts. These include protections and considerations for wetlands, waterways, greenspaces and agricultural areas. Such features support a secure supply of water, biodiversity, food, recreation, carbon sequestration and economic opportunities, all of which augment the quality of life for the people of Ontario. Given the importance of these agricultural and natural heritage features to community well-being, it is important that even an exceptional measure like a minister’s zoning order should be required to consider the impact of a given project. Once they are degraded or destroyed by development, there is no way to bring them back. That is why proper planning is so important. MZOs should be consistent with the provincial policy statement.

2) In addition, the changes would provide that any existing Minister’s zoning orders, never had to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Schedule 3 limits our ability to challenge MZOs through the courts. This retroactively changes the law to allow legitimate challenges to be thrown out in court, and is an example of legal over-reach. MZOs issued when they were required to be consistent with the PPS are legally illegitimate, and therefore challenge against them should not be allowed to be dismissed. This provision should be removed.

3) The Minister’s zoning authority is a critical tool that can be used to support and expedite the delivery of government priorities, including transit-oriented communities, affordable housing, long-term care homes and strategic economic recovery projects by removing potential barriers and delays. These changes would ensure that the Minister, acting at their discretion, has the authority to provide their complete support for these critical projects.

These are all important projects, but they can be prioritized without the decision-making power to plan them being put overwhelmingly in the hands of a single authority. Planning rules are not "barriers" - they are necessary to ensure a project is optimally placed, designed, and has credibility in the eyes of the community it is placed in.

4) Additional comments

- People also deserve to have a say in projects that will affect the places they live, and the opportunity to participate in the planning process within their communities. MZOs will remove any opportunity for the public to participate in the planning process with respect to projects subject to an MZO. Even if MZOs are delivered at the request of municipalities (as is often repeated), this is still bad for communities because the planning processes we have are there to constrain human fallibility in planning. It is necessary to give people the opportunity to engage, to voice their suggestions, concerns, and even objections to projects in order to bring about the best possible planning outcomes for everyone.

- Bill 257 is otherwise largely to do with making broadband more widely accessible across the province. This is a laudable goal, especially since the pandemic has made clear the inequities in access to broadband internet and that this it is an essential service to keep people connected socially and economically. Schedule 3, however, does not belong in the bill.

5) In conclusion of my comments, I am opposed to schedule 3. I don't believe so much decision making power should be concentrated into the hands of one authority, especially when the current use of MZOs has been largely to make exemptions for development on environmentally and agriculturally sensitive lands.