1. I am totally opposed to…

1. I am totally opposed to Bill 23, including the proposed changes to the Planning Act, namely subsection 17(24) and the introduction in subsection 1(1) of a new definition for "specified person." In my view, the proposal is anti-constitutional in that it breaches section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by proposing to abolish those rights that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. Every individual, including those impacted by city planning decisions, should have the same right as a "specified person" to appeal such decisions. Adding the concept of "specified person" in the context of the Planning Act is akin to creating a second-class of citizens and crushing the democratic process. The proposal contravenes the whole spirit and object of the Act which, as expressed on the Government of Ontario website, which is to "provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient" and "encourage co-operation and coordination among various interests," among other things (see https://www.ontario.ca/document/citizens-guide-land-use-planning/planni…). It goes without saying that I am opposed to the related proposed amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and dismissal, without any consideration, of third-party appeals.

I echo the concerns expressed by various municipalities in Ontario (e.g., the City of Ottawa and the City of Burlington) given that the proposals erode the important role and contributions of municipalities in matters relating to planning, in those areas that they are the most knowledgeable about. Faster decisions overlook important details that need to be considered before approving development plans and could be catastrophic on the short and long terms.

2. I also oppose the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act. We, residents and property owners, are already overtaxed at all levels, and it would be unethical, in my view, to allow lucrative opportunities for developers at the expense of property taxpayers. As it was expressed by the City of Ottawa, the adoption of the proposed changes to this Act (and related acts that are impacted by Bill 23) "will mean conclusively that growth will not pay for growth, and the burden of supporting infrastructure necessitated by growth could be significantly delayed, levels of service degraded, and/or the costs passed on to existing municipal rate payers.” As per the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, municipalities have a duty of care toward the residents they serve, and the regular principles of negligence law apply when municipalities breach that duty. Therefore, the province would be forcing municipalities into situations where they would be liable to pay damages relating to faulty infrastructure and degraded services.

Also, based on the Advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario has built 1,075,779 units for homeownership, 410,562 condo units, and 143,091 purpose-built rental units between 1990 and 2018. In other words, rentals constituted less than 9% of all new units built. My question to the province: how many houses out of the 1.5 million to be built in Ontario, are expected to benefit the most disadvantaged people who cannot afford a mortgage or do not qualify for one? It seems as if developers and the construction industry would be the main entities to profit from the proposed amendments while everyone else would be paying the price...