November 23, 2022 The…

November 23, 2022

The Honourable Graydon Smith, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry
The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Dear Ministers Smith and Clark,

RE: ERO #019-6141 Legislative and regulatory proposals affecting conservation authorities; ERO #019-6172 Proposed Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Changes ; and ERO #019-6163 Proposed Planning Act and City of Toronto Act Changes

On behalf of Ontario Nature, I would like to express our deep concern about and strong opposition to Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 and the sweeping changes it proposes to the province’s natural heritage and land use planning legislation and policy. Bill 23 and related policy proposals (changes to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, land removals from the Greenbelt, potential replacement of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan, proposed new natural heritage offsetting policy) will severely undermine environmental protections and democratic process, with significant environmental, social and economic impacts.

About Ontario Nature
Ontario Nature is a charitable organization that works to protect wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement. Founded in 1931, we represent more than 30,000 members and supporters and over 155 member groups across the province.

Summary of concerns
The Government of Ontario’s excuse for the proposed suite of law and policy amendments is that they are needed to address housing shortages. This claim is unfounded and untrue. In its 2022 report, Ontario’s Housing Affordability Task Force stated that a shortage of land is not the cause of the housing shortage:

Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. … Most of the solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the already small share of land devoted to agriculture.” (p.10)

The amount of land already designated for development and added to municipal settlement boundaries far exceeds what is needed to meet long range housing targets. That includes, for example, 86,500 acres within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area alone. There is no need to compromise environmental protection to address the housing shortage since the two are unrelated, as argued by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO):

The assertion that the nationwide housing affordability crisis is the product of Ontario’s land use planning and environmental protection framework, and municipalities slow to approve planning applications is objectively false. (AMO Submission on Bill 23, p.8)
The proposed Bill 23 changes spell disaster for the farmland and natural areas that sustain us. As noted by AMO:

The legislation will create serious risks to the environment and human health at a time when the impacts of climate change are evident and urgent. The proposed changes to how municipalities approve development and manage where and how growth occurs signal a move away from environmental protection when it is needed most. (AMO Submission on Bill 23, p. 3)

Our specific comments below address Schedule 2 and Schedule 9, which propose numerous detrimental changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act. Our comments also outline concerns about Schedule 1, which would remove the City of Toronto’s authority to set performance standards for new developments through changes to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

Diminished role and powers of CAs
The role and powers of CAs to inform and participate in land-use planning and decision-making would be drastically restricted through the following proposed Bill 23 changes:

1. CA Permits (e.g., regarding water-taking, interference with rivers, creeks, streams, watercourses, wetlands, flood or erosion control) would no longer be required for development projects approved under the Planning Act. Thus, the power of CAs to regulate or prohibit development that negatively impacts wetlands, rivers or streams would be removed.

2. CAs would no longer have the authority to consider factors related to pollution or the conservation of lands when issuing or refusing to issue permits. Environmental protection would be compromised.

3. Municipalities would be prevented from entering into agreements with CAs regarding the review of planning proposals or applications. CAs would in effect be prohibited from providing municipalities with the information they need on environmental and natural heritage matters. This would lead to longer and more costly application review processes.

4. CAs would be required to identify lands that they own or control to be used for housing development. To make it easier to “dispose” of these lands, the current requirement for provincial government permission to sell CA lands would also be removed.

5. The ability of CAs to appeal land use planning decisions would be severely circumscribed, putting communities at risk from flooding and other climate change impacts arising from the loss of wetlands, woodlands and farmland.

None of these proposed changes would be in the public interest. On the contrary, they would have considerable negative impacts. Watershed planning, the hallmark of Ontario’s CAs, would be vastly diminished, to be replaced with piecemeal planning by over 400 individual municipalities. The absence of a watershed approach to planning and development can put residents of upstream and/or downstream municipalities at risk of negative impacts such as flooding or water contamination. Without CA involvement, municipalities would be left to try to coordinate with neighbouring municipalities on cross-jurisdictional matters, without the broader connections and geographic perspectives of CAs.

The new responsibilities being placed on municipalities would lead to new burdens on taxpayers as well as inefficiencies and delays in the development review process. Instead of being able to benefit from the ready expertise of CAs, municipalities would be on their own, many without the capacity or expertise to effectively engage in environmental and land use planning. Municipalities typically rely heavily on CAs to ensure that development does not destroy the lands, waters and biodiversity which underpin the health and well-being of communities and all life.

Both Conservation Ontario and AMO have pointed out that the proposed changes affecting conservation authorities will “increase the risks to life and property for Ontario residents.” Further, according to AMO:

The diminished role of CAs could also lead to more development being located in natural hazards, higher costs as a result of property damage due to flooding or other climate change events, increased burden on municipal partners, and the decline of the ecosystem approach currently applied through the established integrated watershed management lens. (AMO Submission on Bill 23, p. 7)

Responsible growth management and regional planning cast aside
AMO has expressed serious concerns about changes to municipal governance and planning approvals proposed in Bill 23:
By making changes to municipal governance and municipal planning approvals, the legislative proposals strip municipalities of the tools required to manage growth deliberately and responsibly, with potentially negative impacts for the liveability of Ontario’s communities. (AMO Submission on Bill 23, p. 3)
For example, Bill 23 includes changes that will “reduce a municipality’s ability to provide for local parks” and consequently “the amount of quality, safe, accessible parkland available” to growing communities.” (pp. 4 – 5)

Ontario Nature is particularly alarmed by proposed changes to the Planning Act that include removing the planning powers of Simcoe County and the regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel, Niagara, Waterloo and York. These changes would eliminate coordinated regional planning needed to protect farmland and natural areas, to determine optimal locations for development and infrastructure, and to efficiently deliver municipal services. On top of the reduced powers of CAs, these changes would further hinder long-term coordination of planning as well as the provision of services (e.g., sewers, water, major roads and transit) across jurisdictional boundaries. Bill 23 would turn over planning to 89 lower-tier municipalities, burdening local governments already lacking sufficient resources and expertise and bringing about more piecemeal and expensive planning across the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Democracy undermined
Through changes to the Planning Act (subsections 51(20) to (21.1), Bill 23 would remove the public meeting requirement for draft plans of subdivision, undermining public involvement in land-use planning. It would also remove the right of members of the public to appeal municipal planning decisions. As a result, community members and groups would be kept in the dark and no longer be able to participate in or challenge development decisions affecting their neighbourhoods or local farmland and natural areas.

Ontario Nature agrees with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) that the proposed changes would “significantly impede access to justice for members of the public” and that “the revocation of third-party appeal rights is contrary to principles of good land use planning, procedural fairness and natural justice, as persons interested in or potentially affected by land-use decisions should be able to fully participate in and influence such decision-making.” (CELA, Written Submission to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, November 15, 2022, p. 11).

Through changes to the Planning Act, Bill 23 would also give the Minister the power to override municipal planning decisions (i.e., amend municipal Official Plans) and impose development.

Removal of the City of Toronto’s authority to set green performance standards for new developments
Bill 23 would remove the City of Toronto’s authority to set green performance standards for new developments through proposed changes to the City of Toronto Act, 2006. These green standards specify requirements for new developments with the aim of improving air quality, reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, reducing stormwater runoff, protecting landscapes and habitats, diverting waste from landfill sites and decreasing building-related bird collisions and mortalities. The authority to set these green standards is critical to the City of Toronto’s ability to respond to and address the accelerating crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Regarding standards to reduce building-related bird collisions, it is estimated that each year, more than one million birds are killed from collisions with buildings in the Greater Toronto Area. This death toll involves birds of 176 species, including 24 species at risk, as documented by the Fatal Light Awareness Program Canada. Since the adoption of the green performance standards in 2010, new buildings in Toronto are less dangerous to birds. The authority to set these and other green standards must be maintained.

Meaningful consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples
Accompanying the proposed legislative and regulatory changes discussed above are several proposed policy changes that would have a profound and devastating impact on Ontario’s natural heritage. The policy changes include an overhaul of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, land removals from the Greenbelt, potential replacement of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan, and a proposed new natural heritage offsetting policy.

The government must meaningfully consult with affected Indigenous communities about Bill 23 and proposed policy changes to ensure that their interests and concerns are addressed. The duty to consult is a legal obligation that arises from s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

Concluding remarks
All in all, Bill 23 and the accompanying policy changes are premised on faulty assumptions that rules protecting the environment are a hindrance to development and that public input into planning decisions is a superfluous frill to be dispensed with. If passed, these changes will set land use planning back decades and will stymie societal efforts to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss through enlightened environmental planning and decision-making.

Ontario Nature urges you not to proceed with these proposed law and policy changes.