I have several concerns with…

I have several concerns with proposed Bill 66:

- What details will be provided to demonstrate that a business who will be creating 50 jobs will actually do so? How will the tool be able to safeguard from those companies who wish to bypass the planning process but then fail to deliver the required number of jobs?

- Section 3(5) of the Planning Act. The PPS would be bypassed, including hazard lands. Thus, development could theoretically locate in a floodplain. This is a terrible idea. Other hazards that are of concern are areas adjacent unstable slopes, dynamic beach hazards and erosion hazards. Other aspects of the PPS that could be bypassed include:

the proper care and treatment of stormwater management before it enters Ontario's waterways;
the requirement for a development to prove it has a long-term stable water quality and quantity supply for a development and that there would be no negative impacts as a result of this new development on the local supply;
the requirement for development to be compact, efficient and make use of existing services. Furthering sprawl is inherently more costly to the Ontario taxpayer.

- Section 24 of the Planning Act. Local OPs could be bypassed. Many local people are involved in the preparation of these plans. The whole planning system is predicated on long-term planning for the future. With the ability to bypass a local OP, situations could arise in which inappropriate land uses locate adjacent sensitive land uses.

- Subsections 34 (10.0.0.1) to (34) of the Planning Act. Planning notification would be able to be bypassed. A cornerstone of democracy is the ability to consult and notify populations who may have concerns regarding development. Suppose the provincial government wanted to enact Bill 66 without any regard for public consultation through the ERO? That is not the world we live in. Democracy and the ability to voice concerns underpins everything we do as a nation.

- Section 39 of the Clean Water Act. This is one of the most terrifying proposals of Bill 66. If permitted, this would allow for the bypassing of source protection areas. Proposals could forego conforming with a significant threat policy or regarding source protection plan policies. It even appears to opt out prescribed instruments from conforming to source protection plans. This should not be included in any Bill 66. Source water is a critically important component of rural Ontario. Majority of rural residents rely on private drinking water wells. Should a proposal bypass this Act and contamination of a local groundwater supply occur, the Province would be liable for passing this type of legislation.

- Section 7 of the Greenbelt Act. Bypassing this section of the Act would violate a campaign promise of the PC Party, and specifically Premier Doug Ford.

- Section 6 of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. Bypassing this would appear to allow for deterioration in ecological health of Lake Simcoe.

- Regarding the changes to site plan control and Section 41 of the Planning Act. This appears to water down the power of site plan control.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.