I strongly oppose Schedules…

I strongly oppose Schedules 3 and 7 of Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, particularly the proposed amendments to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act. While the goal of building more homes faster is valid, the approach taken in Bill 17 poses serious risks to public safety, urban livability, and environmental sustainability by significantly weakening the planning application process.

Key Issues with Bill 17:
1. Strips Municipalities of Essential Oversight
By restricting municipalities to only require studies listed in their official plans—unless otherwise approved by the Minister—Bill 17 undermines local autonomy. Municipalities develop official plans based on local needs, environmental conditions, and community input. Removing or limiting their ability to request additional, context-specific studies (e.g., wind, lighting, or sun/shadow impacts) ignores site-specific realities and risks producing poor outcomes.

2. Neglects Vital Planning Information
The proposal to ban requirements for wind, shadow, lighting, and urban design studies as part of a complete application is reckless:

Sun/Shadow Studies help assess how new buildings affect natural light on nearby homes, parks, and public spaces. This is critical in high-density cities like Toronto where access to sunlight impacts public health and livability.

Wind Studies are essential in tall-building projects. Poor wind design can create dangerous ground-level conditions. For example, a 2018 study by RWDI, a leading environmental engineering firm, emphasized how tower developments can amplify wind speeds to unsafe levels, increasing fall risks and discouraging walking and cycling.

Urban Design and Lighting Studies ensure developments contribute to safe, walkable, and inclusive neighbourhoods. Without oversight, we're likely to see generic, poorly integrated buildings that ignore human-scale design and safety.

3. Contradicts Ontario’s Climate and Accessibility Goals
Weakening requirements for urban design and lighting directly conflicts with Ontario’s goals around climate resilience, accessibility, and age-friendly design. Studies like the Ontario Climate Change Strategy (2015) emphasize the importance of design in reducing urban heat islands, increasing tree coverage, and supporting sustainable transportation.

Removing these studies from the planning process could:

Increase energy consumption due to poor passive design.

Exacerbate social isolation if public spaces become wind-tunneled or shadow-filled zones.

Endanger vulnerable populations, including seniors, children, and people with disabilities.

4. “Faster and Smarter” ≠ Less Informed
Yes, streamlining is needed—but not at the cost of cutting vital checks and balances. According to a 2022 report by the Canadian Urban Institute, delays in housing are often caused by developer-side inefficiencies, appeals, or lack of infrastructure investment, not planning studies. Blanket deregulation only benefits a few large developers, not everyday Ontarians seeking affordable, safe, and vibrant communities.

Recommendations Instead of Bill 17’s Approach:
Require the province to develop a flexible planning study framework that mandates a baseline but allows municipalities to require additional studies based on contextual need.

Invest in digital permitting systems to truly speed up application reviews without sacrificing quality.

Fund training for municipal planners and increase transparency in approval timelines.

Conclusion:
Bill 17 doesn’t build smarter—it builds blindly. Fast-tracking development without fully understanding its social, environmental, and human impact is shortsighted. This is not how we protect Ontario—it’s how we risk degrading it.

I urge the Ontario government to reconsider these amendments and prioritize planning transparency, safety, and sustainability over short-term political wins.