Submission Regarding Bill 17…

Submission Regarding Bill 17 and Bill 5 Re: Planning Act and City of Toronto Act Amendments (Bill 17) and the 2025 “Protecting Ontario by Unleashing its Economy Act” (Bill 5)

I am writing to express our concerns about Bill 17 and its proposed changes to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as well as how Bill 5 could further impact planning and development across Ontario.

1. Reducing Public Input and Transparency – Bill 17

Bill 17 proposes changes that would limit what municipalities can ask for when reviewing development applications. By narrowing the list of studies that can be required—such as those related to wind, shadows, lighting, or urban design—this bill reduces the amount of information available to both municipal staff and the public. This makes it harder for communities to understand the potential impact of developments on their health, environment, and quality of life. It also weakens the public’s ability to engage meaningfully in decisions that shape their neighborhoods.

2. Combined Impact of Bill 17 and Bill 5

We are also concerned about how Bill 5, now passed, but repealable, could be used alongside Bill 17 to further reduce local input. Bill 5 proposes faster approvals and fewer checks at the local level. Combined, these two bills could remove important safeguards and limit both public and municipal voices in planning decisions. For example, if municipalities lose the ability to require key studies, and if appeals are restricted, communities may have no way to challenge developments—even those that are poorly planned or harmful to local interests.

3. Impacts on Climate Resilience and Local Standards

Bill 17 gives the Minister broad power to decide what reports can be required as part of a “complete” development application. If environmental or design-related studies are not on that list, municipalities may not be able to enforce their own Green Development Standards—such as requirements for energy efficiency, tree planting, stormwater management, or green roofs. This change risks weakening local climate action efforts and could result in developments that are less resilient and less aligned with Ontario’s long-term environmental goals.

4. Long-Term Consequences for Communities and Future Generations

The decisions made today will shape the places where future generations live, work, and grow. Limiting public consultation and environmental assessment undermines the careful, balanced planning needed for sustainable, livable communities. Our youth will inherit the outcomes of today’s planning decisions. If local voices are ignored and environmental safeguards are removed, we risk creating communities that are less healthy, less resilient, and less reflective of public values.

Recommendations

1. Streamline with Safeguards

Maintain efforts to improve approval timelines, but ensure public input and environmental assessment remain core parts of the process.

2. Support Consistency Without Undermining Local Needs

Standardize procedures where helpful, but respect municipal authority to request studies and uphold local green standards.

3. Prioritize Sustainable and Affordable Housing

Encourage additional housing options—especially for younger generations—but ensure they meet environmental standards and long-term infrastructure needs. Consider introducing a Bill that doubles the capital gains tax on non-owner occupied home ownership, to decrease the incentive for housing ownership to be held in fewer, less competitive hands which increase resale prices and rents for would-be, younger homeowners.

In closing, I urge the government to reconsider provisions in Bill 17 that reduce transparency and limit local planning authority. I also caution against using Bill 5 to sideline public participation. A balanced approach that respects local input and protects environmental standards is essential to building communities that will serve Ontarians well into the future.