There are so many…

There are so many destructive parts of this bill, but I will focus my comments on Section 10 which irresponsibly risks our drinking water, farm land, and smart growth development.

Drinking water protections were added after the Walkerton Tragedy that took the lives of Ontarians and left others with long-term illnesses. In my home of Waterloo Region, Elmira still cannot drink its own water because of industrial damages in the 80s. 75% of our drinking water comes from the ground and our official plan strongly protects source water because of past crises.

Farming represents a $500 million industry in Waterloo Region and an important part of our heritage.

Smart Growth: The Region of Waterloo has experienced over $3 billion in urban development along its new light rail transit route since it was announced. Since the Region's growth plan implemented source water protections and a hard countryside line the unemployment rate has dropped from 5.9% to 5.1%. The economy doesn't need the provisions of Bill 66.

Perhaps most concerning is the provision that permits a by-law to be passed and approved under Section 10 without any public notice, consultation, or appeal. This goes against the core values of Canadian democracy and means that a residents first notice may be the bulldozer. This is not acceptable and must change. Residents spend time contributing to official plans and other planning documents and the fact that all of this can be disregarded without going back to those same residents is really concerning.

Waterloo Region has a multi-tier government that works well together but this bill would allow a township or city to override the policies that all the municipalities agreed on and formed together. This will create longterm controversy that is bad for the health of our Region.

I do not support Section 10 of Bill 66. I do not believe that it can be amended sufficiently to make it acceptable, and instead the entire section must be discarded. Section 10 is bad or Ontario.