Bill 66 is an omnibus bill…

Bill 66 is an omnibus bill that will impact other provincial legislation, which has been developed over years to protect the environment.

Consider the implications of Bill 66 (such as Schedule 10) in conjunction with the new Ontario Environment Plan … because Bill 66 seems to contradict the glowing aspirations of the government’s Environment Plan. In its totality, Bill 66 appears to represent a sweeping set of repeals of various provincial acts, leading to a withdrawal of government responsibility over the public sphere. Government is supposed to provide a well-reasoned interface between the private and public domains through democratic representation, leading to the betterment of society in general. Corporations have their legal departments and lobbyists, and some have demonstrated progressive thinking in terms of positive benefits, while others remained mired in short-sighted self-interest. The public is supposed to have reliable public service and representation through government oversight. That is why the terms ‘government’ and ‘public service’ are used interchangeably. One is supposed to equal the other.

Specifically, the Ontario Environment Plan promises to protect the environment for future generations, while Bill 66 seeks to diminish environmental protections by encouraging new Open For Business by-laws at the municipal level, thereby directing municipalities to exempt new developments from aspects of key pieces of protective legislation, including, the Greenbelt Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Act, the Clean Waters Act, The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, and other protective provincial legislation.

Schedule 10 of Bill 66 expressly states that public notification and consultation are NOT required, unless the municipality wishes to inform citizens in some preferred manner.

While thinking about Bill 66, review the pictures in the new Ontario Environment Plan. The photos are very appealing, but they do not show the vast scope of Ontario’s existing dense suburban, industrial and commercial/retail developments, nor plans for its continued widening and expansion. These photos certainly don’t imply how these remaining picturesque locations are threatened by Bill 66.

Together, Bill 66 and the Ontario Environment Plan under-estimate the growing problems of expansive (and expanding) compacted non-porous surfaces in urban and suburban areas, which create ideal conditions for excessive flooding … even during normal rainfall. The clearing and levelling of more landscape in preparation for continued paving and dense development suggests flooding is written right into development policy at the Ministry of Housing and Development. In March 2018, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) stated, “Flooding is the new fire” in Ontario. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/05/water-is-the-new-fire-sa…

The IBC’s statement acknowledged the cause of flooding, juxtaposing it with all the out-of-control wildfires in Fort McMurray and more recently in B.C. and even Ontario … and placed the blame on patterns of new development that have almost eradicated natural systems in the blinkered human focus on clearing, levelling, piping and paving for more new developments. Patterns of human activities are exacerbating feedback systems linked to global climate change.

I recommend the province consider recent research about the causes of flooding in southern Ontario, specificially in the Toronto area, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, Vo. 174 (2018) p. 1929 to 1641, entitled Assessing Urban Areas Vulnerability to Pluvial Flooding using GIS applications and Bayesian Belief Network Model. available through
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617327245?via…

Engineers from the University of British Columbia, and the University of Windsor, collaborated on this research. Their study concluded the main cause for flooding could be attributed to on-going dense ever-widening contiguous developments, plus all the associated paved or impermeable surfaces. Rainfall has nowhere to go when it races off paved surfaces. Efforts to channel rainfall by building more culverts to carry the water away do not solve the problem of poorly-designed communities.

Normally, natural floodplains spread water out, thereby slowing its progress. Stands of mature trees absorb about 36% of rainfall with which they have contact. The deep and massive root systems of trees and forests perform an essential function when it comes to flood control. For example, one mature eastern white pine will absorb about 100 gallons/day. A fully mature Oak may absorb twice that amount. Minimally disturbed landscapes sound like pretty good bulwarks against flooding within resilient well-planned communities .. and they do the job for free.

Instead of recognizing the protective resilience of such natural systems, many natural channels have been cleared and straightened, and lined with concrete, followed by expansion of nearby developments – result: faster water and even more flooding downstream. Paved channels do not prevent flooding – quite the opposite. Since development now intrudes into floodplains (by government decree, both past and present), these natural systems are defeated. Consider all the pavement in Vaughan and how water always moves from higher to lower levels. I suspect flooding in Toronto’s west end is exacerabated by water racing ‘downhill’ from Vaughan’s vast paved areas, adding to the woes of Toronto’s own extensive impermeable surfaces. This is just how a watershed works – or DOESN’T, especially when it is excessively paved to the detriment of its natural function.

The Ontario Environment Plan includes absolutely NO pictures of the regular flooding emergencies experienced in Toronto and other towns. Why not? In her December 2017 report, Ontario’s Auditor General, Bonnie Lysek, had some tough words for the province about lack of preparedness for such emergencies.

Where in the Ontario Environment Plan brochure are the photos of dense developments, increasingly cluttered right up to the edges of multi-laned roads, including Highway 400? What are these new residents going to do for fresh air? We know about pollutants in exhaust fumes from cars and diesel-powered trucks, but the very real dangers posed by particulate matter seem to be ignored. What about obvious respiratory and related health risks from airborne sub-micron sized particulate matter produced by the wear on (or mass lost from) brakes and tires on ALL roads? 50-70% of total ‘wear materials’ are released as airborne particles. Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) spectrometry shows average loss rates of tire and brake materials are 97 and 9 mg/vkm respectively. (vkm = vehicle kilometre) Tiny particles are inhaled deep into lungs, resulting in lung disease, including certain types of cancer. These particles are rich in certain transition metals (ie, zinc, copper, iron) adding to air toxicity. Heavier vehicles (such as transport trucks) create more brake and tire wear particles than lighter vehicles. This is only ONE type of pollution common to Ontario. What is the government’s solution to mitigating against such pollution?

The government has decided to repeal the Toxic Reductions Act, 2009 and all associated regulations by Dec 31, 2021. Apparently, this will reduce unnecessary duplication and the burden on industry to comply with provincial legislation. What ‘burden’ does it impose? This act was supposed to prevent pollution and reduce the use and creation of toxic substances, while informing Ontarians about those substances. Industry was required to develop VOLUNTARY toxic reduction plans, and report publicly each year. Since plans were voluntary, it is no surprise the Toxic Reduction Program did not achieve meaningful reductions. Instead of making such plans mandatory, the Ford government has decided to jettison the act. The government claims it has replaced the provincial Toxic Reductions Act, 2009, with the federal Chemicals Management Plan, ,but this plan does NOT exempt Ontario’s participation.

Here’s what the federal plan states: “In Canada, every order of government plays a part in protecting against risks from chemical substances: municipalities, the provinces and territories, and the federal government. The Government of Canada makes regulations and develops guidelines and objectives that apply across the whole country.” Then, the federal government expects lower tiers of government to follow and ENACT those guidelines! If Ontario’s Conservative government trusts the federal level regarding the management of chemicals, does it have enough faith in Ottawa to withdraw its objections and legal challenge to the federal carbon tax?

At this unprecedented rate of repeal, it is difficult to tell what the government will be doing when it comes to serving the public. I hope the government will take a pause from repeals and start public consultations on these topics.