Five things about Schedule…

Five things about Schedule 10 of Bill 66 alarm me:
1) Breaking open the covenants of the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and the Clean Water Act: We cannot go back once this occurs. The need to continue to protect these lands and our sources of water will only become greater in the years to come, as populations increase, and changes in the climate intensify.
2) Ascribing so much power to the Minister: The Minister is a political appointment and cannot possibly have the expertise required to fully assess the implications of situating a new business opportunity in any given location. The government would be putting itself in a position where it appears to be beholden to private interests. Some future government could also use this power to slow the entire approval process down, which I do not believe is the intention of this Bill.
3) Stepping outside of the Growth Plan: Starting with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in 2001, efforts have been undertaken to develop the Greater Golden Horseshoe in a cohesive, cost-efficient, organized manner while protecting the lands which clean our air, filter our drinking water and grow our food. The various Acts reflect the work of successive governments, and much consultation with citizens, municipalities, businesses and the development industry. Infrastructure such as sewage, public transit, and roads is a long-term game, and areas have already been identified where new businesses would best be situated. Stepping outside these plans seems a duplication, and could add significant costs borne by a municipality to service a given site. Has the government fully consulted with municipalities about the barriers they are facing to promote employment opportunities? Are there more finely honed ways of addressing some of these barriers?
4) The fact that public consultation is not required: many potential issues can be clarified and addressed through public consultation processes, leading to a plan more suited to an individual site and neighbouring interests, and reducing the potential for harm to public health and safety.
5) The rushed process of introducing this Bill: The comment period is short. Details needed to make a fully informed decision about the merits of the Bill, such as the “prescribed criteria” have not been provided. "50 jobs" is mentioned - are these full time? Part time?
I suggest the comment period should be extended, public consultation absolutely must be mandatory, more specific and less invasive ways of addressing red tape should be sought. Consult with municipalities and townships to identify specific issues and more appropriate solutions.