Re: Response to Request for…

Re: Response to Request for Comments for Bill 66, Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act, 2018 (ERO #013-4293)

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade circulation proposal for Bill 66.

I have been a member of the Quinte Region Source Protection Committee for the last 11 years, as well as a member of the City of Belleville Committee of Adjustment for the past 12 years. I retired as a member (in good standing) of the Canadian Institute of Planners and also retired as a Registered Professional Planner. Thus, I have a wide historical and ongoing interest in these initiatives given my experience and previous roles.

My comments to the proposed Bill 66 and, more specifically, to Schedule 10, are as follows:

1. Bill 66 was introduced to speed up the approvals of enterprises which would create 50 to 100 jobs [how are jobs defined, e.g., above minimum wage with full benefits, full-time or seasonal or part-time?]. Apparently, the intention of the Province is to have all applications approved within one year of submission [https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4239]. It is intended that the criteria regarding: number of employees; type of employees; length of tenure (seasonal vs. part-time vs. full time); wage rates; standards for the size and space of the zone; standards for decisions are to be defined in a new regulation - an instrument not subject to public consultation or to public scrutiny and subject to changes at the whim of a Minister.

2. It is incomprehensible that the province, without the benefit of any published studies dealing with the length of time for planning approvals or a published provincial inventory of available serviced land, should provide a tool to reward recalcitrant municipalities that had taken no steps to develop fully serviced industrial parks or to designate and zone land for industrial or business enterprises to the detriment of municipalities that had done so. An example would be the City of Belleville where an active economic development department has ensured that tracts of prezoned and serviced land are available for such purposes. The private sector has also followed through with its own predesignated, zoned and serviced properties in Belleville. Why should poor planning by municipalities be rewarded at the expense of more progressive municipalities through the use of new processes provided in Bill 66?

3. Bill 66, Schedule 10, proposes to amend the Planning Act by adding a new section 34.(1) "Open For Business Planning By-law" (OFBPB) which, among other things, lists provisions of other statutes which will not apply including Section 39 of the Clean Water Act, (CWA) 2006 and Section 20 of the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015. Thus the OFBPB would remove the requirement that all decisions under the Planning Act would have to ... "conform with significant threat policies and designated Great lakes Policies set out in the source protection plan"... and "have regard to other policies set out in the source protection plan". CWA, section 39 (2) provides that when a conflict between a zoning by-law or Official Plan and a source protection plan occurs, the source protection plan prevails. Section 39 (3) excludes the provisions of Section 39 from policy statements under section 3 of the Planning Act or a minister's order under section 47 of the Planning Act. At present, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the authority to override the provisions of Section 39 in two specific cases. Why is it necessary to enact the provisions of Bill 66, schedule 10 pertaining to the CWA 2006 if the Crown already has such powers? There are other provisions in section 39 which pertain to infrastructure and works by other governments and agencies which will be removed. Does the baby have to be thrown out with the bath water?

4. In a well written document and argument, “Open-For-Business” Planning By-Laws, Drinking Water Safety, And The Lessons Of The Walkerton Tragedy: Legal Analysis Of Schedule 10 Of Ontario Bill 66", Theresa McClenaghan and Rick Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) describe the history of the Walkerton tragedy and the resultant Inquiry and follow through, which lead to the CWA, 2006. They provide the following observations, conclusions and recommendation:

1. "...Schedule 10 of Bill 66 represents an unprecedented and unjustifiable rollback of current legal requirements that were specifically enacted under the CWA to prevent a recurrence of the Walkerton Tragedy. By any objective standard, the well-founded requirements under section 39 of the CWA are not “red tape” or “burdensome regulations”, as implicitly suggested by the provincial government. To the contrary, section 39 is a vitally important safeguard that must remain in full force and effect across Ontario in order to protect drinking water safety and human health."

2. "...it is well-established that protecting drinking water sources against significant threats also makes considerable economic sense, particularly since source protection efforts help reduce the need for municipalities to add (or enhance) expensive treatment technologies, or attempt to restore or cleanup
contaminated drinking water sources, or build (or expand) drinking water infrastructure in order to draw supplies from alternative sources."

3. "In our view, the Ontario government should not sacrifice drinking water quality, or create needless public health risks, in the pursuit of economic development throughout the province. Accordingly, CELA strongly recommends that Schedule 10 be abandoned and withdrawn by the Ontario government before Bill 66 proceeds any further in the legislative process. "

5. The Quinte Region Source Protection Committee has observed a number of examples of projects which were developed or which evolved during laissez faire administrations. To be fair, there was a paucity of planning policies, regulations, and statutory powers when these enterprises were commenced. Long-term environmental damages were created which linger on and now must be remediated or corrected at tremendous costs. The Bakelite property in Belleville, Picton Terminals in Picton, landfills that became Zwicks Park in Belleville, the old gasification plant in Belleville are examples of projects from previous decades which require remediation now. CELA estimates that the aggregate costs for the Walkerton Tragedy for "...the public inquiry, remediation, compensation, healthcare and related matters ...to be $200 million." (p.17) Remediation of the above-noted local examples may reach similar costs in aggregate.

6. Based on my previous work experiences and those that I gained with the Quinte Region Source Protection Committee in developing an approved Source Protection Plan, I conclude that a successful planning and approval approach should be based on: stated principles; goals and objectives; policies; up-to-date science-based assessment and sound engineering; and geo-referenced data and information. The precautionary approach which was taken was collaboratively driven, with full public consultation, and was supported by the local municipalities and the Province. The Ontario approach to long-range planning and development at local, regional, watershed and provincial scales which commenced after World War II should not be "trumped" by a retrograde approach to re-institute site-specific spot zoning opportunism for the benefit of a few at the expense of many as the result of implementation of Bill 66.

7. Page 14, of the proposed Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan states, "Ensure the knowledge gained through the drinking water source protection program helps inform our water management programs." This reinforces the position that Source Protection Plan policies should not be omitted from consideration during review of development proposals as is proposed in Bill 66. How can one policy initiative so greatly conflict with another? It is curious that one provincial ministry wants to halt the influence of Source Protection Plans on new development while the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks wants to use the knowledge gained from Source Protection Plans to better manage water as related to new development.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Withdraw Bill 66, the Planning Tool and the new regulation.

2. Adopt the analysis, conclusions and positions developed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) found at https://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/CELAlegalanalysis-Bill66andCWA….
.
3 Provide Provincial funds to remediate and clean-up the failed and abandoned projects in the Quinte Source Protection Region such as the abandoned Bakelite property in Belleville, Zwicks Park landfill in Belleville, Picton Terminals, Belleville Coal Gas Plant and others. These projects demonstrate that enterprises commenced without proper studies, planning or engineering and taking into account only the immediate impacts on the local neighbourhood as will occur if Bill 66 is enacted. Eventually, failed Bill 66 projects will result in large clean-up costs which must be borne by the province, conservation authority and/or municipality later in the long term.

4. Bill 66 (and subsequent processes) will have a negative impact on all current statutory planning and management instruments, especially the Clean Water Act, 2006. If Bill 66 must proceed, then I recommend that the requirement for compliance with the Clean Water Act, 2006 and the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 remain in effect to avoid risks to public health from contamination impacts to surface, ground water, and aquifers relied upon for drinking water and ecosystem health. This can be achieved by removing any reference to the Clean Water Act in Schedule 10.

5. The Province should carry-out and publish studies dealing with the length of time taken for land-use planning approvals by municipalities and develop and publish a provincial inventory of available serviced land.