The proposed changes in this…

The proposed changes in this bill, Bill 66 put the public at risk. What the Bill refers to as “red tape and burdensome regulations” have been put into place to protect public health, safety, well-being and resilience. Remember Walkerton! This omnibus bill is undemocratic. It does not adequately allow for public study and understanding of the implications of this vast array of schedules and domains, nor does it allow for adequate public discourse, or proper examination in committees or the legislature. The scope of this omnibus bill puts the public at risk, particularly our most vulnerable residents and citizens. Bill 66 represents an unacceptable and unprecedented attack on legislative provisions which currently safeguard environmental quality and public health and safety throughout Ontario.

Bill 66 is in breach of public trust. It puts the public at risk.

Re: Schedule 3: Ministry of Education
•"Remove restrictions on home-based child care providers, including allowing additional children, to make it easier for parents to find affordable child care."
NB Such deregulation makes our children less safe. During 7 months in 2013-2014 four children died in daycares. See the Ombudsman’s Report: Careless about child care https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports-and-case-summaries/report… No parent wants cheap childcare at the expense of the well-being or death of their child. Stringent regulation is necessary.

Re: Schedule 5: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
•"Repeal the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 by 2021, remove the toxics reduction plan in 2019 and rely on the robust and science-based Federal Chemicals Management Plan
See "Repeal the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 and all associated regulations by December 31, 2021" (ERO # 013-4234) and
See "Planning and reporting changes under the toxics reduction program and Ontario Regulation 455/09" (ERO # 013-4235)"
NB DO NOT REPEAL the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009.Repealing the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009, is not in the public interest. Its implementing regulations require large industries to develop plans to reduce the use or generation of toxic substances within their production processes. Those “burdensome regulations” are there to protect the health, safety, well-being and resilience of Ontarians.

Re: Schedule 7: Ministry of Government and Consumer Services
• "Reduce where operating engineers are required to supervise."
NB DO NOT REDUCE WHERE OPERATING ENGINEERS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPERVISE. It is in the interest of public safety for such qualified professionals, held to stringent standards and a stringent code of ethics, to be in this supervisory position. Diminishing such oversight puts the public at risk. This is in breach of public trust.

Re: Schedule 8: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
• "Modernize and streamline administrative requirements for the operators of long-term care homes."
NB DO NOT STREAMLINE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATORS OF LONG-TERM CARE HOMES. Our elders are among the most vulnerable of our population. It is essential that complete transparency be upheld in the whole process of licensing and monitoring long term care homes.

Re: Schedule 9: Ministry of Labour
• "Amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) to reduce regulatory burden on businesses, including no longer requiring them to obtain approval from the Director of Employment Standards for excess hours of work and overtime averaging."
NB Surely this 'approval' exists to protect workers. At a time when so many Ontarians are employed in the service industry, and many with extremely precarious employment, there must be safeguards to protect employees. This regulatory measure should be retained.

Re: Schedule 9: Ministry of Labour
•"Stop requiring employers to post the Employment Standards Act (ESA) poster in the workplace, but retain the requirement that they provide the poster to employees."
NB Both and. Not only should the ESA poster be posted in the workplace, but it should also be provided to each employee upon employment. This is part of the social contract between employer and employee. Furthermore, certified translations should be available to employees whose mother tongue is neither English nor French.

Re: Schedule 9: Ministry of Labour
•"Amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to explicitly deem public bodies, including municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities, as “non-construction employers”.
NB What could this possibly mean? The implications of this need to be explained clearly prior to anyone being able to comment on this.

Re: Schedule 10: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
•"Introduce a new economic development tool and remove planning barriers to expedite major business investments and speed up approvals by about two years.
See "Proposed open-for-business planning tool" (ERO # 013-4125) and
See "New Regulation under the Planning Act for Open-for-Business Planning Tool (ERO # 013-4239)"
NB REMOVE SCHEDULE 10!
Decades of hard work, by Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments have put in place laws and regulations which protect the long-term health and resilience of our communities and residents. Very few Ontarians understand that, contrary to current legal requirements (Planning Act, Clean Water Act...), the by-laws could be passed without any prior public notice, behind closed doors. This is undemocratic, and in breach of public trust. Letting big business ignore rules outlined in the Clean Water Act, the Great Lakes Protection Act and the Toxics Reduction Act, as well as open up the Greenbelt for development, poses a threat to our land, water, and air. Bill 66 opens up Ontario’s Greenbelt for factory, retail and residential development, undermines drinking water protection rules and guts rules that help industry reduce the release of toxic chemicals. At a time when Ontarians need forward-thinking government action, Bill 66 basically takes us back 40 years.

I am in complete agreement with the following:
'The proposed Bill is framed as an attempt to cut red tape and facilitate the development planning and approvals process for business. However, looking beyond the rhetoric, ... it could result in real, adverse, and potentially irreversible effects to Ontario’s land, housing, and climate. If Bill 66 becomes law, it will allow new and potentially large-scale developments to be approved without the sound environmental protections and evidence-based growth management policies that ensure healthy and sustainable communities—including allowing development in the Greenbelt. The Bill will also dramatically weaken the public’s right to comment on development projects that might affect the environment, including access to clean water, natural heritage systems and agricultural lands.'...
'Ontario’s regulatory framework must evolve in a way that not only attracts business investments but also protects Ontarians from risks like a changing climate and drinking water contamination, and protects our farmlands and green spaces. The Bill 66 changes to the Planning Act take us in the wrong direction.'

Bill 66 is not in the public interest, and should not be passed.