I am a resident of Simcoe…

I am a resident of Simcoe County, where I also practice law, and I have significant concerns with this proposed legislation. I will focus my comments on Schedule 10 of Bill 66, which would allow municipalities to pass “open-for-business” planning by-laws (“OFB by-laws”).

As it is currently proposed, this legislation would threaten the health and safety of communities across the province, our natural heritage, and local democracy.

The legislation railroads those important health, heritage, and environmental protections our province has put in place over successive governments of all political stripes. This is not "red tape" - these are specific check points our society has decided is important.

The legislation is overbroad: as currently drafted, it could result in untenable scenarios in which our muncipal drinking water well-heads could be polluted without a requirement for public notice.

The legislation is arbitrary: its effects don't square with its stated intention. For example, it would result in the centralization of muncipal planning with the Ministry, rather than empowering municipalities on their own.

It is unnecessary-- muncipal zoning orders already exist for those exceptional circumstances this legislation contemplates in its justifications.

And, there is no rationale that justifies overriding the following, as examples:

1. Source water protections in the Clean Water Act regarding significant threats to our drinking water, put in after the Walkerton Tragedy, which would automatically not apply to these by-laws.

2. The “legal effect” section of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act; that is, the section that gives the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan its teeth would also automatically not apply. This would render designated policies under the Plan meaningless.

3. Perhaps most egregious is that Bill 66 contains no requirement for municipalities to provide public notice when passing these by-laws. And there would be no right to appeal an OFB by-law.

Expedience or ease are not compelling objectives that justify placing the health and democracy of our communities at risk.

Yes, Bill 66 would make things 'easier,' in that it would remove a requirement to comply with the safeguards we have for our health, environment, and democracy. That’s not a good reason that justifies this proposed legislation in Ontario.

The language of Bill 66 means that any of the listed provisions (including the protections mentioned earlier) do not apply to an OFB by-law as the default. Muncipal councils could pass an OFB by-law and then have to put together piecemeal all those safeguards again—the designated policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, the source water protection of the Clean Water Act, and likely have to fight with a developer about the introduction of those additional requirements. That’s not easy or expedient with respect to planning goals. What is the rationale for having these exclusions apply as the default?

As a second example, muncipal councils don’t have the jurisdiction to create a right of appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. This means that residents in communities across Ontario would not be able to appeal an OFB by-law decision in any meaningful way. This runs absolutely contrary to the democratic principles of procedural fairness and public participation and there is no justification for this rights removal in the proposed legislation.

Bill 66 will result in muncipalities facing significant pressure to use it to make decisions that are not in the public interest. Developers will have every incentive to flood campaigns with donations, and wine and dine councillors. Speculative pressures will prey on our communities once more. Financial pressures could pit communities against neighbouring municipalities in race-to-the-bottoms - whichever communities protect less win.

Let’s not play this game – it puts our communities at risk. It asks us to bet the farm for no good reason. We can be open for business in a way that prioritizes the health of our communities, our natural heritage, and our democratic rights. Indeed, we already are.

This is bad legislation. It requires major redrafting if it will be reasonable, specific, non-arbitrary (outcomes related to its stated intents), reasonable with justifiable rationales, and if it won't put our communities' health and democracies at risk.