Bill 66: Cutting red tape or harming the environment?

York Region municipalities wade into debate over Ontario's 'Open for Business' act

Yorkregion.com
Jan 16, 2019
Lisa Queen

Gloria Marsh can’t believe that, at her age, she is fighting this battle all over again.

Twenty years ago, the Richmond Hill resident was arrested and spent several hours in a York detention cell for trespassing.

This was after she and other protesters took civil disobedience courses, learned how to use handcuffs and locks to immobilize big pieces of equipment, then chained themselves to pine trees to stop developers from clear-cutting a portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Now she is back at it, thanks to Bill 66, the province’s new Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, which critics fear could lead to the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Greenbelt being paved over with development.

Greenbelt or street names: which is more important to Richmond Hill?
“I’m 75 years old. I want to spend time with my grandchildren. Instead, here I am fighting this all over again.”

After that first battle, when Marsh was co-chair of the Kettle Lakes Coalition, the activists were jubilant, having succeeded in saving the land and finding a compromise that ultimately included a 1,000-acre natural corridor park protecting headwaters of the Humber and Rouge rivers.

This time, though, their fight is provincewide and on a very tight deadline.

Marsh, now a founding director of the Oak Ridges Moraine Trust and the executive director of York Region Environmental Alliance, along with many other activist groups are scrambling to galvanize opposition to what they believe is regressive, environmentally destructive legislation.

Doug Ford's Progressive Conservative government says the proposed legislation will eliminate red tape and burdensome regulations so businesses can grow, create and protect good jobs.

Critics warn the  bill would allow planning bylaws to override water, agricultural and environmental protections in provincial legislation, without requiring municipalities to provide notice or public hearings.

Keep York Moving fights to access key clauses on...
But they don’t have much time to make their case.

York Region municipalities, sitting on some of the most sought-after green space in the province, are currently holding their first post-holiday meetings with their newly elected councils, many now in the midst of the budget process.

At the same time, activists are racing to be placed on agendas to have their voices heard before the province’s Jan. 20 deadline for feedback on Bill 66.

Executive director Claire Malcolmson says Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition has received a flurry of emails alerting to municipalities that have squeezed the matter onto their agendas.

“It’s unfolding really fast, and it’s hard to keep up.”

The province allotted 45 days for consultation, Malcolmson says, but this was over the Christmas holidays, when councils were on break and people were distracted.

“For environmental activists, it kind of ruined Christmas,” she says.

The province’s timeline is “totally inappropriate,” says Jack Gibbons, chair of Lake Simcoe Watch and North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance. “They’re trying to rush this through before voters realize what’s going on.”

Like many activists, Gibbons, Malcolmson and Marsh have spent the last few weeks appearing at council meetings and emailing letters to every municipality affected. They say they are gratified to see Aurora taking the lead as "an enlightened municipality”.

Aurora council was the first in York Region to speak out, with a unanimous decision in December to tell the province it opposes the proposed changes to the Planning Act within Bill 66.

But Marsh is discouraged to hear that some, like Richmond Hill, are bowing out of the debate.

Coun. David West asked Richmond Hill councillors to order a staff report on the bill’s impact on the Greenbelt and moraine, and to set a special meeting to discuss and compose an official response. The motion, he said, would have been in keeping with the town's reputation as a leader and protector of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Instead, a majority of councillors, without any discussion, voted the idea down.

“I am profoundly disappointed … It is astounding and frankly a little embarrassing to me.”

Whitchurch-Stouffville is another council coming under fire for aligning with the proposed legislation.

An online petition, created by local resident Amanda Lear, opposes the town’s plan to use Bill 66 to open up protected countryside along Highway 404.

Mayor Iain Lovatt says the town has no choice if it wants to protect overburdened homeowners struggling to pay their property taxes to support needed services.

“We have a huge imbalance in our tax assessment,” he says, adding homeowners pay 95 cents of every tax dollar in Whitchurch-Stouffville.

“If we don’t have a robust and thriving commercial/industrial tax base, who pays for road reconstruction … who pays for new street lights? (Residents) come here and they want to get their kids into swimming and they can’t because our pool’s full. So, we’ve got to plan for a new pool. Well, who’s going to drop the $12 million to pay for it? We need to grow our commercial/industrial (assessment) so it’s not all on the backs of our residents."

“Everyone is at the ceiling with taxes,” agrees Steve Pellegrini, mayor of King Township. Like Stouffville, King is “handcuffed” on development and relying on a 95 per cent residential tax base, Pellegrini says.

“We’ve always talked about the 400 and King Road as a potential (site for employment development),” he says. “I’m not going to shrink the Greenbelt, ever. So, if you want to take an acre out, you’re going to provide more.”

Susan Lloyd Swail, senior manager, livable communities of Environmental Defence Canada, says there is plenty of land already available for development without touching the Greenbelt.

A 2017 Region of York report shows 2,588 net hectares of vacant employment lands -- the equivalent of almost 20 Canada Wonderlands -- is available within designated employment areas, about 84 per cent within five km of a 400-series highway, Swail says.

Using protected green space is an inefficient use of land, she says.

“Taxpayers would have to pay for infrastructure in the countryside -- water, sewer, road networks, emergency services -- not to mention the threat to groundwater in areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine” where soil is especially porous.

After several attempts to interview someone from the Building Industry and Land Development Association, (the voice of the land development, home building and renovation industry), YorkRegion.com was provided with an emailed comment from president Dave Wilkes.

“The government and the minister have been clear that this is not about opening up the Greenbelt,” it says. “Bill 66 is a tool that provides municipalities with increased flexibility when it pertains to employment lands."

That “flexibility” concerns Brenda Hogg, a former regional councillor in Richmond Hill and one of the key initiators of Greenbelt protection laws.

“The trouble is, if they fight to open up the protective provincial legislation ... then all other municipalities across southern Ontario will have the same opportunities. Saying, ‘but our municipality won’t use the opportunity’ is a politically expedient response and ultimately unsupportable. If the protection is lost, it’s lost forever.”

Faced with a “really brutal” timeline imposed by the Ontario government, Tim Gray, Environmental Defence executive director, says more than 20 organizations quickly banded together and on Jan. 12 launched a new website, StopBill66.ca.

A rally in Ajax over the weekend attracted more than 200 anti-Bill 66 protesters.

It is not too late to speak up, Gray says. The legislature is on winter recess until Feb. 19. Citizens can still comment on the Environmental Registry of Ontario or sign the group’s online petition, and municipalities can still weigh in.

“We are encouraging everyone to speak up, even if they can’t do something before Jan. 20. Just don’t ignore this.”

Region of York: A memo from chief planner Paul Freeman is expected to come to a Jan. 17 committee meeting.

Aurora: Worried about the erosion of environmental protections, council opposes Bill 66’s “open-for-business” agenda and requests the province reconsider the proposed changes.

Bradford West Gwillimbury: Will continue to make sound decisions regarding growth management and resource preservation that are consistent with the Clean Water Act and other provincial policies, plans and legislation.

East Gwillimbury: Received deputations from Gloria Marsh and Claire Malcolmson, of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. Taking a wait-and-see position on Bill 66 now and plans to move forward with a motion in the future.

Georgina: Discussing on Jan. 16.

King Township: Will discuss Jan. 14. A staff report says a decision on whether to use an open-for-business bylaw is not necessary at this time. It also criticized the province’s rushed consultation period.

Markham: Mayor Frank Scarpitti has said he welcomes the province’s removal of red tape but promised the city won’t turn its back on the environment.

Newmarket: Considering a letter from the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition opposing Bill 66 at its Jan. 14 meeting.

Richmond Hill: A Dec. 17 council motion by Coun. David West to provide an official comment to the province was defeated by a majority of council.

Vaughan: Holding a meeting Jan. 17 to get public opinion.

Whitchurch-Stouffville: While it “vigorously supports” legislation protecting the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine, council wants the provincial government to designate properties along Ontario’s 400-series highways as employment lands. It says its financial future depends on business development along Highway 404 in Gormley.