In closing, risky development decisions made in one or more jurisdictions could have significant negative cumulative impacts on our air, land and/or water, as well as the Great Lakes and many other highly valued ecosystems. Being “Open-for-Business” is a good thing, unless it is at the expense of public health and safety or the environment. Do we really want to risk another Walkerton or Grassy Narrows disaster? That is precisely what the province is fostering with Bill 66.
The Government of Ontario is proposing Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018. It is unacceptable that key environmental protection and legislation that protects the public is under attack.
Schedule 5 of Bill 66 would repeal the Toxics Reduction Act and two regulations. The purpose of the TRA is to prevent pollution and protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances and informing Ontarians about toxic substances.
Schedule 10 of this Bill would enable municipalities to simply pass an “open-for-business planning by-law” under the Planning Act, to exempt local development from the application of key components of several important provincial laws, plans and policies, including the:
• Clean Water Act, 2006, Section 39
• Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015, Section 20
• Greenbelt Act, 2005, Section 7
• Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, Section 6, and
• Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2003, Section 7
It’s also extremely troubling that a municipal open-for-business planning by-law would not be subject to public notice, comment or appeal provisions which are currently mandatory under the Planning Act.
If passed, this legislation would enable municipalities and local developers to bypass important environmental and public safety protections. Risky and imprudent development decisions could have severe negative impacts on our air, land and water, as well as the Great Lakes and many other highly valued ecosystems.
Sustainable development and a healthy environment go hand in hand. We all want safe, healthy and resilient communities, so it is important that this government ensures legislation that protects our freshwater and groundwater resources, our farmland and the environment.
It is crucial that Schedule 10 of Bill 66 is rejected and this gutting/circumventing of protective legislation is stopped.
Please take action now by signing onto this petition and ask your local MPP to champion the rejection of Bill 66.
Comment deadline is 20 January 2019! Thank you for taking action!
This disturbing proposal would allow the killing of 50 cormorants per day from March 15 until December 31 each year, which would potentially mean the killing of more than 14,000 birds per hunter, per killing season. Additionally, both members of a nesting pair are required for nesting success; therefore, the killing of either the male or female during the nesting season would result in their chicks starving to death. The government also proposes to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to allow killed cormorants to be left to spoil, but suggests that if this proposal proceeds it may be accompanied by regulations to require retrieval and disposal of the carcasses. This entire proposal is unacceptable, irresponsible and unjustified, and presents an increased risk to cottagers and recreational boaters and fishermen.
It is important to first state that although the Cap and Trade program was not perfect, it brought significant revenue into the provincial coffers, and funded important innovation, efficiencies and low-carbon programs. The few cents added to our gas fill-up was hardly noticeable. That being said, this is a great opportunity for the Province to come up with an effective Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy that will not just reduce carbon and result in cleaner air, but at the same time create well-paying jobs.
Many individuals and groups embarking on the Part II Order process are new to it, have no legal assistance or background, and are unfamiliar with the terminology and rules; therefore, if we are truly aiming to provide help to the public it is extremely important that clear, succinct and concise instructions be provided in this policy/guidance document.
This document does not go far enough to place CAs in a central role of watershed planning and management, or in working collaboratively with other municipalities and planning authorities. The CAs have a mandate to ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario’s water, as well as the land and natural habitats; however, municipalities have no such mandate and are more development oriented. It is essential that municipalities are not just using this Watershed Planning Guidance purely for municipal land use planning or a stormwater management tool, but that CAs play a central role, and it is used as an integrated watershed planning and management framework.
Unfortunately, water protection is not equal across the province; therefore, ORA submits that this proposal, and other provincial initiatives, must go much further to protect freshwater resources throughout all of Ontario. This is especially important in areas of intense mining or industrial development.
ORA would like to point out that the proposed list does not address an in-water pipeline scenario, it only addresses pipelines above, below and under a water body. Therefore, it is extremely important that the following be added:
The American Eel Needs Your Help! You have an opportunity to support the recovery of a species that has declined by 99% of its original population, has been completely extirpated from extensive areas of its native Ontario range, and is in steep decline where it still exists. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has prepared a Draft Government Response Station for the Recovery of the American Eel in Ontario, and you have until January 11th to sign the Petition below. More information can be found here. To add your own comments just click on the letter and type. Thank you for your help! Continue reading
However, the SEV must also set the tone for climate-resilient development within communities. This approach would require that decision-makers and practitioners integrate climate considerations directly into development activities across multiple sectors, keeping the focus on achieving development goals despite a changing climate. It would encourage a commitment to understand and plan for climate shocks like fires, droughts, hurricanes and floods. Ensuring flood planes are free of development and wetlands are left to do their important work.