Blog

Photo by Linda HeronPhoto Credit

Category Archives: Bill 98

ERO-026-0300: Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026)

ORA’s concern is direct and practical. MZOs have been used in Ontario to authorize development on or adjacent to sensitive wetlands, floodplains, and river corridors, in some cases over the objections of CAs and local municipalities. The notice requirement has been the only mechanism by which organizations like ORA can identify when a proposed MZO amendment affects a river system, place concerns on the public record, and seek to influence the Minister’s decision before it is made. Removing notice does not constrain the use of MZOs; it makes their use invisible until it is too late. For watershed and river protection purposes, an MZO amendment process with no public notice is a process with no meaningful public participation at all.

ORA submits that notice requirements for MZO amendments and revocations must be retained without qualification. If the government’s concern is administrative efficiency, notice can be provided through streamlined electronic means with a fixed and short comment window. Removing public notice entirely is not a proportionate or defensible administrative reform.

Continue reading


ERO-026-0301 and ERO-026-0302: Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 Respecting Communal Drinking Water and Wastewater System Municipal Consent Requirements (Schedule 4 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026)

These two positions are irreconcilable. ERO-026-0301 says water infrastructure must remain publicly owned. ERO-026-0302 states that municipalities must approve non-municipal water infrastructure, potentially privately owned and operated, on demand once prescribed criteria are met. A government that prohibits private ownership in one part of its water policy framework while mandating municipal approval of private systems in another is not following a coherent policy direction. It is advancing the incremental privatization of water and wastewater service delivery, one subdivision at a time, under a framework designed to make each individual approval appear routine.

ORA submits this letter to both contact addresses, the Intergovernmental Relations and Partnerships Branch for ERO-026-0302 and the Local Government Policy Branch for ERO-026-0301, precisely because the government’s fragmented consultation structure has ensured that neither branch is required to evaluate what the other has posted. These two offices are on the same floor of the same building in the same Ministry. The contradiction between their respective proposals is invisible to the process that is supposed to catch it. ORA is placing it before both branches simultaneously so that it cannot be evaluated in the absence of the other half of the picture.

Continue reading


ERO-026-0304: Draft Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG), 2026 to Support Implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (Bill 98)

West Credit River Brook Trout – Photo by Steve Nokams

ORA submits comments on ERO-026-0304 as part of a coordinated response to the Bill 98 legislative package. ORA has submitted separately on ERO-026-0315 (April 24, 2026), ERO-026-0313, ERO-026-0300, and ERO-026-0301/0302 (all May 14, 2026).6,7,8,9 The Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG) is foundational to this package: the land quantum it produces is the primary input driving (ary Expansion (SABE) decisions in official plan updates across Ontario. A methodology that systematically omits environmental constraints from its land supply calculations will generate land need figures that are overstated, ecologically unjustified, and will provide a spurious quantitative basis for designating development onto natural heritage lands, floodplains, river corridors, and watershed recharge areas that cannot and should not be built upon.

Continue reading


ERO-026-0312: Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act (Bill 98)

The Ontario Provincial Climate Change Impact Assessment (OCCIA 2023) documents increasing precipitation intensity, hydrological volatility, and flood frequency across Ontario.4 The Auditor General of Ontario’s 2022 report on urban flood risk documented billions of dollars in flood-related municipal infrastructure losses and found that existing floodplain mapping substantially underestimates actual flood risk in many communities.5 Flooding events in spring 2024 and spring 2026 across the Sudbury, Ottawa, and Lake Erie watersheds caused widespread municipal infrastructure damage and emergency costs. Municipalities that accept floodplain-adjacent land as parkland will inherit maintenance liability and public safety responsibility for lands that are demonstrably at increasing flood risk.

ORA submits that floodplain-adjacent lands, including valley lands and riparian corridors that fall within but near the boundary of identified hazard areas, should be explicitly ineligible for developer-identified parkland credit, not merely eligible on an undefined condition.

Continue reading


ERO-026-0313: Streamlining the Information and Material That Planning Authorities Can Require as Part of a Complete Application (Bill 98)

Beyond the environmental risk, this proposal represents a significant and troubling shift in where municipal planning authority in Ontario resides. Local municipal councillors, planners and Conservation Authorities (CAs) possess on-the-ground knowledge of their watersheds, floodplains, and natural heritage systems that no standardized provincial list can replicate. They know which river reaches flood unpredictably, which unclassified wetlands provide critical flood attenuation, and which development proposals require additional study because of conditions unique to the local landscape.

Removing municipalities’ legal authority to act on that knowledge, and substituting a provincial uniformity standard in its place, moves decision-making away from the communities that must live with the consequences of planning decisions and toward a provincial administration that is not accountable to local conditions. This is not an administrative convenience; it is a transfer of authority over local environmental risk from the local governments best positioned to understand it, to a provincial government that has demonstrated, through the volume and pace of these interconnected regulatory changes, that its priority is development speed rather than environmental stewardship.

Continue reading