by Anna Karch
Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, was passed at the end of 2022 as a proposed solution to the housing crisis in Canada, a way to increase the amount of available viable housing while also increasing affordability with major changes to legislation. It sounds like a good deal, right? If only things were so simple. Like any policy, there's some good and some bad, and while Bill 23 may do some things right, it also raises significant concerns from Conservation Authorities and other experts over adequate environmental and wildlife protections, among other things. And although the bill was passed over a year ago, it’s still a highly relevant topic today.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
Conservation Authorities monitor the health of natural resources in their watershed. Credit: Conservation Ontario
Conservation Ontario, a network of Ontario's 36 conservation authorities (CAs), wrote a strongly supported publicly available letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, citing power redistribution and natural infrastructure endangerment as their primary overarching concerns with this Act. While Bill 23 aims to streamline the planning and building processes, the decision to delegate CA regulations to municipalities will likely reduce careful considerations in land-use decision making, and ultimately do more harm than good.
The core role of CAs is to "ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario's water, land and natural habitats through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs," as detailed on Conservation Ontario's website. In other words, they are our local Lorax and "speak for the trees."
-
A building permit is a document issued by those responsible for enforcing the Ontario Building Code (usually municipal building departments), and it is necessary to obtain before making any changes to a property so that the municipality may protect the interests of both individuals and the community.
However, the significant changes in power distribution outlined by Bill 23 quiets the voices and reduces the roles of CAs; many environmental decisions and responsibilities will fall on the shoulders of municipalities, which in many cases are "unprepared and under resourced," and in which "development interests wield the most influence." Municipalities have much relied on benefits from long-standing and successful partnerships with CAs, and these partnerships are ultimately undermined. Conservation Ontario also states that, in addition to not being equipped with adequate eco-expertise, the burden of extra responsibility placed on municipalities stretches limited resources thinner and could result in errors.
Under these circumstances, Ontario's natural infrastructure—valuable spaces in our environment—has been put in jeopardy. But why are these spaces so valuable in the first place? Why do they merit thoughtful surveillance and dedicated protection?
The Promised Land
Ontario farmer, Ken Rosin, enjoys wildlife on his restored wetlands. Credit: Ontario Grain Farmer Magazine
Conservation Ontario highlights wetlands in particular as key natural infrastructure integral to our communal health and safety. After all, wetlands play vital roles: they help with flood control, water filtration, erosion control, sediment retention and more. In fact, Ontario’s Special Advisor on Flooding recognized that Ontario's previous environment-conscious planning is highly effective in protecting Ontarians and preventing property damage, and that this approach would be “increasingly valuable” now, especially as climate change leads to more extreme weather events.
The continued loss of wetlands is an important factor behind rising flooding and natural hazards, and it's an issue only made worse by land development. In fact, according to leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization Environmental Defence, "[d]evelopment of natural areas is the primary cause of wetland loss in southern Ontario." As these lands are manipulated in favour of expanding residential, commercial, and agricultural territory, the negative consequences of doing so threaten property and people.
It's necessary to also consider that wetlands are disappearing 3 times as fast as forests, according to a 2018 article from UN Climate Change News—and that's on top of the fact that over 72-85% of them have already been lost in Southern Ontario.
In addition to flooding and natural hazards, wetland destruction is detrimental to ecosystems. Take, for example, the Great Lakes Coastal wetlands which, according to Environmental Defence, contain "a large variety of rare, threatened, or even endangered animal and plant species" as well as "up to one-third of primary food for other animals in the ecosystem."
The protected Collavino wetland in the River Canard area in Amherstburg is currently under rehabilitation. Credit: Windsor Star
These wetlands are also among the particularly threatened, as "an estimated 50 percent of Great Lakes wetlands have been lost basin-wide, with losses of up to 90 percent occurring in some areas."
Prevention is the best medicine and an often overlooked approach. As the Ontario government invests $6.7 million in an attempt to restore and enhance around 150 wetland projects across the province, Bill 23’s direction is counterproductive. According to an article from the University of Waterloo, wetlands are worth billions of dollars in terms of the value they provide. In water filtration services alone, they provide 4.2 billion dollars—and that's only in Southern Ontario! The loss is immeasurable: billions are lost in wetland destruction, and millions are lost in restoration projects.
Two Heads Are Better Than One
The passing of Bill 23 has also raised concerns at the level of democracy, as it "[u]ndermines democracy by reducing public participation in planning matters and urban design, and eliminating the public’s right to appeal planning decisions," in addition to greatly limiting the authority of CAs.
Whose interests are at the forefront? Who benefits from these changes? The answers seem to lean disproportionately towards developers. Not only do they have more sway in municipalities where environmental responsibilities will be delegated, but they will also benefit from an offsetting policy proposed by the government. Is wetland offsetting really possible? The short answer is no. According to Ontario Nature, this program means that the loss of a wetland is guaranteed while its timely and effective recreation is anything but. In fact, over 30 years of recreation attempts have, more often than not, failed. Alarmingly, developers also have the option to opt out of this initiative altogether in favour of paying a fee instead, which puts a price on priceless ecosystem elements. This kind of set-up can "push the floodgates of destruction wide open."
Essex Region Conservation Authority reported as creating 5 new wetland areas in 2016. Credit: Detroit River Cleanup on CBC News Windsor
Conservation Ontario wishes for a more effective, productive, and proactive role. They ask the Province to resist giving eligible developments a free-pass from obtaining CA permits; to return CA regulations to CAs rather than delegating them to municipalities; to refrain from freezing necessary funding to CAs; and to allow municipalities entry into agreements with CAs in order to ensure a well-rounded, informed perspective from which to make mutually beneficial environmental decisions.
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Bill 23 may have good intentions. As discussed by WOC contributor Jeff Watson in his article There Is No Place Like [Tiny] Home, there is a positive motion the Bill rolls out that aligns with its ultimate goal: the construction of more dwelling units (which you can read more about at the link).
Dr. Dawn Parker, professor at the University of Waterloo's School of Planning, confirms that "[o]n the positive side, [the Bill] addresses exclusionary zoning by requiring municipalities to allow more units on residential parcels and increases some incentives for rental and attainable housing supply."
However, these positives alone will not change the fact that the Bill’s "unintentional, negative consequences" will "not meet the goals for increasing housing supplies and will instead increase risks to life and property for Ontario residents," thus requiring serious reconsideration, according to Conservation Ontario.
Furthermore, in comments submitted to the relevant provincial authorities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) validates that up to $1 billion in costs will be diverted from private sector developers to property taxpayers annually, further reducing the chances of housing affordability. It's simply expressed as: short term profit > people + planet.
The howard bouffard secondary plan
Right here, right now: a major land development project is currently underway in our Windsor-Essex community. Hailed as “the biggest land use plan in LaSalle's history,” The Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan aims "to create the environment to allow for the orderly development of the Bouffard and Howard Planning Districts within the Town’s urban boundary." These lands have been "designated for a range of land uses and earmarked as the Town’s growth area for the next 20 years," as outlined in the 2017 Environmental Assessment Addendum.
One of three planning options presented by the Town of LaSalle. Credit: The Town of LaSalle
In addition to concerns about increased traffic and expropriation, residents worry about the future of green spaces. While certain green spaces around Malden Road are visibly recognized by Ontario's Natural Heritage map as provincially significant, the green space near Bouffard Road is currently unlabelled; according to resident John DeMarco who was interviewed for CBC New Windsor, “all options of the plan that have been presented and discussed so far involve significant loss of LaSalle's wood lots and natural areas—some 40 hectares,” approximately.
In an interview with iHeartRadio, LaSalle's mayor Crystal Meloche stated that "we'd all love to preserve as much green space as possible, but their plan requires the municipality to purchase land that's privately owned by individuals as well as developers [which would cost] millions and millions of dollars [and] some of that just won't work financially." She highlighted that the Town of LaSalle does already own a portion of the area, which is currently under some level of protection.
you snooze, you lose
So, what happens now? What do we do? Even though Bill 23 has already passed and some parts of it are currently taking effect, some others will be delayed; as part of the housing package, the government is continually seeking public input for related policies and regulations. With Bill 23 and any other land development projects, there are multiple phases which may allow formal opportunities for public comments, such as council meetings and workshops. Outside of these opportunities, residents can stay in the loop on projects and leave their comments on representatives’ social media posts, or contact them directly by phone or email.
“It is VERY important that people continue to provide comments on all of those Environmental Registry of Ontario postings by the specified deadlines.”
—Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of Canadian Environmental Law Association
Like the Brown Bar-ba-loots, the Swomee-Swans, and the Truffula Trees of Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, our local ecosystems are beautiful and rich. And unlike the Onceler from The Lorax, our story doesn't have to end with the cutting down of the last tree. We have the power to amplify the voices we care about.