Categories
Cottage Life

Can the federal government intervene in Doug Ford’s Greenbelt development plan?

Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has said he may intervene in the Ford government’s plan to develop sections of the Greenbelt. During an interview with The Narwhal, he said it was possible the federal government could use the Species at Risk Act to halt planned development near the Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto—a known corridor for Blanding’s turtles, an at-risk species. Or, he said, the government could use the Impact Assessment Act, which the feds used in 2021 to determine whether Ontario’s Highway 413, needed additional federal oversight.

While the statement from Guilbeault is the first time that he’s publicly stated the federal government could attempt to intervene, he has been voicing concerns over Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s intention to build 50,000 homes on sections of protected Greenbelt land.

During a press conference in Toronto in January, the minister said that the provincial government’s plan to remove 7,400 acres of land from the Greenbelt for development, “flies in the face of everything we’re trying to do in terms of being better prepared for the impacts of climate change.”

At a press conference in Brampton, Ford told reporters he was disappointed to hear Guilbeault’s comments, “This is our jurisdiction,” he said. “You can’t complain about not having enough housing for years and then complain when we come up with a solution to do it. We’re going to continue building the 50,000 homes on those pieces of property.”

Despite Ford’s confidence, the Greenbelt development hit a snag in late January when Ontario’s integrity commissioner and auditor general announced they would be separately investigating the project to see whether the Ford government colluded with developers when opening the land for homebuilding.

Ford has denied any wrongdoing.

Can the federal government legally intervene?

Assuming the project does move forward, there are no guarantees that the federal government will intervene in the Greenbelt development. “There’s a certain amount of signaling communication, of sending messages, sending hard messages, sending soft messages that are public. And then there’s, of course, what the governments are saying to each other privately,” says Patrick Fafard, a professor in the University of Ottawa’s department of public and international affairs. “The minister’s comment was not accidental. It was very deliberate. But it’s really hard, based on the limited information we have, to know what their ultimate goal is. I would leave open the possibility that there’s a range of goals of which actually going and using federal legislation to frustrate the build may not actually be the only goal or may not even be the goal. There could be other things going on.”

In regards to using the Species at Risk Act to stop development, Fafard says the act doesn’t give the federal government authority over private land or Crown land, which make up much of the areas set to be developed. It does, however, give the federal government authority over national parks, such as the Rouge National Urban Park, and adjacent land where species-at-risk may move through.

The Impact Assessment Act is more ambiguous. Fafard says it’s unclear whether the federal or provincial government’s environmental assessment takes precedence over a given project. “[Guilbeault’s comments] may be the federal government taking advantage of that ambiguity,” he says.

If the federal government decided to use legislation to intervene with the Greenbelt development, it is possible that the provincial government could push back by taking the feds to court.

“Canadian history is littered with examples, where for all sorts of reasons, good, bad, and indifferent, the government of Canada takes an action and says, ‘We’re going to use our authority to do this.’ And one or more provincial governments say, ‘No, we don’t like that.’ So, it goes to the Supreme Court,” Fafard says. “The Supreme Court for 150 years has been in the business of issuing rulings that say, ‘Well, we look at these two pieces of legislation, we look at the Constitution Act, and for the following reasons, we agree that the federal government has the authority or we don’t agree that the federal government has the authority.’”

Will the federal government intervene?

Julie Simmons, a political science professor at the University of Guelph, says she wonders if the federal government has started to shy away from intervening with the Greenbelt development. “The fact that the Environment Minister has not repeated what he said suggests to me that this is not a strategy that the Prime Minister’s Office is supporting at this time.”

She speculates that it could be because the federal government is in the midst of negotiating health care agreements with each province. If a problem, like the Greenbelt development, rears its head elsewhere, it could have ripple effects on the negotiations.

“The federal government isn’t likely to want to be micromanaging what’s happening in Ontario in this instance,” Simmons says. “If there’s a media spotlight on something that’s not what the federal government is focusing on currently with the provinces, then there is political capital to be lost or gained.”

Simmons does add, however, that Guilbeault and Ford butting heads over the Greenbelt could be beneficial.

“There is a train of thought that the environment benefits when there is friction between the two governments because there is a little bit more overlap of care for the environment,” she says, “rather than streamlining of care for the environment, which sometimes means streamlining for the benefit of industry.”

Categories
Cottage Life

Pending amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act would allow developers to build on floodplains without permits

On November 28, the Ontario government passed Bill 23 dubbed the More Homes Built Faster Act, a far-reaching piece of legislation that eliminates development fees and downloads a lot of the permitting responsibilities to the municipalities. The objective of the bill is to speed up the development planning process and create affordable housing.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has committed to building 1.5 million new homes in the next 10 years.

In hand with Bill 23, the Ford government is also looking to open sections of Ontario’s Greenbelt for development—with some of those sections located in wetlands and floodplains.

During an interview with the Canadian Press, Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, criticized the plan, saying that the federal government would not provide disaster compensation to developments built in floodplains.

Premier Ford responded to Guilbeault’s statement during a press conference in Clarington, Ont. on Dec. 2. by putting the onus on the developers.

“It’s the responsibility of any builder, no matter where we build, to make sure that they protect any floodplains,” the premier said.

Rhonda Bateman, the chief administrative officer for the Lower Trent Conservation Authority, confirms that as of right now, this is true. “Currently, everything is status quo as far as our permitting goes,” she says, meaning Ontario’s conservation authorities still have jurisdiction over natural hazards, such as floodplains, and have the power to prevent developers from building near these areas by denying them permits.

But that could change. The provincial government added two amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, a set of regulations Ontario’s conservation authorities use to “maintain the vitality of our watersheds and protect people’s lives and properties from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion.”

The two amendments have yet to be enacted, requiring a proclamation from the Lieutenant Governor. But if they were enacted, Bateman says that developers would not need a permit from their conservation authority to build on a hazardous area, such as a floodplain or wetland.

“If [developers] don’t require a permit from us, it will end up causing a lot of extra responsibility and liability for development on the municipality,” she says, “and they count on us for expertise to be able to identify all of those hazards and how to mitigate them or prevent them from happening.”

Bill 23 has already stripped conservation authorities of the ability to partner with municipalities to review and comment on development applications. The Ford government has reasoned that by removing stakeholders from the planning process, more development will happen faster. But many municipalities have said that without the expertise of conservation authorities, the planning process could take longer to properly assess an application.

It’s also unclear who would be liable if a developer built in a floodplain and the development flooded. “I think lawyers are going to be competing over the answer to that,” Bateman says. “The municipalities will have limited mechanisms to ensure that outside compliance can be reached because we’re the compliance in the permitting process.”

The dangers associated with building in a natural hazard are obvious, Bateman says. Homes built on a wetland could see extensive property damage from flooded basements. “The other part of the wetland issue is that wetlands are flood attenuation. If they’re paved over or built over, then the water that’s normally stored in there has to go somewhere, and it could cause surface flooding.”

Building in a floodplain is even worse. “People’s homes can get washed away. Or people could die,” Bateman says.

Featured Video 


Categories
Cottage Life

What the new gas tax cut in Ontario means for your cottage commute

With a trip to the cottage costing you $100 in gas (give or take, depending on your vehicle) heading north is becoming cost-prohibitive for cottagers and renters alike. To help combat the soaring gas prices, Ontario Premier Doug Ford cut the gas tax by 5.7 cents per litre on July 1. The tax cut will remain in effect until December 31, with the possibility of an extension if prices remain inflated.

“People and businesses are feeling the pinch of high gas prices and grocery bills,” says Peter Bethlenfalvy, Ontario’s Minister of Finance, in a statement. “Our government is cutting the gas and fuel tax rates to put money back in people’s pockets and help keep costs down.”

On July 1, when the Ontario government implemented the gas tax cut, prices dropped 11 cents overnight to an average of $193.9 cents per litre. This came as much-needed relief for drivers after gas prices hit a record high of $2.15 in early June.

The province’s dizzyingly high gas prices are the result of low supply and high demand. “We’ve got crude oil inventories down 13 per cent—according to the last U.S. government report—which is not good,” says Roger McKnight, chief petroleum analyst for En-Pro. “That’s why prices went up.”

The reopening of the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put constraints on the global supply of gas and oil, driving up inflation rates.

Gas prices in Canada have also been hiked by the federal government’s carbon tax, which was bumped up to 11.05 cents per litre on April 1.

Despite concerns over Ontario’s record-setting gas prices, McKnight says they aren’t likely to last. As of July 7, gas prices in Ontario dropped another 12 cents per litre to $1.79. Again, a relief to drivers, but the underlying cause for the price drop is concerning. Economists are predicting a recession, McKnight says. “Unless there’s some glimmer of hope or some optimism on Wall Street that this recession will not happen, then prices will continue to fall in the short term.”

If a recession does hit, which is possible considering the Bank of Canada continues to raise interest rates, then demand for gas will drop as people lose jobs and attempt to save money.

A recession is a possible outcome that people need to be prepared for, McKnight says. But for the time being, if he were a consumer watching gas prices drop 12 cents per litre or more, “I’d hop in my car and get on with this driving season. I don’t know how long it will last…I can’t see prices spiking or reversing anytime in the immediate future. So, have some fun.”

Feature Video