The mounting opposition to the Ontario government’s controversial bills 5 and 17 has come to Niagara-on-the-Lake.
That pushback came from Seniors for Climate in Niagara, which hosted an event at the NOTL Community Centre last Monday featuring panellists speaking out against two provincial bills critics say will clear the way for more development without limitations and could encroach on environmental protection.
“With Bill 5 and 17 law, I will continue to oppose what is an unjust power grab,” said Lidija Biro, founder of Seniors for Climate in Niagara, during her introductory speech.
Bill 5 is a provincial law that received royal assent on June 5, which would allow the government to more easily access places in the province for economic development.
These controversially include places like the “ring of fire” in the James Bay lowlands, which are mineral-rich but environmentally sensitive. Indigenous groups also believe the bill violates their treaty rights and poses a threat to the environment.
The bill also allows the government to create “special economic zones,” allowing the provincial cabinet to exempt companies and projects from provincial and municipal laws and regulations if they deem it necessary.
Along with a few more than a dozen people who came to the community centre on June 23, the three panellists were Pascale Marchand, a provincial Green Party candidate in the last election, Phil Pothen, a lawyer with Environmental Defence and Coun. Sandra O’Connor.
Photen starkly laid out what he thinks are the stakes of Bill 5.
“No one alive today has lived under a set of rules like that,” said Photen, regarding the part of Bill 5 that sets up “special economic zones.”
“This is not a normal policy we disagree about.”
Bill 17 is another provincial act passed this year that is generating controversy — it received royal assent on June 5 and aims to cut down the amount of regulation needed to build homes. The province has promised to build 1.5 million homes by 2031.
O’Connor laid out the foundation for one major objection, which was how both bills were passed. With Bill 5, she noted that it was released on April 17 and that municipalities were meant to submit official comments by May 17.
“So, with all the information they gathered, they had three weeks to look at it, assess it, and maybe see some unintended consequences. That didn’t happen,” O’Connor said.
“Bill 17 was even worse,” she said. “Royal assent was given before we were able to put in any comments about the consequences. To me, that says … the province doesn’t care what we feel.”
A major complaint about the bills themselves includes what the panellists called the authoritarian nature of the “special economic zones” in Bill 5, which Photen said gave the government a sort of “cheat code” to override laws they don’t like.
Photen also had criticisms of Bill 17’s relaxing of urban design controls, which he said was Environmental Defence’s “biggest problem” with the bill.
“What you can get without urban design controls is actually fewer homes,” he said. “It’ll be a less appealing environment for people.”
Other concerns brought up during the evening included protection of the Greenbelt, Indigenous rights, ideal density limits and the definition of “habitat,” among others.
Eight people asked questions during the event, including Coun. Gary Burroughs and former Pelham mayor Dave Augustyn, who ran in this year’s provincial election as an NDP candidate.
Burroughs raised concerns about approved housing projects by the town that were not being developed.
“The residents need to know what we’ve already approved,” said Burroughs. “We’re overwhelmed with buildings, but we’re just not building. … Give them two years to build and if they don’t, get rid of (the project).”
Augustyn wondered if a way of going against bills 5 and 17 could be to campaign for many small exemptions to development, such as Niagara Parks.
All the panellists, and some of the questioners, talked about what the public can do about the bill. Photen told the audience on numerous occasions during the evening that this was not a time to be polite about their disapproval of bills 5 and 17.
“We made it very personal,” he said, referring to the ways Environmental Defence members communicated with Premier Doug Ford-allying MPPs in the wake of the Greenbelt scandal.
“We personally guilt-tripped those individual MPPs in public. … This is the summer to do that.”
Marchand agreed with the general approach.
“Be as annoying and squeaky wheel as possible,” she said.
A representative for the NDP was also originally scheduled to be on the panel but had to back out.
