CONE Comments on Red Tape Reduction Bill #3June 11, 2000 Ray Pichette, Acting Director Dear Mr. Pichette:
The Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment is responding only to the portion of the above-noted posting that pertains to proposed amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA). The Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE) was founded in 1978 and currently has 24 member organizations (see Appendix 1) representing tens of thousands of individuals members and supporters. CONE has worked consistently for the protection of the Niagara Escarpment and its many values to Ontario society, by carrying out public education activities, monitoring compliance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and liaison with community groups up and down the Escarpment in order to foster public appreciation of the Escarpment's natural values. CONE is a strong supporter of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. In particular, we would draw your attention to the following amendments: (1) CONE supports the proposed amendments to Section 24 to the NEPDA that provide for the availability of stop work orders where person(s) are undertaking developments in contravention of the Act. Making this power available to the Minister or his/her delegate is long overdue. However, we object strenuously to the limitation of this power to only a subset of developments in contravention of the Act, namely those where the Minister or his/her delegate has "reasonable grounds to believe that the contravention is causing or is likely to cause a risk to public safety or significant environmental damage [emphasis added]." There is no justifiable reason to limit stop work orders in this way. If the development contravenes the Act, it contravenes the Act and must be subject to a possible stop work order; there must be no equivocation or room for interpretation here. As CELA notes, the limitation appears to legitimize some developments that are in contravention of the Act (i.e., those that are judged not to cause risk to public safety or to cause significant environmental damage) and leaves the Minister or his/her delegate powerless to stop them. We are concerned that a decision-maker -- whether it be the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Commission's director, or the Minister -- would be charged with assessing whether a development in violation of the Act is causing or is likely to cause significant environmental damage. (2) CONE supports the proposed amendment to Section 25(4) that for the first time requires that decisions by the Minister's delegates, including the Niagara Escarpment Commission and hearing officers appointed pursuant to the Act, must be made "in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan." It would seem to go without saying that such decisions must meet the provisions of the Plan, but lest there be any doubt that this is required, better to include this new phrase. CONE has first-hand experience, through at least two recent appeals of development permits decisions of the Commission, that there is some confusion at the Niagara Escarpment Commission and among hearing officers as to the extent to which their decisions are required to comply with the Niagara Escarpment Plan. As CELA has noted, it would seem that some of these decision-makers believe that the Plan is merely a guide to be considered, along with other factors, when making decisions on development applications, i.e., that the Plan is somehow not prescriptive. Fifteen years' experience in implementing the Plan has shown that in the vast majority of cases, decision-makers regard the Plan as the "rule-book" necessary to fulfill the purpose and objectives of the Act, and that is as it should be. If the requirement to meet the Plan must be spelled out in the Act, we support that clarification. Please contact us if you wish to discuss these comments or have any questions. Bruce Mackenzie c.c. Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
|