Skip to content

Guelph lets the province know it denounces proposed Bill 66

Guelph City Council joins others in expressing concerns about proposed legislation that one delegate called 'reckless and irresponsible'
city council
GuelphToday photo

Guelph has joined numerous other municipalities in denouncing the province’s proposed Bill 66.

There have been many concerns about Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness, which the province says is aimed at attracting employers and accelerating development approvals.

The bill would allow elements of several pieces of provincial legislation, including the Planning Act and the Clean Water Act, to be bypassed by municipalities.

Many, including the City of Guelph, feel that would put municipal water supplies at risk.

Council voted unanimously Monday on seven staff recommendations letting the province know it opposes Bill 66.

“While City staff recognize the merits of an expedited review process for major employment uses, staff have significant concerns regarding the proposed process,” says a staff report.

“The concerns include the potential risks to health and the safety of municipal water supply and environment; the lack of prescribed consultation and notification requirements; the lack of detail on the nature of the criteria or conditions that can be imposed; the non-applicability of Provincial and Municipal Plans as they relate to planning matters; and the potential impact to existing economic development initiatives.”

The city will request a meeting with provincial staff to further discuss the bill.

The city is also calling on the province to engage in a formal consultation with municipalities and hold a public consultation in Guelph on potential changes to the act.

Delegates speaking at city council’s committee of the whole meeting Monday slammed the bill.

“It’s reckless and irresponsible,” said Wellington Water Watchers' Karen Rathwell.

Hugh Whiteley told council that their vote on Bill 66 was “one of the most consequential decision you’ll make in your four-year terms.”

He said the bill was interested in short-term financial gain while sacrificing long term environmental protection.


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Tony Saxon

About the Author: Tony Saxon

Tony Saxon has had a rich and varied 30 year career as a journalist, an award winning correspondent, columnist, reporter, feature writer and photographer.
Read more