A new Ontario bill could set back green building efforts and mark "the beginning of the end of urban planning" in the province, gutting city-led climate policies as extreme weather risks are rising, warn critics.
Bill 17, the proposed Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, would override bylaws like Toronto's Green Standard by "clarifying" that municipalities do not have jurisdiction to set green construction standards. Climate advocates say the measure would stall progress on municipal climate goals while burdening homeowners with higher energy and retrofit costs down the line.
The Doug Ford government says the bill will bring regulatory consistency across Ontario, speed up construction, and reduce housing costs. But the provincial building code lacks many of the green features cities like Toronto require, writes The Canadian Press. The Toronto Green Standard, for example, mandates stormwater retention features to reduce flood risk during heavy rainfall, minimum tree canopy coverage to combat extreme heat, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new residential parking spaces. The Ford government eliminated that last requirement from its own code shortly after coming to power.
The bill follows a legal challenge filed last year by the Residential Construction Council of Ontario-an association of builders-to block Toronto from enforcing standards beyond those set out in the Ontario Building Code. The council was incensed by Toronto's green standards, which aim to improve air quality, transportation, energy usage, water efficiency, and waste diversion with a checklist of requirements for developers of new buildings, reports The Trillium. "These include everything from bicycle parking and pedestrian walkways to energy efficiency targets, trash compaction guidelines, and tree-planting quotas."
Bill 17 will gut green building standards implemented in several other cities across Ontario, warn environmental advocates. The bill as it is now written will "set back green building efforts by 15 years," said Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund (TAF), citing the period of time the Toronto Green Standard has been in place.
"As buildings are the largest source of carbon emissions in most cities, it would make it impossible for cities to reach their climate targets," Purcell told The Energy Mix. The bill could lock nearly all new buildings into using gas as a primary fuel source, which would saddle home and building owners with higher energy costs while undercutting the economics of green building technology and services.
"And it would create huge costs down the road, as retrofitting buildings to get off gas or enable electric vehicle charging is five to 10 times more expensive than building it right to begin with," he added.
Other environmental organizations have also warned against the bill. In one recent post, the Toronto Environmental Alliance said the legislation would completely undermine municipal planning authority, leaving cities with few tools to adapt regulations to local conditions. Environmental Defence says the bill claims to address construction challenges, but focuses on "scapegoating municipal policies" instead of fixing the root issues-namely, provincial restrictions against mid-rise developments, which have caused a shortage of family-sized homes. "McMansion" rebuilds and sprawl are further problems, it adds.
The Ontario government says its action to block municipal building bylaws is only a "clarification" to existing legislation-in particular, Section 8 of the Building Code Act, the legal foundation of the province's building code-which regulates how building permits are issued. But TAF argues that a city has the right to set green building standards unless they conflict with provincial rules.
Purcell points to section 35(1), which he says "is generally interpreted to mean that if a building code requirement actively conflicts with a municipal bylaw, then the building code requirement takes precedence." That section authorizes local municipalities to pass bylaws "respecting the protection or conservation of the environment" in accordance with the provincial codes. A later subsection even specifies that 35(1) gives municipalities power to require green roofs on buildings, but does not address other green standards.
By not stating the specific role of municipalities in setting building codes, the Building Code Act creates a grey area that could be interpreted to align with Purcell's reading. But it could also support the government's interpretation. Section 8 states that a building official must issue a permit for a building that meets the requirements of the Building Code Act except in a few prescribed circumstances. The list of exceptions does not include a carve-out for buildings that fail to meet municipal requirements.
Municipalities are also considered "creatures of the provinces," and have "no constitutional protection whatsoever against provincial laws that change their structures, functions, and financial resources without their consent," writes the Centre for Excellence on the Canadian Federation.
The wider concern is that Bill 17 will amount to a dramatic shift in authority for cities, and not just to manage their building regulations and address climate change. Purcell warns that Bill 17 would "be the beginning of the end of urban planning in Ontario" by instigating legal challenges to existing bylaws across the province, beyond the green building standards.
"It could create a wild west type of development environment, where anything can be built anywhere and consultants working for developers approve their own submissions."
Source: The Energy Mix
