HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-28
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date:November 28, 2025
Time:12:00 PM
Location:ECCIP is an information package and not a meeting.
Description: An ECCIP is an electronic package containing correspondence received by Staff for
Council's information. This is not a meeting of Council or Committee.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Wednesday at noon
the week prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Members of the Public: can speak to an ECCIP item as a delegation. If you would like to be a
delegation at a meeting, please visit the Clarington website.
Pages
1.Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1 Region of Durham Comments on ERO Postings #025-1077, a proposed
regulatory framework under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 -
November 26, 2025
3
(That sets out draft criteria for the designation of projects, proponents
and zones and #025-1001, new requirements for data centres seeking to
connect to the electricity grid in Ontario)
1.2 2026 Interim Regional Property Tax Levy (2025-F-19) - November 26,
2025
22
1.3 Planning Fees and Charges Review (2025-CG-12) - November 26, 2025 31
1.4 Authorization to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the Options for
Including the Northeast Pickering Lands in the Region’s Development
Charge By-laws (2025-COW-36) - November 26, 2025
48
1.5 Regional Comments on the Proposed Changes to Ontario Building Code
and Proposed Changes in Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act,
2025 (2025-COW-37) - November 26, 2025
58
2.Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3.Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1 Municipality of Wawa - Upholding Women's Rights, Leadership, and
Environmental Health in the Implementation of Ontario Bill 5 - November
18, 2025
111
3.2 Municipality of Callander - Support for Moratorium on Glyphosate
Spraying in the Temiskaming Forest - November 18, 2025
114
3.3 Northumberland County - Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative -
November 25, 2025
117
4.Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1 Ministry of Natural Resources - Black Bear Harvest Management in
Ontario - November 21, 2025
153
5.Miscellaneous Correspondence
November 28, 2025
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
Page 2
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
Sent Via Email
November 26, 2025
The Honourable Victor Fideli
Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade
777 Bay Street, 18th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 1S5
Dear Minister Fideli:
RE: Region of Durham Comments on ERO Postings #025-
1077, a proposed regulatory framework under the Special
Economic Zones Act, 2025 that sets out draft criteria for
the designation of projects, proponents and zones and
#025-1001, new requirements for data centres seeking to
connect to the electricity grid in Ontario (2025-CG-13), Our
File: L14
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on November
26, adopted the following recommendations of the Community
Growth & Economic Development Committee:
A) That the letter dated November 4, 2025 found in Attachment #1
to Report #2025-CG-13 of the Commissioner of Community
Growth and Economic Development, be endorsed as the
Region of Durham’s response to ERO Posting 025-1001 and
ERO Posting 025-1077, including the following key comments:
i) the Region welcomes the opportunity to meet with the
province to discuss the possibility of Special Economic
Zones (SEZs) in Durham and looks forward to
collaboratively participating in the process of determining
the locations of any new SEZs. If SEZs will be used as a
tool for facilitating foreign direct investment attraction and
improving investment readiness, the Region looks forward
to working jointly with the province to identify specific
opportunities;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 3
ii) the Region would like to work with the province to explore how energy
enabling infrastructure can be expedited, while maintaining critical project
oversight beyond the project area;
iii) the Region is concerned about the potential for a SEZs being used
unilaterally for data centre development within the region and requests that
the province engage Regional staff on any such proposals;
iv) it is recommended that the province include municipal support as a
requirement for designating projects, proponents and zones. This would help
to mitigate concerns related to decision-making transparency under the SEZs
Act;
v) the Region appreciates the clarification that unless a law is specifically
named in a regulation under the SEZs Act, existing laws will apply. The
province should also consult with affected municipalities if their policies
and/or by-laws are at risk;
vi) if a SEZ is considered within Durham that overlaps with Transit Station
Charge collection areas, it is requested that the future Transit Station Charge
by-law not be considered for exemption under the SEZs Act, as this would
impair the ability to extend GO Service to Bowmanville and construct four
new stations;
vii) to ensure transparency and maintain public trust, it is recommended that the
province clearly outline the safeguards in place to support fairness and
consistency when using the trusted proponent model;
viii) the Region supports the inclusion of Duty to Consult and, where appropriate
accommodate as specific project, proponent and zone criteria;
ix) the Region remains concerned that potential SEZs exemptions to the Ontario
Heritage Act could result in negative impacts, including to Indigenous
artifacts and burial sites;
x) it is recommended that decarbonization potential be included as a proposed
project criteria under ‘Significant and Long-Term Economic Benefits for
Ontario’ because doing so will not only support the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, but also economic resilience and provincial security;
Page 4
xi) it is recommended that the province indicate the process by which respective
ministries (e.g., Health and Environment, Conservation and Parks) will be
involved in evaluating and/or overseeing proponent’s plans;
xii) if aggregates are considered for designation as a SEZ, the province should
ensure that there are no adverse impacts to groundwater. Additionally, if
traditional aggregate licensing processes are bypassed, there would be
limited ability for municipalities to secure mitigation measures, haul route
agreements and operational adjustments (e.g., water delivery to mitigate well
drawdown, street cleaning for dust, adjusted hours of operation, etc.) that are
used to create solutions to unique local issues related to these sites; and
B) That a copy of Report #2025-CG-13 be forwarded to the Ministry of Economic
Development, Job Creation and Trade, Ministry of Energy and Mines, the Region’s
area municipalities, conservation authorities, and to the Williams Treaty First
Nations.
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-CG-13 for your information.
Alexander Harras
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
c: The Honourable Stephen Lecce, Minister of Energy and Mines
J. Grossi, Clerk, Town of Ajax
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering
B. Labelle, Clerk, Township of Scugog
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
C. Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby
C. Darling, CAO, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
L. Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority
M. Majchrowski, CAO, Kawartha Conservation
R. Baldwin, CAO, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Page 5
J. MacKenzie, CEO, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
J. Kapyrka, Consultation Manager, Alderville First Nation
Consultation Department, Beausoleil First Nation
JL Porte, Consultation Worker, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
B. Cousineau, Consultation Manager, Chippewas of Rama First Nation
P. Williams, Manager of Consultation, Curve Lake First Nation
T. Cowie, Lands/Resource Consultation, Hiawatha First Nation
R. Lukacs, Consultation Advisor, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
S. Austin, Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
Page 6
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To:
From:
Report:
Date:
Community Growth and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
#2025-CG-13
November 4, 2025
Subject:
Region of Durham Comments on ERO Postings #025-1077, a proposed regulatory
framework under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 that sets out draft criteria for the
designation of projects, proponents and zones and #025-1001, new requirements for data
centres seeking to connect to the electricity grid in Ontario.
Recommendation:
That the Community Growth and Economic Development Committee recommends to
Regional Council:
A)That the letter dated November 4, 2025 found in Attachment #1 to this report, be
endorsed as the Region of Durham’s response to ERO Posting 025-1001 and ERO
Posting 025-1077, including the following key comments:
i)the Region welcomes the opportunity to meet with the province to discuss the
possibility of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Durham and looks forward to
collaboratively participating in the process of determining the locations of any
new SEZs. If SEZs will be used as a tool for facilitating foreign direct
investment attraction and improving investment readiness, the Region looks
forward to working jointly with the province to identify specific opportunities;
ii)the Region would like to work with the province to explore how energy
enabling infrastructure can be expedited, while maintaining critical project
oversight beyond the project area;
Page 7
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 2 of 10
iii)the Region is concerned about the potential for a SEZs being used unilaterally
for data centre development within the region and requests that the province
engage Regional staff on any such proposals;
iv)it is recommended that the province include municipal support as a
requirement for designating projects, proponents and zones. This would help
to mitigate concerns related to decision-making transparency under the SEZs
Act;
v)the Region appreciates the clarification that unless a law is specifically named
in a regulation under the SEZs Act, existing laws will apply. The province
should also consult with affected municipalities if their policies and/or by-laws
are at risk;
vi)if a SEZ is considered within Durham that overlaps with Transit Station Charge
collection areas, it is requested that the future Transit Station Charge by-law
not be considered for exemption under the SEZs Act, as this would impair the
ability to extend GO Service to Bowmanville and construct four new stations;
vii)to ensure transparency and maintain public trust, it is recommended that the
province clearly outline the safeguards in place to support fairness and
consistency when using the trusted proponent model;
viii)the Region supports the inclusion of Duty to Consult and, where appropriate
accommodate as specific project, proponent and zone criteria;
ix)the Region remains concerned that potential SEZs exemptions to the Ontario
Heritage Act could result in negative impacts, including to Indigenous artifacts
and burial sites;
x)it is recommended that decarbonization potential be included as a proposed
project criteria under ‘Significant and Long-Term Economic Benefits for
Ontario’ because doing so will not only support the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, but also economic resilience and provincial security;
xi)it is recommended that the province indicate the process by which respective
ministries (e.g., Health and Environment, Conservation and Parks) will be
involved in evaluating and/or overseeing proponent’s plans;
xii)if aggregates are considered for designation as a SEZ, the province should
ensure that there are no adverse impacts to groundwater. Additionally, if
Page 8
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 3 of 10
traditional aggregate licensing processes are bypassed, there would be limited
ability for municipalities to secure mitigation measures, haul route agreements
and operational adjustments (e.g., water delivery to mitigate well drawdown,
street cleaning for dust, adjusted hours of operation, etc.) that are used to
create solutions to unique local issues related to these sites; and
B)That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Economic Development,
Job Creation and Trade, Ministry of Energy and Mines, the Region’s area
municipalities, conservation authorities, and to the Williams Treaty First Nations.
Report:
1.Purpose
1.1 On October 2, 2025, the province released a proposed regulation that sets out draft
criteria for designating Special Economic Zones (SEZs), projects and proponents
(ERO Posting 025-1077). Comments on the proposal are open until November 16,
2025. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the key criteria
proposed by the province and outline Regional staff comments on the proposal.
1.2 Previously, on September 5, 2025, the province announced consultation on
proposed new requirements for data centres seeking to connect to the electricity
grid in Ontario (ERO Posting 025-1001). Comments on this proposal are invited until
November 4, 2025. Due to concerns that connect the two proposals, Regional staff
have aligned comments on both postings.
1.3 Considering the Region’s reporting cycle, a 45-day commenting window does not
allow enough time for Regional Council to consider the proposals prior to their
respective commenting deadlines. A Regional staff comment letter will be sent to
the province on November 4, 2025. The letter indicates that the province will be
made aware of any changes made to Regional staff’s comments by Regional
Council at their November 26, 2025, Regional Council meeting.
2.Background
2.1 The concept of SEZs was first introduced on April 17, 2025, by the Special
Economic Zones Act, 2025 (SEZs Act), under the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our
Economy Act, 2025 (Bill 5). Bill 5 received Royal Assent on June 5, 2025. The intent
of this legislation was to support economic growth and development by building
faster and more strategically, to protect Ontario industries from United States trade
actions.
Page 9
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 4 of 10
2.2 SEZs are defined as areas of strategic importance to Ontario’s economy and
security – particularly the critical mineral-rich Ring of Fire in northern Ontario. Within
designated SEZs, the province can exempt trusted proponents and designated
projects from regulatory frameworks and municipal by-laws to accelerate project
permitting and approvals.
2.3 While no zones, projects or trusted proponents were outlined at the time, Regional
staff anticipate that given the density of nuclear facilities with Durham, it is possible
that the region or parts of the region could be designated as a SEZs. As a result, the
Region’s previous comments included concern that using a trusted proponent model
may create a two-tier development system, favouring select private businesses with
fewer regulations. It was also requested that the Region be included in consultations
related to the identification of SEZs within Durham and the selection of trusted
proponents that would operate within the region.
3.Previous Reports and Decisions
3.1 The Region’s response to Bill 5, which included initial comments on SEZs, was
provided through Report #2025-CG-7, dated May 28, 2025.
4.Special Economic Zones Proposed Draft Criteria
4.1 On October 2, 2025, as a follow up to Bill 5’s introduction of SEZs, the province
released draft criteria for the designation of projects, proponents, and zones (ERO
Posting 025-1077). To accelerate a project and provide exemptions (i.e., any
requirement under any provincial Act, regulation or municipal by-law), all three
elements should be designated.
4.2 Proposed criteria to designate a project are all subject to the Minister’s opinion and
include:
•Significant and long-term economic benefits for Ontario (e.g., job creation and
skilling, provincial security, economic diversification, tax revenue, critical
supply chains, advancing innovation and technology, and use of Ontario goods
and services).
•Strengthening local communities (e.g., community benefits, increase local
business revenue, and benefits to Indigenous communities).
•High likelihood of success (e.g., engagement planning, impact analysis and
risk mitigation for health and environment).
Page 10
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 5 of 10
•Duty to Consult and, where appropriate, accommodate.
4.3 Proposed criteria to designate a proponent include:
•The proponent may be the Crown, an agency, a municipality, or a for-profit or
not-for-profit entity, but exemptions may be possible provided the proponent
has a strong compliance record (subject to the Minister’s opinion).
•The proponent is reputable and necessary to complete the project.
•If a for-profit or not-for-profit, assurances that there will be no change in control
or ownership/membership without consent of the Minister.
•The proponent is capable of engaging and working successfully with
Indigenous communities on the project and has an engagement plan (subject
to the Minister’s opinion).
•Duty to Consult and, where appropriate, accommodate.
4.4 Proposed criteria to designate a zone include:
•Single area with clear geographic boundaries, no larger than necessary to
accommodate the project (subject to Lieutenant Governor in Council opinion).
•Contains strategic economic activities (subject to Lieutenant Governor in
Council opinion).
•Duty to Consult and, where appropriate, accommodate.
5.Overview of Provincial Consultation on Data Centres
5.1 In June 2025, as part of Bill 40, the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy
for Generations Act, 2025, the province introduced amendments to the Electricity
Act, 1998, that if passed would set out in regulation a process allowing the Minister
of Energy and Mines to prioritize and approve connection requests from data centre
projects that serve the province’s economic interests.
5.2 The proposal (ERO Posting 025-1001) contemplates implementing an approval
process for connection requests of data centres. Specifically, the province is
seeking input on the types of data centres that should be subject to the proposed
requirement but is also requesting feedback on if electricity connections for data
centres should be prioritized at all and how to design the approval process.
Page 11
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 6 of 10
6.Regional Staff Assessment and Comments
6.1 Regional staff reviewed the proposed draft criteria for projects, proponents and
zones and the consultation materials for new requirements for data centres seeking
to connect to the electricity grid and offer the following comments for consideration.
6.2 Durham is the Clean Energy Capital of Canada, and our post-secondary institutions
and local economy continue to innovate to solve global challenges. Durham
continues to welcome major new investments from international companies, and the
Region is proactively advancing servicing to employment lands to ensure that
Durham is investment ready. The Region is already home to one of the first five
“Nation Building Projects” and is the ideal location for future projects and inbound
business investments, that generate positive economic impact regionally,
provincially, and federally. The Region welcomes the opportunity to meet with
the province to discuss the possibility of SEZs in Durham and looks forward
to collaboratively participating in the process of determining the locations of
any new SEZs. If SEZs will be used as a tool for facilitating foreign direct
investment attraction and improving investment readiness, the Region looks
forward to working jointly with the province to identify specific opportunities.
6.3 As the Clean Energy Capital of Canada, the Region recognizes the importance of
creating supportive conditions to advance projects that will meet Ontario’s growing
energy demand, enabling new homes and key infrastructure. Nuclear energy
projects are federally regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act by the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), however, CNSC jurisdiction
primarily applies within the ‘protected area’ of a licensed nuclear site, focused on
security, safety, and environmental compliance inside the fence line. Nation building
nuclear projects have significant potential for disruption beyond the protected area.
SEZ exemptions may weaken oversight in these critical areas. The Region would
like to work with the province to explore how energy enabling infrastructure
can be expedited, while maintaining critical project oversight beyond the
protected area.
6.4 The Region is aware that the province is seeking to prioritize electricity for data
centre development, as communicated through ERO Posting 025-1001. The Region
recognizes the provincial and federal need for data centres, particularly for AI and
sensitive data storage uses. The Region also recognizes that domestic data centre
capabilities will be necessary for national security, mitigating geopolitical risks, and
providing capacity for Canada’s agencies and broader business community to
remain globally competitive. However, the siting of data centres must consider their
Page 12
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 7 of 10
various impacts on the host community. They are highly energy-intensive and land
consumptive, use vast amounts of water, contribute to electronic waste and noise
pollution, and do not produce jobs. The Region is concerned about the potential
of SEZs being used unilaterally for data centre development within the region
and requests that the province engage Regional staff on any such proposals.
6.5 The draft criteria for projects and proponents for SEZs are subject to the opinion of
the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. It is
recommended that the province include municipal support as a requirement
for designating projects, proponents and zones. This would help to mitigate
concerns related to decision-making transparency under the SEZs Act.
6.6 When SEZ were introduced through Bill 5, concerns were raised about the potential
for municipal policies and by-laws to be overridden, which could impact municipal
revenue-making power and disrupt local planning and growth priorities. The Region
appreciates the clarification that unless a law is specifically named in a
regulation under the SEZs Act, existing laws will apply. The province should
also consult with affected municipalities if their policies and/or by-laws are at
risk.
6.7 The GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, allows Ontario municipalities to enact a
by-law to enable a Transit Station Charge on new development within a prescribed
contribution area to support the funding of new GO Stations. The Transit Station
Charge would apply to areas surrounding new GO Stations, including Protected
Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). The Region has expressed its intent to the
province to use this legislation to contribute to the cost of four new GO Stations
along the GO Lakeshore East Extension to Bowmanville. If a SEZ is considered in
Durham that overlaps with the Transit Station Charge collection areas, it is
requested that the future Transit Station Charge by-law not be considered for
exemption under the SEZs Act, as this would impair the ability to extend GO
Service to Bowmanville and construct four new stations.
6.8 The trusted proponent model under the SEZs Act presents an opportunity to
streamline certain development processes and foster innovation. To ensure
transparency and maintain public trust, it is recommended that the province
clearly outline the safeguards in place to support fairness and consistency
when using the trusted proponent model.
6.9 The Region supports the inclusion of Duty to Consult and, where appropriate
accommodate as specific project, proponent and zone criteria. The Region is
Page 13
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 8 of 10
committed to meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities and partnership
on economic priorities. As an example, the Region and Mississaugas of Scugog
Island First Nation (MSIFN) recently entered into a Bilateral Agreement to establish
a foundation for government-to-government collaboration. Regional staff would be
happy to discuss this further with provincial staff.
6.10 The Region remains concerned that potential SEZs exemptions to the Ontario
Heritage Act could result in negative impacts, including to Indigenous
artifacts and burial sites.
6.11 The designation of SEZs projects provides an opportunity for the province to
reinforce climate change mitigation goals through decarbonization. It is
recommended that decarbonization potential be included as a proposed
project criteria under ‘Significant and Long-Term Economic Benefits for
Ontario’ because doing so will not only support the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, but also economic resilience and provincial security.
6.12 Health and environmental protections are included under the criteria related to
project success and are subject to the opinion of the Minister of Economic
Development, Job Creation and Trade. It is recommended that the province
indicate the process by which respective ministries (i.e., Health and
Environment, Conservation and Parks) will be evaluating and/or overseeing
proponent’s plans.
6.13 New aggregate pits and quarries can create pathways for the contamination of
groundwater, may need perpetual pumping, and can alter local groundwater flows. If
aggregates are considered for designation as a SEZ, the province should
ensure that there are no adverse impacts to groundwater. Additionally, if
traditional aggregate licensing processes are bypassed, there would be
limited ability for municipalities to secure mitigation measures, haul route
agreements and operational adjustments (e.g., water delivery to mitigate well
drawdown, street cleaning for dust, adjusted hours of operation, etc.) that are
used to create solutions to unique local issues related to these sites.
7.Relationship to Strategic Plan
7.1 This report aligns with the following Strategic Directions and Pathways in Durham
Region’s 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
Page 14
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 9 of 10
a.Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
•E2. Collaborate with partners on the low-carbon transition to reduce
community greenhouse gas emissions across Durham Region.
•E5. Respect the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways,
and agricultural lands.
b.Resilient Local Economies
•R1. Attract and retain quality employers that strengthen key economic
sectors, including energy and technology.
•R2. Support the growth of new business startups and small to medium
local businesses.
•R3. Develop, attract, and support a skilled and qualified workforce,
including youth and newcomers.
c.Strong Relationships
•S1. Enhance inclusive opportunities for community engagement and
meaningful collaboration.
•S2. Build and strengthen respectful relationships with First Nations, Inuit,
Métis, and urban Indigenous communities.
•S4. Advocate to the federal and provincial government and agencies to
advance regional priorities.
•S5. Ensure accountable and transparent decision-making to serve
community needs, while responsibly managing available resources.
7.2 This report aligns with the following Foundation in Durham Region’s 2025-2035
Strategic Plan:
a. People: Making the Region of Durham a great place to work, attracting, and
retaining talent.
8.Conclusion
8.1 On October 2, 2025, the province released proposed draft criteria for the
designation of projects, proponents and zones, under the SEZ Act. Previously, on
September 5, 2025, the province announced consultations on new requirements for
data centres seeking to connect to the electricity grid in Ontario.
Page 15
Report #2025-CG-13 Page 10 of 10
8.2 Regional staff from Community Growth and Economic Development reviewed both
sets of consultation materials and have outlined concerns about the potential
application of SEZs for the approval of data centres, without municipal support.
8.3 We are pleased to see the inclusion of Duty to Consult as a criterion for all three
SEZs elements. However, the extent to which municipalities will be involved in the
designation of projects, proponents and zones within their jurisdictions remains
unclear.
8.4 In advance of the commenting deadline, a Regional staff response will be provided
to the province on November 4, 2025, (Attachment #1). If Regional Council makes
any changes to staff’s comments, the province will be advised.
8.5 The recommendations contained within this report were discussed with staff
responsible for community growth, economic development, transit-oriented
development, environmental sustainability, policy and Indigenous relations.
For additional information, contact: Amanda Bathe, Senior Planner, at
Amanda.Bathe@durham.ca.
9.Attachments
Attachment #1: Region of Durham Staff Response to Environmental Registry of
Ontario Postings #025-1077, a proposed regulatory framework
under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 and #025-1001,
new requirements for data centres seeking to connect to the
electricity grid in Ontario.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by
Page 16
Attachment 1
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact
Reception at 1-800-372-1102, extension 2548.
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Community Growth and
Economic Development
Department
Community Growth Division
605 ROSSLAND ROAD EAST
LEVEL 4
PO BOX 623
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Email:
CommunityGrowth@durham.ca
durham.ca
November 4, 2025 Sent Via Email
Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade
777 Bay St.
18th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2N4
RE: Region of Durham Staff Response to Environmental
Registry of Ontario Postings #025-1077, a proposed
regulatory framework under the Special Economic Zones
Act, 2025 and #025-1001, new requirements for data centres
seeking to connect to the electricity grid in Ontario.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on a proposed
regulation under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 (SEZs Act)
that sets out draft criteria for designating Special Economic Zones
(SEZs), projects and proponents and new requirements for data
centres seeking to connect to the electricity grid in Ontario. Regional
staff have aligned our comments on both proposals.
Through Report #2025-CG-7 dated May 28, 2025, the Region
previously provided comments on Bill 5: the Protect Ontario by
Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025, which introduced the SEZs Act.
This proposed regulation was posted to the Environmental Registry of
Ontario on October 2, 2025, with a commenting period of 45-days
(ERO 025-1077). Considering Regional Council’s reporting cycle, the
45-day timeline does not allow for Regional Council to consider this
matter prior to the November 16, 2025, commenting deadline.
The following comments represent those of Regional staff. A report
seeking Regional Council endorsement of these comments will be
presented at the November 26, 2025, meeting of Regional Council.
Should any changes be made to the comments, Regional staff will
follow up accordingly.
1.Durham is the Clean Energy Capital of Canada, and our post-
secondary institutions and local economy continue to innovate
to solve global challenges. Durham continues to welcome major
new investments from international companies, and the Region
is proactively advancing servicing to employment lands to
ensure that Durham is investment ready. The Region is already
home to one of the first five ‘Nation Building Projects’ and is the
Page 17
ideal location for future projects and inbound business
investments that generate positive economic impact regionally,
provincially, and federally. The Region welcomes the
opportunity to meet with the province to discuss the possibility of
SEZs in Durham and looks forward to collaboratively
participating in the process of determining the locations of any
new SEZs. If SEZs will be used as a tool for facilitating foreign
direct investment attraction and improving investment
readiness, the Region looks forward to working jointly with the
province to identify specific opportunities.
2.As the Clean Energy Capital of Canada, the Region recognizes
the importance of creating supportive conditions to advance
projects that will meet Ontario’s growing energy demand,
enabling new homes and key infrastructure. Nuclear energy
projects are federally regulated under the Nuclear Safety and
Control Act by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC), however, CNSC jurisdiction primarily applies within the
‘protected area’ of a licensed nuclear site, focused on security,
safety, and environmental compliance inside the fence line.
Nation building nuclear projects have significant potential for
disruption beyond the protected area. SEZ exemptions may
weaken oversight in these critical areas. The Region would like
to work with the province to explore how energy enabling
infrastructure can be expedited, while maintaining critical project
oversight beyond the protected area.
3.The Region is aware that the province is seeking to prioritize
electricity for data centres, as communicated through ERO
Posting 025-1001. Durham Region recognizes the provincial
and federal need for data centres, particularly for AI and
sensitive data storage uses. Durham recognizes that domestic
data centre capabilities will be necessary for national security,
mitigating geopolitical risks, and providing capacity for Canada’s
agencies and broader business community to remain globally
competitive. However, the siting of new data centres must
consider their various impacts on the host community. They are
highly energy-intensive, land consumptive, use vast amounts of
water, contribute to electronic waste and noise pollution, and do
not produce jobs. The Region is concerned about the potential
of SEZs being used unilaterally for data centre development
within the region and requests that the province engage
Regional staff on any such proposals.
4.The draft criteria for projects and proponents for SEZs are
subject to the opinion of the Minister of Economic Development,
Page 18
Job Creation and Trade. It is recommended that the province
include municipal support as a requirement for designating
zones, projects and proponents. This would help to mitigate
concerns related to decision-making transparency under the
SEZs Act.
5.When SEZs were introduced through Bill 5, concerns were
raised about the potential for municipal policies and by-laws to
be overridden, which could impact municipal revenue-making
power and disrupt local planning and growth priorities. The
Region appreciates the clarification that unless a law is
specifically named in a regulation under the SEZs Act, existing
laws will apply. The province should also consult with affected
municipalities if their policies and/or by-laws are at risk.
6.The GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, allows Ontario
municipalities to enact a by-law to enable a Transit Station
Charge on new development within a prescribed contribution
area to support the funding of new GO Stations. The Transit
Station Charge would apply to areas surrounding new GO
Stations, including Protected Major Transit Station Areas
(PMTSAs). The Region has expressed its intent to the province
to use this legislation to contribute to the cost of four new GO
Stations along the GO Lakeshore East Extension to
Bowmanville. If an a SEZs is considered within Durham that
overlaps with the Transit Station Charge collection areas, it is
requested that the future Transit Station Charge by-law not be
considered for exemption under the SEZs Act, as this would
impair the ability extend GO Service to Bowmanville and
construct four new stations.
7.The trusted proponent model introduced under the SEZ Act
presents an opportunity to streamline certain development
processes and foster innovation. To ensure transparency and
maintain public trust, it is recommended that the province clearly
outline the safeguards in place to support fairness and
consistency when using the trusted proponent model.
8.The Region supports the inclusion of Duty to Consult and,
where appropriate accommodate as specific project, proponent
and zone criteria. The Region is committed to meaningful
engagement with Indigenous communities and partnership on
economic priorities. As an example, the Region and
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) recently
entered into a Bilateral Agreement to establish a foundation for
Page 19
government-to-government collaboration. Regional staff would
be happy to discuss this further with provincial staff.
9.The Region remains concerned that potential SEZs exemptions
to the Ontario Heritage Act could result in negative impacts,
including to Indigenous artifacts and burial sites.
10. The designation of SEZs projects provides an opportunity for
the province to reinforce climate change mitigation goals
through decarbonization. It is recommended that
decarbonization potential be included as a proposed project
criteria under ‘Significant and Long-Term Economic Benefits for
Ontario’ because doing so will not only support the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, but also economic resilience and
provincial security.
11. Heath and environmental protections are included under the
criteria related to project success and are subject to the opinion
of the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and
Trade. It is recommended that the province indicate the process
by which respective ministries (i.e., Health and Environment,
Conservation and Parks) will be involved in evaluating and/or
overseeing proponent’s plans.
12. New aggregate pits and quarries can create pathways for the
contamination of groundwater, may need perpetual pumping,
and can alter local groundwater flows. If aggregates are
considered for designation as a SEZ, the province should
ensure that there are no adverse impacts to groundwater.
Additionally, if traditional aggregate licensing processes are
bypassed, there would be limited ability for municipalities to
secure mitigation measures, haul route agreements and
operational adjustments (e.g., water delivery to mitigate well
drawdown, street cleaning for dust, adjusted hours of operation,
etc.) that are used to create solutions to unique local issues
related to these sites.
Regional staff recognize that SEZs have the potential to support
economic growth and development within the province and region. The
Region is looking forward to participating in future consultations related
to the determination of zones, projects and proponents, specifically if
SEZs are being considered in Durham to facilitate development of data
centres. If you have any questions about the above noted comments,
please contact Amanda Bathe, Senior Planner, at
Amanda.Bathe@durham.ca.
Page 20
Thank you,
Sandra Austin
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
cc.Colleen Goodchild, Director, Community Growth
Simon Gill, Director, Economic Development
Ian McVey, Director, Environment and Climate
Aneesah Luqman, Manager, Transit-Oriented Development
Caitlin Rochon, Manager, Corporate Initiatives
Debbie Ellis, Manager, Indigenous Relations
Page 21
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED
TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Eamonn.Rodgers@durham.ca or call 1-
800-372-1102 ext. 3677.
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
November 26, 2025
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Dear June:
RE: 2026 Interim Regional Property Tax Levy (2025-F-19), Our File:
F33
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on November 26, 2025,
adopted the following recommendations of the Finance and Administration
Committee:
“A) That a 2026 interim regional property tax levy be imposed on the
lower-tier municipalities for all property tax classes;
B)That the amount due from each lower-tier municipality is estimated to
be equivalent to 50% of their respective share of the regional
property taxes collected in 2025;
C)That the 2026 interim regional property tax levy be paid by the lower-
tier municipalities seven calendar days subsequent to the instalment
due dates established by each lower-tier municipality for the
collection of their respective interim municipal property taxes;
D)That the 2026 Regional supplementary property taxes be paid by the
lower-tier municipalities seven calendar days subsequent to the
instalment due dates established by each lower-tier municipality for
the collection of their respective supplementary municipal property
taxes;
E)That 25 per cent of the previous year’s Regional payments-in-lieu of
taxation, railway and utility lands and payments related to
universities/colleges and public hospitals be remitted by the lower-
tier municipalities by March 31, 2026;
F)That an interest rate equivalent to the prevailing prime interest rate
shall be charged for late payments of the amounts described in
recommendations A) to E);
G)That the Regional Clerk be requested to advise the lower-tier
municipalities of the imposition of the 2026 interim regional property
Page 22
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED
TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Eamonn.Rodgers@durham.ca or call 1-
800-372-1102 ext. 3677.
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
tax levy for all property tax classes and the due dates for remittance
to the Region; and
H) That approval be granted for the requisite by-law.”
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-F-19 and By-law No. 2025-
046 for your information.
Alexander Harras
Alexander Harras
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/nb
Attachment
c: N. Taylor, Commissioner of Finance
Page 23
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2303
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Finance and Administration Committee
From: Commissioner of Finance
Report: #2025-F-19
Date: November 12, 2025
Subject:
2026 Interim Regional Property Tax Levy
Recommendation:
That the Finance and Administration Committee recommends to Regional Council:
A)That a 2026 interim regional property tax levy be im posed on the lower-tier
municipalities for all property tax classes;
B)That the amount due from each lower-tier municipality is estimated to be equivalent
to 50% of their respective share of the regional property taxes collected in 2025;
C)That the 2026 interim regional property tax levy be paid by the lower-t ier
municipalities seven calendar days subsequent to the instalment due dates
established by each lower-tier municipality for the collection of their respective
interim municipal property taxes;
D)That the 2026 Regional supplementary property taxes be paid by the lower-t ier
municipalities seven calendar days subsequent to the instalment due dates
established by each lower-tier municipality for the collection of their respective
supplementary municipal property taxes;
E)That 25 per cent of the previous year’s Regional payments-in-lieu of taxation, railway
and utility lands and payments related to universities/colleges and public hospitals
be remitted by the lower-tier municipalities by March 31, 2026;
F)That an interest rate equivalent to the prevailing prime interest rate shall be charged
for late payments of the amounts described in recommendations A to E;
G)That the Regional Clerk be r equested to advise the lower-tier municipalities of the
imposition of the 2026 interim regional property tax lev y for all property tax classes
and the due dates for remittance to the Region; and
H)That approval be granted for the requisite by-l aw.
Page 24
Report #2025-F-19 Page 2 of 3
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek authorization for the 2026 interim regional
property tax levy.
2. Previous Reports and Decisions
2.1 In accordance with legislative requirements, Staff seeks approval annually for an
interim regional property tax levy in advance of the approval of the current year
Business Plans and Budget. The 2025 report (Report #2024-F-19) was approved
by Regional Council on November 27, 2024.
3. Background
3.1 Section 316 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended provides that an upper-tier
municipality, before the adoption of the estimates for a year under Section 289, may
requisition, from each lower-tier municipality, an amount not exceeding 50 per cent
of the prior year’s final requisition adjusted for deferrals, cancellations or other
relief.
3.2 A by-law adopted by an upper-tier municipality may require that sums requisitioned
as an interim levy are to be remitted to the upper-tier municipality on specific dates.
4. Payments by the Lower-Tier Municipalities
4.1 Attachment #1 provides an estimate of the 2026 interim regional property tax levy
by each lower-tier municipality payable to the Region, based on 50 per cent of the
regional property taxes requisitioned in 2025.
4.2 In order that the lower-tier municipalities do not experience cash shortages, it is
recommended that the interim amounts owing to the Region for 2026 be due seven
calendar days subsequent to the due dates for payment of property taxes by
individual property owners as established by each lower-tier municipality.
5. Relationship to Strategic Plan
5.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following Strategic Direction and Pathway in
Durham Region’s 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Strong Relationships
• S5. Ensure accountable and transparent decision-making to serve
community needs, while responsibly managing available resources.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The 2026 interim regional property tax levy is consistent with 2025 and is in line
with the best practices of other regional jurisdictions.
Page 25
Report #2025-F-19 Page 3 of 3
7. Attachments
7.1 Attachment #1: Estimate of 2026 Regional Interim Property Tax Levies
Respectfully submitted,
Original Signed By
Nancy Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original Signed By
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 26
Oshawa Pickering Ajax Clarington Whitby Brock Scugog Uxbridge Total
First (1st) Installment 50,657 44,883 42,743 31,849 53,471 3,991 8,786 9,991 246,371
Second (2nd) Installment 50,657 44,883 42,743 31,849 53,471 3,991 8,786 9,991 246,371
Total of Installments 101,314 89,766 85,486 63,698 106,942 7,982 17,572 19,982 492,742
Note:
(1) Based on aggregate of 2025 Regional General, Police, Transit and Solid Waste Management Purposes Property Tax Rate By-Laws.
(2) Taxable Properties Only (No Payment-In-Lieu Properties)
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Estimate of 2026 Regional Interim Property Tax Levies
($,000's)
Page 27
By-law Number 2025-046
of The Regional Municipality of Durham
Being a by-law to establish 2026 lower-tier municipal payment due dates and requisition,
on an interim basis, from the lower-tier municipalities before the adoption of the 2026
Regional estimates, a sum equal to fifty percent of the taxes requisitioned for Regional
purposes made by the Regional Council against the lower-tier municipalities for all property
classes in the year 2025.
Whereas subsection 316(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. c 25, as amended (the “Act”)
provides that Regional Council, before the adoption of the estimates for a year, may by by-
law requisition a sum from each lower-tier municipality not exceeding the prescribed
percentage (or fifty percent if no percentage is prescribed) of the amount that, in the
Regional rating by-law for the previous year, was estimated to be raised in the particular
lower-tier municipality.
And Whereas subsection 316(2) of the Act provides that a by-law passed under subsection
316(1) may require specified portions of the sum to be paid to the treasurer of the upper-
tier municipality on or before specified dates.
Now therefore, the Council of The Regional Municipality of Durham hereby enacts as
follows:
1. In the year 2026, before the adoption of the estimates for the year 2026, a requisition
be and the same is hereby made against each of the lower-tier municipalities of a
sum not exceeding fifty percent of the taxes requisitioned for Regional purposes
made by the Regional Council against that lower-tier municipality in the year 2025.
The estimate of 2026 interim property tax levies is set out on Schedule 1 hereto
forming part of this by-law.
2. The amounts of any requisitions made under paragraph 1 of this by-law shall be
deducted from the amounts to be paid by the lower-tier municipalities to the Region
under the Regional rating by-law for the year 2026.
3. The date for payment for the amounts requisitioned under paragraph 1 of this by-law
shall be seven calendar days subsequent to the instalment due dates established by
each lower-tier municipality for the collection of their respective interim municipal
property taxes.
4. Regional supplementary property taxes shall be due from the lower-tier municipalities
seven calendar days subsequent to the instalment due dates set by each lower-tier
municipality for the collection of their respective supplementary municipal property
taxes.
5. Twenty-five per cent of the previous year’s Regional payments-in-lieu of taxation,
railway and utility lands (as set out in Ontario Regulation 382/98 and Ontario
Regulation 387/98) and payments related to universities/colleges and public hospitals
(as set out in Section 323 of the Act) shall be paid by the lower-tier municipalities to
the Region by March 31, 2026
6. An interest rate equivalent to the prevailing prime interest rate shall be charged for
late payment of upper-tier levies, supplementary taxes, payments in lieu of taxation,
Page 28
railway and utility lands and universities/colleges and public hospital amounts payable
to the Region.
7. All sums shall be made payable to the Regional Municipality of Durham and shall be
paid to the Regional Treasurer.
This By-law Read and Passed on the 26th day of November 2025.
D. Carter, Acting Regional Chair
A. Harras, Regional Clerk
Page 29
Schedule 1
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Estimate of 2026 Regional Interim Property Tax Levies
($,000's)
First (1st) Installment 50,657 44,883 42,743 31,849 53,471 3,991 8,786 9,991 246,371
Second (2nd) Installment 50,657 44,883 42,743 31,849 53,471 3,991 8,786 9,991 246,371
Total of Installments 101,314 89,766 85,486 63,698 106,942 7,982 17,572 19,982 492,742
Note:
(1) Based on aggregate of 2025 Regional General, Police, Transit and Solid Waste Management Purposes Property Tax Rate By-Laws.
(2) Taxable Properties Only (No Payment-In-Lieu Properties)
Page 30
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
Sent Via Email
November 26, 2025
Dave Wilkes
President and Chief Executive Officer
Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
2005 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 102
Toronto, ON M2J 5B4
Dear D. Wilkes:
RE: Planning Fees and Charges Review (2025-CG-12), Our
File: D00
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on November
26, 2025, adopted the following recommendations of the Community
Growth & Economic Development Committee:
A) That a by-law be approved, generally in the form included as
Attachment 1 to Report #2025-CG-12 of the Commissioner of
Community Growth and Economic Development, to repeal and
replace the existing Region Planning Fees and Charges By-law
20-2021 and update the fees in accordance with Report #2025-
CG-12;
B) That the new Planning Fees and Charges By-law come into
effect on January 1,2026; and
C) That a copy of Report #2025-CG-12 be forwarded to the local
area municipalities, the Conservation Authorities, the Building
Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), and The
Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association (DRHBA), for their
information.
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 31
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-CG-12 for your information.
Alexander Harras
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
c: Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association
J. Grossi, Clerk, Town of Ajax
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering
B. Labelle, Clerk, Township of Scugog
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
C. Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby
C. Darling, CAO, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
L. Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority
M. Majchrowski, CAO, Kawartha Conservation
R. Baldwin, CAO, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
J. MacKenzie, CEO, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
S. Austin, Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
Page 32
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Community Growth and Economic Development Committee
From: Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
Report:#2025-CG-12
Date:November 4, 2025
Subject:
Planning Fees and Charges Review
Recommendation:
That the Community Growth and Economic Development Committee recommends to
Regional Council:
A)That a by-law be approved, generally in the form included as Attachment 1 to this
report, to repeal and replace the existing Region Planning Fees and Charges By-law
20-2021 and update the fees in accordance with this report;
B)That the new Planning Fees and Charges By-law come into effect on January 1,
2026; and
C)That a copy of Commissioner’s Report #2025-CG-12 be forwarded to the local area
municipalities, the Conservation Authorities, the Building Industry and Land
Development Association (BILD), and The Durham Region Homebuilders’
Association (DRHBA), for their information.
Report:
1.Purpose
1.1 Section 69 of the Planning Act enables the Council of a municipality to establish a
tariff of fees by-law for the processing of applications made in respect of planning
matters. The tariff is designed to meet the anticipated costs to process each type of
application.
Page 33
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 2 of 10
1.2 The Region’s current Planning Fees and Charges By-law 20-2021 contains many
different types of planning fees (refer to Attachment 2) and is reviewed every other
year to ensure that the fees remain appropriate and reasonable. Although a fee
review was scheduled for 2023, it was deferred pending the outcome of Bill 23, the
More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022.
1.3 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 2025 fee review and to
recommend certain changes to the Planning Fees and Charges By-law to ensure
that the by-law reflects the changes resulting from Bill 23, and to ensure adequate
fees are being charged to review planning applications.
2. Background
2.1 The Community Growth Division typically conducts a fee review every two years.
The last fee review was conducted in 2021. In 2023, the fee review was deferred,
pending the implementation of Bill 23.
2.2 Prior to proclamation under Bill 23, the Region was the approval authority for
several different types of Planning Act applications, including applications to amend
the Regional Official Plan, new official plans of the area municipalities and
amendments to official plans of the area municipalities. Through agreement to retain
approval authority for the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge, the Region
remained the approval authority for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium, and
applications for removal of Part-Lot Control for parcels of land. These three
municipalities were collectively known as the “non-delegated municipalities” since
the authority to approve applications rested with the Region. This is in contrast to
the southern five municipalities which were collectively known as the “delegated
municipalities” and were delegated approval authority of subdivisions,
condominiums and Part-Lot Control. This delegation was provided in 2000.
2.3 Bill 23 proposed many key changes to the Planning Act. One notable change was
the removal of planning responsibilities from several upper-tier municipalities within
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). Durham Region was designated as an
“upper-tier municipality without planning responsibility” as of January 1, 2025.
2.4 One of the main effects of the designation as an “upper-tier municipality without
planning responsibility” is that the Region is no longer the approval authority of
Planning Act applications. Despite the change in role, the Region is still required to
process Planning Act applications as a commenting agency since it is the provider
of infrastructure and services needed for the applications (e.g. water, sewer,
transportation, waste management, transit). It is through this lens that the Region
Page 34
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 3 of 10
continues to comment on planning applications to protect Regional interests and
responsibilities, and ensure development is adequately serviced.
2.5 The Community Growth Division continues to act as a “One Window” commenting
agency for most types of development applications. The Division, on behalf of all the
Region’s departments, receives and coordinates a regional response on all
development applications/proposals from Durham’s area municipalities.
Departmental comments from Works, Durham Region Transit and Environmental
Health, as well as internal divisions to the Community Growth and Economic
Development Department including Transit-Oriented Development, are coordinated
and issued by the Community Growth Division.
3. Summary of Changes
3.1 The full analysis, rationale and recommendations for the fee review are provided in
Section 4 of this report. This section provides a summary of the monetary changes,
for convenience. The 2025 fee analysis resulted in a series of recommendations
that can be grouped into four areas, including:
• Elimination of Fees
• Fees Remaining the Same
• Fee Increases
• New Fee
3.2 Housekeeping changes to the text of the By-law are detailed at the end of Section 4
of the report.
Elimination of Fees
3.3 Eight (8) fees are proposed to be eliminated, including:
• Processing and approval of a Major Regional Official Plan Amendment
(ROPA) application - $20,000.
• Processing and approval of a Minor ROPA application - $7,000.
• Reactivation of a ROPA after 3 or more years of inactivity - $2,500.
• Regional approval of an adopted non-exempt area municipal official plan
amendment initiated by an applicant - $1,500.
• Processing and approval of Plan of Subdivision and Condominium applications
in the Townships of Brock, Scugog & Uxbridge - $6,000.
• Final approval of the above noted applications - $1,500.
Page 35
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 4 of 10
• Recirculation and review of new or amended plans and/or studies prior to draft
plan approval by the Region in the above noted municipalities - $500.
• Administrative costs associated with printing hard copies of various maps and
publishing costs associated with Planning Act notice requirements.
Fees Remaining the Same
3.4 Ten (10) existing fees are recommended to remain the same given the Region’s
One-Window role has not diminished the Regional resources required to respond to
the application, they include:
• Plan of Subdivision application – additional phases fee - $3,000.
• Plan of Subdivision application – amended plan – fee - $1,500.
• Plan of Condominium application – revised plan fee - $1,500.
• Part-Lot Control By-law Exemption application review fee - $500.
• Zoning By-law Amendment application – standard - $1,500.
• Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) Type 1 application - $300.
• ECA Type 2 application - $1,000.
• Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) Amendment application (minor) - $1,500.
• MZO Amendment application (major) - $5,000.
• Administrative fees including peer reviews, printed copies of a Roads Map and
Historic Aerial Photographs, and Outputs of the Transportation Planning
Model.
Fee Increases
3.5 Nine (9) fee increases are proposed for the review of:
• Area Municipal Official Plan Amendment applications - $3,500 to $4,500.
• Plan of Subdivision applications - $5,000 to $6,000.
• Standard Plan of Condominium applications - $2,000 to $2,500.
• Vacant Land Plan of Condominium applications - $2,000 to $2,500.
• Common Element Plan of Condominium applications - $1,000 to $1,500.
• Condominium Conversion applications - $2,000 to $2,500.
• Requests to clear Regional conditions of approval related to a Plan of
Subdivision or a Plan of Condominiums – $1,000 to $1,500.
• Requests to utilize non-potable groundwater standards - $500 to $750.
• Consent Applications - $500 to $1,000.
Page 36
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 5 of 10
New Fee
3.6 The review identified the recommendation of one new fee:
• Introduction of a $1,000 fee for comments related to an applicant-initiated
request to extend draft approval of Plan of Subdivision and Plan of
Condominium applications.
4. Proposed Fee By-law Amendments
Analysis
4.1 The review mainly examined the changes and housekeeping amendments required
for the implementation of Bill 23. The review also examined the costs and time to
process each type of planning application. Staff also compared the Region’s fees
with other Regional municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area and
the planning application fees levied by the Region’s eight area municipalities.
4.2 The analysis revealed that modest changes to the existing Fee By-law are
warranted to better recover some of the costs associated with application
processing. The majority of the Region’s fees are proposed to remain unchanged
while many of the fees have been removed. The analysis also confirmed that the
Region’s fees compare favorably with similar fees levied by most GGH and area
upper-tier municipalities and with the fees levied by the Region’s area municipalities.
A description of the recommended changes is provided below.
Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) Fees
4.3 Fees related to the Regional administration of applications to amend the Regional
Official Plan are no longer applicable given the Region no longer administers its
Official Plan. It is recommended that the fees for a minor ROPA ($7,000), a major
ROPA ($20,000), and the re-activation of a ROPA after three or more years of
inactivity ($2,500) be removed.
Area Municipal Official Plan Amendment (AMOPA) Fees
4.4 The Region continues to review AMOPA applications and is recommending this fee
be increased to address the increased complexity of files, and also adjust for recent
inflationary increases since 2021 and future increases to 2028. The proposed fee is
also more in-line with other municipalities in the GGH. It is recommended that the
fee to review an exempt AMOPA application be increased from $3,500 to $4,500.
Page 37
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 6 of 10
4.5 The current fees related to the Regional approval of non-exempt applications to
amend an Area Municipal Official Plan are no longer applicable due to the removal
of these planning responsibilities stated above. It is recommended that the fee be
removed.
Plan of Subdivision/Condominium Application/Review Fees
4.6 The current fees related to the Regional administration, processing and review of
Plan of Subdivision and Condominium applications in the previously non-delegated
municipalities of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge are being updated to reflect the
removal of the department’s planning approval responsibilities stated above.
Existing fees include the following:
a. $6,000 to process the above noted applications;
b. $1,500 for final approval of these applications;
c. $500 to recirculate and review new or amended plans and/or studies prior to
draft plan approval by the Region in the above noted municipalities;
d. $1,500 to process a major applicant-initiated amendment/red-line
revision/change of conditions to a Plan of Subdivision/Condominium
application in the above noted municipalities;
e. $3,000 for the review of subsequent phases of a multi-phased Plan of
Subdivision application in the above noted municipalities;
f. $1,500 for the review of request to extend Regional draft approval of a plan of
subdivision or condominium in the above noted municipalities; and
g. $2,000 for the review of a phased Plan of Condominium application.
4.7 It is recommended that the fees related to previously non-delegated municipalities
be removed and replaced with the same fees as those levied in the lakeshore
municipalities as the Region’s role in the subdivision and condominium application
process no longer differs.
4.8 It is recommended that the fee to review a Plan of Subdivision application be
increased from $5,000 to $6,000 to account to reflect time spent and inflation. Also,
it is recommended that the review of a Standard and a Vacant Land Plan of
Condominium application, and a Condominium Conversion application be increased
from $2,000 to $2,500, and the review of a Common Element Plan of Condominium
application be increased from $1,000 to $1,500.
4.9 It is further recommended that the fee to review plans/documents in support of a
request to clear Regional conditions related to a Plan of Subdivision or a Plan of
Condominium application be increased from $1,000 to $1,500.
Page 38
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 7 of 10
Plan of Subdivision/Condominium Extension of Draft Approval Fee
4.10 The Region of Durham Community Growth Division currently does not charge a fee
for the review of applicant-initiated requests to extend the draft approval of Plans of
Subdivision or Plans of Condominium applications. In the pre-Bill 23 environment,
development application fees where the Region was the approval authority
contributed towards the costs involved with the circulation and review of these
requests. These application fees no longer exist. It is recommended that a new fee
of $1,000 be introduced to provide comments for each applicant-initiated request to
extend draft approval.
4.11 The proposed new fee would reflect the time and costs of reviewing the increasing
number of requests circulated to the Region, and to reflect the time and costs of
circulating the request and any associated studies to applicable Regional
departments and the consolidation of departmental responses into a Regional
comment letter.
Consent Applications
4.12 The Region currently charges a fee of $1,350 to process a consent application. This
fee is no longer applicable due to the removal of planning responsibilities stated
above. It is recommended that the fee to process a consent application be removed.
4.13 The Region currently charges a fee of $1,000 to stamp a deed, and finalize
documents for applications that create new lots, and for stamping leases,
mortgages, and deeds for realigning lot lines. This fee is no longer applicable due to
the removal of planning responsibilities stated above. It is recommended that this
fee be removed.
4.14 The Region currently charges a fee of $500 to review a consent application. It is
recommended that the fee to review a consent application be increased to $1,000.
4.15 Historically, the current $500 consent application review fee was subsidized by the
former administration of the Region’s Land Division Committee, the $1,350 consent
application fee and the $1,000 Deed Stamping fee. The historical role and process
allowed the Region to undercharge on the comment fee.
Non-potable Groundwater Requests
4.16 The Region currently charges a fee of $500 to review documents in support of a
request to use a non-potable groundwater standard related to a development
application pursuant to Section 35(3) of O. Reg. 153/04 under the Environmental
Page 39
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 8 of 10
Protection Act. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requires
less stringent non-potable groundwater thresholds for acceptable levels of
contaminant concentrations on sites upon review by the municipality. This role was
not affected by the Bill 23 changes. It is recommended that the fee be increased
from $500 to $750 as this fee has remained static for many years.
4.17 The proposed increase in this review fee would account for reflect the time and
costs of reviewing this type of request and inflation.
Housekeeping Matters
4.18 Due to these legislative and procedural updates, several changes to terminology in
the current Region of Durham Planning Fees and Charges By-law are required. Key
changes include:
a. There is no longer a distinction between “delegated” and “non-delegated”
municipalities. There is also no longer a distinction between “exempt” and
“non-exempt” municipal official plan applications.
b. Since the Region of Durham no longer administers the Regional Official Plan,
references to applications to amend this are no longer required.
c. The definition of “major” be reworded to remove the reference to a “delegated
municipality” and remove reference as the Region as the approval authority
regarding a revision to a Plan of Subdivision or Plan of Condominium
application.
d. The references to “Standard Review” and “Minor Review” of ZBA applications
are no longer required.
e. The Durham Region Land Division Committee no longer exists. That legislative
responsibility was delegated to the area municipalities on January 1, 2024.
The only applicable fee that would remain would be the commenting fee for
Consent applications circulated by each of the area municipalities to the
Department.
5. Consultation
5.1 Community Growth Division staff consulted with some representatives from the
Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) to discuss the
proposed changes to the Fee By-law. The proposed fees and charges were also
circulated to the Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association (DRHBA) for formal
comment. BILD and DRHBA members were also notified of the proposed fee
changes and were asked to forward any comments to the Region. The Region did
not receive any response to the BILD and DRHBA circulation to their membership.
Page 40
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 9 of 10
BILD did however indicate that the fee update was not proceeding at the most
opportune time due to the slowing of the housing market.
6. Previous Reports and Decisions
6.1 Report #2021-P-17 provides details regarding the Region’s last review of the
Planning Fees and Charges By-law. Regional Council adopted By-law 20-2021 on
June 23, 2021, and the by-law came into effect on July 1, 2021.
7. Relationship to Strategic Plan
7.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following Foundation(s) in Durham Region’s
2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Processes: Continuously improving processes to ensure we are responsive to
community needs.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The 2025 review of the Region of Durham’s Planning Fees and Charges By-law has
concluded that some changes are required to implement the changes resulting from
the implementation of Bill 23. The proposed fees are intended to capture the effort
required to review applications for Regional Interests and responsibilities and to
ensure that the appropriate fees are charged to better reflect the anticipated costs to
review the applications. Although some fees are recommended to increase, most
are proposed to remain the same. Nineteen (19) fees are recommended to be
eliminated. The proposed changes compare favourably with fees charged by other
GGH upper-tier municipalities. Staff consulted with BILD and the DRHBA on the
proposed changes and will continue to liaise with BILD and DRHBA on future
application fee reviews.
8.2 It is recommended that the Regional Council approve the by-law in the form
included as Attachment 1 to repeal and replace the existing by-law and incorporate
the recommended changes and that the new Fee By-law come into effect on
January 1, 2026.
8.3 For additional information, please contact Lino Trombino at
lino.trombino@durham.ca.
Page 41
Report #2025-CG-12 Page 10 of 10
9. Attachments
Attachment #1:Proposed new Planning Fees and Charges By-law
Attachment #2:Summary of Proposed Fees – 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original signed by
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 42
Attachment 1
By-law Number 2025-**
of The Regional Municipality of Durham
Being a by-law to establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in
respect of planning matters.
Whereas section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 provides that the council of a
municipality may by by-law establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made
in respect of planning matters.
Now therefore, the Council of The Regional Municipality of Durham hereby enacts as
follows:
1.Interpretation
1.1 In this by-law,
(a)“Environmental Protection Act” means the Environmental Protection Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended;
(b)“major” means, with respect to a revision of subdivision and condominium
applications, an application where any of the following events occur:
(i)the local municipality circulates the revision to the Region and collects
a fee therefor; or
(ii)the Region revises the conditions of draft approval; or
(iii)the Region recirculates the application.
(c)“Major Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister’s Zoning Order
Amendment” means a site-specific application circulated by the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing to amend or revoke a Minister’s Zoning
Order where the application does not, in the opinion of the Community
Growth Division, comply with the Regional Official Plan.
(d)“Minister’s Zoning Order” means an order made by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing authorized by section 47 of the Planning
Act;
(e)“Minor Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister’s Zoning Order
Amendment” means a site-specific application circulated by the Ministry
to amend or revoke a Minister’s Zoning Order;
(f)“Planning Act” means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended;
(g)“non-potable request” means notice in writing by an owner or applicant to
the Region and the local municipality of intent to apply the non-potable
groundwater site condition standards in an environmental site
assessment or a record of site condition for a property according to the
Environmental Protection Act;
(h)“standard clearance” means clearance of Regional conditions;
(i)“standard review” means review and comments of rezoning applications
which propose new physical development or where any report or study is
required as part of the application;
Page 43
Attachment 1
(j) “Type 1 Certificate of Approval/Environmental Compliance Approval
Application” means an application circulated by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks where
(i) no Regional interests have been identified and
(ii) a Regional Council resolution is not required;
(k) “Type 2 Certificate of Approval/Environmental Compliance Approval
Application” means an application circulated by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks where
(i) there are Regional issues identified or a hearing is requested under the
Environmental Protection Act and
(ii) a recommendation is presented to Regional Council.
2. Fees
Area Municipal Official Plan Amendment applications
2.1 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
$4,500 for the review and comments on an area municipal official plan
amendment application initiated by an applicant.
Plan of Subdivision and condominium applications
2.2 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
(a) $6,000 for the review of each application for approval of a plan of
subdivision;
(b) $2,500 for the review of each application for approval of a standard
condominium;
(c) $2,500 for the review of each application for approval of a vacant lot
condominium;
(d) $1,500 for the review of each application for approval of a common
elements condominium;
(e) $2,500 for the review of each application for approval of a condominium
conversion;
(f) $3,000 for the review of each additional phase of a multiple phased plan
of subdivision application;
(g) $1,500 for a major applicant-initiated amendment/redline revision of
conditions to a plan of subdivision or condominium application;
(h) $1,000 for the review of any request to extend draft approval of a plan of
subdivision or a condominium application; and
(i) $1,500 for the standard clearance of Regional conditions from subdivision
and condominium draft approvals for each phase of final approval and
registration.
Consent applications
2.3 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
$1,000 for the review of each application for a consent to convey,
mortgage or charge land, or grant, assign or exercise a power of
appointment in respect of land.
Page 44
Attachment 1
Part-lot control by-law exemption applications
2.4 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
$500 for the review of each part-lot control exemption application.
Zoning by-law amendment applications
2.5 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
$1,500 for a standard review and comments on rezoning applications or
zoning by-law applications.
Other fees
2.6 The following fees are payable in respect of the following applications:
(a) $300 for the review of each Type 1 Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks Certificate of Approval/Environmental
Compliance Approval application;
(b) $1,000 for the review of each Type 2 Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks Certificate of Approval/Environmental
Compliance Approval application;
(c) $750 for a request to use non-potable groundwater standards;
(d) $1,500 for the review and comments on a Minor Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing Minister’s Zoning Order Amendment application;
(e) $5,000 for the review and comments on a Major Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing Minister’s Zoning Order Amendment application; and
(f) $500 per round to administer any peer review associated with the review
of technical studies submitted in support of a planning application.
2.7 Any fee established by this by-law shall be paid by certified cheque, money
order or electronic transfer payable to The Regional Municipality of Durham.
2.8 Where notice of any application is required by the Planning Act, the applicant
shall pay all expenses associated therewith.
3. Short title
3.1 The short title of this by-law is the “Planning Fees and Charges By-law”.
4. Repeal
4.1 By-law 020-2021 is repealed
5. Commencement
5.1 This by-law comes into force on January 1, 2026.
This By-law Read and Passed on the 29th day of October, 2025.
J. Henry, Regional Chair and CEO
A. Harras, Regional Clerk
Page 45
Summary of Proposed Fees - 2025 Attachment 2
Type of Fee Recommendation Current Fee Recommended
Fee
Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA)
Area Municipal Official Plan Amendment (AMOPA)
Plan of Subdivision and Condominium
Proposed fee for all of Durham’s Area Municipalities
Former Non-delegated Municipalities (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge)
Page 46
Summary of Proposed Fees - 2025 Attachment 2
Type of Fee Recommendation Current Fee Recommended
Fee
Consent Applications (severance, lot line adjustment, etc.)
Part-Lot Control By-law Exemption
Zoning By-law Amendment
Other Fees
Page 47
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
This Letter Has Been Forwarded
To The Eight Area Clerks
Sent Via Email
November 26, 2025
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON, L1C 3A6
Dear J. Gallagher:
RE: Authorization to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of
the Options for Including the Northeast Pickering Lands
in the Region’s Development Charge By-laws (2025-COW-
36), Our File: D00
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on November
26, 2025, adopted the following recommendations of the Committee
of the Whole:
A) That, in response to the request from members of the Northeast
Pickering Landowners Group to advance the servicing of the
Northeast Pickering (NEP) lands and the importance of
advancing servicing to the new Whitby hospital site in northwest
Brooklin (NW Brooklin), Regional Staff undertake a
comprehensive review of the options for including the NEP and
NW Brooklin lands in the Region’s Development Charge (DC)
By-laws, including associated policies. The review will consider
the following three options:
i) Amend the existing Region-wide DC By-laws to include
the NEP and NW Brooklin lands, which would require
accounting for additional servicing costs and the
associated population and employment growth;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 48
ii) Establish a NEP and NW Brooklin area-specific DC By-law for water and
sewer services, with corresponding amendments to the Regional DC By-laws
to include remaining services (e.g., roads, transit, police);
iii) Develop a new DC Background Study and associated By-law to incorporate
all new growth areas approved in the Region’s former Official Plan, including
the NEP lands;
B) That the following outside consulting and legal services be retained, at an
estimated cost not to exceed $50,000, with the financing to be determined at the
discretion of the Commissioner of Finance, to provide technical expertise in the
evaluation of the three options for including NEP and NW Brooklin lands in
Regional DC By-laws and advise on implementation requirements, as follows:
i) The consulting firm of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be retained to
assist with the evaluation of the options for including NEP and NW Brooklin in
the Region’s DC By-laws; and
ii) The legal firm of WeirFoulds LLP be retained to advise on the requirements
of the options studied;
C) That staff consult with BILD, DRHBA and staff from each of the eight area
municipalities in Durham as part of the comprehensive review of the options to
include the Northeast Pickering and NW Brooklin lands in the Region’s
Development Charge By-laws;
D) That staff report back with recommendations on including NEP and NW Brooklin in
the Region’s DC By-laws that stem from the comprehensive review, including risks
and implications of the recommended approach, in spring 2026;
E) That Report #2025-COW-36 of the Commissioners of Finance, Community Growth
and Economic Development, Works and Legal Services, be forwarded to the
Region’s eight area municipalities; and
F) That the Commissioner of Finance and Commissioner of Legal Services be
authorized to execute the necessary agreements to retain the consulting and legal
services.
Page 49
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-COW-36 for your information.
Alexander Harras
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
c: N. Taylor, Commissioner of Finance
S. Austin, Community Growth and Economic Development
R. Jagannathan, Works
J. Hunt, Commissioner of Legal Services
Page 50
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2303
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Commissioner of Finance, Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development, Commissioner of Works, and Commissioner of
Legal Services
Report: #2025-COW-36
Date: November 13, 2025
Subject:
Authorization to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the Options for Including
the Northeast Pickering Lands in the Region’s Development Charge By-laws
Recommendation:
That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Regional Council:
A)That, in response to the request from members of the Northeast Pickering
Landowners Group to advance the servicing of the Northeast Pickering (NEP) lands,
Regional Staff undertake a comprehensive review of the options for including the
NEP lands in the Region’s Development Charge (DC) By-laws, including associated
policies. The review will consider the following three options:
i.Amend the existing Region-wide DC By-laws to include the NEP lands, which
would require accounting for additional servicing costs and the associated
population and employment growth.
ii.Establish a NEP area-specific DC By-law for water and sewer services, with
corresponding amendments to the Regional DC By-laws to include remaining
services (e.g., roads, transit, police).
iii.Develop a new DC Background Study and associated By-law to incorporate all
new growth areas approved in the Region’s former Official Plan, including the NEP
lands.
B)That the following outside consulting and legal services be retained, at an estimated
cost not to exceed $50,000, with the financing to be determined at the discretion of
the Commissioner of Finance, to provide technical expertise in the evaluation of the
three options for including NEP lands in Regional DC By-laws and advise on
implementation requirements, as follows:
Page 51
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 2 of 7
i. The consulting firm of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be retained to
assist with the evaluation of the options for including NEP in the Region’s DC
By-laws; and
ii. The legal firm of WeirFoulds LLP be retained to advise on the requirements of
the options studied;
C) Staff consult with BILD, DRHBA and staff from each of the eight area municipalities in
Durham as part of the comprehensive review of the options to include the Northeast
Pickering lands in the Region’s Development Charge By-laws;
D) Staff to report back with recommendations on including NEP in the Region’s DC By-
laws that stem from the comprehensive review, including risks and implications of the
recommended approach, in spring 2026;
E) That this report be forwarded to the Region’s eight area municipalities;
F) That the Commissioner of Finance and Commissioner of Legal Services be
authorized to execute the necessary agreements to retain the consulting and legal
services.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to:
a. Inform Regional Council of the request from members of the Northeast
Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) to expedite the servicing of the
Northeast Pickering (NEP) lands by including the capital works through an
amendment to the Region’s Development Charges (DC) By-laws; and
b. To request authorization to undertake the necessary work to evaluate the
three options for advancing the inclusion of the NEP lands in the Region’s DC
By-laws and report back to Regional Council with the recommended approach
and a detailed timeline for completion.
2. Background
2.1 The Region’s current Residential and Non-residential DC By-law for water supply,
sanitary sewerage, roads, regional police services, long-term care, paramedic
services, and waste diversion services (By-law No. 42-2023) and Regional Transit
DC By-law No. 39-2022 utilized the planning forecast from the previous Region
Official Plan. Therefore, the Region’s current DC By-laws do not include any of the
new growth areas approved in the Region’s most recently approved Official Plan
(Envision Durham), including the NEP lands.
Page 52
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 3 of 7
2.2 In January 2025, as part of the settlement of the OLT appeal of the Region’s 2023
DC By-law (OLT-23-000888), the Region committed to BILD and DRHBA to:
a.Use its best efforts to undertake and complete as soon as is reasonably
practicable, a comprehensive review of its Region-wide development charges
that will result in the enactment of a new by-law, based on the servicing
requirements of all the lands added to the Region’s urban boundary through
its official plan approved by the Province; and
b.Establish a development stakeholder liaison committee comprised of Regional
Staff and members of the development community, which will be coordinated
through BILD and DRHBA, to enable early and multiple consultations.
2.3 Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, was introduced
on May 12, 2025, and included immediate and proposed changes to the
Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA). Given the uncertainty surrounding the final
form of these proposed changes and their timing, Regional Staff are awaiting further
clarity from the province before recommending a preferred approach for including
Northeast Pickering lands in the DC By-laws. Effective immediately, the Bill
introduced a long-term care homes DC exemption, while also proposing future
amendments that the Province is consulting municipalities and stakeholders on that
could significantly impact municipal finances. Notable proposed amendments
include deferring residential DC payments to occupancy, revising the Benefit to
Existing (BTE) methodology and limiting land cost recovery to historical service
levels, amongst others.
2.4 Pickering and the Northeast Pickering NEPLOG has requested that the Region
advance the planning to extend water and wastewater services to their lands in
NEP .
3.Key Considerations
Implementation Considerations
3.1 To enable the NEPLOG to upfront finance the costs to service their lands and
recover these costs through DC credits, the Region must incorporate the NEP lands
and associated capital requirements into its DC By-laws and execute an associated
agreement. The Region is exploring three options for potentially including these
lands:
a.Amend the existing Region wide DC By-laws to include the NEP lands which
would require the additional servicing costs and additional population and
employment growth for NEP.
b.Develop a NEP area-specific DC By-law for water and sewer services which
would still require amendments to the Regional By-laws to include the
remaining services (i.e. roads, transit, police etc.).
Page 53
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 4 of 7
c. Develop a new DC Background Study and associated By-law to include all the
new growth areas approved in the Region’s former Official Plan (Envision
Durham), which would include NEP lands.
3.2 The Region must balance the request from the NEPLOG to amend the Region’s DC
By-laws to advance servicing their lands and the commitment made by the Region
in the approved Minutes of Settlement to complete a comprehensive new DC by-
law that would include all the new growth areas approved in Envision Durham, the
Region’s former official plan. Advancing work to specifically address the NEP lands
may conflict with the Region’s commitment under the OLT-approved Minutes of
Settlement to complete a comprehensive DC By-law update based on Envision
Durham growth forecasts, considering all new growth areas which include NEP,
northwest Brooklin (including future Whitby hospital lands), northeast Oshawa, east
Courtice, Bowmanville, and north Newcastle, rather than focusing on one area in
isolation.
3.3 As part of the comprehensive review, the Region will meet with the area
municipalities, BILD, DRHBA and other stakeholders to examine the implications
and risks of including the NEP lands in the Region’s DC By-laws.
3.4 On October 23, 2025, the Province released Bill 60: Fighting Delays, Building
Faster Act 2025. This act include includes proposed changes to the Development
Charges Act, which Regional staff are actively reviewing. These proposed changes
may have implications for how the Region approaches discussions with NEP
landowners and other stakeholders. As the regulatory direction evolves, staff will
continue to monitor and follow provincial guidance in future engagement efforts.
Development Forecasts (Population and Employment)
3.5 For all options being considered, new development forecasts (population and
employment) will be a required input. The comprehensive review will consider the
challenges with generating new development forecasts, given the impacts that
came into effect as of January 1, 2025, under Ontario’s Bill 23, where Durham
Region has been identified as an upper-tier municipality without planning
responsibilities. This change transfers approval authority for official plans and
amendments to the Region’s eight lower-tier municipalities, allowing them to
manage their own planning decisions independently.
3.6 Regional Staff will continue to meet with Pickering Staff to discuss and gather
information on the development of the NEP lands (i.e. work or future work on
Secondary Plan and Neighbourhood Plans for NEP and the information within
Pickering’s Growth Management Study).
Market Considerations
3.7 The comprehensive review will consider housing market conditions in Pickering
(current and historical growth), the amount of serviced lands and potential supply of
Page 54
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 5 of 7
housing within Seaton and future intensification in Pickering and the ability of
Pickering to meet the provincial housing targets.
3.8 There are approximately 20,000 unbuilt units in Seaton where most of the servicing
has already been constructed through a front ending agreement with the Seaton
landowners. Given this remaining unbuilt capacity, the introduction of additional
residential land supply from the NEP area may not be required from a market
absorption standpoint, as both areas are positioned to serve the same regional
housing demand.
3.9 In addition, Transport Canada recently initiated stakeholder consultations on future
plans for the Pickering Lands (approx. 8,700 acres), formerly held by the federal
government for a future airport in northwest Pickering.
3.10 The comprehensive review will need to consider how the development of the NEP
lands may impact the development of the Seaton lands, incorporate the
consultations on a Land Use Management Strategy for the federal Pickering Lands,
and development in all municipalities within Durham and their ability to achieve the
development targets. The Region will need to evaluate the risk to build
infrastructure in an area such as NEP that may not be needed for medium to long-
term based on current development levels.
Servicing Considerations
3.11 The Northeast Pickering area is projected to accommodate up to 72,000 residents
and 9,725 jobs. To support this growth, significant infrastructure development is
required, particularly in water and wastewater services. Servicing NEP is complex
and full buildout is expected to require the expansion of the Ajax WSP and Duffin
Creek WPCP, as well as new booster pumping stations, feedermains, reservoirs,
sanitary sewers, and sanitary sewage pumping station and forcemains. The
comprehensive review will examine the capital requirements, the timing of the
capital improvements, the efficiencies or inefficiencies of advancing the
infrastructure needed for NEP and the ability to implement these capital
improvements while balancing the capital needs to service the rest of Durham
Region. Ongoing secondary plan work indicates considerable road works may be
necessary to facilitate development and growth in NEP. In addition, other necessary
Regional services will also be explored in the review.
3.12 Review of the servicing requirements and adoption of new DC by-laws will be
considered in light of the proposed changes under Bill 17 or changes that occur
during the review, which may impact several components of the DC calculation.
4. Previous Reports and Decisions
4.1 None.
Page 55
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 6 of 7
5. Financial Implications
5.1 It is recommended that the external consulting and legal services expenditures
estimated at no greater than $50,000, with the financing to be determined at the
discretion of the Commissioner of Finance.
6. Relationship to Strategic Plan
6.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following Strategic Direction(s) and
Pathway(s) in Durham Region’s 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Connected and Vibrant Communities
• C1. Align Regional infrastructure and asset management with projected
growth, climate impacts, and community needs.
b. Resilient Local Economies
• R1. Attract and retain quality employers that strengthen key economic
sectors, including energy and technology.
• R2. Support the growth of new business startups and small to medium
local businesses.
• R3. Develop, attract, and support a skilled and qualified workforce,
including youth and newcomers.
6.2 This report aligns with/addresses the following Foundation(s) in Durham Region’s
2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. People: Making the Region of Durham a great place to work, attracting, and
retaining talent.
b. Processes: Continuously improving processes to ensure we are responsive to
community needs.
7. Conclusion
7.1 A comprehensive review to be undertaken by Regional Staff, with the assistance of
the recommended consultant and legal counsel, is recommended to ensure that the
Region evaluates all information pertaining to the potential inclusion of Northeast
Pickering lands in the Region’s DC By-laws.
7.2 The recommended Regional review will include consultation with the Pickering and
the local development industry including BILD and DRHBA.
7.3 Staff will report back to the Committee of the Whole and Regional Council after
completion of the review with the recommended approach.
Page 56
Report #2025-COW-36 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
Original Signed By
N. Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Original Signed By
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Original Signed By
Ramesh Jagannathan, MBA, M.Eng.
P.Eng., PTOE
Commissioner of Works
Original Signed By
Jason Hunt
Commissioner of Legal Services &
Regional Solicitor
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original Signed By
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 57
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2303
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Commissioner of Finance, Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development, Commissioner of Works, and Commissioner of
Legal Services
Report: #2025-COW-37
Date: November 13, 2025
Subject:
Regional Comments on the Proposed Changes to Ontario Building Code and Proposed
Changes in Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
Recommendation:
That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Regional Council:
A. That the letter dated October 17, 2025, found in Attachment #1, be endorsed as the
Region of Durham’s response to proposed amendments to the Building Code Act,
1992, through Bill 17 (Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025),
including the following key messages:
i. Linking DC Collection to Occupancy Permits: Regional staff support using
occupancy permits as a practical enforcement tool for DC collection and
recommend legislative amendments to explicitly include Regional DCs and allow
local councils to set deferral timing as a temporary measure to manage cash flow
impacts and support housing delivery.
ii. Establishing First Occupancy as the Payment Trigger: Tying DCs to first
occupancy provides a consistent, efficient collection trigger aligned with municipal
workflows and simplifies phased development tracking and protects infrastructure
funding.
iii. Extending Inspection Timelines for Deferred DCs: Regional staff support extending
the prescribed inspection timeline from 2 to 10 days, to improve coordination,
payment verification, and reduce occupancy delays.
iv. Public Education: Regional staff support creating educational materials for
homeowners and builders to explain the occupancy process, DC deferrals, and
municipal roles.
Page 58
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 2 of 12
v. Transit Station Charges: In addition to the proposed changes, staff recommend
amending the Ontario Building Code’s definition of “Applicable Law” to include
section 9 of the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, enabling chief building
officials to withhold building permits if Transit Station Charges remain unpaid.
B. That in light of the proposed amendments to the Ontario Building Code, Council
authorize the termination of the Region’s Medium and High-Density Residential
Development Charge Deferral Program as it is redundant with the implementation of
Bill 17 legislative updates mandating the deferral of non-rental residential
development charge collection until occupancy;
C. That the letter as found in Attachment #2, be endorsed as the Region of Durham’s
response to Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 omnibus legislation,
including the following key messages:
i. Development Charges Act – Staff support measures that improve transparency in
Development Charge (DC) calculations, creating a separate service class for land
acquisition, and requiring disclosure of Benefit to Existing (BTE) methodologies.
Additionally, staff are supportive of allowing municipalities to define what
constitutes a local service.
ii. Municipal Act – Recommend allowing municipalities to decide if corporate utility
models are best for their unique context considering local costs, risks, efficiency
and housing affordability, rather than applying a uniform provincial approach and
inform future policy using lessons learned from Peel.
iii. Planning Act – Staff recommend that the province preserve municipal planning
autonomy in developing Official Plans, maintain development standards, continue
to allow for secondary plans and site specific policies, support local Community
Improvement Plans (CIP) to administer the Regional Revitalization Program (RRP)
to support much needed housing and rental units in the Region, ensure oversight
in Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) decisions with indigenous engagement, and
streamline data tracking for infrastructure
iv. Highway Traffic Act – Staff recommend that the province replace a blanket ban on
reducing vehicles lanes for bike lanes with a more flexible, case-by-case approach
so that municipalities can balance climate, safety, and mobility goals while working
with the province to expand active transportation infrastructure.
v. GO Transit Station Funding Act and Transit-Oriented Communities Act – Staff
support legislative changes that enhance municipal flexibility in transit station
funding and project reporting, while emphasizing the need for clear guidance on
charge collection timing, advisory panel roles, and reporting responsibilities,
especially within two-tier municipal frameworks, to ensure effective, locally
responsive implementation.
D. That Council receive for information the latest developments on the implementation of
proposed changes to the Development Charges Act contained in Bill 17;
Page 59
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 3 of 12
E. Staff notify BILD, DRHBA and staff from each of the eight area municipalities in
Durham of the termination of the Region’s Medium and High-Density Residential
Development Charge Deferral Program; and
F. That this report be forwarded to the Region’s eight area municipalities;
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to:
a. Inform Regional Council of the feedback Regional Staff provided to the
Province on their proposed changes to the Building Code; and
b. Inform Regional Council of the feedback Region Staff will be providing to the
Province on their proposed amendments to several acts within Bill 60, the
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025.
c. Inform Regional Council on the latest information pertaining to Bill 17, which
was issued earlier this year and received Royal Assent on June 5, 2025, that
non-rental residential development charges are now payable at the earlier of
occupancy or issuance of occupancy permit.
d. To request authorization to end the Region’s Medium and High-Density
Residential Development Charge Deferral Program as it is redundant with the
implementation of Bill 17 legislative updates mandating the deferral of non-
rental residential development charge collection until occupancy.
2. Background
2.1 The Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17), which
received Royal Assent on June 5, 2025, amended the Development Charges Act
to allow developers of non-rental residential buildings to defer development
charge (DC) payments from the time of building permit issuance to either the
issuance of an occupancy permit or the first occupancy of the building. At the time
of Bill 17 receiving Royal Assent, the amendments were set to come into effect on
a date to be named by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
2.2 On October 3, 2025, the Province proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation
163/24 under the Building Code Act. The proposed amendments would require
occupancy permits for non-rental residential buildings where DCs are deferred,
including buildings that currently may not need such permits. Additionally, chief
building officials (CBOs) would be prohibited from issuing occupancy permits until
municipalities confirm that deferred DCs have been paid in full.
2.3 These changes would apply only to non-rental, non-institutional residential
developments in municipalities that levy DCs. Municipalities without a DC by-law
or for those developments with section 27 agreements would not be affected. The
Page 60
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 4 of 12
proposal does not alter technical health-and-safety standards, DC calculation
rules, or the ability to add unpaid DCs to the tax roll.
2.4 The Province opened the Ontario Regulatory Registry for public comment on the
proposed Building Code changes, and the Region submitted its feedback prior to
the commenting period deadline of October 17, 2025.
2.5 On October 23, 2025, the Province released Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building
Faster Act, 2025, which proposed changes to several Acts of importance for the
Region, including the Development Charges Act (DCA), the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, the Planning Act, the Transit Oriented Communities Act, as well as
introduced new legislation in the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act.
2.6 Bill 60 contains several amendments to the DCA, including:
a. Land Costs: Land acquisition costs for most DC-eligible services be grouped
into a new service class exempt from historic service level calculations.
b. Local Services Policies: Municipalities must establish Local Service Policies
for all applicable DC services, identifying local works and prohibiting unlisted
ones, with the policy due within 18 months of the legislation taking effect or
upon adoption.
c. Transparency and Accessibility: Municipalities must submit DC financial
statements to council by June 30 and to the Minister by July 15 annually and
provide DC background studies and by-laws to the Minister upon request by
the specified deadline.
d. Additional Proposed Changes: The province is seeking feedback on merging
water and wastewater services for DC credit purposes, increasing
transparency of Benefit to Existing (BTE) allocations, and requiring detailed
land acquisition costs by service area in DC background studies.
2.7 Bill 60 also contains changes to other notable Acts which are immediately relevant
to Durham, which include:
a. Planning Act: Remove barriers to allow all upper-tier municipalities to adopt
and fund Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) without requiring provincial
regulation, enable cross-tier CIP funding, and reinstate CIPs for upper-tier
municipalities that lost planning authority.
b. New Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act: MMAH is proposing
new legislation (Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025) to
create public corporations for water and wastewater services, allowing the
designation of such corporations by regulation and requiring certain
municipalities to deliver services exclusively through them by a prescribed
date.
c. GO Transit Station Funding Act: changes to the GO Transit Station Funding
Act, 2023, to allow the by-law to be structured to allow payment at occupancy
and that the municipality can require financial securities to secure payment.
Page 61
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 5 of 12
d. Transit Oriented Communities Act: Establish a TOC Advisory Panel, authorize
the Minister of Infrastructure to require progress reporting from senior
municipal officials, and allow the Minister to mandate agreements between
landowners and municipalities for designated TOC lands, with municipalities
required to appoint a contact person to provide related land information.
e. Highway Traffic Act (HTA): amendments that would prohibit municipalities
from reducing motor vehicle lanes when installing, implementing or marking
new bicycle lanes, as well as amendments to create regulation-making
authorities to allow the Minister to prescribe additional prohibited activities
and to provide exemptions from the prohibition.
2.8 A detailed overview of the complete set of amendments contained in Bill 60 is
found in Appendix 2.
2.9 On October 23, 2025, the Province also released further information relating to
outstanding items from Bill 17. These include establishing November 3, 2025, as
the day named by order of the Lieutenant Governor in council to allow developers
of non-rental residential buildings to defer DC payments from the time of building
permit issuance to either the issuance of an occupancy permit or the first
occupancy of the building. The Province also initiated consultation surrounding
other key Bill 17 proposals, including the merging of service categories for the
purpose of DC credit usage, Benefit to Existing (BTE) methodologies, the
treatment of land acquisition costs, and improved transparency for DC financial
statements.
3. Regional Feedback and Commentary – Building Code
3.1 Regional staff support the proposal to require occupancy permits for non-rental
residential buildings where DCs are deferred. They also endorse giving CBOs the
authority to withhold occupancy permits until municipalities confirm that deferred
DCs have been paid in full. Regional Staff’s feedback on the proposed changes
include:
a. DC Collection Enforcement: Staff recommend legislative amendments to
explicitly include Regional DCs and allow local councils to set deferral timing
to manage cash flow and support housing delivery.
b. First Occupancy as Trigger: Tying DC payments to first occupancy aligns with
municipal workflows and simplifies tracking for phased developments.
c. Inspection Timelines: Extending the inspection window from 2 to 10 days
would improve coordination and reduce delays.
d. Public Education: Staff support developing educational materials for
homeowners and builders to clarify the occupancy process and DC deferrals.
e. Transit Station Charges: The Region recommends amending the Building
Code’s definition of “Applicable Law” to include section 9 of the GO Transit
Station Funding Act, 2023, allowing CBOs to withhold building permits if
Transit Station Charges are unpaid.
Page 62
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 6 of 12
3.2 The changes to the Building Code, which are in effect as of November 3, 2025,
provide a more reliable mechanism for ensuring DC payment where payments are
deferred beyond the Building Permit stage. By linking the issuance of occupancy
permits to confirmation of DC payment, the risk of non-payment is significantly
reduced.
4. Regional Feedback and Commentary – Bill 60
4.1 The following sections provide a high-level overview of the key comments that will
be submitted to the province prior to the feedback window closing on November
22.
Development Charges Act
4.2 Staff support the proposed addition of a land acquisition service class. While
some services will be subject to a 10-year forecast limit, for key regional services
like water, wastewater, roads, transit, and police this will not apply, minimizing
regional impact. Municipalities will need to manage separate reserve funds for
land costs, which may affect financial planning.
4.3 Staff support the proposal to require municipalities to establish Local Service
Policies (LSPs) and support allowing municipalities to define what constitutes a
local service.
4.4 Staff support the requirement for timely submission of DC financial statements, as
it enhances transparency. The Region already publishes the Treasurer’s
Statement through a Council Information Package (CIP), which is posted online.
We recommend the CIP continue to serve as the formal submission to Council.
Any additional reporting should remain flexible to avoid unnecessary
administrative burden.
4.5 With respect to the unspent Reserve Fund Commitments proposal to identify the
amount from each reserve fund that was committed to a project but had not been
spent, staff highlight that the information could be presented in aggregate within
the reserve fund continuity schedule, aligning with public sector accounting
standards and improving clarity to avoid complicating the Treasurer’s Statement.
4.6 Staff will meet reporting requirements on the amount of debt that had been issued
for a project as of the end of the year by providing a separate annual schedule to
the Treasurer’s Statement.
4.7 Staff agree that linking projects in the background study to those in the
Treasurer’s statement through use of a unique identifier is a positive addition to
the report.
Page 63
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 7 of 12
Municipal Act
4.8 The proposed amendments to the Municipal Act would transfer jurisdiction over
water and wastewater services to the lower-tier municipalities in Peel Region and
introduce a standalone statute to authorize the establishment of public water and
wastewater utilities. Municipalities are best positioned to determine whether a
public corporate utility model suits their local needs, based on costs, risks,
efficiencies, and household affordability. A uniform provincial approach is not
recommended. The Province should apply lessons learned from Peel Region to
guide future decisions and minimize unintended impacts. While utility models may
offer benefits, they can also increase regulatory costs and household rates.
Existing municipal systems already deliver strong accountability and efficiency
through local governance, particularly in municipalities like Durham Region with
high sustained growth projections. Close alignment between local municipal
needs for infrastructure to support growth and capital planning for that
infrastructure has been demonstrated by the current model in Durham. Durham
has demonstrated one of the highest growth rates in Canada and continuously
met the infrastructure needs for that growth. This includes the successful delivery
of infrastructure for one of the largest new communities in Canada in Seaton,
using flexible tools involving unprecedented cooperation between public and
private sector where appropriate. Durham’s financial planning and governance
over utility infrastructure and capital planning has placed the local municipalities in
an enviable position to meet the current and future infrastructure needs for their
communities.
Planning Act
4.9 Staff support the changes being made to allow for a flexible implementation of
Community Improvement Plans (CIPs), including enabling upper-tier
municipalities to establish Regional CIPs and/or permitting financial participation
in lower-tier municipal CIPs. These changes support the continuation of Durham’s
successful Regional Revitalization Program (RRP). The current RRP is an
application-based grant program which provides Regional financial support and/or
in-kind Regional services to eligible redevelopment and intensification projects in
local municipal Community Improvement Plans.
4.10 The Region’s comments on Bill 17 emphasized the importance of maintaining
municipal autonomy on any changes aimed at simplifying and standardizing the
structure, contents, and length of Official Plans (OPs), as local planning needs
vary across the province. Municipalities should retain control over designations,
structures, and required studies to effectively respond to community needs. Each
municipality in the province has unique challenges, and planning documents
should be allowed to reflect and react to local circumstances.
4.11 Regarding the proposed changes to prohibit the use of secondary plans and site-
specific policies, staff emphasize that secondary plans play a critical role in
coordinating stakeholders, aligning growth with infrastructure, and engaging
Page 64
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 8 of 12
communities. Eliminating them could lead to fragmented development,
infrastructure inefficiencies, and delays. To avoid these risks, alternative
approaches should preserve the ability to use secondary plans and site-specific
policies where needed to support orderly and responsive planning.
4.12 The Region is supportive, in principle, of streamlining the tracking of planning
data. For infrastructure and service planning purposes, the Region relies on
standardization and consistency of data and have committed to working with the
area municipalities to achieve standardization in Durham.
4.13 The Region has previously expressed concerns about how Minister’s Zoning
Orders (MZOs) have been implemented and the lack of municipal oversight
resulting from these provincial decisions. Any changes to the MZO process should
respect municipal oversight and allow for meaningful Indigenous engagement.
4.14 With respect to the use of enhanced development standards at the lot level (i.e.
outside of buildings, generally referred to as “green development standards”),
such standards are typically utilized by municipalities to reduce GHG emissions;
manage demand on energy and water resources; improve water management;
increase greenspace; and improve air quality. They also increase climate
resilience; can lower utility costs for residents; create economic opportunities in
the green building sector; reduce strain on infrastructure; and improve public
health. Municipalities should have the autonomy to apply green development
standards that support the implementation of policies and priorities set out within
their OPs.
Building Transit Faster Act
4.15 The Ministry currently issues municipal service and right-of-way access orders,
which require consultation with municipalities. If this authority is delegated,
municipal input could be significantly reduced, raising concerns that local issues
may not be adequately considered.
Go Transit Station Funding Act
4.16 The Region generally supports proposed legislative changes to align the GO
Transit Station Funding Act with the Development Charges Act, allowing more
flexibility in the timing of Transit Station Charge collection. Regional staff
recommend that Section 7.2 of the Act include provisions similar to subsection
26.2(5)(a) and (b) of the Development Charges Act for consistency with the DCA.
Transit Oriented Communities Act
4.17 The Region of Durham is generally supportive of proposed amendments to the
Transit-Oriented Communities Act, 2020, which would establish a Transit-
Oriented Communities (TOC) Advisory Panel to assist with dispute resolution.
However, the Region is seeking further details regarding the panel’s membership
and clarification on the specific matters it would address. Additionally, in cases
Page 65
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 9 of 12
where the Minister requires a landowner to enter into an agreement with a
municipality for the appropriate development of TOC lands, the Region requests
clarity on whether such agreements would involve the upper-tier municipality, the
lower-tier municipality, or both, particularly within a two-tier municipal framework.
4.18 The Region of Durham supports the proposed requirement for municipalities to
designate a municipal officer to share information on transit-oriented community
(TOC) project implementation. However, clarification is requested on whether this
officer should be appointed by the upper-tier municipality, the lower-tier
municipality, or both, within a two-tier municipal framework. The Region also
requests further details on the type and scope of information that municipalities
will be expected to report regularly regarding TOC project progress.
Highway Traffic Act
4.19 Staff recommend that the province replace a blanket ban on reducing vehicles
lanes for bike lanes with a more flexible, case-by-case approach so that
municipalities can balance climate, safety, and mobility goals while working with
the province to expand active transportation infrastructure.
4.20 The proposed regulation-making authority would allow the Minister to designate
additional prohibited activities and grant exemptions. This could include
converting general-purpose vehicle lanes into bus-only lanes, on-street parking, or
HOV lanes. The Region will seek clarification from the Province on the potential
implications of these changes.
5. Regional Feedback and Commentary – Bill 17 items
5.1 Merging water and wastewater services for DC credit purposes could impact
municipal cash flow by drawing from reserves allocated to other services. This
reallocation may delay capital projects or increase borrowing costs if funds are
needed to proceed with infrastructure. To mitigate these risks, municipalities
should retain flexibility to decide whether to merge service categories, allowing
them to support growth while managing financial impacts effectively.
5.2 Staff support the proposed changes to clearly outline the methodology and
assumptions for Benefit to Existing (BTE) allocations in DC Background Studies,
as this will improve transparency and help stakeholders understand how costs are
shared between new and existing development.
5.3 Staff support the proposed amendment to O. Reg 82/98 to improve transparency
in DC Background Studies and establish a new service class for land acquisition
costs. As land acquisition becomes a standalone category, municipalities will
need to manage separate reserve funds, which could impact financial planning
and cash flow.
Page 66
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 10 of 12
6. Previous Reports and Decisions
6.1 2025-COW-26: Region of Durham Response to Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building
Faster and Smarter Act, 2025
7. Financial Implications
Building Code
7.1 Amendments to the Building Code to implement the requirement of an occupancy
permit and allowing municipalities to withhold occupancy permits until DCs are
paid gives municipalities a mechanism to ensure DCs are collected.
a. By linking development charge (DC) payments to occupancy permits, the
changes enhance payment certainty, reduce the risk of unpaid DCs being
passed on to homebuyers, and improve municipal administration and
transparency. While the proposal may introduce some administrative costs for
both the Region and homebuilders and potential occupancy delays if DCs are
unpaid, these impacts are expected to be minimal.
Bill 60
7.2 Changes that allow municipalities to merge the water and wastewater service
categories for the purpose of credits may impact municipal cash flow by drawing
from reserve funds allocated to other services.
Bill 17
7.3 The implementation date for DCs for all non-rental residential development to be
paid at the earlier of an occupancy permit or occupancy will have cash flow
implications for municipalities.
a. Shifting DC collection from the time of building permit issuance to occupancy,
often a delay of 1 to 3+ years depending on the building type, will significantly
reduce the Region’s near-term cash flow. DC revenues are a key funding
source for capital projects that support new development. This delay in
collection means less cash is available upfront to build infrastructure outlined
in the capital plan. If not addressed, the shortfall could limit the Region’s
ability to deliver critical infrastructure on schedule, potentially impacting
growth and service delivery.
b. Preliminary analysis suggests that deferring to occupancy can reduce reserve
funds to near zero levels in short order, which could significantly reduce the
infrastructure being delivered in the near term.
Page 67
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 11 of 12
8. Relationship to Strategic Plan
8.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following Strategic Direction(s) and
Pathway(s) in Durham Region’s 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Connected and Vibrant Communities
• C1. Align Regional infrastructure and asset management with projected
growth, climate impacts, and community needs.
b. Resilient Local Economies
• R1. Attract and retain quality employers that strengthen key economic
sectors, including energy and technology.
• R2. Support the growth of new business startups and small to medium
local businesses.
• R3. Develop, attract, and support a skilled and qualified workforce,
including youth and newcomers.
8.2 This report aligns with/addresses the following Foundation(s) in Durham Region’s
2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. People: Making the Region of Durham a great place to work, attracting, and
retaining talent.
b. Processes: Continuously improving processes to ensure we are responsive to
community needs.
9. Conclusion
9.1 Staff are seeking Council’s endorsement of the Region’s feedback on the
proposed changes to Ontario Regulation 163/24 under the Building Code Act,
1992,
9.2 Given that changes from Bill 17 relating to the deferral of the collection of DCs to
occupancy for all non-rental residential development, staff also recommend
ending the existing Regional Medium and High-Density Residential Deferral
Program due to it now being redundant.
10. Attachments
Attachment #1: Region of Durham Feedback on Ontario Regulatory Registry Proposal
25-MMAH01: 10172025 - Region of Durham - MMAH - 25-MMAH016 Submission -
signed.pdf
Attachment #2: Region of Durham Feedback on Bill 60 and Region of Durham Feedback
on outstanding Bill 17 items
Page 68
Report #2025-COW-37 Page 12 of 12
Respectfully submitted,
Original Signed By
N. Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Original Signed By
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Original Signed By
Ramesh Jagannathan, MBA, M.Eng.
P.Eng., PTOE
Commissioner of Works
Original Signed By
Jason Hunt
Commissioner of Legal Services &
Regional Solicitor
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original Signed By
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 69
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call 1-800-372-1102 extension 2103.
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 5
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Elaine Baxter-Trahair
B.M. Edu, MBA
Chief Administrative
Officer
Sent via email: minister.mah@ontario.ca
October 17, 2025
The Honourable Rob Flack
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
Dear Minister Flack:
RE: Ontario Regulatory Registry Proposal 25-MMAH016
The Regional Municipality of Durham shares the Province’s goal of
increasing housing supply, and we are committed to working together
to find collaborative solutions to address housing affordability. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed
changes to O. Reg 163/24 under the Building Code Act, 1992 to
require occupancy permits for non-rental residential buildings and
provide the chief building official (CBO) the authority to withhold
occupancy permits until the municipality confirms that deferred
Development Charges (DCs) have been paid in full.
Please find the attached comments from Regional staff in response
to the Province’s consultations on proposed changes to O. Reg
163/24 under the Building Code Act, 1992.
Changes to O. Reg 163/24 – Key Messages
•Linking DC Collection to Occupancy Permits: Regional staff
support using occupancy permits as a practical enforcement tool
for DC collection and recommend legislative amendments to
explicitly include Regional DCs and allow local councils to set
deferral timing as a temporary measure to manage cash flow
impacts and support housing delivery.
•Establishing First Occupancy as the Payment Trigger: Tying
DCs to first occupancy provides a consistent, efficient collection
trigger aligned with municipal workflows and simplifies phased
development tracking and protects infrastructure funding.
•Extending Inspection Timelines for Deferred DCs: Regional
staff support extending the prescribed inspection timeline from 2
2025-COW-37
Attachment #1
Page 70
Page 2 of 2
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2103.
to 10 days, to improve coordination, payment verification, and
reduce occupancy delays.
•Public Education: Regional staff support creating educational
materials for homeowners and builders to explain the occupancy
process, DC deferrals, and municipal roles.3
•Transit Station Charges: In addition to the proposed changes,
staff recommend amending the Ontario Building Code’s definition
of “Applicable Law” to include section 9 of the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, 2023, enabling chief building officials to withhold
building permits if Transit Station Charges remain unpaid.
Sincerely,
Elaine Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment 1: Comments on RR 25-MMAH016
2025-COW-37
Attachment #1
Page 71
Attachment 1 – Region of Durham Submission regarding proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 163/24 (the Building Code) – Page 1
Attachment 1 – Region of Durham submission regarding proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 163/24 (the Building Code) (25-MMAH016)
Summary and Comments in support of proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 163/24 (the Building Code)
RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments to be recommended to Council for endorsement
October 3, 2025 to October 17, 2025
www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/51914
(1)Practical considerations for requiring and withholding occupancy permits where DCs are deferred
under s. 26.1(3.1) of the DCA (including documentation of payment and municipal processes).
Staff Comments:
•Staff are supportive of the proposed approach, as it provides a practical mechanism to ensure
that Development Charges (DCs) are collected without relying on securities or other financial
guarantees in situations where occupancy permits are required.
•To strengthen the effectiveness of the legislation, staff recommend that the legislation explicitly
includes DCs applicable to regional municipalities, which are collected by the area municipalities
on behalf of the Region.
•Staff also acknowledge the negative impact that payment at first occupancy will have on the
municipal cash flow from development charges which may require adjustment to the timing of
municipal capital investment, particularly in the services of water and sewer which are required
to enable much needed housing supply. Thus, it is recommended that the decision to defer
payment of DCs to first occupancy be a local decision of each Council and a temporary measure
to address the current economic challenges.
•That the proposed changes to the Building Code to require the CBO to withhold issuing the
occupancy permit until the municipality confirms the deferred DCs have been paid apply to
residential DC deferral agreements executed under section 27 of the DCA which defer
payment of residential DCs to occupancy. Some municipalities have already proceeded to
enter into section 27 agreements with developers to defer the payment of residential DCs to
occupancy and may have required securities to ensure payment. If the proposed changes to
the Building Code applied to these recently executed section 27 agreements, this would
enable municipalities to return the securities.
Staff Comments (regarding Transit Station Charges):
•Staff also recommend parallel amendments to the definition of “Applicable Law” under the
Ontario Building Code, to include s. 9 of the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023. This would
allow the chief building official (CBO) to withhold the building permit if the developer has not
paid a Transit Station Charge, as applicable.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #1
Page 72
Attachment 1 – Region of Durham Submission regarding proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 163/24 (the Building Code) – Page 2
October 3, 2025 to October 17, 2025
www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/51914
(2)Treatment of phased or partial occupancy.
Staff Comments:
•Staff recommend that DCs be tied to the date of first occupancy. This approach offers a clear and
consistent trigger for initiating the DC payment schedule, reducing ambiguity and administrative
challenges. First occupancy is a well-established milestone that municipalities already monitor for
other regulatory purposes, making it both practical and efficient to align DC collection with
existing workflows.
•Linking DCs to first occupancy also simplifies the implementation in phased developments, where
tracking multiple occupancy events can be complex and resource intensive. A uniform trigger
ensures consistent application across all developments, promoting fairness and transparency.
•Municipalities rely on timely DC payments to fund infrastructure and services that support
growing communities. Delaying DC collection beyond first occupancy would have an even greater
negative impact on municipal cashflows.
October 3, 2025 to October 17, 2025
www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/51914
(3)Whether there is support for extending the time for municipalities to complete a prescribed
inspection to permit occupancy from 2 days after receipt of the notice to 10 days after receipt of the
notice where DCs have been deferred.
Staff Comments:
•Our understanding based on dialogue with our local municipal counterparts is that the proposed
extension of the prescribed inspection timeline from 2 days to 10 days where DCs have been
deferred under s. 26.1(3.1) of the Development Charges Act would be helpful. Extending the
timeline would provide municipalities with greater flexibility to coordinate inspections alongside
the administrative requirements associated with deferring DCs to occupancy. In particular, the
additional time would allow staff to verify payment status, ensure that all the required
documentation is collected, and facilitate coordination between the regional and area municipal
staff. This would help ensure a smooth and compliant transition to occupancy for homeowners
while reducing the risk of delays.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #1
Page 73
Attachment 1 – Region of Durham Submission regarding proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 163/24 (the Building Code) – Page 3
October 3, 2025 to October 17, 2025
www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/51914
(4) Any consequential improvements to occupancy related provisions and other supports (e.g.,
templates for occupancy permits or prescribed notices, homebuyer and builder education) that would
improve consistency and transparency and minimize disruption for homebuyers.
Staff Comments:
•Staff support the creation of educational materials for homeowners and builders that clearly
explain the occupancy process, the implications of DC deferrals under s. 26.1(3.1), the reporting
of the use of DC revenue and the role of municipalities in verifying payment and issuing permits.
These resources could be made available through provincial, municipal, and building association
webpages.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #1
Page 74
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call 1 -800-372-1102 extension 2103.
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 5
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Elaine Baxter-Trahair
B.M. Edu, MBA
Chief Administrative
Officer
Sent via email: minister.mah@ontario.ca
[November 6, 2025]
The Honourable Rob Flack
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
RE: Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60)
’s
’s consultation
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
Changes to the Development Charges Act – Key Messages
•Improving Transparency:
•Land Acquisition:
•Local Service Policies & DC Credits:
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 75
Page 2 of 4
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2103.
Changes related to the Planning Act – Key Messages
•Municipal Autonomy: It is important to continue to allow the
municipalities to determine the designation types, structure,
schedules and length of official plans to allow for local planners to
best respond to the needs of the community. Each municipality in
the province has unique challenges, and planning documents
should be allowed to reflect and react to local circumstances.
•Development Standards: Staff encourage the province to
maintain broad-based standards within OPs, along with
maintaining secondary plans and allowing for enhanced
development standards. Removing these standards may lead to
uncoordinated development, increased stakeholder conflicts, and
significant infrastructure challenges (e.g.,
overload/underutilization of servicing infrastructure), which all
extend development timelines.
•Community Improvement Plans (CIP): Staff welcome the
proposed changes to the Planning Act allowing the Region to
continue to administer the Regional Revitalization Program (RRP)
to assist in funding lower-tier CIP projects to help support much
needed housing and rental units throughout the Region.
•Minister’s Zoning Orders: Staff recommend that any changes to
the MZO process respect municipal oversight and allow for
meaningful Indigenous engagement.
•Streamlining Municipal Planning Processes: Staff are
supportive, in principle, of streamlining the tracking of planning
data. For infrastructure and service planning purposes, the
Region relies on standardization and consistency of data and
have committed to working with the area municipalities to achieve
standardization in Durham.
Changes related to the Municipal Act – Key Messages
•Municipal Service Corporations: Municipalities should decide if
a public utility model fits their unique context considering local
costs, risks, efficiencies, and housing affordability. Future policy
should be informed by practical lessons, such as those from Peel
Region, to avoid unintended impacts.
Changes related to the Highway Traffic Act – Key Messages
•Balanced Transportation Planning: Staff recommend that the
Province reconsider the full prohibition on reducing vehicle lanes
for new bicycle lanes, advocating for a case-by-case approval
process and clear criteria to allow municipalities flexibility in
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 76
Page 3 of 4
achieving climate, safety, and mobility goals while collaborating
with the Province to advance active transportation infrastructure.
Changes related to GO Station Funding Act and Transit-Oriented
Communities Act – Key Messages
•Flexibility in Transit-Oriented Development and Funding:
Staff support legislative changes that enhance municipal flexibility
in transit station funding and project reporting, while emphasizing
the need for clear guidance on charge collection timing, advisory
panel roles, and reporting responsibilities, especially within two-
tier municipal frameworks, to ensure effective, locally responsive
implementation.
Housing is the foundation of our communities. Delivering a strong
supply of new homes requires well-aligned processes and a shared
commitment to collaboration across many sectors. To support this
growth, our communities must be thoughtfully planned, properly
financed, and fully serviced, with impacts carefully managed.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss the recommendations
outlined in this letter and the detailed comments provided in the
attached documents, as we work together towards our shared goal of
increasing housing supply across Ontario.
Sincerely,
Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment 1: Comments on 25-MMAH018 (Development Charges
Act)
Attachment 2: Comments on 25-MTO0019 and 025-1071 (Highway
Traffic Act)
Attachment 3: Comments on 025-1140 (Public Transportation and
Highway Improvement Act)
Attachment 4: Comments on 025-1098 (Municipal Act)
Attachment 5: Comments on 025-1097 (Planning Act)
Attachment 6: Comments on 025-1099 (Planning Act)
Attachment 7: Comments on 025-1035 (Building Transit Faster Act)
Attachment 8: Comments on 025-0900 and 025-0899 (Ontario Water
Resources Act)
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2103.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 77
Page 4 of 4
If you require this information in an accessible format, please call at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2103.
Attachment 9: Comments on 025-0872 (Environmental Protection
Act)
Attachment 10: Comments on 025-1182 (GO Transit Stations
Funding Act, Transit-Oriented Communities Act)
Attachment 11: Comments on 025-1100 (Planning Act)
Attachment 12: Comments on 025-1101 (Planning Act)
Attachment 13: Comments on 25-MMAH030 (Development Charges
Act)
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 78
Attachment 1 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MMAH018) – Page 1
Attachment 1 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (25-MMAH018)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60.
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
25-MMAH018 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 to
Enhance Standardization and Streamlining of the
Development Charge (DC) Framework |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(1) Land acquisition costs for most DC-eligible services must be included in a new service class, exempt
from historic service level limits, to better reflect their impact on development charges.
Staff Comments:
• Staff support the proposed approach to enhance transparency by introducing a new land
acquisition service class and removing historical level of service restrictions.
• While the 10-year forecast limitation will apply to most services, it does not apply to water,
wastewater, stormwater, roads, transit and police services. Since these are primarily regional
services, the overall impact on the Region is expected to be limited.
• Since land acquisition costs will become its own service class, municipalities will need to manage
separate reserve funds for land costs, which could affect financial planning and cashflow.
25-MMAH018 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 to
Enhance Standardization and Streamlining of the
Development Charge (DC) Framework |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(2) Municipalities must establish Local Service Policies (LSPs) for each Development Charges Act service
partially provided as a local service to clarify cost eligibility and reduce development delays .
Staff Comments:
• Staff support the proposal to require municipalities to establish Local Service Policies (LSPs) and
support allowing municipalities to define what constitutes a local service.
• If a LSP removes certain projects, the DC Background Study and by-law would need to be
amended. In cases where this amendment results in a lower DC rate, it is recommended that the
simplified process for reducing charges under s. 19(3.1) of the Development Charges Act (DCA),
1997 be applied.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 79
Attachment 1 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MMAH018) – Page 2
25-MMAH018 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 to
Enhance Standardization and Streamlining of the
Development Charge (DC) Framework |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(3)Municipalities must submit DC financial statements to council by June 30 and to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing by July 15 to improve transparency.
Staff Comment:
•Staff support the proposed approach to enhance transparency by requiring timely submission of
DC financial statements and related documents.
•The Region already publishes the Treasurer’s Statements through a Council Information Package
(CIP), and it is posted on the Region’s DC webpage (https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-
business/development-charges.aspx#Annual-Treasurers-Statement). We support the
requirement provided that a publicly available information report continues to be recognized as
the formal submission to Council to ensure flexibility in reporting requirements and avoid
unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining transparency.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 80
Attachment 2 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MTO0019 and 025-1071) – Page 1
Attachment 2 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (25-MTO0019 and 025-1071)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
25-MTO0019 and 025-1071 October 23, 2025 –
November 22, 2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 -
Modern Transportation - Prohibiting Vehicle Lane
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 –
Modern Transportation – Prohibiting Vehicle Lane
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes | Environmental
Registry of Ontario
(1)Amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) that would prohibit municipalities from reducing
motor vehicle lanes when installing, implementing or marking new bicycle lanes.
Staff Comments:
•As an upper-tier municipality, the proposed amendment has limited direct impact on the Region.
Most of the cycling infrastructure on Regional roads is planned as part of road widening or
reconstruction projects, which do not require reducing the number of marked lanes. There are
also standalone cycling projects not tied to road widening or reconstruction that address gaps in
the network, and these projects are not currently planned to reduce the number of marked lanes
either. However, we are concerned that this policy direction would have broader implications for
advancing active transportation and achieving broader provincial and municipal climate, safety
and mobility goals. It also limits design alternatives for a future road widening or reconstruction
project, as a conversion from a general purpose lane to a bicycle lane could be evaluated as a
feasible alternative in a corridor study but would have to be precluded with this legislation in
place.
•While we acknowledge the intent to maintain efficient vehicle movement, a balanced approach is
necessary. Municipalities should retain the ability to determine how best to allocate road space
based on local needs, traffic conditions and long-term planning objectives.
•We respectfully recommend that the Province reconsider Section 195.3 (1) as it places a full
prohibition on installing bicycle lanes through a reduction in the number of marked lanes.
Preferably, the Region would prefer this and related sections to be removed altogether, but if
such as policy were to remain in principle, it should be revised to address the following
considerations:
o Maintain a case-by-case approval or exemption process under the Highway Traffic Act.
o Provide clear criteria for when lane reductions may be permitted to support active
transportation objectives.
o Continue collaboration with municipalities to achieve both mobility efficiency and safety
for all road users.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 81
Attachment 2 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MTO0019 and 025-1071) – Page 2
•The above alternative approaches would better support both the Region’s goals of advancing
active and sustainable transportation infrastructure and achieving mode share targets, along with
the Province’s stated goals of keeping people moving regardless of travel mode.
25-MTO0019 and 025-1071 October 23, 2025 –
November 22, 2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 -
Modern Transportation - Prohibiting Vehicle Lane
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 –
Modern Transportation – Prohibiting Vehicle Lane
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes | Environmental
Registry of Ontario
(2) Create regulation-making authorities to allow the Minister to prescribe additional prohibited
activities and to provide exemptions from the prohibition.
Staff Comments:
•The term “[a]ny other prescribed purpose” is not defined in Section 193 (1).
•This could include activities such as converting general-purpose motor vehicle lanes to
dedicated bus-only lanes, on-street parking, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
•The Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the Region’s Capital Budget Forecast have
identified several corridors where road widening from 4/5 lanes to 6/7 lanes is identified for
curbside HOV lanes. The Durham TMP also recommends that these HOV lanes could be
converted to bus only lanes in future depending on future transit levels of service. These are
allowed under this section.
•
•
•
“any other prescribed purpose”
–(3)Amendments would provide the Minister with greater discretion when determining municipal
reimbursement for the existing bicycle lane review framework (related to requested information and
support).
Staff Comments:
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 82
Attachment 2 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MTO0019 and 025-1071) – Page 3
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes |
regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 –
Modern Transportation – Prohibiting Vehicle Lane
Reduction for New Bicycle Lanes | Environmental
Registry of Ontario
• No comment.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 83
Attachment 3 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1140) – Page 1
Attachment 3 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1140)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1140 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
– Supporting the Harmonization of Municipal Road
Construction Standards | Environmental Registry
of Ontario
(1) Proposed amendments to the PTHIA, if passed, would allow the Minister to require technical,
industry, and municipal input regarding standards and construction and design matters upon request.
Staff Comments:
• No comments.
ERO 025-1140 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
– Supporting the Harmonization of Municipal Road
Construction Standards | Environmental Registry
of Ontario
(2) Proposed amendments would also allow the Minister to make a regulation to govern contracts
pertaining to road and bridge construction (including contracts between municipalities and third -party
contractors), establish reporting requirements, and establish a process for requesting an exemption
from a standard.
Staff Comments:
• No comments.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 84
Attachment 4 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 17 (ERO 025-1098) – Page 1
Attachment 4 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1098)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1098 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001
to transfer jurisdiction over water and wastewater
to the lower-tier municipalities in Peel Region and
a standalone statute to authorize the
establishment of water and wastewater public
corporations | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Legislative amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 to transfer jurisdiction over water and
wastewater to the lower-tier municipalities in Peel Region and the introduction of a new standalone
statute to authorize the establishment of water and wastewater corporations
Staff Comments:
• Municipalities are best positioned to determine whether a public corporate utility model is
appropriate for their unique circumstances. Decisions should consider local costs, risks,
efficiencies, and household affordability rather than applying a uniform p rovincial approach.
• The province should use lessons learned from the changes in Peel Region to inform any future
work. This approach ensures that regulatory changes are based on practical experience and data,
minimizing unintended impacts.
• While corporate utility models may offer benefits in certain contexts, they can also introduce
additional regulatory costs and risk higher household rates. Existing municipal and regional
systems have already achieved significant efficiencies and accountability through local
governance and public input processes.
• While MSCs may enhance financial flexibility, especially for smaller municipalities, the benefits
are likely more limited for large regional systems like Durham, which already achieve economies
of scale, and include multi-regional partnerships which further increase broader system
efficiencies.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 85
Attachment 5 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1097) – Page 1
Attachment 5 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1097)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1097 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule
10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster
Act, 2025) | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Minor Variances (As-of-right Variations from Performance Standards)
Staff Comments:
• As per our submission on Bill 17 (June 4, 2025), while the Region is not primarily responsible for
reviewing or commenting on minor variances, the associated development may have the
potential to impact Regional infrastructure.
• There may be instances where setback requirements are established based on recommendations
from technical studies in order to accommodate the Region’s ability to plan for, provide, and
assess the impacts to municipal water and wastewater servicing, Regional transportation
networks, waste management, and/or source water protection.
• Therefore, the Region requests that minor variance applications that impact Regional
infrastructure be exempt from the proposed as-of-right provisions.
ERO 025-1097 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule
10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster
Act, 2025) | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(2) Policy Statements and Minister’s Decisions
Staff Comments:
• As per the Region’s submission on Bill 17 (June 4, 2025), the rationale for allowing the Minister’s
decisions to supersede provincial policy tests is to allow for a faster, more predictable approvals
process for new housing development. This change could allow development in areas that are
not currently available for housing development under provincial policy, such as certain
environmental features and/or employment areas. It could also result in potential alterations to
provincial policy around settlement area boundary expansions, delineated MTSA boundaries, etc.
• Regional staff are concerned that the potential to forego provincial policy direction would result
in non-conforming land uses for area municipal official plans and could lead to a loss of local
autonomy related to planning decisions, or a reduction in environmental or community impact
safeguards as set out in provincial policy.
• This could impact growth forecasting and infrastructure planning efforts if sizable areas of land
are added into settlement areas or approved for development without paying heed to long range
infrastructure and land use planning based on forecast land needs.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 86
Attachment 5 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1097) – Page 2
ERO 025-1097 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule
10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster
Act, 2025) | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Minister’s Zoning Orders
Staff Comments:
• Through Report #2020-P-30, which was a response to the November 25, 2020, Notice of Motion
regarding Minister’s Zoning Orders, the Region previously expressed concerns about how MZO’s
have been implemented and the lack of municipal oversight resulting from these provincial
decisions.
• These concerns include: conformity to provincial policy; effects on the surrounding area; the
completion of technical studies; environmental impact of the development; and, the impact on
Regional infrastructure.
• It is imperative that any changes to the MZO process respect municipal oversight and allow for
meaningful Indigenous engagement including, not limited to Duty to Consult taking into
consideration of the potential impacts on municipalities and Indigenous communities and treaty
rights of Indigenous communities.
ERO 025-1097 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule
10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster
Act, 2025) | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA)
Staff Comments:
• Regional staff are generally supportive and do not have any concerns with this proposed change.
ERO 025-1097 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule
10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster
Act, 2025) | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Community Improvement Plans (CIPs)
Staff Comments:
• Since 2008, the Region of Durham has administered its Regional Revitalization Program (RRP),
which is a partnership between the Region and participating area municipalities that aims to
strategically target Regional investment towards key areas that advance the goals of achieving
positive economic and community objectives and support development that would not otherwise
proceed without municipal financial assistance.
• Pursuant to Bill 23, upper-tier municipalities without planning responsibilities (such as Durham
Region) no longer had the legislative authority under s. 28(7.2) of the Planning Act to provide
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 87
Attachment 5 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1097) – Page 3
grants and loans that assist in funding the programs of the lower-tier municipalities’ CIPs. This
appears to have been an unintended consequence of Bill 23.
• Therefore, Regional staff welcome these proposed changes to resolve the above noted issue,
which will allow the Region to continue to administer the RRP and help fund much needed
housing and rental units throughout the Region.
• It is important that O. Reg. 550/06 continue to allow for upper-tier community improvement
plans to deal with matters of regional interest such as transit corridors and active transportation
networks.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 88
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 1
Attachment 6 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought on November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1099 October 23, 2025 – December 22,
2025 (60 days)
Consultation on simplifying and standardizing
official plans | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Official Plan Structure and Contents
What is your perspective on the changes being considered to simplify and standardize the structure and
contents of official plans?
Staff Comments:
• As per the Region’s comments on Bill 17, submitted on June 11 2025, while consistency and
certainty in the development process are important, municipal interests differ across the
province. This proposal will result in a loss of municipal autonomy and control related to specific
development-related concerns.
• It is important to continue to allow municipalities to determine what designation, structure and
studies may be necessary to allow for local planners to best respond to the needs of the
community.
• In terms of specific changes to the proposed structure, the Natural Heritage/Water Resources
should be a standalone chapter. By including this topic with Agriculture and Mineral Resources,
as proposed, the importance of environmental protection/conservation is diluted.
• Lastly, the climate change and sustainability policies should be included within the ‘General
Policies’ section because they are applicable to all other policy sections.
What distinctions should be made between the content of upper and lower -tier official plans? What
considerations should apply in municipalities where the upper -tier official plan acts as the lower-tier
official plan?
Staff Comments:
• Where lower-tier official plans (OPs) are in place, upper-tier OPs could be scoped to matters that
are cross-jurisdictional, impacting multiple lower-tiers and/or neighbouring municipalities to the
upper-tier municipality. For example, cross-jurisdictional matters of upper-tier interest would
include, but not limited to:
o Transportation networks, including Transit, TOD, and Regional ROW requirements;
o Water and wastewater (sewage) servicing;
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 89
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 2
o Growth modelling to support regional infrastructure and service planning, such as the
above noted long-term transportation and water/wastewater needs;
o Assisted housing, where the upper-tier is the Service Manager under the Housing
Services Act, 2011; and
o Broad-based regional systems planning, such as Natural Heritage and Agricultural
Systems. This should include provincial systems planning, such as the Greenbelt Plan Area
and Oak Ridges Moraine.
What is your perspective on limiting development standards in official plans? To what extent should
development standards be set out in official plans vs in zoning by -laws?
Staff Comments:
• The hierarchical nature of OPs and zoning by-laws (ZBL) is a foundational concept in land use
planning in Ontario. OPs should continue to provide development standards, where required to
either conform to a provincial plan or policy, or where that standard applies across an OP
designation or multiple designations, examples may include setbacks established within the Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan; requirements for noise or vibration studies; etc.
• Maintaining broad-based standards within OPs and not transferring all development standards to
the detailed level of the ZBL, will help maintain [or reduce] the amount of duplication that would
be necessary within a zoning by-law.
What is your perspective on the changes being considered regarding secondary plans and site -specific
policies? Are there other ways to address these policies?
Staff Comments:
• Secondary plans are used to coordinate multiple stakeholders within a plan area, align growth
with infrastructure, and engage residents on the specifics of how their communities will change.
• Prohibiting the use of secondary plans could lead to uncoordinated development, increased
stakeholder conflicts, and significant infrastructure challenges (e.g., overload/underutilization),
which all extend development timelines.
What is your perspective on the number and types of standardized schedules, overlays and data
proposed to be required? Should any be removed, or are there any other schedules that could help
improve official plans?
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 90
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 3
Staff Comments:
• Additional information is needed on what is intended by an “Estimate of Market Need” in
Schedule A1, including clarification on the format (i.e. data table, mapping, etc.). In general,
market “need” may not represent a practical or achievable development scenario. As a result,
this information is better suited to technical background study that help inform the OP’s policies.
• Schedule C3 should not be titled ‘human made hazards’, rather it should simply be aggregate
resource mapping. Additionally, individual pits and quarries should not be included as these sites
are licensed and surrendered faster than OP mapping can be updated. Alternatively, OP readers
should be directed to the Ministry of Natural Resources' Pits and Quarries Online website for
information about individual licenses.
• Schedule C4 should explicitly map prime agricultural areas, along with other elements of the
agricultural system. It is important to protect prime agricultural areas separately from other uses
considered as part of the agricultural system in order to maintain a productive land base for
primary agricultural production and to discourage land uses that would sterilize prime
agricultural lands.
• Schedule D1 should not be mapped within OPs. These are sensitive areas, and the data should be
protected, not publicized. These areas could contain Indigenous cultural heritage places or
objects, and are vulnerable to damage and theft.
• Some of the datasets required to build the environmental/water resources maps are vast and, if
layered on a single map, are confusing to interpret. It is recommended that multiple maps be
used to display this information.
Other Staff Comments:
• To support the province’s stated initiative of streamlining municipal application processes by
leveraging platforms and municipal data tracking IT solutions to improve the efficiency of land
use planning, efforts should include the digitization of the proposed standardized schedules,
overlays and data to increase usability by a wide range of audiences.
• In relation to the proposed Chapter 4, as per the Region’s submission on changes to the
Provincial Planning Statement (Report #2023-P-13), it is recommended that the province require
that settlement area boundary expansions be permitted only at the time of a comprehensive
official plan review or update, informed by a standardized methodology. Within a regional
context, the implications of infrastructure and servicing on settlement area boundary expansions
collectively, should rest with upper-tier municipalities as the jurisdiction responsible for the
infrastructure and servicing, regardless of planning approval responsibility.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 91
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 4
• Additionally, it is recommended that the province require municipalities to develop population
and employment forecasts to a common 25 or 30-year time horizon based on a standard
methodology provided by the province
ERO 025-1099 October 23, 2025 – December 22,
2025 (60 days)
Consultation on simplifying and standardizing
official plans | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(2) Limiting the Length of Official Plans
Discussion Questions:
What is your perspective on the changes being considered to limit the length of official plans?
Staff Comments:
• Language within the Provincial Planning Statement states that the policies of the PPS represent
minimum standards. Planning authorities may go beyond these minimum standards to address
matters of importance to a specific community. Municipalities should therefore be granted the
flexibility to do just that without being constrained by page/word limits.
• Rather than broadly limiting the length of all OPs through page and word limits, if there are
instances where the province can work collaboratively with a municipality to reduce the size or
redundancy within its specific OP, that would be a preferable approach.
• Accessibility must remain a priority. Visual elements—such as maps, charts, and graphics—should
not be excluded/reduced solely to limit page count, as they are essential for effectively conveying
spatial and conceptual information to diverse audiences.
Should there be different limits placed on different types of municipalities (e.g., based on population
size)?
Staff Comments:
• Southern Ontario municipalities are regulated by a high volume of complex, overlapping
provincial land use planning legislation, policy and plans, such as the PPS, Greenbelt Plan,
ORMCP, Niagara Escarpment Plan, etc. These plans often take precedence over OPs, wherein the
OPs need to reflect and conform to these provincial requirements. As a result, the OPs for these
geographies are naturally going to be larger, more complex documents.
Are there other approaches that could be used to limit the length of official plans?
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 92
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 5
Staff Comments:
• Standardizing official plan chapters, as proposed in ERO 025-1099, may help to align official plan
lengths across the province.
Other Staff Comments:
• Official plans set out the long-term goals and policies for land use and growth in a municipality.
They are intended to reflect both best practices in planning, as well as the community’s collective
vision for their community. A document of this scope, scale and importance should not be capped
by relatively arbitrary page or word limitations. Furthermore, reduced length does not translate
to a more efficient or effective guidance document.
ERO 025-1099 October 23, 2025 – December 22,
2025 (60 days)
Consultation on simplifying and standardizing
official plans | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(3) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations
Discussion Questions:
What is your perspective on the changes being considered to standardize the number and type of land
use designations?
• Staff Comments: The proposed change to standardize the number and type of land use
designation does not take into account the differences and complexities between municipalities
in Ontario. By creating boilerplate designations, it reduces autonomy and the ability for
municipalities to be responsive to the development needs in their community. For example, the
flexibility needed to encourage growth in downtown Oshawa is vastly different than supporting
more rural areas of Durham Region. Municipalities must be able to have the autonomy to create
official plans that work for their communities in order to recognize local priorities while still
supporting housing goals.
Would standardized land use designations between upper -tier and lower-tier official plan improve
clarity? Where are the opportunities to reduce duplication between the upper and lower -tier official
plans in land use designations?
• Staff Comments: Prior to Bill 23, there was already substantial coordination and clarity between
Durham’s upper-tier and lower-tier official plans; the upper-tier official plan set broad land use
permissions and overarching policies for a broad set of land uses (e.g. Community Areas,
Employment Areas, Major Open Space), and these were implemented locally and refined into
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 93
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 6
locally-appropriate, more specific designations such as Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use,
Major Commercial, etc.
Are there additional designations that would be required? Are there opportunities to streamline or
further combine some of the proposed designations (e.g. Residential I and II, and Mixed Use I and II)?
• No Comment
Are there implications to making land use designations more streamlined and permissive?
• Staff Comments: The Region supports efforts to streamline the approvals process in Ontario
when it does not come at the expense of safeguarding against environmental and community
impacts (as noted in Report #2025-CG-07 on May 28, 2025).
• Staff Comments: There will inevitably be local factors that require several site-specific
restrictions and permissions. Therefore, it is important that municipalities retain the ability to
control area-specific land use permissions based on local needs.
Are there land use designation terminology or descriptions that would be easier to understand?
• Staff Comments: If the intent is to standardize land uses within each designation, explicitly
defining terms/uses will be required to support consistency in OP interpretation and
implementation.
Other Staff Comments:
• Having separate official plans for each lower-tier municipality without a unified, overarching
upper-tier official plan is bound to result in different policy directions and interpretations
between adjacent municipalities.
• The “Agricultural Areas” designation should be changed to “Prime Agricultural Areas”. The basis
for mapping in the rural area should be preservation of Prime Agricultural lands, and the relevant
permissions associated with them. As such, the “Rural Areas” designation being established here
should clarify that it is only available on lands not considered Prime Agriculture by provincial
mapping.
• Based on the proposed changes, it is unclear where major recreational uses (e.g., golf courses)
will be permitted.
• The Natural Heritage designation should be for the protection, restoration and enhancement of
ecological features and functions. Permissions should not be expanded within this designation.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 94
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 7
ERO 025-1099 October 23, 2025 – December 22,
2025 (60 days)
Consultation on simplifying and standardizing
official plans | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(4) Transitioning to a New Framework
Discussion Questions:
What is your perspective on the changes being considered to transition to a standardized official plan
framework?
Staff Comments:
• The land use planning system in Ontario has been in a near-constant state of flux for several
years, largely a result of several omnibus bills, such as Bill 23, Bill 185, this Bill 60, etc., each
proposing sweeping changes to the Planning Act.
• These changes create uncertainty and require municipalities to continually adapt their planning
frameworks, often amid an OP review/update, zoning by-law consolidation, or other major
initiative. As a result, both upper- and lower-tier municipalities are in a continuous cycle of
pivoting their efforts and "catching up" to major legislative changes. This has resulted in the
inability for local municipalities to focus efforts on zoning by-law updates.
• In the near term, these proposed changes would continue to perpetuate this cycle of changes;
over the mid to longer term, there is little evidence that these changes would help alleviate or
resolve this cycle.
What is a realistic implementation timeline for your municipality to update its official plan to comply
with a standardized framework (e.g., structure, land use designations, page/word limits), and why?
Please consider staffing, council cycles, data/mappin g updates, public engagement, and statutory
review requirements in your response.
Staff Comments:
• Pursuant to Bill 23, the Region of Durham no longer has the responsibility of preparing an official
plan. However, given our recent experience with Envision Durham – the municipal
comprehensive review of the former Regional OP, creating a new OP is a highly consultative,
time- and resource-intensive undertaking.
• Furthermore, several of the Region’s lower-tier municipalities are already in advanced stages of
their respective OP Reviews, which include integrating Envision Durham and provincial
conformity exercises (i.e. PPS 2024).
• While it’s reasonable to assume that considerable amounts of the work completed to date could
be incorporated into the proposed new framework – pivoting efforts, resources and re-engaging
stakeholders and the public, as well as other matters such as educating councils and interested
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 95
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 8
parties on the changes being proposed, would most likely take the average municipality over two
years to execute.
How can the province best support municipalities in transitioning to a simplified and harmonized
official plan framework?
Staff Comments:
• It would be helpful for the Province to provide guidance and recommendations for data modeling
and workflows. Specifically, the Region of Durham would like clarification on the recommended
naming conventions for field names, attributes and coded values.
ERO 025-1099 October 23, 2025 – December 22,
2025 (60 days)
Consultation on simplifying and standardizing
official plans | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(5) Submission of Official Plans through Online Portal
Discussion Questions:
Do you support the move toward allowing submission of official plan information and documents
through an online portal? Why or why not?
Staff Comments:
• Regional staff support the proposed transition towards an online portal.
• Currently, submissions must be made in both hard copy and in digital form. The use of an online
portal would expedite this process, reducing hard copy printing, delivery and longer-term storage
costs.
What benefits and/or risks do you foresee from transitioning to submission through an online portal?
Staff Comments:
• The primary benefits include speed, cost and ease of delivery.
• There may be an opportunity to combine spatial information (i.e. Official Plan Schedules) into a
combined land use mapping dashboard for greater collaboration between municipalities and
other stakeholders.
• There is a risk that, without a recommended approach to online portals and data continuity,
bringing datasets together from multiple sources could have obstacles.
• If there is an expectation of creating/submitting interactive web maps, then data sharing
agreements and available resources (programs/staff) need to be considered.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 96
Attachment 6 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1099) – Page 9
October 23, 2025 – Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing – Technical Briefing – Fighting Delays,
Building Faster Act, 2025
MMAH – Technical Briefing – Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
Staff Comments:
• As per The Region’s comments on Bill 17 (June 4, 2025), the Region is supportive, in principle, of
streamlining the tracking of planning data. For infrastructure and service planning purposes, the
Region relies on standardization and consistency of data and have committed to working with the
area municipalities to achieve standardization in Durham.
• However, relying on AI to conduct planning reviews may not be appropriate at this time.
Development applications are complex in nature, and present unique challenges in relation to the
underlying conditions. Achieving positive results in the development review process requires
collaboration between a multitude of professionals and stakeholders, which cannot be achieved
solely through the use of AI.
• Standardized application data is currently being reported to the province by prescribed single-tier
and lower-tier municipalities as per the Municipal Planning Data Reporting requirements under
O. Reg. 73/23. However, this data is also required by upper-tier municipalities to supplement
development tracking for growth management and infrastructure planning purposes. The
province should use this as a starting point for consulting with municipalities on ways to improve
data coordination and standardization.
• Standardizing development planning application requirements and supporting coordinated online
application submission platforms may improve coordination, transparency, and efficiency, as well
as reduce the amount of municipal staff time required for data entry; this, in turn, helps allow
more time for quality control, analysis, and review of the merits of applications.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 97
Attachment 7 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1035) – Page 1
Attachment 7 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1035)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1035 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
–Amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act,
2020 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1)Reducing notice periods for Obstruction Removal and Preview Inspections: The notice period for
Obstruction Removal and Preview Inspections to third -party land owners will be reduced from 30 days
to 15 days.
Staff Comments:
•No comment.
ERO 025-1035 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
–Amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act,
2020 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(2)Expanding Corridor Control and Municipal Service and Right of Way Access: Parts II (Corridor
Control) and V (Municipal Service and Right of Way Access) of the BTFA will apply not only to
construction but also to operations and maintenance of transit projects.
Staff Comments:
•No comment.
ERO 025-1035 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
–Amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act,
2020 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(3)Expanding the application of Municipal Service and Right of Way Access to other municipal
infrastructure: The scope of municipal service and right of way access orders under Part V of the Act
will be broadened to include “buildings, bridges, tunnels and li fe safety systems” which are required for
project delivery.
Staff Comments:
•No comment.
ERO 025-1035 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
–Amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act,
2020 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(4)Expanding Municipal Service and Right of Way Access to add relocation and alteration of, and
connections to municipal services, right of way, and infrastructure: Currently Part V of the Act is limited
to use, access to and modification of the same.
Staff Comments:
•No comment.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 98
Attachment 7 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1035) – Page 2
ERO 025-1035 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025
– Amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act,
2020 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
(5) Providing the Minister the option to delegate its powers under Part V: The Minister will be able to
delegate authority to issue municipal service and right of way access orders to Metrolinx, or
an MTO official through regulation, upon such delegation condi tions as the Minister deems appropriate
and depending on the circumstances of the project.
Staff Comments:
• The Ministry currently issues municipal service and right-of-way access orders, which require
consultation with municipalities. If this authority is delegated, municipal input could be
significantly reduced, raising concerns that local issues may not be adequately considered.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 99
Attachment 8 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-0900 and 025-0899) – Page 1
Attachment 8 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-0900 and 025-0899)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-0900 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposal to amend the Ontario Water Resources
Act to enable the regulation of additional sewage
systems under the Building Code to support
construction of on-farm worker housing |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Proposing amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act to allow multiple Building Code sewage
systems on a single agricultural property with on -farm housing for workers, up to a cumulative limit of
50,000 litres per day.
Staff Comments:
• No comments.
ERO 025-0899 October 23, 2025 – December 7,
2025 (45 Days)
Policy proposal to regulate additional sewage
systems under the Building Code to support
construction of on-farm worker housing |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(2) Pre-Consultation: Possible criteria for additional sewage systems to be Building Code regulated
Discussion Questions:
1. Does the proposed 10 acre (4 hectare) circular clearance from sensitive features, including property
lines, greenhouses, etc. strike a reasonable balance between enabling agricultural worker housing and
protecting human health, the environment, and neighbouring property values?
• No comments.
2. If warranted, for example to account for higher strength sewage or consistency with other land use
planning processes, what would be a practical approach to further protecting human health, the
environment, and neighbouring property values? Examples could include a hydrogeological
assessment; expanding the size of the circular clearance areas from 10 acres to 40 acres for example; or
reducing the size of additional individual sewage systems to 2,500 L/d each for example.
• Staff Comment: A hydrogeological report would be a good approach but could be a timely and
costly requirement and may impede the approvals which these changes are hoping to alleviate. A
better approach would be to complete studies prior to updating the Ontario Building C ode and
establish a conservative measure (either land area or Daily Sewage Flow) that could be prescribed
in the Code. This would also assist regulators to ensure there was a timely and consistent
approach across the province.
3. What maintenance requirements should the proposal consider?
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 100
Attachment 8 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-0900 and 025-0899) – Page 2
• Staff Comment: The OBC contains maintenance requirements for all sewage systems and
requirements for sampling and more stringent maintenance requirements for advanced
treatment systems/units. Perhaps requiring advanced treatment for these types of uses/volumes
would be helpful to ensure regular maintenance is a requirement.
4. What new or updated guidance could be beneficial towards implementation for applicants; principal
authorities; and technical professionals?
Staff Comments:
1. Clear descriptions to ensure a consistent approach to approving these types of applications
across the province.
o What constitutes a migrant farmhouse? Who determines this classification?
o Are there certain designations a property must have to be subject to this change (e.g.
Designated agricultural, currently participating in agricultural activities etc)
2. Guidelines that outline when this new part of the OBC is applicable and when the existing limit of
10000 litres/day on one lot is applicable and if there are limitations on future uses on the lot if
this new section of the Code was used for approvals.
Examples:
• If there is an existing use (e.g. dwelling, farm store) does that negate the use of this new change
for any migrant farm housing and the existing OBC/OWRA limits apply?
• How do regulators approach an application if there are two migrant farmhouses existing totalling
>10 000 litres/day approved under proposed OBC requirements, and the property owner is now
proposing another use (e.g. farm store)?
5. What other measures could be taken to protect human health, the environment, and neighbouring
property values?
• No comments.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 101
Attachment 9 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-0872) – Page 1
Attachment 9 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-0872)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-0872 October 23, 2025 – December 7,
2025 (45 days)
Streamlining environmental permissions for
sewage works servicing on-farm worker housing |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) New regulation made under the Environmental Protection Act
Staff Comments:
• No comments.
ERO 025-0872 October 23, 2025 – December 7,
2025 (45 days)
Streamlining environmental permissions for
sewage works servicing on-farm worker housing |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(2) Proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 287/07 made under the Clean Water Act, 2006
Staff Comments:
• No comments.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 102
Attachment 10 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1182) – Page 1
Attachment 10 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1182)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
ERO 025-1182 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation Act and Transit-Oriented
Communities Act (Schedule 4, 13 and 15 of Bill 60 -
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(1) Proposed amendments to the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 to provide municipalities with
greater flexibility in determining when Transit Station Charges are to be paid
Staff Comments:
• The Region of Durham has formally expressed its intent to the province to establish a Transit
Station Charge (TSC) by-law, enabled through the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, as a
funding tool to contribute towards four new stations along the GO Lakeshore East Extension to
Bowmanville. Upon formal confirmation from the province, the Region will be embarking on a
TSC Background Study to conduct the analysis and make recommendations on the charge.
• The Region of Durham generally supports the proposed changes to align the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, 2023 with the Development Charges Act, 1997, to allow for greater flexibility on the
timing of the collection of the TSC, and will incorporate accordingly an analysis of charge
collection and financial security in the Background Study.
• The proposed Section 7.2 in the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, provides that the TSC to be
collected at occupancy would be determined at an earlier phase, such as site plan approval,
zoning by-law amendment approval, or at building permit issuance. It is recommended that
provisions similar to subsection 26.2(5)(a) and (b) of the Development Charges Act (DCA), 1997
apply to Section 7.2 of the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 to align with the language in the
DCA.
ERO 025-1182 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation Act and Transit-Oriented
Communities Act (Schedule 4, 13 and 15 of Bill 60 -
(2) Proposed changes to the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Act, 2002 (TWRCA) to
extend WT’s mandate from 2028 to 2035 with an option to extend up to an additional 5 years and
make minor administrative amendments
Staff Comments:
• Not applicable.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 103
Attachment 10 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1182) – Page 2
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
ERO 025-1182 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation Act and Transit-Oriented
Communities Act (Schedule 4, 13 and 15 of Bill 60 -
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(3) Proposed amendments to the Transit-Oriented Communities Act, 2020 to enable the establishment
of a TOC Advisory Panel
Staff Comments:
• The Region is generally supportive of the proposed changes to the Transit-Oriented Communities
Act, 2020, to enable the establishment of a Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Advisory Panel
for the purposes of dispute resolution. However, additional information is requested around the
membership of the advisory panel, and clarity on the nature of the types of specific matters that
the TOC Advisory Panel would address.
• In the event that the Minister requires a landowner to enter into an agreement with the
municipality to address any matters the Minister considers necessary for the appropriate
development of the transit-oriented community land, further clarity is requested in the case of a
two-tier municipal framework, whether either the upper- or lower-tier municipality, or both, are
required to enter into such an agreement.
ERO 025-1182 October 23, 2025 – November 22,
2025 (30 days)
Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation Act and Transit-Oriented
Communities Act (Schedule 4, 13 and 15 of Bill 60 -
Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
(4) Proposed changes to the Transit-Oriented Communities Act, 2020 to give the Minister of
Infrastructure authority to require a senior municipal official to provide regular reporting to the
Minister on the progress of TOC projects.
Staff Comments:
• The Region of Durham generally supports the requirement for municipalities to designate a
municipal officer to share information on the implementation of transit -oriented community
projects within their jurisdiction. Further clarity is requested in the case of a two-tier municipal
framework, on whether a municipal officer should be designated from either the upper- or lower-
tier municipality, or both.
• Additional clarity is also requested on the nature and type of information that will be required
from municipalities as part of the regular reporting on the progress of TOC projects.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 104
Attachment 11 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1100) – Page 1
Attachment 11 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1100)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
025-1100 October 23, 2025 – November 22, 2025
(30 days)
Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes
(1) Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes
What are your thoughts on the benefits and/or risks associated with reducing or removing minimum
lot size requirements in low-density urban residential areas to encourage gentle density, increase
housing supply, broaden housing options and encourage home o wnership?
• Staff Comment: Reducing or removing minimum lot sizes may allow less expensive housing to be
developed. This should help provide more affordable housing options, including microhomes/tiny
homes.
What are best practices observed in other jurisdictions that have introduced minimum lot size reforms?
• No comments.
Are there any circumstances where having established minimum lot sizes in municipal zoning by -laws
for low-density urban residential parcels are absolutely necessary with respect to the provision of
transportation, infrastructure, or upholding public health and safety?
• Staff Comment: Sufficient space may be required for emergency access to rear yards or accessory
structures; however, this should not result in artificially inflated minimum frontage or setbacks if
other means exist to access rear yards, such as laneways, walkways, or shared corridors, etc.
Given the Ontario context and the government’s permissions for additional residential units, what do
you suggest should be the smallest size urban residential lot in terms of lot area, frontage or depth (i.e.
six metre frontage, 200 square metre area, etc.) What would be the opportunities and limitations?
How would these standards work together?
• No comments.
What other zoning requirements or performance standards could be needed to support any reduction
or removal of minimum lot size requirements on low -density urban residential parcels (i.e., additional
residential units, multiplexes, parking requirements, lo t coverage, height and density etc.)?
• Staff Comment: Allowing up to four units as of right in residential neighbourhoods.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 105
Attachment 12 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1101) – Page 1
Attachment 12 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (ERO 025-1101)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
025-1101 October 23, 2025 – November 22, 2025
(30 days)
Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards
– Lot Level (outside of buildings) | Environmental
Registry of Ontario
(1) Use of enhanced development standards at the lot level (outside of buildings)
What is your interest in and/or experience with the implementation of enhanced development
standards at the lot level (outside of buildings)? For example, are you a municipal staff member,
homebuilder, planner, Indigenous representative, or member of the p ublic?
• Staff Comment: Durham Region staff work with local area municipalities who have green
development standards (i.e. Whitby, Ajax, Pickering) that include lot level measures. As an upper-
tier government, Durham does not have authority in this area.
In your experience, are enhanced development standards applied consistently across municipalities?
Please provide examples where possible.
• Staff Comment: Enhanced development standards do vary in their criteria and approaches across
the province.
• Staff Comment: Many enhanced development standards are modeled off best practices (i.e.,
Toronto Green Standard).
What types of standards, should municipalities be allowed to apply outside of buildings and how do
these requirements maintain the health and safety of the site if at all?
Staff Comments:
• Green development standards are utilized by municipalities to reduce GHG emissions; manage
demand on energy and water resources; improve water management; increase greenspace; and
improve air quality. They also increase climate resilience; can lower utility costs for residents;
create economic opportunities in the green building sector; reduce strain on infrastructure; and
improve public health. Municipalities should have the autonomy to apply green development
standards that support the implementation of policies and priorities set out within their OPs.
• Municipalities should be able to apply outdoor green development standards that reduce key
climate risks in their jurisdiction (i.e. flood risk, heat stress, severe wind in Durham Region).
Example standards include grading, landscaping/trees, downspout disconnection, waterproofing,
permeable pavement. These standards improve housing durability and affordability, by reducing
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 106
Attachment 12 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1101) – Page 2
costly future repairs that will be incurred by the homeowner and reduce overall burden on the
municipal water infrastructure systems.
• Bicycle parking, transit stops, and publicly-accessible spaces and pathways are important for
strategic growth areas to support intensification of existing urban areas into complete
communities where there may not be sufficient road width or publicly-owned land available to
provide these amenities. It should be up to municipal planning staff to work with their
communities and stakeholders to identify local needs and develop locally-appropriate strategies
to fulfill those needs.
Do you / your organization have information about the short - and long-term costs of enhanced
development standards at the lot level?
• Staff Comment: The following tool helps provide more context on the costs of enhanced
development standards, specifically around low impact development - Low Impact Development
Life Cycle Costing Tool, Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) -
https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/lid-lcct/
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions relating to site plan control or other related
subjects?
• Staff Comment: The province could adopt or endorse a consistent set of low impact
development standards based on best practice (e.g. the STEP manuals) that could be consistently
used for tailored application across the province.
Other Staff Comments:
• There are several well-known technical guides that provide consistent design, installation, and
inspection guidance for outdoor low impact development that are well-used by municipalities
and developers across the province. For example, Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program
(STEP) has developed guides and training - https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/resource-
library/water/
• The selection of outdoor measures used needs to be tailored to the local municipal and site
context - they are not a one size fits all solution. Different standards will need to be applied in
dense urban, suburban and rural settings, where there are different issues to manage (e.g. water
quality, urban flooding, urban heat, lack of permeable surfaces, high ground water, etc.)
• Green standards can support the implementation of energy efficiency measures that can help to
reduce energy demand across the province.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 107
Attachment 12 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (ERO 025-1101) – Page 3
• Some green development standards include low-cost, passive design measures that could be
easily integrated into regular practices while improving stormwater management, energy
efficiency, and mitigating heat island effect (i.e. swales, cool roofs, trees fo r shading, etc.)
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 108
Attachment 13 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MMAH030) – Page 1
Attachment 13 – Region of Durham Submission on Bill 60 (25-MMAH030)
Summary and Comments in Support of the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 through Bill 60 (“An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and
Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025”)
ERO/RR Posting and Comment Period Durham Region Staff Comments (Council endorsement to be sought November 26, 2025)
25-MMAH030 October 24, 2025 – November 23,
2025 (30 days)
Implementing Reforms to the Development
Charges Framework | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(1) Merge water supply services and wastewater services for the purpose of DC credits
Staff Comments:
• Merging water supply and wastewater services for the purposes of DC credits could impact
municipal cashflow by drawing from reserves allocated to other services. This reallocation could
delay capital projects or increase financing costs if the Region needs to borrow funds to proceed
with projects in areas where reserves were transferred to another area.
• To mitigate these risks, it is recommended that municipalities retain flexibility to determine
whether service categories should be merged for DC credit purposes. Allowing this to remain as
an optional decision ensures that municipalities can merge reserves while supporting growth-
related infrastructure.
25-MMAH030 October 24, 2025 – November 23,
2025 (30 days)
Implementing Reforms to the Development
Charges Framework | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(2) Make benefit to existing allocations more transparent in DC Background Studies
Staff Comments:
• Staff support this proposed change, as providing clear descriptions of the methodology and
assumptions for Benefit to Existing (BTE) allocations in DC Background Studies will improve
transparency and help stakeholders better understand how costs are shared between new and
existing development.
25-MMAH030 October 24, 2025 – November 23,
2025 (30 days)
Implementing Reforms to the Development
Charges Framework | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
(3) Details on land acquisition costs to be set out for each service in DC background studies
Staff Comments:
• Staff support the proposed amendment to O. Reg 82/98 to enhance transparency in the DC
Background Study and support the new service class for land acquisition costs.
• Since land acquisition costs will become its own service class, municipalities will need to manage
separate reserve funds for land costs, which could affect financial planning and cashflow.
25-MMAH030 October 24, 2025 – November 23,
2025 (30 days)
(4) Make information in financial statements relating to DCs more transparent and easily accessible
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 109
Attachment 13 - Region of Durham Submission regarding Bill 60 (25-MMAH030) – Page 2
Implementing Reforms to the Development
Charges Framework | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca
Staff Comments:
•Identify the amount from each reserve fund that was committed to a project, but had not been
spent, as of the end of the year;
o The Treasurer’s Statement currently requires reporting of the funding associated with a
capital asset. This proposed change would introduce a spending element in the report
and complicate the preparation and readability of the report, especially where the report
is already detailing hundreds of active projects. Rather than present the commitments on
a project-by-project basis, this information could be presented as part of the statement
of continuity of the reserve funds on an aggregate basis. This presentation would then
align the Treasurer’s Statement with the public sector accounting standards used in the
audited financial statements of a municipality.
•The amount of debt that had been issued for a project as of the end of the year; and
o It is not clear if this proposal is intended to apply to just debt to be repaid from
development charges or all debt. Currently debt is already included in the “Other
Financing” for a project in the Treasurer’s Statement, without distinguishing between the
debt that is to be repaid from development charges and other sources. An annual
schedule of debt issued and to be repaid from future development charges collected by
DC type (e.g. Residential, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional) may be a preferred
approach.
o There is a potential timing difference between project spending & debenture issuance – a
municipality may choose to upfront debenture financing, issue debt on project
completion, finance over multiple debt issues, or finance only a portion of the project
from debentures. This timing difference could lead to situations where debt is listed
under other financing with no other financing showing on the report.
•Identify where in the DC background study the project's capital costs were estimated. (This
would not apply in circumstances where a municipality uses a unique identifier in both
background studies and treasurer's statements to identify each project.)
o Linking projects in the background study to those in the Treasurer’s statement through
use of a unique identifier is a positive addition to the report. It should be recognized that
multiple projects / phases may be undertaken to deliver the infrastructure anticipated in
the background study, resulting in the same identifier being used multiple times and over
multiple years for some items in the background study.
2025-COW-37
Attachment #2
Page 110
The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa
Tuesday,November 18,2025
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS Bill 5 presents far-reaching implications for municipalities,First Nations,and
Indigenous communities across Northern Ontario—particularly affecting natural
ecosystems and regions where women,Two-Spirit,and gender-diverse people have
historically borne the brunt of unchecked development and continue to face systemic
disparities and heightened risks tied to resource extraction;and
WHEREAS Women are too often included in economic and development decisions as
an afterthought,rather than as proactive and central stakeholders,despite their
increasing presence in leadership across municipalities,First Nations governments)
community services,and economic development organizations;and
WHEREAS First Nations of Ontario women continue to be underrepresented at
decision-making tables,despite significant leadership:as of recent reports,women hold
over 35%of elected Chief positions in First Nations of Ontario,and significantly more
leadership positions within community organizations,health,and education boards -
positions that bring deep experience in balancing development with community well
being;and
WHEREAS The legacy of natural resource development in Northern Ontario has
contributed to environmental degradation and social disruption,including clear links to
the ongoing crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women,Girls)and Two-Spirit
People (MMIWG2S);and
WHEREAS The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women)Girls,
and Two-Spirit People (MMIWG2S)identified extractive industries as a key contributor
to increased vulnerability to violence,especially in isolated development zones lacking
oversight and safeguards;and
WHEREAS ithe Government of Ontario has passed Bill 5—Protect Ontario by
Unleashing Our Economy Act,2025,aiming to facilitate and accelerate resource
development in Northern Ontario;and
Part2.
Page 111
The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS Resource extraction has historically contributed to environmental
degradation,increased cost-of-living,housing instability,and elevated levels of gender-
based violence,particularly in rural and remote areas;and
WHEREAS Without gender-based and culturally informed planning,development under
Bill 5 risks reproducing the same harmful patterns of exclusion,exploitation,and
environmental harm that have characterized previous waves of resource development;
and
WHEREAS Development under Bill 5 also presents opportunities for women’s
economic empowerment—including entry into skilled trades,environmental monitoring,
and leadership roles in infrastructure and project planning—if such pathways are made
intentional,accessible,and equitable;and
WHEREAS Environmental degradation is directly linked to the health and well-being of
women and children,particularly in remote and Indigenous communities where access
to clean water,healthy food systems,and cultural practices are tied to land-based
knowledge;and
WHEREAS The Province of Ontario has an obligation to ensure that economic growth
is not achieved at the expense of women’s safety,human rights,or environmental
integrity.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Corporation of the Municipality of
Wawa calls on the Province of Ontario to:
1.Ensure that women,Two-Spirit,and gender-diverse people—particularly from
Indigenous and Northern communities—are actively engaged at the forefront of all
planning,consultation,and implementation processes under Bill 5,from concept to
completion;
2.Establish a dedicated Ministerial role or mandate for overseeing and safeguarding
women’s rights,safety,and economic opportunity throughout the resource development
process,including authority to apply gender-based impact assessments to proposed
projects;
3.Mandate gender-based and intersectional impact assessments be carried out on all
developments enabled by Bill 5,particularly with regard to safety,housing,
transportation,healthcare access,and cultural impacts on women and girls;
Part 3...
Page 112
The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
RESOLUTION
4.Ensure environmental protections are explicitly tied to community health outcomes,
especially for women and children,by investing in environmental monitoring and
enforcing strong environmental safeguards tied to traditional ecological knowledge and
include community-led,land-based health indicators;
5.Invest in training,apprenticeship,and leadership programs to ensure women and
girls—particularly those in remote,Indigenous,and underserved communities—can
access opportunities in the skilled trades,environmental sciences,project management,
and public service tied to resource development;
6.Recognize and act on the findings of the MMIWG2S Inquiry
protective measures around development zones,including funding
transportation,trauma-informed care,community safety initiatives,
strategies embedded in community agreements;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT This resolution be forwarded to the Premier of
Ontario,the Minister of Energy and Mines,the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First
Nations Economic Reconciliation,the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and
Economic Opportunity,Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,and the Minister of the
Environment,Conservation and Parks,FONOM,NOMA,as well as all Northern Ontario
municipalities and First Nations governments.
TION RESULT RECORDED VOTE
CARRIED MAYOR AND COUNCIL YES NO
El DEFEATED Mitch Hatfield -JflTABLEDCathyCannon
El RECORDED VOTE (SEE RIGHT)Melanie Pilon
LI PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARED Jim Hoffmann
Q WITHDRAWN Joseph Opato
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the general nature thereof.
El Disclosed the pecuniary interest and general name thereof and abstained from the discussion,vote
and influence.
Clerk:
MAYOR -MELANIE PILON CLERK -MAURY O’NEILL
7.Publish annual,public4acing progress reports
development under Bill 5,including employment
environmental outcomes,and indicators of community
by implementing
for shelters,safe
and anti-violence
on the gendered
statistics,leadershi
safety and wellness;
impacts of
p inclusion,
and
This document is available in alternate formats.Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
The Corporation of the
County of Northumberland
555 Courthouse Road
Cobourg, ON, K9A 5J6
Northumberland County
Council Resolution
Northumberland County Council Resolution
SENT VIA EMAIL November 25, 2025
All Ontario Municipalities
Re: Correspondence, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
'2024 Annual Report and Presentation'
At a meeting held on November 19th, 2025 Northumberland County Council approved
Council Resolution # 2025-11-19-929, adopting the below resolution:
Moved by: Councillor Lucas Cleveland
Seconded by: Councillor Robert Crate
"Whereas the Economic Development, Tourism, and Land Use Planning Committee
(November 5, 2025) considered Correspondence, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative '2024 Annual Report and Presentation', and County Council identified this item for
separate discussion at the November 19, 2025 County Council meeting;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That County Council adopt the following:
• That County Council approve the Northumberland County Warden to serve as the
Northumberland County representative to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative and direct staff to submit a membership application.
Further That this motion be distributed to all Ontario municipalities.”
Council Resolution # 2025-11-19-929 Carried
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at bennettt@northumberland.ca or by telephone at 905-372-3329 ext. 2238.
Sincerely,
Tonia Bennett
Manager of Legislative Services / Clerk
Northumberland County
Page 117
Council Resolution
Moved By Cl:.�\ L-C\eve\ol\d
Seconded By (6 . CJ K -Cro. te...
Northumberland county
Agenda
Item 11.b (2-J
Resolution Number
2025-11-19-q]}\
Council Date: November 19, 2025
"Whereas the Economic Development, Tourism, and Land Use Planning Committee (November 5, 2025) considered Correspondence, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative '2024 Annual Report and Presentation', and County Council identified this item for separate discussion at the November 19, 2025 County Council meeting;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That County Council adopt the following:
•That County Council approve the Northumberland County Warden to serve as theNorthumberland County representative to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence CitiesInitiative and direct staff to submit a membership application.
Further That this motion be distributed to all Ontario municipalities."
Recorded Vote
Requested by
Deferred
---------
Councillor's Name
Defeated
Warden's Signature Warden's Signature
Page 118
Annual Report 2024
Mayors Securing the
Future of Our Basin
www.glslcities.org
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
P.O. Box 1332 New Lenox, IL 60451
312.201.4518
Page 119
Executive Summary
In 2024, our organization deepened its commitment to fos-
tering resilient and thriving communities across the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin, emerging as a leading
advocate for preparing for a changing climate and ad-
vancing sustainable economic development. With over
70 organizations (business, government, and non-profit
partners) joining the Mayors Commission on Economic
Transformation, we have built an unprecedented coali-
tion to chart the development of our region’s economy.
We remain dedicated to a prosperous and sustainable
future for all our communities — that means ensuring
that your residents have access to good jobs, reliable
and safe infrastructure, communities that are resilient
to extreme weather, and access to all the opportunities
that come with being in a region that makes up over 80
percent of North America’s fresh water.
Supported the launch of
the independent Canada
Water Agency and securing
the first phase of funding
under Canada’s $420
million Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River protection
commitment.
Trained approximately
450 participants through
webinars, workshops, and
sessions on sustainable
solutions for coastal
resilience challenges.
$420 M
450
A YEAR OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Hosted 12 workshops with
industry, agency, and
non-profit partners in The
Blue Mountains, Montreal,
and Upstate New York
with a total of 350 people
participating.
Provided project planning
and grant support for
62 projects through the
Resilient Coastal Projects
Initiative for a total project
value of up to $425 million.*
Presented at various
conferences to a total
audience of over
750, highlighting the
climate action initiatives
spearheaded by the Cities
Initiative and its members.
750
350
$425 M
UP TO
OVER
Helped secure over
$2 billion for water
infrastructure funding
across Canada to
accelerate housing
construction in our basin.
$2 B
OVER
Advocated for nearly $400
million in funding to prevent
the devastating spread of
invasive carp through the
Brandon Road Interbasin
Project.
$400 M
OVER
Photo by Ryan Hagerty/USFWS
2
Page 120
Letter from Our Co-Chairs
Dear Members,
As we reflected on 2024, our organization celebrated a year of delivering meaningful support to
advance your priorities. We provided and secured financial resources, technical training, and
instructional programs to help you and your staff implement effective green solutions for challenges
facing your communities. We also worked alongside you and your teams to advocate for legislation
and policies that improved your residents’ lives. Our coalition grew to nearly 270 communities,
supported by a dedicated team committed to providing the resources needed to make a real
difference.
As mayors, we understood the immense challenges faced by our communities, especially when
resources were limited. Our organization remained hyper-focused on helping your residents
live healthy and fulfilling lives. Our mission was to safeguard the resilience and success of all
communities across the basin for future generations.
Protecting the environment and a freshwater resource that is the envy of the world was critical to
our region’s ongoing success and ability to attract the best and brightest people, companies, and
changemakers. We empowered you and your staff to address the most pressing issues impacting
your residents, including flooding, coastal erosion, aging infrastructure, and ensuring that every
resident had access to clean and affordable water.
We also recognized the potential for our basin to become a leading blue-green economic corridor.
In 2025, our Mayors Commission on Economic Transformation planned to deliver a 10-year plan to
remake our fresh coast economy and ensure that the basin remained an ideal place to live, work,
invest, and play for the next 50 years.
We looked forward to your continued commitment to the Cities Initiative. Please review this report,
and don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns. Let’s aim to make 2025 an even more
successful year for our coalition.
Mayor Gino Moretti, Co-Chair
Saint-Anicet, QC
Mayor Ryan Sorenson, Co-Chair
Sheboygan, WI
3
Page 121
Protecting Our Environment.
Securing Our Future.
KEY DELIVERABLES ACHIEVED
Advocated for the Brandon Road
Interbasin Project, unlocking
$274 million in federal funding and
$114 million in non-federal funding,
advancing the project to the
construction phase to prevent the
spread of invasive carp.
Endorsed the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Act
of 2024, encouraging the U.S.
Congress to extend the GLRI’s
authorization for an additional
five years while increasing
spending to $500 million annually.
1 4
Pushed for the implementation
of the CAD $500 million Blue Fund
in Québec through increased
royalties on important water users
to finance water-quality protection
initiatives, including $80 million
for water-infrastructure including
upgrades.
Advocated to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for fair distribution
of lead service line funding under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, resulting in funding increases for
five of eight Great Lakes states and a
$16 million award to Milwaukee for lead
service line replacement funding.
2
3
5
Supported the launch of the
independent Canada Water Agency to
strengthen coordination of freshwater
policy and securing the roll out of the
first phase of enhanced funding under
Canada’s $420+ million Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence River protection
commitment.
Funding Secured
Thanks to the
Cities Initiative$1.9B
over
4
Page 122
US PROGRAMMING
ONTARIO, CA
QUÉBEC, CA
40 22$425M $24M
Provided training and
technical assistance
to 40 communities,
including 28 vulnerable
ones, though our
Initiative for Resilient
Great Lakes Coasts
partnership program
with NOAA.
Provided project
planning and grant
support for 62
projects through
the Resilient Coastal
Projects Initiative for
a total project value
of up to $425 million.*
*Source: Estimated average funding per project based on 2024 data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indicating Coastal
Resilience projects at approximately $6.88 million each.
Provided engineering
and design support
for 22 projects through
our coastal programs,
moving these projects
one step closer to
construction.
Submitted over $24 million
in grant applications to
American funding agencies
for new programming at the
Cities Initiative to support
our members with their
resilience and source water
protection concerns.
Pursuing new federal program funding in
partnership with Conservation Ontario and
over 15 member municipalities to create new
coastal programs on three Great Lakes over
the next three years.
Working to foster stakeholder collaboration
among municipalities from Greater Québec
City with a hands-on workshop to support
the metropolitan community's climate
adaptation mandate.
up to
Coastal and Climate Resilience
over
5
Page 123
Signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Council of the Great Lakes Region — an
organization dedicated to maintaining the
Great Lakes region’s economic competitiveness
through sustainable development — to help
guide our new strategic pillar on Economic
Transformation.
Established a Memorandum of Cooperation
with Conservation Ontario to address coastal
erosion, flooding and storm impacts for
member communities in addition to partnering
on a briefing for elected officials at the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s
Annual Conference in Ottawa.
Recruited more than 70 businesses,
government agencies, and non-profit
organizations to serve as advisors to
the Mayors Commission on Economic
Transformation.
Co-organized a Mayoral Reception at the
Dutch Ambassador’s residence with Climate
Mayors and Mississippi River Cities and Towns
Initiative, which was attended by more than
100 thought leaders and government officials,
including Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
and John Podesta, Senior Advisor to the
President for Clean Energy Innovation and
Implementation.
Hosted an educational public event in Chicago
entitled, “Honoring Our Waters,” to showcase
strong partnership between Indigenous
and Municipal leaders, co-hosted by our
partners at the Biinaagami Initiative, Canadian
Geographic, Swim Drink Fish, and the City
of Chicago.
Enhancing International
Cooperation and Influence
6
Page 124
Launched the Great Lakes Lead Pipes Partnership
at the White House Water Summit in April 2024,
led by three Mayors Commission on Water Equity
members – Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago,
Mayor Mike Duggan of Detroit, and Mayor Cavalier
Johnson of Milwaukee – to expedite lead service
line replacement in Great Lakes big cities with the
heaviest lead burdens.
Great Lakes Lead Pipes
Partnership at the Water
Summit
Hosted a high-impact policy roundtable in
Washington D.C., led by the Mayors Commission
on Coastal Resilience, to strengthen municipal
engagement with the Great Lakes Coastal
Resiliency Study. This event featured Major General
Mark C. Quander, Commander of the Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, alongside other key project
partners, resulting in a renewed commitment to
collaborative resilience planning and actionable
support for Great Lakes communities.
Great Lakes Coastal
Resiliency Study
2024 Highlights
BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR THE BASIN
7
Page 125
Teamed up with the Québec Union of Municipalities
and the Saint-Lawrence Economic Development
Network to position mayors and industry leaders as
key partners as the Québec government renews its
maritime strategy. This vital and strategic industry
supports over 27,000 jobs in the province, and
more than 350,000 jobs across the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Seaway, while connecting the heart of
North America to the Atlantic Ocean.
Québec Government’s New
Maritime Strategy
With record attendance, the Cities Initiative's
launched the Mayors Commission on Economic
Transformation at its 2024 Annual Conference in
Montréal, QC. Mayors Valérie Plante of Montréal,
Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago, IL and Mayor
Cavalier Johnson of Milwaukee, WI signed a
declaration, endorsed by all Cities Initiative
members, to collaborate on an Action Plan that will
guide the way for our region to become a leading
blue-green economic corridor
Basin-Wide Declaration
Signed by Major Cities and
Endorsed by All Members
Be a Part of Economic Transformation
A shift from traditional industry to a sustainable blue-green economic corridor
that attracts eco-friendly industries, revitalizes waterfronts, adopts renewable
energy, and enhances water-based commerce, establishing the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence River Basin as a leader in sustainable development while
preserving freshwater resources for future generations.
8
Page 126
www.glslcities.org
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
P.O. Box 1332 New Lenox, IL 60451
312.201.4518
Today, the economy and environment are inextricably linked, and our success
depends on integrating them seamlessly. Our 2024 initiatives—Coastal and Climate
Resilience, Economic Transformation, and Enhancing International Cooperation
and Influence—are vital to unlocking the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin’s
immense growth potential for the next 50 years. Building a blue-green economic
corridor is essential for driving sustainable progress in our communities while
protecting the invaluable resources that define our region.
— Jon Altenberg, CEO, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
“
Photo Credit: USEPA Environmental-Protection-AgencyPage 127
Mark your
calendar now for
May 14-16, 2025,
in Milwaukee!
Page 128
Introducing the
Cities Initiative
Local government leaders
at the heart of North America
Page 129
ABOUT US
Page 130
Founded in 2003 by the Mayors of
Chicago and Toronto to:
•Give communities in the region a
voice in protecting and managing
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
•Unite cities that share a critical
resource that:
▪Provides drinking water to 40
million Canadians and Americans
▪Supports an $10T regional
economy
THE CITIES INITIATIVE
Page 131
OUR MISSION
We are a multinational coalition of
local government leaders working to:
•promote economic prosperity
•protect our fresh water for the
benefit of current and future
generations.
Page 132
•Cities Initiative members represents more
than 350 communities and over 21
million residents across the region
•Membership spans from Duluth, MN to
Gaspé, QC
•Broadening our coalition with Tribes and
First Nations
•New Allies program of associate
memberships for non-profits,
colleges/universities
A GROWING COALITION
Page 133
OUR PILLARS & PRIORITIES
Safe and
Affordable Water
Healthy Lakes
and Rivers
Climate and
Coastal
Resilience
Economic
Transformation
Page 134
ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION
Page 135
ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION ACTION PLAN
•Launched Sept 24 in NYC as
part of Climate Week
•More than 60 attendees,
including Mayors Johnson
(Chicago), Plante (Montréal),
and Bibb (Cleveland)
•Broadcast online live for
press in the region to tune in
Page 136
ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION ACTION PLAN
•One Vision: Develop the Fresh Coast
Economic Corridor
•Five Regional Goals
•Four Transformational Pillars
•17 Strategies, 76 Actions, and 12
Program Concepts
Scan to consult
our Action Plan
Page 137
REGIONAL GOALS
ATTRACT
HALF A MILLION
NEW
BUSINESSES
1
CREATE 18
MILLION NEW
JOBS
AVOID INCREASE
IN % WATER
LOSS
IMPROVE WATER
QUALITY FROM
"FAIR" TO
"GOOD"
REDUCE
EMISSIONS BY
300 MILLION MT
2 3 4 5
Together,let’s build a prosperous, resilient, and sustainable future for
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Region.
Page 138
CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS
Page 139
A GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE STRONG RESPONSE
•Given the current climate, the Cities Initiative provides a
network of municipal leaders and partners dedicated
to maintaining strong ties between both nations
•In February, we took our Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Strong position on the trade war and launched a
binational Mayors Transition Team to strategize on new
CAD and U.S. federal governments and current trade
context
•Reinforced during Great Lakes Day in D.C. and at our
May 2025 Annual Conference in Milwaukee
Page 140
ENGAGING WITH US
Page 141
MEMBER ENGAGEMENT
POLICY & ADVOCACY
•Mayors Commissions
•U.S. and Canadian Days
on the Hill
•Policy Resolutions
STRATEGIC INPUT
•Board of Directors
•Ontario Regional
Advisory Council
•Industry Leaders Circle
COLLABORATION & LEARNING
•Project-based partnerships
•Conferences
•International Events
•Webinars
Page 142
MAYORS COMMISSIONS
COMMISSIONS
•Water Access
•Community Resilience
•Economic Transformation
CORE FUNCTIONS
▪Policy Development
▪Advocacy
▪Regional
Collaboration
▪Media Engagement
Page 143
2023 Great Lakes Region
Climate Action Seminar
MAYORS COMMISSIONS
WATER ACCESS ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONCOMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Help municipalities plan for, and
take action to strengthen their
resiliency to impacts from
climate change
Promote equitable access to
safe and affordable water for
all residents of our region
Transform our region into a thriving Fresh Coast
Economic Corridor by promoting sustainable,
inclusive, and resilient economic development and
freshwater stewardship
Page 144
OTHER MEMBER BENEFITS
•REGION-WIDE COLLABORATION – Build relationships with local
leaders from ON, QC and the US
•DIRECT ADVOCACY – Help move forward your priorities with
provincial and federal officials
•PROGRAM PARTNERSHIP – We are always on the lookout for willing
members to partner with us on innovative projects
•WEGE AWARD – Annual prize of up to $7,500 for communities with
populations under 100,000 that advance innovative water solutions
•STAFF AND COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT – Staff and council members are
encouraged to participate in Cities Initiative events
•PUBLIC RELATIONS – Your work with us gets covered
Page 145
UPCOMING EVENTS
•November 13 – Ontario Water Leaders Summit –
Oakville, ON
•December 8 – Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Day on
the Hill – Ottawa, ON
•March 2026 – Great Lakes Day – Washington, DC
•May 6- 8, 2026 – 2026 Annual Conference –
Hamilton, ON
Page 146
Scan to register for the Ontario
Water Leaders Summit
Page 147
Thank You! Questions?
Phil Murphy-Rhéaume
COO / Canadian Managing Director
phillipe.murphy-rheaume@glslcities.org
Page 148
ANNEX – MAYORS COMMISSIONS
Page 149
MAYORS COMMISSION ON WATER ACCESS
Leadership in Canada: Grey County (ON), Repentigny (QC)
Mission Statement: Ensuring access to safe, secure and affordable drinking water; and safekeeping the
water quality and ecosystems health of our lakes and rivers.
Priority areas:
•Ensure dedicated long-term, predictable funding for water, wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure that is not in competition with other needs. (mix of shovel-ready and other projects)
•Supporting the implementation of historic freshwater funding from the federal government,
including direct funding in municipal projects.
•Working towards better public access to water assets in our regions
•Tackling emerging pollutants and invasive aquatic species through better monitoring, adapted
standards and increased enforcement
•Supporting the bi-national legal framework protecting Great Lakes water quality
Page 150
MAYORS COMMISSION – COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Leadership in Canada: Tecumseh (ON), Contrecoeur (QC)
Mission Statement: Supporting our communities in their adaptation to climate change, striving for
resilience of the municipalities and their infrastructure against erosion, urban flooding.
Priority areas:
•Securing appropriate funding for municipal resilience programs, especially through the Disaster
Mitigation and Adaptation Fund – Advocacy through the Climate Proof Coalition.
•Building municipal capacity through resilience programming, best practices and federal programs
such as the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program
•Re-establishing the shoreline erosion funding that had been canceled in 1997.
Page 151
MAYORS COMMISSION – ECONOMIC
TRANSFORMATION
Leadership in Canada: Cobourg (ON), Montréal (QC), Québec City (QC)
Mission Statement: Charting a roadmap for the region and our cities to ensure that economic development
goes hand in hand with climate action and social equity.
Priority areas:
•Attracting new sustainable jobs and industries in the region, as well as
supporting the creation of new regional industrial champions.
•Supporting the development of a decarbonised energy grid and the
decarbonisation of municipal energy utilities.
•Expanding decarbonised shipping, supporting a modal shift to maritime/rail
shipping, with better integration of the cities and their ports.
•Redeveloping our waterfronts to foster resilience, multi-use and publicly
accessible areas in the city that support increased life quality, new developments
and public access.
Page 152
From:MNR Fish and Wildlife Policy Branch
Cc:Wildlife Policy (MNR)
Subject:Black Bear Harvest Management in Ontario
Date:November 21, 2025 2:43:03 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
image002.png
You don't often get email from mnr-fishandwildlifepolicybranch@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL
Ministry of Natural
Resources
Stephen Casselman
A/Director
Fish and Wildlife
Policy Branch300 Water Street
5th Floor NPeterborough ON K9J 3C7
ministère des Richesses
naturelles
Stephen Casselman
Directeur par intérim
Direction des politiques relatives
au poisson et à la faune300, rue Water
5e étage NordPeterborough (Ontario) K9J 3C7
November 21, 2025 SUBJECT: Black Bear Harvest Management in Ontario Greetings, I am writing to inform you that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is seeking feedback on
proposed policy and regulatory changes to black bear management. The proposal has been
posted to the Environmental and Regulatory Registries for 45 days for public review and
comment, closing on January 5, 2026. You can access the proposal and submit feedback
here:
English: Proposal to update the province’s black bear management approach | Environmental
Registry of Ontario
French: Proposition visant à mettre à jour l’approche de gestion de l’ours noir de la province |
Registre e…
Summary of Proposed Changes
1. Black Bear Population Objectives: Population objectives, described as ranges with
defined upper and lower limits, will guide management decisions. Preliminary Population
Objective Ranges (PORs) are proposed, based primarily on ecological data. We are
seeking public input to help incorporate social, cultural, and economic considerations to
refine the final objectives.
2. Harvest Management Guidelines: Final PORs will serve as benchmarks for assessing
the status of black bear populations and guide harvest management decisions. New
adaptive management tools are proposed (e.g., a resident draw to be used in areas of
concern), alongside harvest sustainability indicators to support sustainable management.
A defined allocation process will improve transparency and equitability in allocation
Page 153
between harvest sectors.
3. Regulatory Amendments: Proposed regulatory changes will extend protections for cubs
and females with cubs into the fall and clarify the prohibition on the possession of bear
bile to further promote long-term sustainable black bear management.
If the guidelines and final Population Objective Ranges are approved, the ministry has
proposed a 5-year province-wide transition plan. During this transition period, harvest
management decisions will not be applied based on the final Population Objective Ranges,
except as a pilot on the Saugeen Bruce Peninsula, where unique concerns about the small,
isolated population require immediate attention. The transition plan will allow the ministry to
complete necessary preparations for implementation of the new guidance.
Black bears are an important part of Ontario’s ecosystem and natural heritage. Theseproposed changes aim to support responsible black bear management, taking into accountecological considerations, public interests, and the diverse perspectives of all Ontarians. Weencourage all interested individuals and organizations to review the proposal and share yourperspectives. Your feedback will help inform decisions and ensure that a wide range of viewsare considered in the development of black bear management approaches.
We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss theproposed changes further, please contact wildlifepolicy@ontario.ca. Thank you,
Stephen CasselmanA/Director, Fish and Wildlife Policy BranchOntario Ministry of Natural Resources Please note: As part of providing accessible customer service, please let me know if you have any
accommodation needs or require communication supports or alternate formats.
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Page 154