Ontario’s decision to open up Greenbelt ‘favoured certain developers,’ report finds

The Ontario government’s decision to open up parts of the Greenbelt for housing “favoured certain developers,” lacked transparency and failed to consider environmental, agricultural and financial impacts, a scathing report by the province’s auditor general has suggested.

Of the 7,400 acres of land removed from the Greenbelt, the report found 92 per cent could be tied to three developers. Fourteen of the 15 sites were proposed directly by Housing Minister Steve Clark’s Chief of Staff.

The remaining site was proposed by a six-person team of public servants tasked with assessing land sites for possible removal.

The report also found Clark’s Chief of Staff altered criteria for land removal when the majority of the sites would not be approved within those parameters and implemented a three-week timeline for the assessment. The team, the report found, had to operate under strict confidentiality terms that prevented them from contacting partnering ministries as well as municipalities and conservation authorities.

Ninety-three confidentiality agreements across multiple ministries were signed over the course of the project, the report found.

The findings were released in a “Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt” by Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk on Wednesday.

An investigation into the Doug Ford government’s decision to remove 7,400 acres of land from the Greenbelt for development began in January after a joint request from all three of the province’s opposition leaders.

The decision was first announced in November 2022, years after Premier Doug Ford promised not to touch the protected land. The argument at the time was that it was necessary as part of its pledge to build 1.5 million homes in 10 years.

The goal was to build at least 50,000 homes on the Greenbelt land, with construction beginning no later than 2025.

However, it was soon revealed that several large developers have purchased Greenbelt land since the Ford government was first elected in 2018 before the announcement had been made. At least one investment was made in September 2022, a month before the government revealed the land was among 15 sites being opened up for development.

Opposition leaders and advocacy groups have claimed developers were tipped off and given advanced notice of the government’s plans.

Premier Doug Ford has repeatedly said he did not know which sites would be opened until shortly before the announcement.

The auditor general’s report appears to confirm this fact; however, it also lays out a decision-making process that lacks transparency, communication and proper consultation.

“While the people of Ontario deserve prompt action to solve societal problems like those generated by a need for housing, this does not mean that government and non-elected political staff should sideline or abandon protocols and processes that promote objective and transparent decision-making based on sufficient, accurate and timely information,” the report reads.

Their office recommends the government re-evaluate its decision to change the Greenbelt boundaries, as both the premier and housing minister have communicated they were “unaware that the pre-selection of Greenbelt lands for removal was seriously flawed.”

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR DEVELOPERS AND LOBBYISTS

The report first notes there is no evidence that removing land from the Greenbelt was needed to meet the government’s housing goals. This conclusion was made by the province’s own housing affordability task force and city planners in the regions of Durham, Hamilton and York–the three areas impacted by the changes.

The auditor general notes 92 per cent of the land removed from the Greenbelt was requested to be removed by developers the Chief of Staff dined with at Sept. 14 Building and Land Development Association’s Chair’s dinner.

“At this event, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff were seated at the same table as prominent housing developers and a registered lobbyist,” the report reads.

“The Chief of Staff told us two developers provided him with packages at this event containing information about two sites from the Greenbelt: the (Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve) lands in Durham Region and the Bathurst-King site in York Region.”

The proposals were handed to the chief of staff in the form of “packages.” The chief of staff told the auditor general that he did not immediately open them, and instead he added them to a stack of packages on his desk from other developers and their representatives for review.

Lysyk notes these developers “stood to significantly benefit financially by having received preferential treatment through the use of a biased process that was non-transparent to the public.”

The report notes that throughout the process of conducting the audit, several examples of appeared preferential treatment to lobbyists were noted.

“This included providing information about the ownership and purchasing of lands, setting up investment-opportunity meetings with Minister’s Office staff, and the consideration of draft legislative and regulatory changes.”

The auditor general’s office also noted instances in which lobbyists working for developers emailed political staff with legislation amendment suggestions, which were then copy-pasted and forwarded to deputy ministers for inclusion.

“Senior non-political public servants, who were directed by political staff to carry the proposal forward, appeared unaware that the proposed amendments had originated from a lobbyist.”

HOW WERE THESE SITES SELECTED?

The report notes that hundreds of site removal requests have been submitted to the ministry of housing since the Greenbelt was established in 2005, but only 22 of those sites were considered during the 2022 selection.

Of those, 21 were provided directly by the chief of staff.

The Greenbelt Project Time was tasked with reviewing the sites using a series of criteria, which initially included whether the site was near an urban area, on the edge of the Greenbelt, and near municipal services.

The land also could not be part of the natural heritage system or specialty crop designations.

The team found 20 of the sites either did not meet all of the criteria or it could not be determined within the three-week timeframe.

After this analysis, criteria regarding environmental or agricultural issues were removed. The report also found some of the sites were also expanded or altered so that they could be considered on the edge of the Greenbelt.

This is a developing news story. More to come.