Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Special Report
on Changes to
the Greenbelt

August 2023
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

To the Honourable Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

In my capacity as the Auditor General, I am pleased to transmit my Special Report on Changes

to the Greenbelt under Section 12(1) of the Auditor General Act.

Bonnie Lysyk, MBA, FCPA, FCA, LPA

Auditor General

August 2023
Toronto, Ontario
An electronic version of this report is available online at auditor.on.ca

© 2023, King’s Printer for Ontario

Ce document est également disponible en français.

Cover photograph credit:

top: Claire Foran
ISBN 978-1-4868-7251-0 (Print, 2023 edition) middle: North Country Media House
ISBN 978-1-4868-7252-7 (PDF, 2023 edition) bottom: © iStockphoto.com/jimfeng
Table of Contents

Reflections..........................................................................................................5
1.0 Summary......................................................................................................7
Overall Conclusion.....................................................................................14
2.0  Background..............................................................................................18
2.1 History of the Greenbelt.......................................................................18
2.2 Ontario’s Housing Strategy and the Greenbelt..................................... 23
2.3 Changes to the Greenbelt Boundary in 2022...................................... 24
3.0  Audit Objective and Scope................................................................. 27
4.0  Detailed Audit Observations.............................................................31
4.1 Government-Imposed Greenbelt Removals Proceeded Without
Evidence They Were Needed to Meet Housing Goals............................ 31
4.2 The Selection of Land Sites for Removal from the Greenbelt
was Biased and Lacked Transparency.................................................. 32
4.3 The 2022 Greenbelt Boundary Changes Were Inconsistent
with the Greenbelt Plan’s Vision and Goals, and Deviated from
Previous Processes.............................................................................. 39
4.4 The Proposal to Cabinet Did Not Clearly Explain How Land Sites
Were Identified, Assessed and Selected for Removal from the
Greenbelt............................................................................................ 40
4.5 Most of the Land Removed from the Greenbelt May Not Be Ready
for Housing Development in Time to Meet Government Goals.............. 42
4.6 Government’s Exercise to Alter the Greenbelt Did Not Factor
in Financial Impacts or Costs, or Clarify Fiscal Responsibilities............ 46
4.7 Government Did Not Factor Environmental and Agricultural
Implications into Greenbelt Boundary Changes, Which Are Expected
to Result in Adverse Impacts............................................................... 45
4.8 The Public and Municipalities Were Not Effectively Consulted on
the Greenbelt Boundary Changes........................................................ 58
iv

4.9  Indigenous Communities and Leaders Say the Province Failed

to Properly Consult Them on Greenbelt Changes................................ 61
4.10 No Formal Framework Established to Monitor Whether Developers
Are Fulfilling Government Conditions on Greenbelt Land Removals.... 63
4.11 Developers and Their Representatives Lobbied for Removal of
12 of 15 Greenbelt Sites in the Few Months Leading up to Site
Removals.......................................................................................... 64
4.12 Potential Contravention of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006
by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff............................................. 65
4.13 Risk of Additional Non-Compliance by Political Public Service Staff
with Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006............................................ 67
4.14 Use of Personal Email Accounts Contrary to Public Service
Cybersecurity Guidelines.................................................................... 67
4.15 Record-Retention Policies for Political Staff Communications
Needs Reinforcing............................................................................. 67

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events.................................................................... 69

Appendix 2: Typical Application Process for a Proposed Development.................75
Appendix 3: Select Amendments Enacted by Bill 23, the More Homes Built
Faster Act, 2022.................................................................................................76
Appendix 4: Maps of Land Sites Removed from or Re-designated within
the Greenbelt......................................................................................................78
Appendix 5: Audit Criteria.................................................................................. 86
Appendix 6: Ownership of Land Sites Removed from or Re-designated within
the Greenbelt......................................................................................................87
Appendix 7: Reporting Relationships of Political and Non-Political Staff............. 90
Appendix 8: Recommendations for the Secretary of the Cabinet and Chief of
Staff in the Office of the Premier.........................................................................91
 Reflections

Bonnie Lysyk
Auditor General of Ontario

To maintain public trust and confidence, government had decided to open specific land sites in the Greenbelt
and its ministries need to show that they are transpar- for housing development.
ent in decision-making, and that they act fairly in the We found that how the land sites were selected was
interests of all Ontarians. Not only do the people of not transparent, fair, objective, or fully informed. It
Ontario care about what is done, they equally care also can be shown that there was sufficient land for the
about how things are done. target of 1.5 million homes to be built without the need
Land-use planning is the process that guides deci- to build on the Greenbelt.
sions about where, and what type of development can In conducting our work, we learned about the exer-
occur—for example, where to build homes, factories, cise that was used to recommend the removal of lands
hospitals, schools, roads and other essential infrastruc- from the Greenbelt for housing. It was seriously flawed
ture—and where different types of development should and was dismissive of effective land-use planning. We
not occur. Effective land-use planning ensures that also became aware of how non-elected political staff,
land, which is a finite resource, is used and developed and developers and their lobbyists, can undermine the
to meet the current and future needs of communities technical and operational work of the non-political
and the people who live in them, while safeguarding public service in provincial ministries, and the work
valuable resources such as agricultural lands, wetlands, of municipalities and conservation authorities. We
forests, and important natural features and landscapes. further concluded that fair, transparent and respect-
In 2007, the Housing Ministry at that time won a pres- ful consultation with the people of Ontario did not
tigious national planning award from the Canadian take place.
Institute of Planners for its Greenbelt Plan and recogni- In its haste to promote housing development, the
tion of excellence in natural systems planning. government sought to remove (or re-designate) land
There is no doubt that significant population sites from the Greenbelt without gathering and using
growth in southern Ontario is compelling grounds for complete information and without effectively lever-
government to prioritize residential construction. This aging the expertise of provincial experts in land-use
is all the more reason for the Province to ensure that planning, Indigenous communities, or the municipal-
effective and efficient land-use planning occurs. ities and conservation authorities that would have to
In June 2022, the Premier provided the Minister of address the impact of the changes. Direct access to the
Municipal Affairs and Housing (Housing Minister) with Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff resulted in certain
the direction to “complete work to codify processes for prominent developers receiving preferential treatment.
swaps, expansions, contractions and policy updates for About 92% of the approximately 7,400 acres ultimately
the Greenbelt.” By December 2022, the government removed from the Greenbelt are five land sites put
6

forward by two developers (which included a land site for removal was seriously flawed, we recommended
associated with a third developer) who had access to that the government re-evaluate its 2022 decision to
the Chief of Staff in September 2022. change the Greenbelt boundaries now that it has the
In essence, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff benefit of the information contained in this report.
instructed the non-political public service staff in the While the people of Ontario deserve prompt action to
Housing Ministry to conduct an exercise that limited solve societal problems like those generated by a need
their site-selection assessment to land sites mostly for housing, this does not mean that government and
identified by the Chief of Staff, who also limited staff’s non-elected political staff should sideline or abandon
time to assess the sites, and adjusted the assessment protocols and processes that promote objective and
criteria, including eliminating the consideration of transparent decision-making based on sufficient, accur-
agricultural and environmental factors, which facili- ate and timely information.
tated the selection of these specific land sites. What Appendix 8 contains 15 recommendations resulting
occurred here cannot be described as a standard from our work.
or defensible process. Ultimately, the government In completing our report, we received full co-
approved the removal of these land sites from the operation from the Secretary of the Cabinet, the Senior
protection of the Greenbelt even though these limita- Director and General Counsel of the Cabinet Office,
tions constrained the information the Province used the Chief of Staff to the Premier, the former Deputy
in its decision-making. As we point out in our report, Minister and staff from the Housing Ministry, and the
the actions taken in 2022 were distinctly different Deputy Minister and staff from the Ministry of Natural
than processes used in the past to amend Greenbelt Resources and Forestry.
boundaries. Thank you to my dedicated team of profession-
Why was such a significant decision made so fast als who worked diligently with me to complete this
and without obtaining defensible information by fol- important report so that I could table it for the Legisla-
lowing normal land-use planning practices? How tive Assembly as my final report as Auditor General
could agricultural and environmental impacts not be of Ontario.
considered in decision-making about the Greenbelt?
This situation demonstrates the need for non-political Sincerely,
public servants, including Deputy Ministers, to have a
formal process empowering them to raise objections
when, in their opinion, proper information-gathering
and decision-making protocols are disregarded.
Leaders who show a willingness to explain decisions Bonnie Lysyk, MBA, FCPA, FCA, LPA
or have them reviewed help demonstrate transparency, Auditor General of Ontario
fairness and equity. Given that both the Premier and
the Housing Minister communicated to us that they August 2023
were unaware that the pre-selection of Greenbelt lands Toronto, Ontario
 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Special Report on
Changes to the Greenbelt

communicated objective in adjusting the Greenbelt

1.0 Summary boundary was to allow for construction of a minimum
of 50,000 new homes to help build 1.5 million homes
With Ontario’s population increasing, housing afford- across Ontario over 10 years by 2031.
ability and availability have become more pressing The proposed 2022 Greenbelt boundary changes,
issues impacting communities of all sizes across the which came after multiple government promises to
province. Premier Doug Ford told Ontarians that the protect the Greenbelt, quickly became a contentious
province has a housing crisis it did not have four years issue with the public, in the media and in the Legis-
ago and that his government wanted to make sure lature. During the 30-day public consultation period
houses were built. The Ontario government announced required under the Environmental Bill of Rights Act,
on November 4, 2022, that it was proposing to alter the 1993, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
boundary of the Greenbelt, an area of about 2 million (Housing Ministry) received over 35,000 public
acres of protected farmland, wetlands and woodlands responses, overwhelmingly opposed to any removals
encircling the Greater Golden Horseshoe region. The or land swaps in the Greenbelt. The government went
Greenbelt was created in 2005 to permanently protect ahead and amended the Greenbelt Plan (through Order
productive farmland and natural features from uncon- in Council 1745/2022) and Greenbelt Area bound-
trolled urban development. ary (by filing Ontario Regulation 567/22 under the
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Greenbelt Act, 2005), exactly as proposed, on Decem-
(Housing Minister) announced that about 7,400 acres ber 14, 2022. The next day, the Province also repealed
would be removed from the protections of the Green- the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005 and
belt Plan on 15 land sites. To meet the legislative the additional protection it provided this preserve of
requirement that the total land area in the Greenbelt prime agricultural lands and natural features located in
Area cannot be reduced, about 7,000 acres of land northwest Pickering (also part of the Greenbelt).
in the Paris Galt Moraine (southwest of the Town On January 11, 2023, the Auditor General of
of Erin) was proposed to be added to the Greenbelt Ontario received a joint letter from all three Ontario
Plan’s Protected Countryside designation and about Opposition Party leaders requesting a value-for-money
2,400 acres of land was proposed to be added to the audit and an assessment of the financial and environ-
Greenbelt Plan’s Urban River Valley designation. (See mental impacts of the government’s decision to remove
Figure 2 for the additions and removals of Greenbelt lands from the Greenbelt. Among the concerns raised
lands in 2022 and previous years and Section 2.1.2 in the letter, the opposition leaders said “the removal
for Greenbelt Plan designations.) The government’s of protections from these lands has instantly shifted

7
8

wealth to property owners, who have likely benefited about 58% of the acreage removed, land sites where
substantially from the rezoning of this land from this developer’s companies would likely be developers
undevelopable land to developable land.” We initiated (see Figure 7). Owners of the 15 land sites removed
our work on January 18, 2023. from the Greenbelt could ultimately see a collective
Although the government met the requirement $8.3 billion increase to the value of their properties, as
of not reducing the total area of the Greenbelt, as shown in Figure 9. (See Appendix 1 for a timeline of
required in the Greenbelt Act, 2005, we determined that events.)
the way the government assessed and selected lands Restrictions and limitations on the process were
for removal from and addition to the Greenbelt was not requested by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
publicly transparent, objective or well-informed, and when he advised the Deputy Minister of Housing
was inconsistent with the vision, goals and processes that the project required higher information-security
of the Greenbelt Plan, as well as previous amendments measures. The Deputy Minister then had confidential-
to the Greenbelt boundary. Further, we noted that ity agreements put in place for the Greenbelt Project
opening the Greenbelt was not needed to meet the Team (a small team of non-political public servants).
government’s goal of building 1.5 million homes over This effectively precluded the possibility of substantive
10 years. input from other provincial ministries, municipalities,
Rather than have the Housing Ministry’s public conservation authorities, Indigenous communities,
service conduct a rigorous and comprehensive assess- subject matter experts and the general public. This
ment of Greenbelt boundary change requests, as exercise did not include any analysis of financial or site-
had been done in 2017, as part of a scheduled and specific environmental and agricultural impacts.
co-ordinated review of Ontario’s land-use plans, the Our main findings were:
government embarked on a project (the Greenbelt • According to the government’s Housing
Project) that was substantially controlled and directed Affordability Task Force, the Housing Min-
by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, whom the istry, and the Chief Planners of the three
Housing Deputy Minister believed was working under affected regions, the removal of Greenbelt
the authority of the Housing Minister and the Pre- lands was not needed to meet the govern-
mier’s Office. Typically, a Chief of Staff works under the ment’s housing goals. The 2022 report of the
authority of a minister and the Premier’s Office. Con- Ontario government’s Housing Affordability
sequently, the Ministry’s non-political public service Task Force, which the government has publicly
staff believed that directions or instructions provided cited as the source of its goal to build 1.5 million
by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff were provided homes over 10 years, concluded that a shortage
under the authority of the Minister and the Premier’s of land is not the cause of the province’s housing
Office. The Premier’s Chief of Staff appointed the challenges. The report also said that the Green-
Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, who began work with belt’s land and other environmentally sensitive
the Housing Ministry on July 4, 2022. areas should continue to be protected. Further,
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff provided the Chief Planners in the regions of Durham,
all but one of the sites that were ultimately removed Hamilton and York—which are home to all 15
from the Greenbelt, at least nine of which came from land sites removed from the Greenbelt—told us
requests made by a few select developers and their that Greenbelt land was not needed to meet the
representatives, who contacted him personally. As current housing targets assigned to them by the
noted below, about 92% of the acreage removed from Housing Ministry. These Chief Planners also told
the Greenbelt was land sites passed on to the Housing us that there is sufficient land outside the Green-
Minister’s Chief of Staff from two developers (which belt in their regions that is already serviced (or
included a land site associated with a third developer). can be more easily serviced) to meet the housing
One of these developers provided the information for targets assigned to them in October 2022 by a
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 9

different division (separate from the Greenbelt 2022, 14 were brought into the project by the
Project Team) in the Housing Ministry. The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff and one was
Housing Ministry division confirmed that it allo- identified by the Greenbelt Project Team.
cated these targets to municipalities without the • About 92% of the acreage ultimately removed
knowledge that lands from the Greenbelt would from the Greenbelt was five land sites passed
be opened for housing development. on to the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
• The Chief of Staff of the Housing Ministry from two developers (which included a land
was given the responsibility by the Premier’s site associated with a third developer). The 21
Office to direct a project to change the Green- land sites provided by the Chief of Staff included
belt’s boundary. The Chief of Staff directed two proposals (Sites #1 and #9 in Figure 4)
the Housing Ministry’s Deputy Minister to set that were handed to him in packages by prom-
up a small team of non-political public servants inent developers on September 14, 2022 at a
who worked within the Housing Ministry (the dinner function held by the Building Industry
Greenbelt Project Team) to assess certain sites and Land Development Association. Shortly
to remove from the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt thereafter, one of the same developers provided
Project Team was restricted to a three-week time the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff with addi-
limit and were prohibited, by a confidentiality tional information and requests to remove three
agreement, from speaking to anyone else about other proposed sites (Sites #4, #12 and #13).
their work. Over the three-week period, the Together, these five proposed sites accounted
Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff provided the for 92% of the acreage ultimately removed from
Greenbelt Project Team originally with eight— the Greenbelt and opened for development in
and then an additional 13—sites to review, while December 2022. Housing Ministry staff believed
asking them to suggest other sites to consider. that the priority sites for removal were Sites #1,
Further, when the Greenbelt Project Team #4 and #9.
required more detailed information on the land • Assessment criteria provided by the Housing
sites they were asked to assess, it was the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff were altered and
of Staff who then reached out to the developers facilitated the removal of land sites from the
or their representatives for that information. Greenbelt. The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
Given the small size of the Greenbelt Project provided the initial criteria for the Greenbelt
Team, the degree of confidentiality, narrow Project Team to use to assess whether potential
project scope and tight timelines, the team was sites had available or planned infrastructure ser-
able to identify just one additional site (Site #11 vices (including roads, transit, utilities, schools
in Figure 4) for consideration, about which they and emergency services). The Greenbelt Project
had more detailed information as a result of a Team informed the Chief of Staff that they could
litigation matter—and no additional research not assess infrastructure availability or servicing
was undertaken to look for other candidate sites. within the three-week time frame without con-
As a result, even though approximately 630 site tacting municipalities. Ultimately, the Greenbelt
removal requests had been submitted to the Project Team proposed to the Housing Minister’s
Housing Ministry since the Greenbelt was estab- Chief of Staff, and he agreed, that rather than
lished in 2005 (see Figure 8), the Greenbelt assessing existing and planned infrastructure
Project Team’s review was limited to 22 specific availability and servicing capacity for each land
sites, 21 of which were identified and provided site, the Greenbelt Project Team would merely
directly by the Chief of Staff. Of the 15 sites confirm whether these land sites were adja-
ultimately approved for removal in December cent to an existing developed urban area. See
Figure 6.
10

• The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff made not ask for their lands to be removed from the
the decision to drop the only criterion that Greenbelt. No other sites (other than Site #11,
considered environmental and agricultural recommended by the Housing Ministry) had
factors after the Greenbelt Project Team boundary adjustments.
determined most of the proposed sites did • Internal government decision-making
not meet that criterion. One of the initial material prepared by the Ministry of Housing,
assessment criteria to select sites for removal reviewed by political staff and approved by
was that the lands could not be in a designated the Housing Minister and the Deputy Min-
specialty crop area or be part of the Greenbelt’s ister of the Housing Ministry did not clearly
Natural Heritage System, which captures areas describe how the land sites were identi-
with the most sensitive or significant natural fied, assessed and selected for removal. The
features and functions. After the Greenbelt material did not explain that the Chief of Staff
Project Team determined that all eight of the in the Housing Minister’s Office: identified and
initial sites did not meet that initial criterion, presented 21 of the 22 land sites for considera-
the criterion was later dropped by the Housing tion to the Greenbelt Project Team; provided
Minister’s Chief of Staff. The Greenbelt Project the initial criteria that were used to assess the
Team continued to identify the presence of land sites for removal; and made the decision to
specialty crop and Natural Heritage System drop criteria that certain proposed sites did not
designations on proposed sites for the awareness meet. The materials indicated there would be
of decision-makers. In total, 13 of the 15 land criticism of the basis on which lands were identi-
sites ultimately removed from the Greenbelt con- fied for removal. As a result, public service staff
tained land designated for specialty crops and/ within the Cabinet Office and political staff in
or Natural Heritage System lands. See Figure 4. the Premier’s Office, and potentially the ultim-
• Four of the 22 site selections considered by ate government decision-makers, may not all
the Greenbelt Project Team were altered so have been aware of these key limitations of the
that they could still be chosen for removal. Greenbelt Project. We spoke to staff at the Pre-
One initial criterion for removal was that the mier’s Office (including the current and former
selected land site be on the edge of the existing Chiefs of Staff) and Cabinet Office (including
Greenbelt Area. The Greenbelt Project Team the Secretary of the Cabinet), who had reviewed
determined that eight of the 22 sites assessed the decision-making material, and all of them
did not meet this criterion for removal, meaning expressed different understandings of the
that their removal would create isolated pockets process than the one that actually took place. For
of housing development within the Greenbelt. In example, they said they were unaware that only
response, the Greenbelt Project Team provided 22 Greenbelt sites were assessed for removal
suggestions on how the sites could be altered to (rather than all relevant sites in the Greenbelt
meet the criterion. The Housing Minister’s Chief that may have met the criteria) and that almost
of Staff subsequently directed the Greenbelt all of the sites assessed were proposed by the
Project Team to make the necessary changes to Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff (rather than
four (Sites #6, #7, #8 and #9 in Figure 4) of Housing Ministry staff with expertise in land-use
the eight sites so that these four sites could still planning).
meet this criterion. For example, the boundaries • The public and affected municipalities were
of two of these sites (Sites #6 and #8) were not sufficiently and effectively consulted on
expanded to reach the edge of the Greenbelt, the Greenbelt changes, nor was respectful
which ultimately affected landowners who did and deliberate consideration given to the
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 11

overwhelmingly negative feedback received. comments were addressed in relation to the

We found that public consultation required by decision to remove land sites from the Greenbelt
the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR Act) and ultimately no revisions were made to any of
was limited by government to the minimum of the proposed land removals.
30 days even though the Housing Ministry’s non- • Indigenous communities and leaders say the
political public service staff cautioned political Province failed to properly consult them on
staff and government decision-makers that this Greenbelt changes. According to First Nations
relatively short period would be criticized by leaders we spoke to, the extent and timing of the
municipalities and many stakeholders as being Housing Ministry’s consultation with Indigen-
insufficient to effectively consult the public. We ous communities was insufficient to meet the
found that: Province’s Duty to Consult with regards to
• the public consultation was undermined by treaty rights and other rights that apply to the
incomplete and inaccurate notices put on the areas removed from the Greenbelt in 2022. The
Environmental Registry of Ontario (Environ- Housing Ministry’s non-political public service
mental Registry) by the Housing Ministry, staff cautioned government decision-makers
limiting the people of Ontario’s ability to fully that this was a risk expressed by Indigenous
understand and fully comment on the pro- communities.
posed changes and their potential impacts. • The owners of the 15 land sites removed
• the Housing Ministry posted notices on the from the Greenbelt could ultimately see a
Environmental Registry related to the pro- collective $8.3 billion increase to the value
posed changes to the Greenbelt Plan, the of their properties. The Housing Ministry did
Greenbelt boundary and the Oak Ridges not estimate how much the value of the land
Moraine Conservation Plan on November 4, would increase to the benefit of a select few, if
2022, just 11 days after municipal elections, the Greenbelt restrictions on development were
limiting new councils’ ability to provide com- removed. A subsequent estimate we requested
ments before the consultation period ended. and obtained from the Municipal Property
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario Assessment Corporation (MPAC), which is
and several individual municipalities asked the responsible for calculating property values for all
Housing Ministry for additional time, but the municipalities in Ontario, indicates that remov-
consultation period was not extended. ing the 15 land sites from the Greenbelt will
• the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry increase their value by $8.28 billion, with the
subsequently did not effectively consult the value of one area alone—the Duffins Rouge Agri-
public on repealing the Duffins Rouge Agricul- cultural Preserve site in Pickering—increasing
tural Preserve Act, 2005, instead relying on an by $6.63 billion (see Figure 9). Those estimates
exception notice that did not give the public were assessed relative to MPAC’s most recent
complete information or an opportunity to full assessment on January 1, 2016, and did not
provide comments. account for additional increases in Ontario land
Nevertheless, the Housing Ministry still received values between 2016 and 2023.
more than 35,000 comments that were over- • The Housing Ministry did not estimate the
whelmingly negative, as detailed in Section 4.8. cost to add needed infrastructure to the
The Housing Ministry’s non-political public Greenbelt sites proposed for removal, or who
service staff did not have sufficient time to carry would pay for it. We found that the Housing
out a comprehensive analysis of the comments Ministry’s Greenbelt Project Team did not esti-
to fully inform decision-making. None of these mate the potential costs and time requirements
12

to service the 15 land sites removed from the woodlands from the Greenbelt. Without the
Greenbelt with the infrastructure required to protection provided by the Greenbelt Plan, these
support housing, nor was it even asked to make natural features are at increased risk of being
such a determination. It remains unclear who paved over, drained, cut down or polluted. The
(e.g., owners, developers, municipalities, the damage or degradation of green spaces can
provincial government, etc.) will ultimately increase flooding, impair water quality, contrib-
bear the full costs to service the land to support ute to climate change and reduce biodiversity.
housing development, including the impact on Environment and Climate Change Canada has
property taxes. Those costs are estimated to be reportedly identified that at least 29 species
in the billions of dollars and are currently being at risk live, or are likely to live, in the removed
negotiated with developers on a site-by-site basis sites. Although natural heritage features and
by the office of the government’s Provincial Land areas on these lands are still subject to the Prov-
and Development Facilitator. incial Policy Statement and ongoing negotiations
• The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural between the Office of the Provincial Land and
Affairs (Agriculture Ministry) expects the Development Facilitator and landowners/
Greenbelt area removals to have significant developers, it is unclear whether this will ensure
adverse agricultural land impacts. The Agri- protection of natural heritage features and
culture Ministry’s non-political public service areas. A total of 117 wetlands removed from
staff have estimated that 76% of the approxi- the Greenbelt were within the Duffins Rouge
mately 7,400 acres removed from the Greenbelt Agricultural Preserve lands, 110 of which have
was in active agricultural use in 2022. About never been evaluated and are therefore not pro-
83% of the area removed is classified as Class 1-3 tected through the Provincial Policy Statement.
prime agricultural lands, which is of the highest Despite potential risks, Housing Ministry public
quality and capability for agriculture. Staff deter- service staff confirmed there is no plan in place
mined that the boundary changes will result in to monitor the status and protection of natural
a net removal of more than 4,700 acres of land features on removed lands during future housing
designated and protected by municipalities as development.
prime agricultural area. They also concluded • There is no formal framework in place to
that removing three of the 15 sites (Sites #1, #4 monitor and publicly report whether pro-
and #9) from the Greenbelt, making up 91% of ponents (landowners and developers) fulfill
the total acres removed, is likely to lead to sig- the government’s publicly communicated
nificant adverse impacts on agriculture given the expectations of development on the land sites
sites’ large size, existing agricultural uses, and removed from the Greenbelt. On November 4,
connection to nearby farmland. The Agriculture 2022, the Ontario government publicly com-
Ministry staff conducted additional analysis municated its development expectations for
for our Office and estimated that the removed the 15 land sites removed from the Greenbelt,
Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve lands gen- including that proponents (landowners and
erated an estimated $14.7 million to Ontario’s developers) would pay for the infrastructure to
gross domestic product in 2021. service the land sites, that construction of new
• Important environmental features on homes would begin no later than 2025, and that,
land sites removed from the Greenbelt if developers did not show sufficient progress on
face increased risk of damage or degrada- building homes on these lands, the government
tion. The 2022 Greenbelt boundary changes would begin the process to return these lands
removed almost 1,000 acres of wetlands and to the Greenbelt. However, we found that, as at
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 13

June 2023, neither the Housing Ministry nor the assess the suitability of these lands to offset
government had further defined their expecta- removals, or the environmental or agricultural
tions in order for performance indicators to be value of protecting these lands. Although the
established and targets set so that progress and Greenbelt Project Team recommended adding
results can be objectively monitored, measured a larger portion of the Paris Galt Moraine to
and publicly reported. encompass important natural features and agri-
• It is still unknown if much of the land of the cultural land, the Housing Minister’s political
15 sites removed from the Greenbelt will be staff directed the Team to add a much smaller
ready for development by 2025 as has been area that was closer to the minimum 1:1 ratio
cited as a government expectation for these necessary to offset removals. The portion of
sites. The restrictions placed on the Greenbelt the Paris Galt Moraine that was added has its
Project Team by the Housing Minister’s Chief of western boundary cutting across the moraine,
Staff precluded the Greenbelt Project Team from without consideration for hydrological, eco-
confirming how quickly housing could be built logical or geological features. Further, the URV
on the sites, or at what cost. As well, the Green- additions do not result in meaningful protection.
belt Project Team did not have information to URVs are typically already protected by existing
confirm whether servicing was available or pos- policies, regulations and municipal designa-
sible in the near term for the sites removed. The tions, are largely undevelopable anyway due
Durham, Hamilton and York Chief Planners we to their steep terrain and flood risk, and do not
spoke to said it would be challenging to provide contribute agricultural land protection—a core
the selected sites with the municipal infrastruc- objective of the Greenbelt Plan. The Housing
ture and services needed to support housing Ministry noted that the agricultural sector,
development in the near future. For example, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture,
Durham’s Chief Planner estimated it will take as believes that it is unacceptable for URVs to be
many as 25 years to have full service for housing included in calculations to maintain the total
development on the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Greenbelt Area if agricultural lands are removed
Preserve, which accounts for 58% of the land for development.
acres removed from the Greenbelt in 2022. • There was no specific reason that the removal
• The addition of lands to the Greenbelt in of the 15 land sites, done through changes
2022 was not based on natural boundaries to regulations, had to be included and com-
and protecting environmental functions, municated as part of the government’s
and the Housing Ministry did not evaluate legislative changes in late 2022. The Housing
the suitability of adding lands as an offset to Minister’s Chief of Staff imposed a three-week
removals. In 2022, the Province added approxi- time frame on the Greenbelt Project Team to
mately 7,000 acres of the Paris Galt Moraine (a complete the project so that the announce-
unique landform that provides drinking water, ment of Greenbelt land removals and additions
wildlife habitat and agricultural land) and could coincide with the government’s fall
2,400 acres of Urban River Valleys (URVs) to housing legislation. The removal of the 15 land
the Greenbelt to offset removals. Additions to sites occurred through changes to regulations
the Greenbelt were necessary to offset remov- (O. Reg. 567/22 amended O. Reg. 59/05 under
als because the Greenbelt Act, 2005 prohibits the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and O. Reg. 568/22
an overall reduction in the Greenbelt Area. amended O. Reg. 140/02 under the Oak Ridges
However, the Greenbelt Project Team did not Moraine Conservation Act, 2001) and need
14

not have been part of any combined legisla- Cabinet (including the Premier) to inform the decision
tive changes in late 2022. Because Greenbelt to change the Greenbelt’s boundary, neither identified
boundary amendments are made by regulation, codified processes nor clearly and correctly explained
changes can be made—with sufficient public how the proposed land sites had been identified,
consultation under the Environmental Bill of assessed and selected for removal.
Rights, 1993—independent of the Legislative The Housing Minister told us that although he
Assembly’s schedule of legislative business. became aware in June 2022 that there would eventu-
ally be a new codified process to amend the Greenbelt,

Overall Conclusion he was not aware of how the specific land sites covered
by O. Reg. 59/05 were identified for assessment and
Our audit concluded that the lands removed from the removal from the Greenbelt. Based on our interviews,
Greenbelt in December 2022 were not chosen using an other political public service staff in the Minister’s
objective and transparent selection process. Although Office, the Premier’s Office and non-political public
the government communicated that it was removing service staff in Cabinet Office indicated that they were
land from the Greenbelt to support its goal of building similarly not aware of how specific properties were
1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years, there identified. Given the high level of public interest that
is no evidence this land is needed to reach that goal. any change to the Greenbelt’s boundary was expected
We found that in June 2022, the Minister of Muni- to carry, the Housing Minister ought to have known
cipal Affairs and Housing was assigned, through a the process used that would lead to the removal of
mandate letter, to “codify processes” to amend the land from the Greenbelt, and ensure that Cabinet and
Greenbelt. However, it was the Housing Minister’s the Premier were also made aware of these details.
Chief of Staff who identified specific land sites and The Housing Minister indicated he first became aware
provided them to the Greenbelt Project Team to assess of the specific land sites proposed for removal on
for their expedient removal from the Greenbelt. At October 26 and the Premier indicated he first became
least 92% of the acreage removed from the Greenbelt aware of the specific land sites proposed for removal
was from five land sites passed on from two develop- on November 1, prior to a Cabinet meeting held on
ers (which included a land site associated with a third November 2.
developer) who had direct access to the Housing Min- Our audit also concluded that the government did
ister’s Chief of Staff. Housing Ministry staff believed not assess financial impacts such as serviceability costs,
that three land sites were a priority for removal from taxation impacts and land value impacts of Greenbelt
the Greenbelt: Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve boundary changes. Environmental and agricultural
lands in Durham Region (Site #1), Book Road in Ham- risks were not effectively considered prior to proposing
ilton (Site #4) and Bathurst-King in York Region (Site 15 land sites for removal.
#9). For details, see Figure 4 and Section 4.2. Because the project to remove land from the Green-
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff also provided belt was designed to be swift and confidential, the
the Greenbelt Project Team with the initial criteria Housing Ministry was restricted from leveraging the
used to assess the sites for removal. The criteria were expertise of partner ministries, municipalities, Indigen-
amended as the process went on and facilitated the ous communities and conservation authorities on
removal of sites that had land designated as Natural agricultural and environmental risks while assessing
Heritage System or Specialty Crops, and sites that were sites for removal from the Greenbelt. The Agriculture
not easily serviceable. Ministry expects the Greenbelt area removals to have
The proposal prepared by the Housing Ministry significant adverse agricultural land impacts. Staff in
(signed and approved by the Deputy Minister of the Agriculture Ministry determined that the bound-
Housing and the Housing Minister), and provided to ary changes will result in a net removal of more than
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 15

4,700 acres of land designated and protected by

municipalities as prime agricultural area. Important
RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
environmental features on land sites removed from the
(Chief of Staff, Office of the Premier)
Greenbelt face risk of damage and degradation now On behalf of the Premier’s Office, I appreciate the
that they are no longer protected under the Greenbelt opportunity to provide a general response to your
Plan. Changes to the Greenbelt’s boundary removed recommendations regarding the Government of
almost 1,000 acres of wetlands and woodlands from Ontario’s political public service in implementing
the Greenbelt; these natural features risk being paved our more than ten week initiative to grow the
over, drained, cut down or polluted. As well, Environ- Greenbelt by more than 2,400 acres and help
ment and Climate Change Canada has reportedly address Ontario’s mounting housing crisis by
identified that at least 29 species at risk live, or are unlocking lands to build more than 50,000 attain-
likely to live, in the removed sites. able and affordable homes for Ontarians who need
During this audit, we also noted that political them.
public service employees place significant reliance As you will know, Ontario’s population is
on information provided by third parties with vested growing at a dramatic and unprecedented rate,
interests who have access to these employees. In the with our population growing faster than any
situation we reviewed, this practice contributed to a province or state in Canada or the United States.
non-transparent exercise and preferential decision- Last year alone, we welcomed more than 500,000
making without the benefit of sound information and people to Ontario. That’s more newcomers than
recommendations that could have been received from Texas and Florida, the fastest growing states in
the Housing Ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resour- America, which are roughly double the size of
ces and Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Ontario’s total population. With this unparalleled
Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of the Environment, level of growth, the need and demand for all forms
Conservation and Parks. of housing options has never been more extreme,
Although the government publicly communi- compounding Ontario’s already serious housing
cated its expectations for land sites removed from the supply and affordability crisis.
Greenbelt in December 2022—including that the site Ontario’s housing supply and affordability crisis
proponents would pay, upfront and in full, for the most acutely impacts newcomers and young people,
infrastructure to service the lands, and that construc- who are unnecessarily priced out of the dream of
tion of new homes would begin on these lands no later home ownership. It also negatively impacts every
than 2025—we found that the Housing Ministry and Ontario resident, including those who are fortunate
the government have not further defined these expect- enough to already own a home, as it drives up the
ations so that they can be measured, nor have they cost of goods and services, threatens existing jobs
established performance indicators to do so. and businesses, discourages new job creation and
Throughout this report we refer to 91%, 92% and investment, and erodes our sense of community and
93% as percentages of acreage removal. Each percent- social welfare. As others have pointed out, failing to
age is accurate in each context. Ninety-one percent address the housing supply and affordability crisis
refers to Sites #1, #4 and #9; 92% relates to Sites #1, threatens Canadians’ so-far unwavering support
#4, #9, #12 and #13; 93% refers to seven land sites, for immigration, particularly at a time when our
Sites #1, #3, #4, #9, #12, #14 and #15. These land economic success depends on welcoming skilled
sites are identified in Figure 4. newcomers to fill critical labour gaps.
Fifteen recommendations are provided in That’s why our government has taken action as a
Appendix 8. leader in Canada and the first Ontario government
16

in decades to establish a real plan to address this approvals and implementation achieved by the end
crisis with the creation of Ontario’s Housing Supply of 2023 be met. If these conditions are not met, the
Action Plan. Working together with municipal part- government will return these lands to the Greenbelt
ners and the federal government, we are ensuring without hesitation.
that Ontario can continue to be a thriving and wel- Our government continues to believe that build-
coming province of opportunity where all people ing more homes is one of the most pressing and
and families can afford to have a roof over their urgent challenges facing our province and we will
heads and a place to call their own, a place to call not relent in our commitment to build a minimum
home. of 1.5 million homes in 10 years, including by deliv-
Last year, our government commenced an ering attainable and affordable homes on the lands
initiative to support the accelerated construction unlocked from the Greenbelt.
of thousands of new housing options while also Under the leadership of Premier Ford, our
growing the Greenbelt. This initiative swapped long government believes in and pursues continuous
identified and municipally requested non-sensitive improvement in everything we do to better serve
areas of Greenbelt land with other newly desig- the people of Ontario. We acknowledge that this
nated Greenbelt areas, supporting the construction initiative has moved quickly as speed is necessary
of at least 50,000 new homes in growing com- when responding to a crisis. That said, and while
munities while expanding the total Greenbelt area the initiative is trending well toward achieving its
by more than 2,400 acres. Critically, this initiative overall objective of rapidly building thousands of
impacted non-publicly owned lands and established new attainable and affordable homes, we recognize
conditions to ensure that billions of dollars worth there are areas for improvement.
of community benefits such as new roads, parks, We have thoughtfully considered where the
transit, water, and health-care infrastructure, as report recommendations can assist with strength-
well as significant non-profit housing contributions, ening processes as we move forward and continue
among other anticipated public benefits, are fully our work to respond to Ontario’s housing crisis. In
funded by the landowners and builders–not Ontario this respect we accept in-principle fourteen of the
or municipal taxpayers. fifteen recommendations.
As our government indicated at the outset of We agree that there is always an opportunity
this initiative: the Office of Ontario’s Provincial to improve the way that the political public service
Land and Development Facilitator (PLDF), which works together to establish, implement, and deliver
is staffed by non-political public servants, will be for the people of Ontario through enhanced gov-
assessing site agreements against the government’s ernment policies and programs. I will confer with
requirement that all necessary local infrastructure the Secretary of Cabinet and Minister’s Office staff
upgrades are funded entirely by the proponents. regarding recommendations in your report per-
Without this requirement being met, the Minister taining to administrative and operational elements,
of Municipal Affairs and Housing will not approve including how political and non-political public
development moving forward. servants work together, to consider appropriate and
At the same time, in recognition of the need to practical ways of improvement for the benefit of all
quickly build homes to house Ontario’s growing Ontarians.
population, the PLDF will also require site agree- We accept your recommendations regarding
ments to specify that the government’s conditions the need to enhance awareness and adherence to
that new home construction begins on these lands proper records retention and stakeholder engage-
by no later than 2025, with significant progress on ment policies by political public servants. We have
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 17

confirmed the enhancement of mandatory new The Ontario Public Service, including myself
staff onboarding and recurring all-staff information and the Deputy Minister Team, will be working
and training sessions delivered in partnership with to support the government on implementation
the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. of all the recommendations the government has
We also accept your recommendation to implement accepted.
an attestation process to confirm the exclusive use On behalf of the Deputy Ministers, the non-par-
of government email platforms. Furthermore, we tisan public servants who worked on the Greenbelt
accept your recommendation regarding the Office Cabinet Submission and myself, we have appreci-
of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario and a ated having the opportunity to provide factual
request for his determination regarding this matter information and perspectives on the work that was
has been sent. undertaken over a 10-week period to support one of
To your recommendation regarding roles and the government’s mandated priorities.
responsibilities of political public servants (such as In the course of our work together over the past
Chiefs of Staff to Ministers) and non-political public years, I have shared with you how enormously
servants (such as Deputy Ministers), I will work proud I am of Ontario Public Service staff and the
with the Secretary of Cabinet and Cabinet Office work they do to serve 15 million Ontarians. Each
to review our existing role and responsibility docu- day, and in every meeting and interaction I have
ments describing the relationship between political with staff across the public service, I observe public
and non-political public servants in policy and oper- servants operating with a high degree of profession-
ational matters. alism, competence and integrity in their respective
Additionally, we accept your recommendation specialty fields, and a true desire to support and
regarding a comprehensive overall review of the protect our democratic principles including those of
Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 (LRA), Members’ equity and fairness.
Integrity Act, 1994, (MIA) and Public Service of At the same time, the Ontario Public Service
Ontario Act, 2006 (PSOA). Both the LRA and PSOA strives each day to improve, and there are
have statutory requirements setting out reviews of important insights in your report on how we can
the respective acts, and while the MIA does not, effectively support and serve governments, regard-
we will initiate a review of all three acts in advance less of party, to deliver programs and services to the
of the prescribed legislative timelines in a com- people of Ontario who we are so honoured to serve.
prehensive manner at an independent legislative There are recommendations in your report
committee to ensure and strengthen regulatory that relate to the administration and operations of
oversight. the public service, including documentation, the
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a role of Deputy Ministers, the use of confidentiality
general response. As our government continues to agreements, and the process to support Cabinet
fulfill our promise to the people of Ontario to build decision-making and sign-off.
1.5 million homes over 10 years, know that we take I will be using your report and its recommen-
seriously our obligation to do so in a way that con- dations to the public service, in consultation with
tinues to build public trust and confidence. Deputy Ministers, with a view to augmenting the
substantive and vital work the Ontario Public
RESPONSE FROM THE SECRETARY Service currently performs in supporting govern-
OF THE CABINET ment decision-making and delivering effectively on
priorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your
There are also recommendations that pertain to
report and the recommendations it contains that
the respective roles and responsibilities of Deputy
pertain to the Ontario Public Service (OPS).
18

Ministers and Chiefs of Staff to Ministers. Accord-

2.0  Background
ingly, I will be working with the Premier’s Chief
of Staff to review the information we provide to
Greenbelts have been a planning approach to manage
incoming Ministers, their staff and the Premier’s
urban development and to protect farmland and
Office that outlines the roles and responsibilities
natural areas around the world for decades. A “green-
of Ministers and ministries, and the reporting rela-
belt” is a swath of undeveloped “green” land that
tionship of Deputy Ministers who report to, and are
encircles, or “belts”, a city, town or region. Greenbelts
accountable to, the Secretary of the Cabinet.
generally comprise a combination of public and private
I will also continue my ongoing work with the
lands on which there are development restrictions. The
Chief of Staff to the Premier to clarify the role
primary objectives of greenbelt policies are to protect
Chiefs of Staff play for Ministers in carrying out
agricultural land, conserve nature, contain urban
each Minister’s directions, and how Chiefs of Staff
growth and provide recreational spaces for people.
work with the Deputy Ministers and the public
Used as an approach to urban planning since the
service on both policy and operational matters.
late 19th century, there are now greenbelts in cities
These efforts will also include promoting aware-
all over the world, such as in Ottawa, San Francisco,
ness of, and reinforcing the use of, processes that
London, Copenhagen, Melbourne and Sao Paolo.
are already in place for Deputy Ministers and other
Greenbelts have been used to protect natural land and
senior leaders in the public service to raise issues
agricultural land from urban sprawl, and to provide
and concerns they may have about a process or
city-dwellers with recreational spaces. The Greenbelt
risk. As I have shared with you, in my role as the
around Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe is the
Secretary of the Cabinet I am able to raise issues,
world’s largest greenbelt.
including those escalated to me, directly with the
Premier, his Office and Ministers, and I have found
the Premier, his staff and Ministers to be receptive 2.1 History of the Greenbelt
to, and to consider carefully, any issues or concerns
Established in 2005, the Greenbelt Area is approxi-
I have raised.
mately 2 million acres and includes lands in the
Our existing ability to engage in open dialogue
Niagara Escarpment Plan (1985), the Oak Ridges
with elected officials and their staff reflects our
Moraine Conservation Plan (2001) and the Greenbelt
mutual responsibility to adhere to key principles
Plan (2005), that surrounds a significant portion of the
expressed in the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006,
Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) region, the densely
which is to ensure that the public service of Ontario
populated and industrialized area centred around
is effective in serving the public, the government
the City of Toronto. Wrapping around the GGH, the
and the Legislature, and is non-partisan, profes-
Greenbelt encompasses urban development along Lake
sional, ethical and competent.
Ontario on both its northern and southern shores (see
Your remaining set of recommendations relate
Figure 1).
to the government and their operations and deci-
The Greenbelt was created to help control urbaniza-
sions. I commit to working with and supporting
tion and sprawl (often characterized by low-density
the Premier and the Chief of Staff to the Premier as
residential housing, such as zoning that limits develop-
they consider your report and will work with them
ment to single detached homes on each residential lot)
collaboratively to implement all of the recommen-
in the GGH region, and to reduce the corresponding
dations they have accepted.
loss of farmland and natural features. Forests, wet-
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond
lands, streams and other natural features clean the air,
to your report.
provide drinking water, provide habitat for plants and
Figure 1: The Greenbelt as of December 19, 2022, after the Most Recent Removals
Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt
19
20

animals, and give people opportunities for recreational contributed to the development of the Agricultural
activities. The GGH region also has some of Canada’s System of the Greenbelt, a land designation within the
most important and productive farmland. The Green- Greenbelt Plan with policies to protect a continuous
belt Plan derives its authority from the Greenbelt Act, land base for agriculture (see Section 2.1.2 for more
2005 and is administered by the Ministry of Municipal information on the Greenbelt’s designations).
Affairs and Housing (Housing Ministry). See Appen- Making use of an established approach to natural
dix 1 for a timeline of events. heritage management that was used for the ORMCP (as
well as in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United
States), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
2.1.1 Formation of the Greenbelt’s Boundary
(Natural Resources Ministry) developed the Green-
In June 2004, the Ontario Legislature passed the belt’s Natural Heritage System, which captures areas
Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 to establish a study with the most sensitive or significant natural features
area for determining the boundary and layers for a and functions. Areas with the highest concentrations
greenbelt and to pre-emptively suspend development of natural features were clustered together into 16
outside urban settlement areas in key parts of this area core areas, which were then used to develop linkages
for the duration of the review. One of the key object- to allow for the spread of plants and the movement of
ives for the Greenbelt was to include lands that were animals between the core areas and to natural areas
already permanently protected through the Niagara outside of the Greenbelt.
Escarpment Plan (NEP) (see Section 2.1.3) and Oak The Housing Ministry also collaborated with
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) (see partner ministries and stakeholders to assess several
Section 2.1.4). These two provincial plans provide dir- other factors needed to develop the overall boundary
ection for the use and management of land and water and Greenbelt systems, including: water quality, areas
aimed at protecting the ecological and hydrological important for groundwater and surface water flow, spe-
features within these areas. cies-at-risk habitats, Niagara Tender Fruit and Grape
The process to write the Greenbelt Protection Act, Lands, and future urban land needs for housing and
2004 began in February 2004, when the Minister of economic growth.
Municipal Affairs and Housing established a task force,
consisting of 13 external stakeholders and subject
2.1.2 The Greenbelt Plan (2017)
matter experts, to gather information and develop
recommendations for creating the Greenbelt. The task On February 28, 2005, the Ontario Legislature passed
force subsequently provided the Housing Ministry with the Greenbelt Act, 2005 (Greenbelt Act) with the intent
a report that included recommendations on how to to permanently protect approximately 2 million acres
identify lands for protection. Building on the recom- of productive farmland and natural features from
mendations of the task force, the Ministry collaborated uncontrolled urban development. This area repre-
with partner ministries, municipalities and other stake- sented the world’s largest Greenbelt and included the
holders to develop a draft plan and boundary for the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges Moraine and large
Greenbelt. areas of rural land. The Greenbelt Act provided govern-
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ment with the authority to define the Greenbelt Area
(Agriculture Ministry) developed a methodology for (see Figure 1 for a map of this area as of December 19,
identifying and designating prime agricultural areas, 2022) and to create the Greenbelt Plan. The Plan was
where rural areas are scored based on several factors, updated in 2017 as part of a required 10-year review.
including soil capability, connectedness with sur- Since its approval in 2005, the Greenbelt Plan’s
rounding agricultural areas, and area in agricultural vision has stated that the Greenbelt is a broad band of
production. The resulting maps from this process permanently protected land established to:
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 21

• protect against the loss and fragmentation of the Protected Countryside to the Great Lakes. Generally,
agricultural land base and support agriculture as the public lands in URVs are already subject to existing
the predominant land use; provincial and municipal restrictions on development.
• give permanent protection to the natural herit- For Greenbelt lands located within the NEP or the
age and water resource systems that sustain ORMCP, the more protective policies in those specific
ecological and human health, and that form the plans take precedence.
environmental framework around which major Under the Greenbelt Act, the Housing Ministry
urbanization in south-central Ontario will be is to initiate a review of the Greenbelt Plan every 10
organized; years, at the same time as the scheduled review of
• provide for a diverse range of economic and the NEP (see Section 2.1.3) and the ORMCP (see
social activities associated with rural com- Section 2.1.4). During this review, the Minister is to
munities, agriculture, tourism, recreation and consult with any affected public bodies (including
resource uses; and the Natural Resources Ministry, the Niagara Escarp-
• build resilience to and mitigate climate change. ment Commission and the Greenbelt Council) and the
In 2007, the Housing Ministry won a prestigious council of each municipality included in the Greenbelt
national planning award from the Canadian Institute Area, ensuring the public is given an opportunity to
of Planners for its Greenbelt Plan and recognition of participate in the review. The last co-ordinated review
excellence in natural systems planning.  of Ontario land-use plans was initiated in 2015 and
The Greenbelt Plan (2017) outlines specific land-use completed in 2017. The next review is scheduled to
planning policies for areas located within its “Protected begin in 2025.
Countryside,” which is the technical designation of the The Greenbelt Council is a government advisory
majority of land area within the Greenbelt with specific agency that was established under the Greenbelt Act.
policies restricting urban development. Similar to the The act requires the Housing Minister to appoint a
NEP and the ORMCP, the Greenbelt Plan divides lands Greenbelt Council. The mandate of the council is to
within the Protected Countryside into the following provide advice to the Housing Minister about land-use
three key policy areas: planning matters related to the Greenbelt Area.
• Agricultural System: agricultural land; spe-
cialty crop areas; rural land; and agricultural
2.1.3 The Niagara Escarpment Plan
infrastructure, services and assets.
• Natural System: natural heritage system, the The Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) was established
water resources system and key hydrological in 1985 under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and
areas, key natural heritage features (such as Development Act to serve as the environmental land-use
wetlands, significant woodlands and signifi- plan for the Niagara Escarpment, a prominent ridge
cant valleys); key hydrologic features (such as that extends 725 kilometres through southern Ontario
streams, lakes and wetlands) and groundwater from the Bruce Peninsula to the New York State border,
sources; and areas that serve as ecological link- with unique environmental and landscape features.
ages between these features. The purpose of the act and the NEP is to protect and
• Settlement Areas: cities, towns, villages and maintain the Niagara Escarpment and its vicinity “as a
hamlets that have areas of concentrated develop- continuous natural environment,” and to ensure that
ment and lands that have been designated for only compatible development occurs.
development. The NEP establishes a framework to sustainably
The Greenbelt Plan (2017) also includes specific manage compatible development, protection and
policies for Urban River Valleys (URVs), which are public enjoyment of the Niagara Escarpment. The NEP
only applied to publicly owned lands within the main applies to 21 of the 110 municipalities in the GGH.
corridors of river valleys that connect the Greenbelt’s None of the Greenbelt amendments made in 2022 alter
22

the NEP or its plan area. See our 2022 report on Con- In the 1970s, these DRAP lands were expropriated
serving the Niagara Escarpment for information and from landowners by the Ontario government as part
findings about this act and plan. of a larger area to support a nearby proposed federal
airport. The airport was never built, and in 1999 the
provincial government, the Regional Municipality
2.1.4 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
of Durham and the Town of Pickering entered into a
The Oak Ridges Moraine (Moraine) is an environment- Memorandum of Understanding to enable the same
ally sensitive, irregular ridge in south-central Ontario DRAP lands to be sold to the original landowners
that stretches 160 kilometres from the Trent River and tenant farmers at agricultural prices (which are
to the Niagara Escarpment, covering approximately substantially lower than developable land prices). As
470,000 acres. Formed 12,000 years ago by glaciers, a condition of sale, each purchaser agreed to grant a
the Moraine comprises rolling hills, river valleys conservation or agricultural easement—a legal agree-
and wetlands. Located north of and parallel to Lake ment intended to protect the lands in perpetuity by
Ontario, the Moraine divides the watersheds draining attaching restrictions to a given property that limit the
south into western Lake Ontario from those draining landowner to agricultural and conservation uses. For
north into Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and the Trent further protection of the lands’ use, in 2003 the then
River system. Housing Minister issued a Minister’s Zoning Order
Established under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conserva- restricting use of lands in the DRAP to agriculture.
tion Act, 2001, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation In February 2005, the Ontario government finalized
Plan (ORMCP) was created to provide land-use and the Greenbelt Plan and designated the DRAP lands as
resource-management planning direction to provin- part of its Protected Countryside. The Greenbelt Plan
cial ministers, ministries, agencies, municipalities, states that the Rouge River watershed (which con-
landowners and other stakeholders on how to protect, tains both Rouge National Urban Park and part of the
maintain, improve and restore the Moraine’s ecological DRAP) is of particular significance within the Protected
and hydrological features and functions. According Countryside, and that these lands “serve as a vital eco-
to the ORMCP, the Moraine’s unique concentration of logical corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges
environmental, geological and hydrological features Moraine.”
make its ecosystem vital to south-central Ontario. The According to the Ministry of Natural Resources
Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment and the Greenbelt and Forestry, in March 2005, without consulting the
Plan’s Natural Heritage System together form the foun- Ontario government, the Town of Pickering released
dation of south-central Ontario’s natural heritage and the easements it held on two-thirds of the properties
green space systems. The ORMCP applies to 32 of the that had been purchased in the DRAP. In response, the
110 municipalities in the GGH. A portion of one of the Ontario government enacted the Duffins Rouge Agricul-
sites removed from the Greenbelt in 2022 (Site #9) tural Preserve Act, 2005 (DRAP Act), which provided
was re-designated as a “settlement area” under the legal effect to the easements despite any action taken
ORMCP. to release them, and approved the Central Pickering
Development Plan in 2006, which further protected the
DRAP lands from development.
2.1.5 Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve
(DRAP)
2.1.6 Greenbelt Boundary Changes Between
The Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP)
2005 and 2021
includes about 4,700 acres of prime agricultural lands
and natural features located in northwest Pickering. It Between 2005 (when the Greenbelt was established)
is located immediately adjacent to the Rouge National and 2021, the Greenbelt’s boundary was amended
Urban Park, Canada’s only national urban park. twice. The first instance occurred in January 2013,
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 23

when approximately 630 acres of provincially owned especially important for the GGH, which contains 3%
Urban River Valleys in the Glenorchy Conservation of Ontario’s total land area but 69% of its population.
Area in Oakville were added to the Greenbelt Plan (see The GGH has one of the highest rates of biodivers-
Figure 2). ity among Canadian regions and includes the Niagara
The second instance was in July 2017, when, fol- Escarpment (a UNESCO World Biosphere), as well as
lowing the Ministry’s review of the Greenbelt Plan some of the most productive farmland in the nation.
(required every 10 years under the Greenbelt Act), the At the same time, the region is the engine of Ontario’s
Ontario government added 24,958 acres of land to the economy; between 2013 and 2017, the GGH gener-
Greenbelt and removed 17 areas of land totalling 371 ated one-quarter of the entire country’s gross domestic
acres, resulting in a net increase of about 24,587 acres product.
(see Figure 2). Having in place robust land-use planning processes
In both instances, the Ministry received input from is important because decisions about development
partner ministries and engaged with municipalities, have far-reaching impacts on the economy, human
Indigenous communities, landowners and developers, health and the natural environment. In Ontario,
and key stakeholders. In the case of the 10-year review normal land-use planning processes involve policy
of the Greenbelt, which included removal of lands from direction at the provincial level and co-ordination
the Greenbelt, the Ministry conducted a series of public between multiple ministries and municipal decision-
consultation opportunities at various stages during a makers. The Planning Act requires municipalities to
27-month review period, one of which was held for craft Official Plans which set out a long-term vision (up
approximately six months. The Ministry received about to 25 years) for how the municipality wants to evolve
490 requests to remove land from the Greenbelt at that and how it intends for the land to be used.
time, and assessed each of them using an approach
and guidelines that only considered removing areas Figure 2: Additions and Removals of Greenbelt Lands, by
where development plans had already been approved Type and Acreage (1,000)
prior to the creation of the Greenbelt and making Source of data: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

minor boundary refinements. These refinements con-

sidered updated natural heritage mapping information, Urban River Valleys added
opportunities to restore natural features that may have Protected Countryside added
become degraded, and how refining the Greenbelt’s Protected Countryside removed
30
boundary may affect the overall integrity of the Green-
belt’s Natural Heritage System. 25

20
2.2 Ontario’s Housing Strategy and
the Greenbelt 15
Acres

10
2.2.1 Land-Use Planning in the Greater Golden
Horseshoe 5

Land-use planning is the strategic planning process 0

that guides decisions about where and what type of
-5
development can occur—and where different types
of development should not occur. As explained in -10 2013 2017 2022
our 2021 audit report, Land-Use Planning in the Greater Year
Golden Horseshoe (GGH), this planning process is
24

The Official Plans take an average of 17–51 months greater density on existing parcels of land allocated
to develop and review. This is a multi-step process that for development. The Task Force noted that a shortage
involves budgeting, demographic studies, a calcula- of land was not the cause of the housing affordability
tion of land budget (amount of land needed in relation problem and that there was sufficient land available
to growth projections), review and feedback from the for development outside of protected areas (citing the
Housing Ministry and other ministries, time for dis- Greenbelt as an example). The Task Force also com-
cussion, approval and adoption by town and regional mented that the Greenbelt and other environmentally
councils as well as input from the locally affected sensitive areas must be protected in order to ensure
public. The Ontario public is to be consulted via the that farms continue to provide food and food secur-
Environmental Registry of Ontario before the Minister ity. The report states: “Land is available, both inside
approves an Official Plan. the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land
Typically, municipalities are responsible for outside of greenbelts.”
reviewing and approving or rejecting development The provincial government adopted the Task Force
applications from landowners and developers. As report as its primary housing strategy in March 2022,
shown by Appendix 2, a proposed development and the Ministry began tracking progress against the
follows an 11-step application process during which Task Force report’s 55 recommendations.
advice and input from municipal staff, external agen- The Province has committed to getting 1.5 million
cies, councillors and the public is sought. The Planning new homes built over the next 10 years and passed
and Development Committee of a municipality issues Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 on
a report that contains a recommendation for approval/ November 28, 2022, which made significant changes
refusal by City Council. The decision can be appealed. across various pieces of provincial legislation including
In addition, the Housing Minister can issue a Min- to the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act,
ister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to override the normal the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal
land-use planning process, including municipal deci- Act, 2021 to support the implementation of its housing
sions. MZOs are not required to be consistent with strategy (see Appendix 3).
the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to provin-
cial plans, or follow the usual municipal planning
2.3 Changes to the Greenbelt
processes.
Boundary in 2022
2.3.1 Initial Proposal to Cabinet to Amend the
2.2.2 Housing Affordability Task Force
Greenbelt’s Boundary
Recommends Improving Land-Use Efficiency
On November 2, 2022, material prepared by the
In December 2021, the Ontario government formed
Housing Ministry in response to the instruction pro-
the Housing Affordability Task Force (Task Force),
vided by the Housing Ministry’s Chief of Staff, and
with a mandate to provide the Housing Minister with
signed by the Housing Minister and the Deputy Minis-
solutions to Ontario’s current housing crisis. The Task
ter of the Housing Ministry, was presented to Cabinet.
Force concluded in its final report (published in Feb-
It was used to obtain approval to initiate public con-
ruary 2022) that Ontario needs to build 1.5 million
sultation on the government’s plan to amend the
new homes over the next 10 years to fill the projected
Greenbelt’s boundary by:
housing gap with more affordable choices to catch up
• removing or re-designating 15 land sites from
to the rest of Canada and to keep up with population
the Greenbelt (totalling approximately 7,400
growth.
acres). The 15 sites are comprised of 22 distinct
The Task Force’s recommendations primarily
sections of land, including two sections of land
focused on improving land-use efficiency by requiring
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 25

that were re-designated to Settlement Area develop detailed plans to build housing and
(these are collectively referred to as “removals” move forward with the project quickly. It is the
throughout this report); government’s expectation that construction
• amending the Oak Ridges Moraine Conserva- of these new homes will begin on these lands
tion Plan (O. Reg. 140/02 under the Oak Ridges by no later than 2025, and that significant
Moraine Conservation Act, 2001) to re-designate progress on approvals and implementation be
lands on one of the sites; achieved by the end of 2023.
• adding a portion of land in the Paris Galt • It is the government’s expectation that the pro-
Moraine (in Wellington County) to the Greenbelt ponents (i.e., those who submitted a proposal
Plan, totalling approximately 7,000 acres; and to remove land from the Greenbelt and utilize
• making 13 additions/expansions to the Urban it for housing) would fully fund necessary
River Valley Areas in the Greenbelt, totalling infrastructure upfront.
approximately 2,400 acres. • If these conditions are not met, the govern-
The material noted that the rationale for remov- ment will begin the process to return the
ing land from the Greenbelt was to support the properties back to the Greenbelt.
government’s More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. The The Housing Ministry conducted a 30-day consul-
Minister’s Office estimated that approximately 50,000 tation period on the Environmental Registry, which
new housing units would be constructed on the areas is the minimum required (for further details, see
proposed to be removed from the Greenbelt. Section 4.8). The Housing Ministry also engaged with
a small number of the affected Indigenous commun-
ities in November 2022 (see Section 4.9).
2.3.2 Environmental Registry Notice and
Consultation Period
2.3.3 Final Decision to Amend the Greenbelt
Under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR Act),
Boundary
the Housing Ministry is required to give notice on the
Environmental Registry of Ontario (Environmental Following the 30-day public consultation period, the
Registry) of changes to acts, regulations, policies or Housing Ministry sought final approval from Cabinet
instruments that are environmentally significant, and to amend the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine
to hold a minimum of 30 days of public consultation Conservation Plan and Greenbelt boundary regula-
on the changes. On November 4, 2022, the Housing tion. According to the Housing Ministry, it received
Ministry posted notices on the Environmental Regis- over 35,000 comments during the consultation period
try stating: from members of the public, municipalities, Indigen-
• Ontario is expected to grow by more than ous communities and other stakeholders (including the
2 million people by 2031, including approxi- environmental, development and agricultural sectors).
mately 1.5 million people in the GGH region. On December 14, 2022, 10 days after the conclu-
• To accommodate that growth and support the sion of the public consultation period, the Housing
building of more homes, the government is Ministry filed O. Reg. 567/22 under the Greenbelt
proposing to remove or re-designate 15 areas of Act, 2005, and O. Reg. 568/22 under the Oak Ridges
land totalling approximately 7,400 acres from Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, which implemented
the edge of the Greenbelt Area that are serviced, the proposed Greenbelt Area boundary amendments
or adjacent to services, and will be used to build for 15 land sites, and Cabinet approved Order in
housing in the near term​. Council 1745/2022 to amend the Greenbelt Plan. The
• Should these lands be removed from the government made no changes as a result of the public
Greenbelt, the landowners will be expected to consultation process.
26

2.3.4 Land Removals and Re-designations Of the 15 land sites removed from the Greenbelt’s
development protection, at nearly 4,300 acres the
In December 2022, as noted previously, 15 land sites
largest site is the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve
were removed entirely from the Greenbelt Plan or
(DRAP), accounting for approximately 58% of the
re-designated as Settlement Area within the Green-
more than 7,400 total acres removed. The Province
belt, thereby lifting certain provincial restrictions on
made three additional decisions relating to the DRAP
development. In this report, we use the term “land
which, together, removed the primary legal protections
site” and “site” interchangeably to refer to a plot con-
from development within the DRAP overall:
taining one or more sections of land that was assessed
• On December 14, 2022, the Housing Minister
for potential removal. To specify the sites chosen in fall
filed O. Reg. 566/22 under the Planning Act,
of 2022 for removal and re-designation, we number
which revoked a 2003 Minister’s Zoning Order
them Site #1, Site #2 and so forth. Figure 3 pro-
(MZO) that had restricted land use on lands in
vides a map pinpointing the 2022 Greenbelt land site
the DRAP to agriculture.
removals, while more detailed maps are included in
• Also, on December 14, 2022, on the recommen-
Appendix 4. Figure 4 provides a summary of land sites
dation of the Housing Minister, the provincial
removed from or re-designated within the Greenbelt.
government revoked the Central Pickering

Figure 3: Locations of the 2022 Greenbelt Land Removals

Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 27

Development Plan, a provincial land use plan 7,000-acre parcel of the Moraine to the Greenbelt,
that had established policies for development in asserting that the land was already protected under
a designated area in Central Pickering as well as other means.
protecting the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Pre-
serve from development.
• On December 15, 2022, the provincial gov-
3.0  Audit Objective and Scope
ernment brought into force the Duffins Rouge
Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022 (passed by
On January 11, 2023, the Auditor General received
the Legislature on December 8), repealing the
a joint letter from all three Ontario provincial oppos-
Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005 and
ition party leaders requesting a value-for-money audit
the protection it offered for the DRAP.
and an assessment of the financial and environmental
impacts of the government’s decision to remove lands
2.3.5 Greenbelt Additions from the Greenbelt. Among the concerns raised in
the letter, the opposition leaders said “the removal
O. Reg. 567/22 under the Greenbelt Act added an
of protections from these lands has instantly shifted
area of land totalling 7,000 acres from the Paris Galt
wealth to property owners, who have likely benefited
Moraine in Wellington County to the Greenbelt,
substantially from the rezoning of this land from
designated as Protected Countryside with a Natural
undevelopable land to developable land.”
Heritage System. O. Reg. 567/22 under the Greenbelt
The objective of our audit was to determine whether
Act also made 13 additions/expansions of URVs to the
the Province of Ontario:
Greenbelt Plan totalling approximately 2,400 acres.
• effectively assessed the financial and environ-
See Figure 5 for a map of the areas added to the Green-
mental impacts of Greenbelt boundary changes,
belt Plan.
and associated changes in legislation and provin-
The Paris Galt Moraine is a unique landform that
cial plans;
spans approximately 150 kilometres, from Caledon to
• made objective, transparent and informed deci-
an area southwest of Port Rowan, and is as much as
sions; and
11 kilometres wide. The Paris Galt Moraine’s rolling,
• established mechanisms to measure and publicly
hilly terrain is significant because it forms the head-
report on whether changes to the Greenbelt’s
waters for many rivers and streams, contributes to
boundary meet the Province’s stated objectives.
filtration and storage of drinking water, provides wild-
In planning for our work, we identified the audit
life habitat and supports prime agricultural land.
criteria (see Appendix 5) we would use to address our
The Housing Ministry had sought feedback through
audit objective. These criteria were established based
the Environmental Registry from February to April
on a review of applicable legislation and regulations,
2021 on initial areas to focus on for expanding the
policies and procedures, internal and external studies,
Greenbelt, including 13 new or expanded URVs and
and best practices. Senior management at the Ministry
a study area for the entire Paris Galt Moraine, and
of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Housing Ministry)
received over 6,000 comments. While the comments
reviewed and acknowledged our objective and associ-
were generally favourable for expanding the Greenbelt,
ated criteria.
municipalities, landowners in and adjacent to the Paris
Our Office began our work expecting to audit the
Galt Moraine study area, and the development sector in
Housing Ministry’s processes and procedures around
general raised concerns about the impact that a Green-
the selection of lands for removal from the Greenbelt
belt expansion in the Paris Galt Moraine area would
and documentation on the financial and environmental
have, including the potential impact on municipalities’
implications that justified their selection. However,
ability to accommodate population growth. Wellington
for certain areas of our work, including key political
County was not supportive of adding the particular
directions, there was no clear documentation and we
28

Figure 4: Summary of Land Sites Removed from or Re-designated within the Greenbelt Area
Source of data: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Proposed sites were initially assessed by the Greenbelt Project Team using the following three criteria. The third criterion was
discarded for use in qualifying sites for removal:
1. Lands are adjacent to existing settlement areas
2. Adjacent to the edge of the Greenbelt Area boundary
3. Removes no Specialty Crop (SC) or Natural Heritage System lands (NHS)

Site Site Name and Size Site Housing Criteria Met?

# (% of Total Area Removed) Municipality Developer/Landowner 1 2 3 Unique Considerations
Durham Region
1 Duffins Rouge Agricultural Pickering TACC Development Inc. Yes Yes No Required repeal of the Duffins
Preserve (DRAP) Rouge Agricultural Preserve
“Cherrywood” Act, 2005 and the Central
4,288.78 acres (57.86%) Pickering Development Plan.
2,161.41 acres of NHS
(50.40% of site area)
2 Kingston Road and Ajax Buena Vista Yes Yes Yes
Highway 401 Development Corp.
133.01 acres (1.79%)
3 Nash Road Clarington Streamliner Properties Yes Yes No 21.31 acres of NHS (34.18%
85.78 acres (1.16%) of site area)

City of Hamilton
4 Book Road Hamilton Fieldgate Homes Yes Yes No Restrictions on housing
1,809.37 acres (24.41%) development from airport
proximity.
316.89 acres of NHS
(17.51% of site area)
5 Hamilton Mount Hope Hamilton Penta Properties Yes Yes Yes
162.77 acres (2.20%)
6 Cline Road Grimsby DeSantis Homes Yes No No Removed area was made
73.45 acres (0.99%) Melrose Investments larger than requested to
Valery Homes stretch it to the edge of the
Greenbelt. Entirety of removal
is a Specialty Crop area.
7 502 Winston Road Grimsby New Horizon Yes Yes No Re-designated as Greenbelt
14.94 acres (0.20%) Development Group Settlement Area rather than
removed.
Entirety of re-designation is
a Specialty Crop area and
within the NHS.
8 Barton Hamilton 155090933 Ontario Inc. Yes No No Removed area was made
9.82 acres (0.13%) larger than requested to
stretch it to the edge of the
Greenbelt.
Entirety of removal is a
Specialty Crop area.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 29

Site Site Name and Size Site Housing Criteria Met?

# (% of Total Area Removed) Municipality Developer/Landowner 1 2 3 Unique Considerations
York Region
9 Bathurst-King King Green Lane Bathurst Yes Yes No 20% re-designated as
655.26 acres (8.84%) Limited Partnership Greenbelt Settlement Area
rather than removed.
222.99 acres of NHS
(34.03% of site area)
10 Highway 48 Markham Wyview Group Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
88.34 acres (1.19%) the NHS.
11 10379 Kennedy Road Markham Minotar Holdings Inc. Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
36.99 acres (0.50%) Beechgrove Estates Inc. the NHS.
Halvan 5.5 Investments
Ltd.
12 Leslie-Elgin Richmond TACC Development Inc. Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
15.14 acres (0.20%) Hill the NHS.

13 Block 41 Lands Vaughan TACC Development Inc. Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
15.6 acres (0.21%) the NHS.

14 11861 and 12046 Whitchurch- Torca Inc. Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
McCowan Road Stouffville Flato Developments the NHS.
12.81 acres (0.17%)
15 19th Avenue and Markham Flato Upper Markham Yes Yes No Entirety of removal is within
McCowan Road Village Inc. the NHS.
10.58 acres (0.14%)
Total 7,412.64 acres

encountered a scope limitation from having to rely have chosen to refer this situation of non-compliance
significantly on verbal representations from the indi- with the summons issued in accordance with section 11
viduals we interviewed. As well, although we obtained of the Auditor General Act and under section 33 of the
large volumes of email messages, we cannot be assured Public Inquiries Act, 2009 to the Legislature rather than
that all relevant email messages had been retained by engage in legal challenges with the developers. Should
the email account owners. new or additional information come to our attention
Finally, while we were able to meet with housing after the tabling of this report, the Office of the Auditor
developers who benefitted from the 2022 changes General of Ontario may consider whether any addi-
to the Greenbelt, but with lower acreage removal, tional audit work is merited.
the housing developers associated with 92% of the We conducted our work between January 2023
area that was ultimately removed from the Greenbelt and July 2023. We obtained written representation
refused to meet with us. We then issued summons from the former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs
under sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Auditor General and Housing, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal
Act for them to meet with us. They then sought to fight Affairs and Housing and the Deputy Minister of Natural
the issuance of the summons in the courts. Resources and Forestry that, effective August 1,
In order to report to the Legislature in a timely 2023, they had provided us with all the information
manner on the work we have performed to date, we they were aware of that could significantly affect
30

Figure 5: 2022 Greenbelt Land Additions

Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Lake Ontario

2022 Greenbelt Additions

Upper and Single Tier Municipal Boundaries
Greenbelt Area Boundary
Protected Countryside
Existing Urban River Valley
Oak Ridges Moraine Area
Niagara Escarpment Plan Area

the findings or the conclusion of this report. We also As part of our audit, we interviewed government
obtained written representation from the Secretary political staff from the Housing Minister’s Office and
of the Cabinet that she provided us with all the infor- the Office of the Premier of Ontario, and non-political
mation that she was aware of that could significantly public service staff from the Cabinet Office about their
affect the findings or conclusion of this report. We involvement in and knowledge of the 2022 project to
further obtained written representation from the Pre- amend the Greenbelt boundary. We also spoke with
mier’s Chief of Staff that he provided us with all the stakeholders, including other ministries, municipal-
information he was aware of that could significantly ities, conservation authorities, representatives from
affect the findings or conclusion of this report. Indigenous communities, environmental organizations,
Our work was conducted primarily at the Housing housing developers and housing industry lobbyists to
Ministry’s head office in Toronto, and we also spoke obtain their perspectives on potential issues related to
with representatives from the Ministry of Natural housing development on Greenbelt land and on their
Resources and Forestry at their head office in Peter- involvement in the 2022 project to amend the Green-
borough. In addition, we obtained data extracts and belt boundary. We also researched other jurisdictions
supporting documentation from these locations. to identify best practices for land-use planning and
issues related to housing.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 31

We conducted our work and reported on the Ontario over the following 10 years. We found that the
results of our examination in accordance with the Housing Ministry had already allocated the entirety
applicable Canadian Standards on Assurance Engage- of the 1.5-million-unit housing target to Ontario’s
ments—Direct Engagements, issued by the Auditing municipalities in October 2022—one month before
and Assurance Standards Board of the Chartered the government’s November 2022 proposal to remove
Professional Accountants of Canada. This included land sites from the Greenbelt. The Ministry’s team
obtaining a reasonable level of assurance. The Office (below Director level) that allocated these housing
of the Auditor General of Ontario applies the Can- targets confirmed to us that it had no knowledge that
adian Standards on Quality Management and, as a lands from the Greenbelt would be opened for housing
result, maintains a comprehensive system of quality development.
management that includes documented policies and The February 2022 report produced by the Task
procedures with respect to compliance with rules Force indicated that “a shortage of land isn’t the cause
of professional conduct, professional standards and of the problem. Land is available, both inside the exist-
applicable legal and regulatory requirements. ing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside
We have complied with the independence and greenbelts.” Further, the Task Force’s report reinforced
other ethical requirements of the Code of Professional the point that “greenbelts and other environmentally
Conduct of the Chartered Professional Accountants of sensitive areas must be protected.”
Ontario, which are founded on fundamental principles We reviewed other recent reports on the subject
of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and and spoke with various subject matter experts across
due care, confidentiality and professional behaviour. Ontario’s municipalities to obtain their views on
whether land from the Greenbelt is needed to solve
Ontario’s housing challenges. For example, we spoke

4.0  Detailed Audit Observations with the Chief Planners at the three regions where
all 15 land sites were removed from the Greenbelt

4.1 Government-Imposed Greenbelt in December 2022 (Durham, Hamilton and York).

Removals Proceeded Without They informed us that sufficiently serviced (or more

Evidence They Were Needed to Meet easily serviceable) land is already available to meet

Housing Goals the housing targets assigned to them by the Housing

Ministry. The Chief Planners we spoke to also high-
The government’s reported rationale for removing lighted that the land sites removed from the Greenbelt
or re-designating 15 land sites from the Greenbelt in in December 2022 were largely not serviced, were not
December 2022 was to support its goal of building in their servicing plans, and that many of the land sites
1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. Our audit would be challenging to prioritize and service in the
found that the Greenbelt Project Team—the six-person near future, with some taking potentially 10 or more
team of non-political public servants assembled to years to accomplish.
assess specific land sites in the Greenbelt for possible Further, the Association of Municipalities of
removal—was not asked to assess whether the avail- Ontario, which represents Ontario’s 444 municipal-
ability and suitability of land outside the Greenbelt was ities, told us that while it recognizes that housing
sufficient for achieving the Province’s housing goals. supply is a challenge in Ontario, a shortage of land is
As described in Section 2.2.2, the provincial not the issue.
government had already adopted the Housing Afford- Finally, the Regional Planning Commissioners of
ability Task Force’s (Task Force) report as its primary Ontario (RPCO), a group of senior municipal planning
housing strategy, including the Task Force’s recom- leaders from across Ontario, released a report in March
mended goal to build 1.5 million housing units in 2023 that indicated that large Ontario municipalities
32

already have 85% of the 1.5 million housing units in adjustments to specific sites. The Housing Ministry
their approval pipelines. The remaining 15% of the highlighted that a site-specific review carried a much
Housing Ministry’s allocation will eventually be in the higher risk of negative public and stakeholder reaction
pipeline on non-Greenbelt land. If smaller munici- and would be more limited in its potential to meet the
palities are taken into account, the entire 1.5-million government’s priorities.
housing unit target will likely be exceeded by housing The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff informed the
units already in the approval pipeline. The report Housing Ministry on September 16 that the govern-
stated: “RPCO continues to not support in principle the ment wished to initiate a site-specific review. This
removal of lands from the Greenbelt as a necessary step decision ultimately facilitated a focus on only specific
to address Ontario’s housing needs.” developers’ land sites. Housing Ministry staff informed
us that, at this time, the Chief of Staff also com-

4.2 The Selection of Land Sites for municated three priority sites for consideration that

Removal from the Greenbelt was included “Cherrywood, a site in King Township, and

Biased and Lacked Transparency possibly a site near Hamilton airport”—which, through
our work, we determined most likely to be Sites #1,
4.2.1 The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff #9 and #4 respectively in Figure 4. Ultimately, these
Directed the Greenbelt Project Team and three sites accounted for 91% of land removed from the
Provided the Initial Criteria Used to Assess Greenbelt in December 2022.
Greenbelt Land Site Removals In the first week of October 2022, the Chief of Staff
to the Housing Minister instructed the Housing Deputy
Following the June 2, 2022, general election, the
Minister to assemble a small team of six to 10 public
Premier directed the Minister of Municipal Affairs
servants to assess specific land sites in the Greenbelt
and Housing (Housing Minister) in a mandate letter
for possible removal from the Greenbelt Area, and to
dated June 29, 2022, to “complete work to codify
identify land that could be added to offset the lands
processes for swaps, expansions, contractions and
removed (see Section 2.1.2). The Deputy Minister
policy updates for the Greenbelt.” The mandate letter
assembled a team of six people (Greenbelt Project
also specified that this should “include a compre-
Team) that included members of the Housing Min-
hensive plan to expand and protect the Greenbelt.”
istry’s Planning and Growth Division and its Assistant
The Premier specified the work should be done “in
Deputy Minister.
Fall 2022.” The Chief of Staff of the Housing Ministry
During the process, the Housing Deputy Minister
was given the responsibility by the Premier’s Office to
believed that the Chief of Staff was working under the
direct a project to change the Greenbelt’s boundary.
authority of the Housing Minister and the Premier’s
In response, in August 2022, the Housing Minister’s
Office. Typically, a Chief of Staff works under the
Chief of Staff requested information from the Housing
authority of a minister and the Premier’s Office. Con-
Ministry’s public service staff on policy options that
sequently, the ministry’s non-political public service
the government could explore for making changes to
staff believed that directions or instructions provided
the Greenbelt. (See Appendix 1 for the Timeline of
by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff were provided
Key Events.)
under the authority of the Housing Minister and the
In August 2022, Housing Ministry public service
Premier’s Office.
staff provided the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff imposed
with options on approaches the government could take
restrictions by requesting higher security measures that
to make changes to the Greenbelt. The two options
limited the Greenbelt Project Team’s ability to follow
provided by the Housing Ministry’s public service staff
processes that were used previously when conducting
were to: conduct a system-wide review or to conduct
their work prior to recommending alterations to the
a site-specific review that only considered boundary
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 33

Greenbelt boundary. For instance, the Housing Minis- When we asked the current and former Chiefs of
ter’s Chief of Staff directed the Greenbelt Project Team Staff from the Premier’s Office about the time frame,
not to disclose information related to the Greenbelt both indicated that no time pressure had been imposed
Project to any external group, and required the team by the Premier’s Office to complete the Greenbelt
members to sign security attestation forms confirming boundary changes.
their understanding. We found this limitation ham-
pered the Greenbelt Project Team’s ability to complete
4.2.2 Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff Provided
a thorough analysis of the Greenbelt sites.
the Greenbelt Project Team with All but One of
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff instructed the
the 22 Greenbelt Sites Assessed for Removal
Greenbelt Project Team to complete the site assess-
ment portion of the project within less than four weeks In the first week of October 2022, the Housing Minis-
of providing the initial site-specific information on ter’s Chief of Staff provided the Deputy Minister and
October 6, 2022 (although the overall project timeline the Ministry’s Greenbelt Project Team with an initial
was about 10 to 11 weeks) so that the announce- list of eight land sites that could potentially be removed
ment of consultation on the proposed Greenbelt from the Greenbelt, as well as criteria for the team to
land removals and additions could coincide with the use to assess the sites. (See Section 4.2.4 for a fuller
Government’s fall housing legislation, which would description of how the land-assessment criteria were
be known as Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, chosen and then modified.)
2022. Within this three-week window, the Housing The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff also asked
Minister’s Chief of Staff provided the initial criteria to the Greenbelt Project Team to identify any other
the Greenbelt Project Team (see Figure 6). The Green- land sites that may meet the criteria for removal. The
belt Project Team was required to conduct a review of Greenbelt Project Team told us that it advised the
land sites to be added and removed, prepare a proposal Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff that a comprehensive
to Cabinet (described in Section 2.3.1) and prepare assessment of other sites would take longer than the
required Environmental Registry notices (described in three-week time duration given by the Chief of Staff
Section 2.3.2). to conduct the work. As a result, the Greenbelt Project
The Housing Ministry’s Market Housing Division, Team identified just one additional land site (Site #11
which generally oversees the implementation of in Figure 4) to be considered for removal. This site
housing bills, told us that the provincial government was selected because it had already been assessed in
intends to release housing bills on at least an annual detail by the Housing Ministry in relation to a litiga-
basis, such as one that was introduced in spring 2023. tion matter. In contrast to what the Greenbelt Project
Therefore, the 2022 efforts to change the Green- Team told us, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff told
belt’s boundary could have been delayed to coincide us he was under the impression the Greenbelt Project
with a subsequent housing bill. Moreover, because Team undertook a review of sites other than those he
Greenbelt boundary amendments are made by regu- provided.
lation, changes can be made—with sufficient public After beginning its work, the Greenbelt Project
consultation under the Environmental Bill of Rights, Team determined that the initial hardcopy informa-
1993—independent of the Legislative Assembly’s tion the Housing Ministry’s Chief of Staff had provided
schedule of legislative business. There was no specific about the eight land sites proposed for removal (Sites
requirement that the removal of the 15 land sites #1, #3, #4, #9, #12, #14, #15 and one additional site
through amending regulations (O. Reg. 567/22 under that was not selected for removal) was insufficient for
the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and O. Reg. 568/22 under the them to map and assess. The Greenbelt Project Team
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001) had to be signed confidentiality agreements. While this would
part of the government’s legislative changes in late not have prohibited conversations with outside parties
2022.
 34
Figure 6: Evolution of the Criteria for Removing Land Sites from the Greenbelt in 2022
Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Initial Criteria Provided by Criteria Used to Criteria Included in First Cabinet Criteria Posted in Environmental
Registry Notice and Listed in
Subject Area of Criterion Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff Assess Sites for Removal Submission1 Second Cabinet Submission2
Next to an urban area ü Adjacent to an existing (developed) ü Lands are adjacent to existing ü Adjacent to existing ü Adjacent to existing
urban area settlement areas3 settlement areas settlement areas
On edge of the Greenbelt ü On the edge of the existing ü Adjacent to the edge of the ü Adjacent to the edge of the ü Adjacent to the edge of the
Greenbelt Plan Greenbelt Area boundary3 Greenbelt area boundary Greenbelt area boundary
Not part of Natural ü Removes no specialty crop or
Heritage System Natural Heritage Lands4
or Specialty Crop ü Lands are not in a specialty crop area
designations or part of a natural heritage system Dropped after assessment
showed that 19 of 22 sites
did not meet criterion
Lands are serviceable ü Lands must have the following services
available: municipal and regional roads; ü Lands have the potential ability
sanitary trunk mains; regional trunk to be serviced in near-term with
water mains; gas mains, utilities (hydro local infrastructure upgrades
communications) to be entirely funded by
ü Areas can connect to the larger regional ü Site has been identified as proponents5
infrastructure system having potential to yield
Lands have characteristics ü Capacity exists (or can be made to
housing, with potential ability to
to enable housing to be exist) in systems to accommodate service in near future5
built in near-term potential growth

ü Transit infrastructure (i.e., station(s), ü Lands proposed for removal

transit route(s) (existing and planned)) have the characteristics that
would enable housing to be
ü Schools nearby to accommodate built in the near-term5
growth
ü Police and fire protection services
currently available
Infill would complete ü Infill that would complete existing
existing neighbourhoods/ neighbourhoods and communities
communities (nice to have)
Ratio of Greenbelt ü Greater than 1:1 offset must
additions to removals6 be achieved to ensure overall
Greenbelt expansion
1. Cabinet Submission of November 2, 2022.
2. Cabinet Submission of December 14, 2022.
3. These criteria were used instead of assessing whether the lands have the potential to be serviced in the near-term with local infrastructure, and have the characteristics that would enable housing to be built in the near-term.
4. Information included in briefings to the Housing Minister and the Premier’s Office (excluding the Premier) stated that 13 of 15 land sites did not meet this criterion.
The November 2, 2002 Cabinet submission identified which sites had specialty crop or natural heritage system lands, although it was not used as a criterion for decision-making.
5. These criteria were not assessed by the Greenbelt Project Team.
6. This factor was considered in aggregate throughout the assessment of sites, given the requirement in the Greenbelt Act, 2005 not to reduce the total Greenbelt Area.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 35

with permission, those conversations did not occur. 4.2.3 About 92% of the Acreage Ultimately
The Chief of Staff subsequently obtained detailed maps Removed from the Greenbelt Was Land Sites
and other information from the site proponents (i.e., Passed on to the Housing Minister’s Chief of
the sites’ owners, developers or their representatives) Staff from Two Developers, Including a Land Site
including other potential sites for removal and pro- Associated With a Third Developer
vided this to the Greenbelt Project Team on five USB
We asked the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff how
keys throughout the three-week project.
he selected the initial eight land sites (described in
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff then person-
Section 4.2.2) provided to the Greenbelt Project
ally reached out to the lands’ proponents throughout
Team to be assessed for removal from the Greenbelt.
October 2022, requesting and receiving the additional
The Chief of Staff to the Housing Minister, who was
information. Through these exchanges, proponents
appointed by the Premier’s Office in July 2022 to this
not only provided the requested information but also
position, indicated that he regularly attends industry
suggested the removal of three additional sites (Sites
events and meets with housing developers and their
#4, #12 and #13). In all, the Chief of Staff provided 13
representatives, who at times pass along information
additional sites to the Greenbelt Project Team for con-
about land that they recommend the Ministry consider
sideration (Sites #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #13 and six
removing from the Greenbelt.
additional sites that were not selected for removal). By
For example, the Chief of Staff indicated that while
the time the selection of land sites for removal from the
attending the Building Industry and Land Development
Greenbelt was made at the end of October, 21 of the 22
Association’s (BILD) Chair’s Dinner on September 14,
Greenbelt sites that were considered for removal had
2022, two prominent housing developers approached
been provided directly by the Housing Minister’s Chief
him and gave him packages containing information
of Staff.
to remove two land sites from the Greenbelt: the
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff told us that
Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP) land site
nine sites were brought to his attention by developers
in Durham Region (Site #1 in Figure 4 and described
or their representatives (Sites #1, #3, #4, #9, #10,
in Section 2.1.5) and the Bathurst-King land site in
#12, #13, #14 and #15); five additional sites were
the York Region (Site #9). The Chief of Staff sat at the
identified by another political staff member in the
same dinner table with one of these two developers.
Minister’s Office who was working on the Housing Min-
After the event, during the course of the Greenbelt
istry’s consultation on its review of municipal Official
Project, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff indicated
Plans (Sites #6, #7, #8 and two additional sites that
that the developer for the DRAP site provided him with
were not selected for removal); one site was identi-
information and requests to also remove the Book Road
fied by the Greenbelt Project Team (Site #11); and the
site in the City of Hamilton (Site #4), Leslie-Elgin site
Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff could not recall how
in the York Region (Site #12) and the Block 41 Lands
and from whom he received information on the addi-
site in the York Region (Site #13) from the Green-
tional seven sites that were part of the 22 sites being
belt. Altogether, those who had access to the Chief of
considered (Sites #2, #5 and five additional sites that
Staff at the September BILD event ended up with land
were not selected for removal).
removals that accounted for 6,784 acres, or 92% (see
Over the course of the project, 93 confidentiality
Figure 7) of the 7,412.64 acres ultimately removed
agreements were signed (the majority of which were
from the Greenbelt in December 2022.
signed after sites were recommended for removal),
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff told us
including with individuals in various relevant minis-
that whenever he received any packages, he did not
tries who were involved in consultations or reviewed
immediately open them and review their contents. He
materials as the project developed.
said that, instead, he kept them in a stack in his office,
36

Figure 7: Housing Developers for the Most Land (by Area) Removed from the Greenbelt in 2022
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Site Housing Developer Site # Municipality Site Name, Acreage % of Total

TACC Development Inc. 1 Pickering Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve 57.86
4,288.78 acres
12 Richmond Hill Leslie-Elgin 0.20
15.14 acres
13 Vaughan Block 41 Lands 0.21
15.60 acres
Total TACC Development Inc. 58.27
Fieldgate Homes 4 Hamilton Book Road 24.41
1,809.37 acres
Green Lane Bathurst 9 King Bathurst-King 8.84
Limited Partnership 655.26 acres
Total Top Three Developers 91.52

adding new packages to the stack as he received them properties, and providing the Greenbelt Project Team
from developers and their representatives. He also with 21 of the 22 land sites to consider for removal,
noted that he did not tell the developers and land- the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff also provided the
owners that the government was considering removing team with the initial criteria for discussion for use to
land from the Greenbelt, but would consider the assess the lands for potential removal.
requests if it decided to do so. These draft criteria, which the Housing Minister’s
The Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff provided hard- Chief of Staff provided to the Greenbelt Project Team
copy information from packages he received on eight on October 6, 2022, initially included criteria related to
sites to the Greenbelt Project Team on October 6, 2022. the location of the land in the Greenbelt and whether
At that time, the information provided did not include the sites already had, or were near, available municipal
Site #13. However, it did include information on Sites services (including roads, transit, utilities, schools and
#14 and #15, which was received by email directly emergency services), or had developed plans to build
from the representative of two developers. Of the eight the infrastructure. In addition, these criteria included
folders containing information related to the land sites provisions intended to protect the Natural Heritage
to be assessed for removal by the Greenbelt Project System and specialty agricultural crops in the Green-
Team, seven sites (Sites #1, #3, #4, #9, #12, #14 and belt. See Figure 6 for a listing of the initial criteria.
#15) were ultimately chosen for removal. These seven During its work in October 2022, the Greenbelt
land sites accounted for 93%, or about 6,900 acres, of Project Team provided regular updates (at least once
the 7,412.64 acres of land removed from the Greenbelt per week) to the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff,
in December 2022. The eighth site was not chosen which included the team’s assessment of how closely
for removal because it did not meet the assessment each of the land sites met the specific criteria. The
criteria. Greenbelt Project Team typically received information
from the Chief of Staff between the update meet-
ings, including additional sites to consider, eventually
4.2.4 Criteria to Assess Land Were Altered and
assessing 22 sites in total. In the course of this work,
Facilitated Their Removal
the Greenbelt Project Team determined that 20 out
In addition to directing Housing Ministry public service of the 22 land sites considered for removal (or 13 out
staff to conduct a site-specific review of identified of the 15 ultimately removed) either did not meet all
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 37

criteria, or the team could not determine whether the designated Specialty Crop lands. Figure 6 shows how
sites met certain criteria because of the three-week the criteria for assessment evolved. Ultimately, based
time frame and the restrictions on whom they could on the Greenbelt Project Team’s assessment, 13 of the
consult. 15 land sites removed from the Greenbelt contained
For instance, the Greenbelt Project Team informed Natural Heritage System lands and/or were designated
the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff that they could as Specialty Crop lands.
not assess infrastructure services within a three-week In addition, alterations to boundaries and/or land
time frame and without contacting external parties, designations were made to proposed sites so that they
such as municipalities, to obtain or confirm details would better align with the criterion that required
on existing and planned infrastructure services. The sites to be on the edge of the existing Greenbelt. This
Greenbelt Project Team proposed to assess how easily criterion was designed to prevent the creation of new
the land sites could be serviced and connected to exist- pockets of urbanized areas within the Greenbelt’s pro-
ing infrastructure by instead determining whether the tected boundaries. In its work, the Greenbelt Project
sites lay adjacent to a developed urban area. The Chief Team determined that the removal of eight of the 22
of Staff accepted this limitation and simplified the sites would have created isolated pockets of housing
criteria. development within the Greenbelt. In response, the
As another example, most of the 22 land sites Greenbelt Project Team provided suggestions on
considered for potential removal failed the only how the boundaries and/or designations of land on
environmental and agricultural criterion, namely, that these sites could be altered to meet this criterion. The
the site did not contain land designated as Specialty Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff subsequently directed
Crop or Natural Heritage System lands. This criterion the Greenbelt Project Team to make changes to the
was intended to consider the presence of the Natural maps for four of the sites. The changes made were as
Heritage System and specialty agricultural crop lands follows:
(see Section 2.1.2) in the Greenbelt. In fact, the Green- • The boundaries of two of the land sites (Sites #6
belt Project Team determined that 19 of the 22 land and #8 in Figure 4) that were not on the edge
sites were indeed part of the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt were expanded beyond the
and/or had land designated as Specialty Crop lands original area proposed for removal in order to
and therefore did not meet this criterion. connect with the Greenbelt’s edge. This affected
In mid-October, the Greenbelt Project Team com- other landowners who did not request that their
municated to the Chief of Staff that many of the 22 lands be removed from the Greenbelt.
land sites did not meet the environmental/agricul- • Two sites (Sites #7 and #9 in Figure 4) were
tural criterion for removal. He provided direction to re-designated from Protected Countryside to
drop this criterion. The exclusion of this criterion was Settlement Area within the Greenbelt Area (for
not mentioned in the Housing Ministry’s information Site #9, the re-designation was within the Oak
provided to Cabinet, nor was it listed in the Housing Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, specifically),
Ministry’s proposal notice posted on the Environmental effectively allowing for housing development to
Registry of Ontario. However, on October 26, the Min- occur within the Greenbelt Area boundary.
ister of Housing was informed by Housing Ministry Ultimately, based on the Greenbelt Project Team’s
officials that lands being proposed for removal included final assessment, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
acreage that was subject to Natural Heritage System gave direction to proceed to seek Cabinet approval for
and Specialty Crop designations. On October 27, the the proposed removal of 15 of the 22 land sites.
same information was presented to the Premier’s Office Of the seven sites that were assessed but not pro-
staff. On November 2, Cabinet materials identified posed for removal from the Greenbelt, three did not
which sites contained Natural Heritage System and/or meet the criterion to be on the edge of the Greenbelt,
38

and site removal for the other four would have required late 2022) to remove land from the Greenbelt between
approvals under the Niagara Escarpment Plan or February 2005, when the Greenbelt was established,
legislative changes deemed outside the scope of the up until the end of the public consultation to amend
Greenbelt Project. Although these seven sites were not the Greenbelt boundary in late 2022. (See Figure 8
proposed to be removed from the Greenbelt in 2022, for the number of removal requests received by the
political staff in the Minister’s Office advised us they Housing Ministry related to the Greenbelt.) However,
were pursuing the possibility of having one site in Pick- the Housing Ministry’s Greenbelt Project Team only
ering (Tribute Homes) to be made available for housing assessed 22 land sites for removal, 21 of which were
development through other means. provided by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff. The
The Greenbelt Project Team provided briefings to Ministry did not assess any of the 130 requests received
the Housing Minister and other political staff in the during the public consultation to amend the Greenbelt
Minister’s Office (on October 26 and November 1, in 2022. Had they considered removing any of the land
2022). At these meetings, the Housing Minister stemming from these requests, the Ministry would have
reviewed the sites proposed for removal, and we were had to post their potential removal on the Environ-
advised that the Minister agreed with the Green- mental Registry for a minimum of an additional 30
belt Project Team’s suggested minor changes to the days as required under the EBR Act as well as details of
boundaries of Site #11 (see Figure 4) to exclude a the related regulatory change.
provincially significant wetland. The Greenbelt Project As discussed in Section 2.1.2, the Greenbelt was
Team also provided briefings to the Premier’s Office established to give permanent protection to agricul-
political staff (on October 27 and 31, 2022) on the tural land and natural features that sustain ecological
removal of land from the Greenbelt. However, these and human health in the GGH area. However, accord-
meetings did not include the Premier. ing to the Housing Chief of Staff, this Greenbelt
The Premier stated that he did not know which removal project was intended to be the first of many
land sites were going to be removed before he was future rounds to remove land from the Greenbelt; other
briefed and shown the lands sites for removal on Nov- landowners would have an opportunity to request that
ember 1, 2022, a day before the proposal was provided
to Cabinet for approval on November 2, 2022. He also Figure 8: Number of Removal Requests Received by
indicated that he had not had any conversations with the Housing Ministry Related to the Greenbelt Area
developers or their representatives about the govern- Source of data: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

ment’s changed plans to remove land sites from the

Estimated Number
Greenbelt, nor did he instruct political or non-political
of Requests
staff to have certain land sites removed from the Time Frame Received1
Greenbelt.
As of 2017
490
(at 10-year review)
4.2.5 Government Has Not Been Publicly January 2018 to November 2022 10
Transparent About How It Is Carrying Out November to December 2022
Greenbelt Land Removals (during Greenbelt Environmental 130
Registry consultation)
As noted in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, the 2022 project
Total 6302
to remove land from the Greenbelt was not open to all
1. Estimated based on Housing Ministry request logs, net of identified
landowners. The Housing Ministry received approxi- duplicate requests (e.g., multiple requests for same property at different
mately 630 requests (including the 130 requests times or by different individuals). Excludes 32 requests received prior
to 2005.
received during the public consultation period in 2. Estimated number of removals also includes proposed land-swaps and re-
designations.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 39

their land be assessed for removal in future rounds; boundary. In particular, the Greenbelt Act explicitly
and this was an initial attempt to put in place a con- prohibits any amendment that would reduce the total
tinuous process that would be evaluated and revised land area of the Greenbelt Area.
based on lessons learned. While the Chief of Staff of The Greenbelt Plan, established in 2005 by order of
the Premier’s Office confirmed the intention was to the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the Green-
continue with future land removal from the Greenbelt belt Act, sets out the vision and goals of the Greenbelt
and that the 2022 process to alter the boundaries of and provides additional policy direction regarding the
the Greenbelt had not been intended to be a one-time processes and principles for growing the Greenbelt
exercise, the Premier’s Office’s political policy staff and Area.
the Housing Minister told us that there is no current Notably, while the Greenbelt Act implicitly allows
intention to prepare for a second round of land site for some lands to be removed from the Greenbelt Area
removals, and that the government’s focus was on fol- (provided that other lands are added to ensure the
lowing through with the housing development of the total land area of the Greenbelt Area is not reduced)
areas already removed from the Greenbelt in 2022. the Greenbelt Plan repeatedly states that the Greenbelt
The provincial government has not transparently is to provide “permanent” protection to the natural fea-
communicated with the public about how, if or when tures and areas and agricultural lands included in the
it may be carrying out future land removals from the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt Plan also states that the Prov-
Greenbelt. The housing developers, industry represent- ince must lead a process, working with municipalities,
atives and lobbyists we spoke to during the course of conservation authorities and other key stakeholders, to
our work told us that they had received no messaging identify potential lands to be added and to consider the
from the government about plans for future removals. ecological and hydrological significance of potential
These same housing developers (including a few who lands and their connection with existing agricultural
directly benefitted from the land removals in 2022, see and natural features in the Greenbelt.
Section 4.6.1), and industry representatives, recom- We found that the 2022 amendments to remove
mended that any future process to remove land from land from the Greenbelt were inconsistent with the
the Greenbelt be transparent and open to all eligible processes and principles that are set out in the Green-
landowners. belt Plan for amending the Greenbelt boundaries. In
We noted that the last time land was removed from sharp contrast to previous Greenbelt amendments, the
the Greenbelt was in 2017, as part of a required review 2022 undertaking to identify lands to be removed was
of the Greenbelt Plan (described in Section 2.1.6). In not based on the guiding factors, vision and goals set
contrast to what occurred in 2022, in 2017 the Housing out in the Plan and did not involve collaboration with
Ministry engaged in a public consultation that began in key stakeholders.
2015 and that, among other things, elicited requests for The process used in 2017 for amending the bound-
lands to be removed from the Greenbelt. The Housing ary of the Greenbelt involved:
Ministry assessed all of the approximately 500 requests • land removals of approximately 370 acres (see
it had received to that date before making decisions to Figure 2) in areas where development was
post any proposed Greenbelt boundary amendment. already approved and in progress before the
Greenbelt’s creation or where more precise

4.3 The 2022 Greenbelt Boundary measurements of the Natural Heritage System

Changes Were Inconsistent with the could allow for minor refinement of the bound-

Greenbelt Plan’s Vision and Goals, ary without affecting environmental features;

and Deviated from Previous Processes • an expert advisory panel to provide recommen-
dations that were used to guide the amendment
The Greenbelt Act, 2005 (Greenbelt Act) sets out the process and ensure decisions aligned with
legislated process for amending the Greenbelt Plan and the objectives of the Greenbelt Plan, such as
40

avoiding fragmenting farmland and using a While the proposal did identify several risks relating
broader “systems approach” to protect natural to the limitations of the project and the Housing Min-
features as well as important linkage areas; istry’s involvement, the identified risks did not provide
• a technical working group with partner minis- sufficient detail for decision-makers to understand the
tries to determine whether and where boundary nature of the project. Some of the risks stated in the
refinements to the Natural Heritage System were proposal were:
appropriate based on the available data; and • Over 700 requests were submitted by land-
• a review process during which the Housing Min- owners to remove land from the Greenbelt, and
istry also engaged with stakeholders, experts the government may face criticism for a lack of
and partner ministries to identify the natural transparency in how the sites were selected for
features and functions of areas being considered assessment.
for removal, including land use, surface and • The Housing Ministry’s assessment of site poten-
groundwater features, significant wildlife habitat tial for infrastructure serviceability consisted of
and linkages, wetlands, species at risk and prime a review of a visual map of the proposed sites
agricultural land. to assess their proximity to already-developed
Further, while the 2022 amendments resulted in a areas and whether they were on the edge of the
net expansion to the Greenbelt of about 2,000 acres, Greenbelt.
the removal of 7,400 acres of lands is contrary to the • The Housing Ministry noted there was a risk
overarching purpose of the Greenbelt Plan—to provide that municipalities will be unable or unwilling to
for the permanent protection of agricultural land and provide servicing to the land sites proposed for
natural areas and features. removal from the Greenbelt.
We spoke with the Premier, the Housing Minister and

4.4 The Proposal to Cabinet Did Not political staff in the Premier’s Office (including the

Clearly Explain How Land Sites Were current and former Chiefs of Staff) as well as public

Identified, Assessed and Selected for service staff in the Cabinet Office (including the Sec-

Removal from the Greenbelt retary of the Cabinet), who reviewed the Greenbelt
proposal that was ultimately provided to Cabinet. They
The proposal the Minister and Deputy Minister of expressed different understandings of the site-selection
Municipal Affairs and Housing provided to Cabinet to process than what actually took place. Their various
alter the Greenbelt’s boundaries did not clearly explain understandings were as follows:
how the land sites were identified, assessed and • either all or most of the land sites assessed for
selected for removal. Specifically, it did not explain that removal were proposed by Housing Ministry
the Chief of Staff in the Housing Minister’s Office: staff, rather than political staff in the Housing
• identified and presented 21 of the 22 land sites Minister’s Office, as described in Section 4.2.2;
for consideration to the Greenbelt Project Team. • the Housing Ministry controlled the develop-
Instead, the proposal informed decision-makers ment of the criteria used to assess sites for
that the “Government” had identified the land removal (see Section 4.2.4);
sites, which was intended by the author to • additional sites in the Greenbelt that may have
communicate that political staff rather than non- met the criteria were considered, rather than
political staff had identified the land sites; just 22 sites as described in Section 4.2.4; and
• drafted the initial criteria that were used to • the 15 land sites ultimately removed from the
assess the land sites for removal; and Greenbelt could be serviced in the near term.
• made the decision to drop criteria that certain Political staff in the Premier’s Office told us that
proposed sites did not meet (see Figure 6). the Housing Minister’s Office was “certain” that
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 41

the proposed land sites could be serviced in the that non-political public service staff and Housing Min-
near term. ister’s Office political staff did not flag these issues to
In their submissions to the Integrity Commissioner the Secretary of the Cabinet or to the Premier’s Office
(as noted in the January 18, 2023 public report of the during the course of the work.
Integrity Commissioner), the Housing Minister and We were advised by the Secretary of the Cabinet
the Premier advised that “the selection of the affected that there are commonly used processes in the develop-
lands was made by public servants who were subject ment of information for Cabinet decision-making to
to an enhanced confidentiality protocol and that the share awareness of project and/or policy risks, limita-
[Housing] Minister was briefed and accepted the pro- tions and other concerns, or to confirm a common
posal only a few days before he presented it to Cabinet understanding of approach and direction beyond the
and the government made its announcement shortly ministry, including with Cabinet Office and the Pre-
thereafter.” mier’s Office. In this respect, we were advised that the
We asked the Deputy Minister whether she had non-political public service and/or political staff do,
communicated any concerns to the Housing Ministry’s for example, convene “multi-corner” meetings whereby
Chief of Staff or the Housing Minister about the Green- ministry non-political public service staff, Minister’s
belt Project to amend the Greenbelt’s boundary. The Office political staff and the Premier’s Office political
Deputy Minister responded that this project used to staff collectively review initiatives/projects and discuss
identify, assess and select land for removal was a gov- approaches to policy/project work and related risks
ernment decision. The Deputy Minister noted that the and mitigations.
Housing Ministry’s concerns and risks were identified We noted that, even though it is a best practice
in the information given to government decision-mak- to consult with the Secretary of the Cabinet (who
ers. However, as noted above, the identified risks did oversees all Deputy Ministers) on politically sensitive
not make explicit the limitations and bias of the process matters, the Deputy Minister did not choose to do so
used. In the opinion of the Deputy Minister, political in this case. She was not restricted by political staff
staff understood that most of the land sites were pro- from doing this. On reflection, she indicated that in
vided by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, who the future she would consult with the Secretary of the
took direction from the Minister and Premier’s Office. Cabinet on politically sensitive matters.
The Deputy Minister noted that if she had thought that Ontario has no process in place to transparently
this was not understood she would have clarified this at identify and address instances where senior public
the time. service ministry staff are not in agreement or have con-
We were informed that the Housing Minister was cerns with the direction provided by a minister. In the
made aware through discussions and meetings with United Kingdom, the HM Treasury’s handbook, Manag-
the Deputy Minister of the Housing Ministry that there ing Public Money, sets out four standards by which all
was work being conducted related to the mandate public money must be handled: regularity (compliance
letter issued in June 2022 that gave direction about the with legislation or agreed-upon budgets); propri-
Greenbelt. ety (meeting the high standard of public conduct,
Throughout the project, the Housing Ministry’s including robust governance and transparency);
non-political public service staff received instructions value-for-money (achieving a good-quality outcome
provided by the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff. for the cost); and feasibility (likelihood of successful
While non-political public service staff in the Housing implementation).
Ministry highlighted the risks of considering only If a situation arises in which a British minister
specific land sites for removal and the limitations of the decides to pursue a course of action that the account-
criteria being used to assess lands for removal from the ing officer (comparable to a Canadian Deputy
Greenbelt during the 10 to 11-week period, we noted Minister) believes fails at least one of these criteria, the
42

accounting officer is required to write to the minister challenges to provide many of these sites with the
expressing concern and requesting written direction infrastructure required to support housing. They indi-
to proceed. Upon receipt of ministerial direction in cated that there would need to be significant capital
the UK, the accounting officer is required to comply expenditures to add or upgrade the infrastructure
with that direction, and a copy of the letter is to be needed, and noted that some land sites could take 10
shared with the Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor years or longer to fully service. The Chief Planners also
General, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee and noted that they would have to re-prioritize and revise
the public. This process provides for transparency and their existing regional plans because they had not con-
accountability for government decisions that are being templated housing development on these land sites.
made contrary to advice from the public service. Appendix 2 sets out the typical process for a proposed
development.

4.5 Most of the Land Removed from The Region of Durham has developed preliminary

the Greenbelt May Not Be Ready for estimates of the costs and length of time to provide

Housing Development in Time to Meet necessary infrastructure to service housing develop-

Government Goals ment in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve lands.

These estimates include major capacity upgrades, such
Contrary to public communication, we found that the as water and sewage treatment plant expansions, and
Housing Ministry’s Greenbelt Project Team did not a road and transit network, expected to be rolled out
analyze whether the sites proposed for removal from over a 25-year time frame. The Region estimates that
the Greenbelt could support housing development the cost of this infrastructure is to be from $1 billion to
in the near future. Operating under a confidentiality $2 billion and is relying on the provincial commitment
agreement, the Greenbelt Project Team was prevented that the housing developer would bear this cost—in
from contacting partner ministries and external parties line with the government’s public messaging. In addi-
such as municipalities (see Section 4.2), conservation tion, the Region noted that facilities and other services
authorities and developers, and could not assess the for policing, health care and social services would be
existing or planned infrastructure availability and ser- needed to create a complete community, the total costs
vicing capacity for the sites. of which are estimated to be more than $300 million.
Servicing land with required infrastructure to As regards the Bathurst-King land site, York Region
support housing includes the provision of, at minimum, told us that infrastructure capacity upgrades were
utilities (e.g., water, sewage, electricity), road net- needed to prepare the site for housing development.
works, and supporting services in the vicinity such Although, at the time of our audit, the Region had not
as schools, hospitals, fire stations and police stations. estimated the cost and time frame to complete these
Typically, housing developers pay for and provide the upgrades, the Region noted the upgrades could take as
necessary utility connections from the main municipal long as 10 years.
utility lines to the development areas, while the muni- We also spoke to the City of Hamilton about the
cipalities pay for and provide services related to overall land sites removed from the Greenbelt in this region
capacity (e.g., water treatment plants, water pumping and noted some of these sites would require con-
stations) and supporting services. The costs of these siderable infrastructure to prepare them for housing
latter services can be recovered from housing develop- development. In addition, the City of Hamilton noted
ers to varying degrees. that one of the sites—Book Road (Site #4), which
We spoke with the Chief Planners from the regions accounted for nearly 25% of all land removed from
of Durham, Hamilton and York, where all 15 of the the Greenbelt in 2022—is located in an area partially
selected Greenbelt land removals are located. The restricted from residential development because of
planners told us their regions would face significant its proximity to the Hamilton International Airport
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 43

(though an MZO or City zoning change could permit Ministry assessment, we asked the Municipal Property
development in the restricted area). We confirmed that Assessment Corporation (MPAC), which is responsible
the Greenbelt Project Team was not aware of specific for calculating property values for all municipalities
municipal restrictions on building housing on this land in Ontario, to identify the potential financial impact of
because of the proximity of this land site to an airport this decision. A summary of MPAC’s estimates of the
when it assessed the land site’s suitability for removal value changes are presented in Figure 9.
from the Greenbelt. MPAC estimated that removing the 15 land sites
from the Greenbelt has the potential to increase their

4.6 Government’s Exercise to Alter the value by $8.28 billion, with the value of the Duffins

Greenbelt Did Not Factor in Financial Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP) site alone poten-

Impacts or Costs, or Clarify Fiscal tially increasing by $6.63 billion. These estimates were

Responsibilities based on a valuation date of January 1, 2016, and do

not account for additional market increases in land
4.6.1 Government Decisions to Remove Land values between 2016 and 2023. In June 2023, proper-
Sites from the Greenbelt Resulted in Significant ties in the land sites removed from the Greenbelt were
Financial Gains for Select Landowners selling for about four times their assessed land value
per acre before removal.
We found that the Housing Ministry did not assess how
As noted in Section 2.1.5, provincial and regional
much the value of the Greenbelt land would increase
governments had entered into a Memorandum of
if the Greenbelt Plan restrictions on development were
Understanding in 1999 to enable the expropriated
removed. According to the Housing Ministry, this type
DRAP lands to be resold by the Province to the ori-
of financial assessment is not considered when a policy
ginal landowners and tenant farmers at agricultural
decision is made in land-use planning. As a result,
prices, which were substantially lower than prices for
government decision-makers were not made aware
developable land. All parties agreed that as a condition
in written form that the select few landowners who
of sale, each purchaser would grant conservation or
owned these sites stood to collectively benefit from
agricultural easements under the Conservation Land
the Greenbelt boundary changes by at least $8 billion.
Act, which were intended to protect the land and limit
Figure 7 shows the three housing developers with the
it to agricultural and conservation uses in perpetu-
largest land sites removed from the Greenbelt in 2022.
ity. Approximately 67% of the acreage of the lands
Rezoning sites in the Greenbelt from undevelop-
owned by current owners in the DRAP was bought
able agricultural land to developable land immediately
with this condition between 2000 and 2005, before
increased the lands’ value. In the absence of a Housing

Figure 9: Estimated Change in Value of Lands Removed from the Greenbelt in 2022
Source of data: The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)

Assessed Valuation Estimated Valuation Difference in

Size Before Removal After Removal Valuation
Areas Removed (Acres) ($ million)1 ($ million)2 ($ million)
Lands removed from the Duffins Rouge
4,289 82 6,713 6,631
Agricultural Preserve (DRAP)
Lands removed excluding the DRAP 3,124 158 1,810 1,652
All Lands Removed 7,413 240 8,523 8,283
1. Based on a valuation date of January 1, 2016 and includes existing tax mitigations for eligible properties (e.g., farmland, conservation land).
2. Assumes the parcels are low-density residential development lands based on a valuation date of January 1, 2016, and does not account for any tax mitigations that
may be applicable. The actual value impact on individual properties cannot be fully realized until development plans are finalized and actual use is established.
44

the Greenbelt was put in place. A further 9% was pur- it asked to make such a determination. It is not yet
chased after the Greenbelt Act was enacted in 2005, clear who ultimately will bear the full costs to service
including 4% between 2018 and 2022. Appendix 6 the land to support housing development because, as
provides land sales information from 2018 onwards, of June 2023, no agreements for these 15 sites have
showing when parcels of land were last purchased on been finalized. Those costs are estimated to be in the
the sites that were removed or re-designated from the billions of dollars. For example, as previously noted,
Greenbelt Area in 2022. the Durham Region’s April 23, 2023, high-level, pre-
By repealing the DRAP Act, the Province allowed liminary estimate for servicing just the Duffins Rouge
for the removal of the easements and covenants that Agricultural Preserve area was $1 billion to $2 billion.
had protected the lands for agricultural use. From York Region and the City of Hamilton had yet to
our work, we know that the Province recognized that develop estimates by June 30, 2023.
the release or amendment of covenants or easements As described in Section 4.2.2, the Greenbelt
would allow these lands to be sold at much higher Project Team was restricted from contacting munici-
developable land prices going forward. The Province, palities to obtain relevant information to assess the
and by extension the public, gave up potentially billions serviceability of the land sites. Instead, the Greenbelt
of dollars in opportunity costs that had been previously Project Team assessed whether infrastructure servi-
forfeited in the name of supporting local agriculture ces could be added based on whether the sites were
and protecting the environment. Those profits will now located next to a developed urban area. As a result,
flow to the DRAP lands’ private owners and develop- when the Greenbelt proposal was approved, govern-
ers, with no immediate offsetting compensation to the ment decision-makers had no time to evaluate the
public. potential costs and time requirements to service the 15
We found neither the Housing Ministry nor the land sites. We noted, however, that the Housing Min-
government took steps to consider the full extent of istry’s final documentation regarding amending the
the potential financial gain for property owners, how Greenbelt’s boundaries assumed that there would be
the Province could share in this gain, or how this minimal cost-related impacts on stakeholders and the
change in land value would affect housing prices and general public.
progress toward the Province’s housing target. As per Further, the Housing Ministry’s notice on the
the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator, if Environmental Registry of Ontario (Environmental
landowners of the 15 sites removed from the Green- Registry) regarding the proposal to amend the Green-
belt in 2022 sell the land, the future formal condition belt boundary in 2022 stated: “It is the government’s
would be that they sell it to an owner that would start expectation that the proponents would fully fund
housing development by 2025. This formal condition necessary infrastructure upfront.” However, during
has not been documented in any final agreement, as of our audit we found that the provincial government had
June 30, 2023. not publicly clarified if this statement meant that the
housing developers have been made accountable for all
of the potential servicing costs (including required cap-
4.6.2 The Greenbelt Project Team Did Not
acity upgrades), to what extent municipalities would
Estimate the Cost to Add Needed Infrastructure
be accountable for these costs, or how much financial
to the Greenbelt Sites or Who Would Pay for It
support the provincial government would provide.
Our audit found that the Housing Ministry’s Green- We spoke to the government’s Provincial Land
belt Project Team did not estimate the potential costs and Development Facilitator, who is responsible for
and time requirements to service the 15 land sites facilitating negotiations between housing developers,
proposed to be removed from the Greenbelt with the municipalities and the Province to reach agreements
infrastructure required to support housing, nor was on housing development on these 15 land sites. The
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 45

Provincial Land and Development Facilitator noted to preserve connectivity between these areas and
that although agreements were being negotiated on a support environmental processes that occur across
site-by-site basis, no agreement would be reached if a a broader landscape. We found, however, that
developer did not agree to cover all servicing and infra- the 2022 Greenbelt amendments were made without
structure costs upfront. The government has publicly regard for environmental and agricultural risks (see
communicated that if expectations were not met then Section 4.7.1), were contrary to the Greenbelt Plan’s
the land would begin to be added back into the Green- processes and objectives to provide the areas with
belt. However, the Provincial Land and Development permanent protection (see Section 4.3), and may lead
Facilitator indicated that as of June 2023 no agree- to adverse impacts on natural features and agricultural
ments had been finalized for any site. lands (see Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3). We also found
As described in Section 4.5, we interviewed muni- that the Province’s decisions in 2022 to add lands to
cipal Chief Planners from the three regions where the Greenbelt were not based on natural boundaries or
all 15 land sites were removed from the Greenbelt in protecting environmental functions, and the Housing
2022. In contrast to the Housing Ministry’s notice on Ministry did not assess whether the added lands were
the Environmental Registry, they told us that servicing comparable to the lands removed, thus providing a
many of these areas would require infrastructure cap- suitable offset (see Section 4.7.5).
acity upgrades that would demand significant capital
expenditure and years to complete.
4.7.1 Environmental and Agricultural Risks Not
For example, the DRAP lands in the Region of
Assessed in Project to Remove Greenbelt Lands
Durham, which represent 58% of the acreage removed
from the Greenbelt in 2022, were identified as par- We found that the 2022 Greenbelt removals were made
ticularly challenging to service (potentially taking up without consideration for, or a clear understanding of,
to 25 years) and required the most significant capital the environmental and agricultural risks. The Green-
investment and infrastructure capacity upgrades. The belt Project Team was unable to assess key site-specific
April 2023 Region of Durham’s high-level preliminary and detailed environmental or agricultural risks of the
estimates noted that servicing the DRAP would require Greenbelt removals in the allotted three-week time
major infrastructure upgrades, including expansion frame and no sites were eliminated from considera-
of water and sewage treatment plants, and road and tion based on potential environmental or agricultural
transit networks. impacts. As described in Section 4.2.2, the Housing
The government can propose at any point to pub- Minister’s Chief of Staff had initially provided the
licly consult and subsequently return the removed land Greenbelt Project Team with a criterion for selecting
sites to the Greenbelt through regulatory changes. lands for removal to protect important environmental
and agricultural lands (i.e., whether or not land was

4.7 Government Did Not Factor within the Natural Heritage System or a Specialty Crop

Environmental and Agricultural area). However, when the Greenbelt Project Team

Implications into Greenbelt Boundary determined that the majority of sites considered for

Changes, Which Are Expected to removal did not meet this criterion, the Housing Min-

Result in Adverse Impacts ister’s Chief of Staff directed the team to discard it.
Though the Housing Ministry noted to Cabinet in Nov-
The Greenbelt Plan was established to permanently ember 2022 which of the lands were within the Natural
protect key agricultural lands and natural features Heritage System or contained a Specialty Crop area,
in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Plan estab- this criterion was not used to qualify sites for removal.
lished large, integrated and inter-connected systems Because the Greenbelt Project was designed to be
of agricultural land and natural features in order swift and confidential, the Greenbelt Project Team was
46

prohibited from leveraging the expertise of partner the Greenbelt. For one of the 15 land sites removed
ministries, municipalities and conservation authorities (Site #11), Ministry staff had ready access to more
on environmental and agricultural risks while drafting detailed data as a result of a litigation matter, and so
the proposed Greenbelt changes before public consulta- they provided information to the Minister’s Office to
tion. While a small group of senior staff at the Natural exclude a provincially significant wetland from the
Resources Ministry (working on the proposed repeal of removal of this particular land site.
the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005 and As of July 1, 2023, the Housing Ministry had not
who had signed the Greenbelt project’s security attesta- requested from partner ministries any further infor-
tion forms) were aware that the Housing Ministry mation that could be used to consider and address
was working on a proposal to remove Greenbelt lands environmental and agricultural risks if future develop-
(including lands in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Pre- ment proposals are approved. For our audit, it was not
serve), these staff were not provided details, were not possible to undertake a comprehensive assessment
made aware of other sites proposed for removal, and of the environmental impacts of the Greenbelt land
were not asked to provide feedback or input on the pro- removals, as these impacts depend on future develop-
posed Greenbelt changes before they were posted on ment and how other environmental protections will or
the Environmental Registry on November 4, 2022. In will not be applied (see Section 4.7.4). However, our
the past, an extended and transparent review process Office compiled and assessed information and concerns
was used for proposed Greenbelt amendments during from experts in ministries and other organizations
which all affected parties could collaborate and share about the environmental and agricultural risks associ-
expertise to inform the decision-making. However, ated with future housing development on these lands
in 2022, partner ministries and organizations only (see Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3).
became aware of the suite of proposed changes at the
same time and in the same way as the general public:
4.7.2 Important Environmental Features on
from news releases and the posted proposal notices on
Lands Removed from the Greenbelt Face Risk of
the Environmental Registry.
Loss or Degradation
On November 4, after proposal notices were posted
on the Environmental Registry for public consultation, Overall, 11 of the 15 areas removed from the Greenbelt
the Housing Deputy Minister emailed her Deputy Min- (see Figure 4, Sites #1, #3, #4, #7, #9, #10, #11,
ister colleagues in other ministries notifying them of #12, #13, #14, and #15) contained lands within the
the proposal notices and 30-day consultation period. Natural Heritage System, seven of which (Sites #7,
Some partner ministries (the Natural Resources Min- #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, and #15) were entirely
istry, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural within the Natural Heritage System (see Figure 4 for
Affairs) and other experts compiled and sent general details). Of the approximately 7,400 acres removed
and site-specific natural heritage, aggregate resources from the Greenbelt, 2,925 acres (or 39%) were part
and agricultural information to the Housing Ministry of the Natural Heritage System, equivalent to approxi-
during the November–December 2022 public consulta- mately 2,200 football fields. Almost 1,000 acres (or
tion period. While some select high-level information 14%) of the total removals are wetlands or woodlands.
was incorporated into the December 14 submission to Without the protection provided by the Greenbelt Plan,
Cabinet, the information provided by subject matter the removed lands are at greater risk of: loss or deg-
experts on potential environmental and agricultural radation of natural features; fragmentation and loss of
risks did not ultimately affect the Greenbelt decisions. wildlife habitat, including for species at risk; increased
For 14 of the 15 land sites removed, the Housing flooding; and impacts on water quantity and quality.
Ministry did not consider any site-specific environ- Even natural features on lands that are not developed
mental data or attempt to avoid removing important can become degraded and adversely affected by sur-
natural features such as wetlands or woodlands from rounding development. Below, we summarize some of
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 47

the identified environmental risks of the 2022 Green- almost 1,000 acres of wetlands and woodlands have
belt removals. now been removed from the Greenbelt (see Figure 10),
and are therefore at increased risk of loss or degrada-
Wetlands and Woodlands tion. In some cases (for example, Sites #4, #9, #10
Wetlands and woodlands provide important ecological and #12), wetlands or woodlands have been partially
functions, such as: flood reduction, water filtration, removed, with the Greenbelt boundary now passing
carbon storage and wildlife habitat. The Housing Min- right through these features. In others (for example,
istry did not attempt to obtain data on the number Sites #1, #3, #11 and #13), the boundary is within
or locations of wetlands and woodlands within the 30 metres of a natural feature still protected within
15 areas removed during the course of the Greenbelt the Greenbelt, such that the amended boundaries are
project. According to Natural Resources Ministry data, inconsistent with the Greenbelt Plan’s Natural Heritage

Figure 10: Woodlands and Wetlands on Land Sites Removed from the Greenbelt in 2022
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Unevaluated1
Total Size Woodland Wetland Area Wetland Area Wetlands
Site of Removal Area Removed Removed Removed Removed
# Site Name (Municipality) (Acres) (acres) (acres) (acres and %) (#)
1 Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve 4,289 373 229 171 (74%) 117
(Pickering)
2 Kingston Road and Highway 401 (Ajax) 133 2 – – –
3 Nash Road (Clarington) 86 16 14 0 (0%) 2
4 Book Road (Hamilton) 1,809 234 56 56 (100%) 27
5 Hamilton Mount Hope (Hamilton) 163 2 – – –
6 Cline Road (Grimsby) 73 <1 – – –
7 502 Winston Road (Grimsby) 15 – – – –
8 Barton (Hamilton) 10 – – – –
9 Bathurst-King (King) 655 542 8 1 (17%) 9
10 Highway 48 (Markham) 88 1 1 1 (100%) 3
11 10379 Kennedy Road (Markham) 37 <1 – – –
12 Leslie-Elgin (Richmond Hill) 15 <1 <1 – 3
13 Block 41 Lands (Vaughan) 16 – <1 < 1 (100%) 2
14 11861 and 12046
McCowan Road (Whitchurch- 13 – – – –
Stouffville)
15 19th Avenue and McCowan Road
11 – <1 < 1 (100%) 1
(Markham)
Total 7,413 682 308 229 (74%) 1643
1. Wetland area that has not been evaluated to determine provincial significance for protection. Of the remaining 26% of wetland area that has been evaluated, 19%
was not deemed provincially significant (all located within the DRAP lands) and 7% was provincially significant.
2. Includes woodland area in the Oak Ridges Moraine Area re-designated to Settlement Area.
3. Individual wetlands are defined by outer boundaries and types of wetland area. Includes 22 wetlands that were partially removed from the Greenbelt.
48

System methodology to allow wildlife to travel between Assessment Agency of Canada work with Parks Canada
habitats. and Environment and Climate Change Canada to
develop a proposed approach and scope of a study to
Wildlife Habitat and Species at Risk understand the potential effects, including cumulative
Many wildlife species depend on intact, connected effects, of past, ongoing and potential future nearby
habitat to feed, reproduce and maintain genetic divers- development projects on the integrity of the Rouge
ity. However, development can break up previously National Urban Park and its management objectives.
connected habitat into smaller, more isolated frag- Rouge National Urban Park borders the Duffins Rouge
ments. Habitat fragmentation can reduce the number Agricultural Preserve and is one of the largest urban
and diversity of organisms and, in turn, alter species parks in Canada. In May 2023, the Impact Assessment
communities and ecosystems. Fragmentation can also Agency of Canada indicated that a committee would be
reduce the quality of remaining habitat, as adjacent appointed to carry out the study. 
development can introduce pollution, invasive species
and other threats. Flooding and Water Quantity and Quality
Several expert bodies have identified potential Green spaces, such as wetlands, woodlands, meadows
risks to wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors, and to and farmland, provide permeable (porous) surfaces
the species that depend on them, that may result from that help absorb rainwater. Flood risk increases when
the 2022 Greenbelt removals (see key examples in green spaces are replaced with impermeable surfaces
Figure 11). While the purpose of Ontario’s Endangered such as roads, driveways and parking lots. Land-use
Species Act, 2007 is to protect Ontario’s most vulnerable changes can also adversely affect groundwater and
species (e.g., endangered and threatened species), our surface water, which in turn can have impacts on
2021 value-for-money audit Protecting and Recovering drinking-water supplies and natural features that
Species at Risk found that the Province’s systems and depend on these water sources. Seven of the 15 areas
process for approvals now facilitate and enable harm to removed from the Greenbelt are within the Toronto
species at risk and their habitats. and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) water-
As discussed in that report, if the federal Minister of shed jurisdiction. The TRCA noted that development
Environment and Climate Change is of the opinion that within the Greenbelt removals have the potential to
a province’s laws do not effectively protect the critical increase flooding hazards, and may have negative
habitat of a federally listed species at risk, the federal impacts on the groundwater system and functions in
government can issue orders under its own Species these areas (see key examples in Figure 12).
at Risk Act. For example, to protect the habitat of the
nationally threatened western chorus frog, the federal
4.7.3 Greenbelt Area Removals Are Expected
government issued orders in 2021 with prohibitions
to Have a Significant Adverse Land Impact on
on residential development in Longueuil, Quebec. The
the Agricultural System
federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change
has commented in January 2023 that, if similar pro- While the total Greenbelt Area was increased by
jects were to be proposed on lands that were part of the 2022 Greenbelt amendments, Agriculture Ministry
the Greenbelt, he would have a legislative obligation staff concluded in an internal Information Note that
to intervene. Staff at Environment and Climate Change the protected countryside area would be reduced,
Canada are reported to have identified that at least 29 and, as a result, overall “the net change in quantity
species at risk live, or are likely to live, in the areas and quality of agricultural land would be considerably
removed from the Greenbelt. lower.” For example, the net impact of the land remov-
In March 2023, the federal Minister of the Environ- als and additions resulted in a loss of over 4,700 acres
ment and Climate Change requested that the Impact of land designated and protected by municipalities
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 49

Figure 11: Key Risks to Wildlife Habitat and Species at Risk from 2022 Greenbelt Removals
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General

Site Site Name

# (Municipality) Wildlife Habitat and Species Identified Potential Risks of Removal
1 Duffins Rouge • Land is adjacent to a provincially • Maycause negative impacts to species at risk in the
Agricultural significant wetland complex that is preserve by creating barriers to suitable habitats.1
Preserve “arguably the most ecologically sensitive
• May have negative impacts on biodiversity, species at
(Pickering) area of [Rouge National Urban Park]
risk and fish habitat, as well as the neighbouring park’s
4,289 acres and is home to dozens of federally and
ecological integrity.2 (The Assessment Agency of Canada is
provincially endangered and threatened
studying the potential effects of development on the park).
species.”1
• The removal reduced the width of the connection between
• 22 species at risk (including the
the remaining protected area in West Duffins Creek
endangered red-headed woodpecker
valley and the rest of the Greenbelt to approximately
and butternut tree and the threatened
45 metres (see Site #1 in Appendix 4.) The width of this
Blanding’s turtle) have been reported
corridor, which protects only the west side of the creek,
within one kilometre of the preserve.1
is inconsistent with the Greenbelt Plan’s Natural Heritage
• The preserve forms “necessary linkages” to System methodology of providing 60 metres on each side
adjacent natural areas and creeks, and the of a river or creek to protect these valley corridors and the
connection to the Rouge National Urban habitats they provide.3
Park is especially important for wildlife
• May be detrimental to a currently unimpeded east-west
passage.3
corridor between Rouge National Urban Park and the
Natural Heritage System in Pickering’s Seaton community.4
3 Nash Road • Entire area is recognized as a “Wildlife • May cause negative impacts on the provincially significant
(Clarington) Movement Habitat Network,” and includes wetland area and function, woodland cover, and wildlife
86 acres areas designated as “core habitat” and habitat and movement.5
corridors that support the movement of
• May cause negative impacts on a tributary of Black Creek,
sensitive plants and animals.5
which could increase risks of downstream flooding and
• A portion of the provincially significant erosion and further degrade wildlife habitat.5
wetland within the removal is a candidate
Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (a provincial designation of
areas with significant representation of
biodiversity and natural landscapes).3
12 Leslie-Elgin • Area straddles a wildlife corridor and • The removal reduces the corridor width from 160 to
(Richmond Hill) the Rouge River tributary, which provides 90 metres, which is inconsistent with an Ontario Municipal
15 acres habitat for species moving north-south Board settlement that requires a minimum width of
adjacent to Highway 404.4 120 metres for the Natural Heritage System for major
tributaries in this area (such as this Rouge River tributary).4
• Area contains or is immediately adjacent
to diverse wildlife habitats, including • An additional road will likely be required on the removed
meadows, woodlands, marshes, swamps lands to support future development, which “would result
and a sensitive coldwater stream that in a loss of [provincially significant wetland] habitat and
provides important fish habitat.3,4 potential impacts to redside dace habitat,” an endangered
species of minnow.4
13 Block 41 Lands • Identified as
a priority area for maintaining • Theremoval reduces the corridor from 600 to 265 metres,
(Vaughan) habitat connectivity for various species that which “would have a significant impact on the intended
16 acres depend on forests and wetlands.4 landscape connectivity and the species using the area.”4
1. Feature or risk identified by Parks Canada.
2. Feature or risk identified by Environment and Climate Change Canada.
3. Feature or risk identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
4. Feature or risk identified by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
5. Feature or risk identified by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
50

Figure 12: Key Risks to Water Quantity and Quality from 2022 Greenbelt Removals
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General

Site Site Name

# (Municipality) Potential Risks

1 Duffins Rouge Agricultural • Development is expected to increase flood risk within the area and for downstream lands
Preserve (Pickering) already prone to flooding. Additional studies and flood mapping will be necessary if
4,289 acres development proceeds in this area, “potentially including long term and costly flood hazard
remediation projects to protect the downstream lands from the impacts of development.”
Preliminary reviews show that downstream infrastructure will need to be retrofitted if this area is
developed.1
• The preserve includes the old Lake Iroquois shoreline, which is a highly sensitive “prominent
discharge area” where groundwater seeps close to the surface. It “provides one of the key
sources [of freshwater] for creeks in the eastern half of the Greater Toronto Area,” as well as for
“highly significant downstream coastal marshes.”2

10 Highway 48 (Markham) • Arearemoved is partially within and immediately adjacent to a regulatory floodplain, an area
88 acres identified as prone to flooding when water levels rise in nearby river tributaries or streams.1

11 10379 Kennedy Road • Theremoval is adjacent to a flooding and erosion hazard area. The TRCA noted that it “would not
(Markham) support development within the area" and that "high groundwater could impede development” or
37 acres require lands to be dewatered, which could impact natural features in this area.
• Thisremoval includes land identified as a candidate Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest and is only 18 metres from a provincially significant wetland deemed important for
flood control and groundwater supply in this area, inconsistent with the Greenbelt Plan’s Natural
Heritage System methodology of providing at least 30 metres around natural features.2

12 Leslie-Elgin (Richmond Hill) • Thisremoval includes a provincially significant wetland that helps regulate water quantity and
15 acres quality in the Rouge River tributary, and protects a sensitive cold-water stream, a water feature
that provides special habitat to certain fish communities.1

15 19th Ave and McCowan • Arearemoved is partially within and immediately adjacent to a regulatory floodplain, an area
Road (Markham) identified as prone to flooding when water levels rise in nearby river tributaries or streams.1
11 acres
1. Risk identified by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
2. Risk identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

as prime agricultural area. The Agriculture Ministry result from recent decisions by the Housing Ministry
staff also noted internally that the 2022 amendments to expand urban settlement boundaries (for example,
conflict with one of the Greenbelt Plan’s stated goals: the City of Hamilton and Wellington County) as well
to provide permanent protection to the agricultural as proposed changes to provincial land-use planning
land base. policy that could further reduce restrictions for new
As of 2021, only about 5% of Ontario’s land area (or development on agricultural land and reduce muni-
11.8 million acres) is farmland, which is vulnerable to cipalities’ need to prioritize intensification and meet
ongoing loss to urban development. The federal Census population-density targets.
of Agriculture indicated that, from 2016 to 2021, the The agricultural community and municipalities
total farm area actively farmed in Ontario declined have expressed concerns over the recent removal of
by 319 acres a day, on average. Staff from the Agricul- properties from the Greenbelt due to the precedent
ture Ministry noted that additional farmland loss may they create for future removals and increased real
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 51

estate speculation on agricultural land. Removing $14.7 million to Ontario’s gross domestic product in
farmland from the Greenbelt for development frag- 2021.
ments farmland which can trigger impacts on the While the Agriculture Ministry found that the
surrounding agricultural land base. For example, removal of the other 10 areas (5% of total area
paving over farmland and natural features can degrade removed) will likely have only minor impacts on
neighbouring farmlands that may be of higher quality, agriculture, this assessment was based largely on
through increased soil erosion, changes in water the annual agricultural production of those lands.
storage or increased pollution runoff from urban areas. However, protecting high-quality agricultural land,
After Greenbelt amendments were proposed on regardless of current agricultural production, preserves
the Environmental Registry, Agriculture Ministry staff valuable soil resources, helps to meet future agricul-
prepared, for their own purposes, a desktop analysis of tural needs and promotes long-term food security.
the agricultural implications of the proposed Greenbelt In addition, developing surrounding farmland may
changes using existing, readily available information. impact the productivity or future potential of high-
This analysis was sent to the Housing Ministry during quality agricultural land. For example, the Agriculture
the public consultation period. Agriculture Ministry Ministry staff have noted that three (Sites #6, #7 and
staff have estimated that 76% of the total land removed #8) of the Greenbelt removals (98 acres) are entirely
from the Greenbelt was in active agricultural use in within specialty crop areas, which are the highest pri-
2022. About 83% of the area removed is classified ority for protection due to their scarcity, unique soil
as Class 1-3 prime agricultural lands, which is of the and climate conditions, and ability to support fruit
highest quality and capability for agriculture. and vegetable production. Although these particular
Agriculture Ministry staff concluded that removing removals are expected to affect agricultural produc-
three of the 15 areas (Sites # 1, #4 and #9) from the tion, the incremental impacts are expected to be
Greenbelt, making up 91% of the total area removed, minor, partially because of previous fragmentation and
is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts on agri- development on the surrounding lands.
culture given their large size, existing agricultural uses
and connectedness to the surrounding agricultural
4.7.4 Recent Changes to Other Environmental
landscape (see Figure 13). The Agriculture Ministry
Protections May Increase Risks to Natural
staff determined that two additional removals (Sites
Features Removed from the Greenbelt
#2 and #5) are likely to have moderate adverse
impacts. The Housing Minister’s Office has stated that develop-
Agriculture Ministry staff further noted that the ments on the removed Greenbelt lands will require
removal of lands in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Pre- municipal planning approvals and that the Province
serve (DRAP) is the most significant removal in terms will require that environmentally sensitive areas be set
of expected adverse impacts due to its size, agricultural aside and protected before any construction begins.
production and connectivity with the surrounding agri- Environmental protections for lands removed from the
cultural system. According to the Agriculture Ministry, Greenbelt will default to the normal land-use planning
the DRAP has been the only “agricultural preserve” in framework, including the Provincial Policy Statement,
Ontario, and the legacy of protecting these lands has the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
resulted in minimal non-agricultural development in and regulatory and legislative protections (such as
this area, increasing the quality and connectivity of the through the Conservation Authorities Act and Endan-
agricultural land. The Agriculture Ministry conducted gered Species Act, 2007). Land-use planning outside of
additional analysis for our Office and estimated that the Greenbelt Plan area (or other area-specific provin-
the removed preserve lands contributed approximately cial land-use plans) is subject to the Provincial Policy
52

Figure 13: 2022 Greenbelt Removals Characterized as Having Significant or Moderate Adverse Agricultural Impacts
by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Source of data: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Active Prime Agricultural

Site Site Name Agricultural Use1 Land Class 1-32 Agricultural
# (Municipality) (% of Site) (% of Site) Significance
Assessed as Likely to Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Agricultural System

1 Duffins Rouge Agricultural 73 92 • Extensiveagricultural operations, including

Preserve (Pickering) production of cash crops, nurseries, vineyards
4,289 acres and vegetables
• 86% of the area classified as the highest quality
(Class 1) soil2
• Important connections to the surrounding
agricultural system, including Rouge National
Urban Park
4 Book Road 77 67 • Part of a continuous land base for agriculture to
(Hamilton) the south and west
1,809 acres • Supports diverse agricultural operations
including cash crops, fruit and vegetable
production and two livestock operations
9 Bathurst-King 88 83 • Part of a continuous land base for agriculture to
(King Township) the west and north
655 acres • 83% of the area classified as the highest quality
(Class 1) soil, supporting cash crop production2
• Includes three livestock operations
Assessed as Likely to Have Moderate Adverse Impacts on Agricultural System

2 Kingston Road and 72 100 • 98% of the area classified as the highest quality
Highway 401 (Ajax) (Class 1) soil, supporting cash crop production2
133 acres • Priorityarea to maintain Greenbelt connectivity
within the Ajax/Whitby corridor
5 Hamilton Mount Hope 90 70 • Entirely in municipal prime agricultural area3
(Hamilton) • Land used for pasture, cash crops and sod
163 acres
• Priorityarea to maintain connectivity of the
agricultural land base
1. Estimates based on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s 2022 annual crop inventory.
2. The Canada Land Inventory divides land into seven classes according to inherent quality and capability for agriculture, as opposed to existing land use. Classes 1-3
are considered prime agricultural land, which are given the second-highest priority for protection, following Specialty Crop areas.
3. Prime agricultural area designated in the municipality’s Official Plan.

Statement (PPS), which provides policy direction on for natural features, in practice their policies often
matters of provincial interest. align with the PPS. Moreover, the Province has recently
However, protections provided for natural features directed Natural Resources Ministry staff to undertake
under the PPS are generally weaker than under the a number of changes that will limit municipalities and
Greenbelt Plan. While municipalities and conserva- conservation authorities’ ability to protect natural fea-
tion authorities can implement stronger protections tures (see Figure 14).
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 53

Figure 14: Recent and Proposed Provincial Changes that Could Reduce Protections of Natural Features on Removed
Greenbelt Lands
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Ontario Wetland Evaluation System

The Natural Resources Ministry developed this science-based scoring system in 1983 to aid in determining the provincial
significance of wetlands based on their ecological and societal functions.

Recent Changes
In December 2022, the Natural Resources Ministry made the following major changes to the wetland evaluation system:
• eliminated two categories that allocated points to wetlands for providing habitat to endangered or threatened species for
reproduction, migration, feeding or hibernation;
• removed consideration of wetland complexes, which can reduce the total size of the area evaluated, and therefore the points
scored, for an individual wetland. (A wetland complex is a group of wetland units that are functionally linked to one another and
located within 750 metres of at least one other wetland in the complex);
• allowed wetland complexes already designated as provincially significant to be re-evaluated as individual units; and
• removed the Natural Resources Ministry’s role in oversight of wetland evaluations and final approval of wetland status.

Ecological Offsetting Policy

Ecological offsetting allows natural features to be removed or degraded if these negative impacts cannot be avoided or
mitigated during development, provided that restoration or creation of natural features occurs elsewhere.

Proposed Changes
The Natural Resources Ministry posted a proposal on October 25, 2022, on the Environmental Registry seeking feedback on
developing an offsetting policy for natural heritage features. An offsetting policy could include a compensation amount that
developers pay into a fund used to implement an offset, including construction, monitoring or management of a new or restored
natural feature. As of July 2023, this proposal was still under consideration.

Conservation Authorities Act

Conservation authorities are mandated under the Conservation Authorities Act to help protect people and property from
natural hazards, such as flooding and erosion. Conservation authorities have historically protected natural features within
their watersheds to reduce risks from natural hazards, as well as to promote broader watershed conservation goals, such
as protecting habitat and increasing resilience to climate change.

Recent Changes
Between 2020 and 2022, the Province made several amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act that limit conservation
authorities’ abilities to conserve and protect natural features. These changes prohibit conservation authorities from:
• denying a development permit to a development that is authorized by a Minister’s Zoning Order;

• providing municipalities with comments on development applications under certain legislation (e.g., the Planning Act),
unless related to natural hazards or protecting sources of drinking water;

• requiring developers to obtain permits for certain activities (this will come into effect once the regulation is finalized); and

• placing conditions on development for reasons other than controlling natural hazards or protecting public safety, thus limiting
their ability to minimize other negative impacts, such as habitat degradation or pollution.
54

In addition, the Housing Minister can issue a Min- an additional 19% has been evaluated but not deemed
ister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to override the normal provincially significant. As a result, a total of 93% of
land use planning process. MZOs are not required to wetland area removed from the Greenbelt in 2022 is
be consistent with the PPS, conform to provincial plans not protected under the PPS. A total of 117 wetlands
or follow the usual municipal planning processes. (For removed from the Greenbelt were within the DRAP
more information on the Housing Ministry’s use of lands, 110 of which have never been evaluated.
MZOs, see our 2021 report, Land-Use Planning in the In its assessment of site-specific environmental
Greater Golden Horseshoe). Since the release of our considerations related to the Greenbelt amendments,
report in 2021, when we reported that 78 MZOs had the Natural Resources Ministry noted that the Natural
been issued between January 2000 and August 2021, Heritage System for the DRAP lands was based on
an additional 58 MZOs have been issued up to July 11, “providing connection linking the wetlands, woodlands
2023. Prior to 2019, MZOs were used only in special and streams” to manage waterflow and support wildlife
circumstances, and were issued about once a year from movement. It cautioned that “many of these features
2000 to 2019. The Housing Ministry public service staff have not been evaluated or assessed given that they are
expect that the Housing Minister intends to use MZOs provided protection by the [Natural Heritage System]
on lands removed from the Greenbelt to expedite and these natural heritage features should not be con-
development. sidered of less value or significance.”
Despite the potential risks to natural features (such
as wetland and woodlands) and surrounding lands
4.7.5 Greenbelt Additions Were Not Based
associated with the Greenbelt removals, Housing Min-
on Natural Boundaries and Protecting
istry public service staff confirmed that there is no plan
Environmental Functions
in place to monitor the status of natural features on
these lands or the degree to which they are protected In October 2022, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff
during future housing development. requested that the Greenbelt Project Team identify
The recent changes to the Ontario Wetland Evalua- land that could be added to the Greenbelt to offset
tion System could make it harder for wetlands to the potential removals with the goal of increasing the
achieve provincially significant status, which is how overall size of the Greenbelt. This offset was necessary
they receive formal protection under the PPS. In because the Greenbelt Act, 2005 prohibits a reduction to
addition, wetlands that are already designated as prov- the total area of the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt Project
incially significant can now be re-evaluated for removal Team identified certain Urban River Valleys (URVs)
of that designation at the request of a municipality and a portion of the Paris Galt Moraine (described in
or landowner with no provincial review or oversight Section 2.3.5) to offset the approximately 7,400 acres
of evaluations. Further, the PPS does not require a removed, on the basis that the Housing Ministry had
wetland to be evaluated for provincial significance already assessed these sites and held public consulta-
before a municipality approves land-use changes that tions on them in 2021 and had mapping available. (See
could damage or destroy it. Therefore, natural fea- Figure 15 for a map of the Paris Galt Moraine addi-
tures that have not yet been evaluated and deemed tion.) The Greenbelt Project Team advised the Housing
significant are particularly vulnerable to development Minister’s Chief of Staff that assessing and mapping
pressures. any other areas was not possible given the project’s
With respect to the 2022 Greenbelt removals, 7% three-week timeline.
of the wetland area removed is designated as prov- However, the Housing Ministry’s 2021 assessment
incially significant. However, the majority (74%) of and consultation on potential Greenbelt additions
wetland area removed has not yet been evaluated, and were based on fundamentally different circumstances
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 55

Figure 15: Boundary of the Paris Galt Moraine and the 2022 Addition to the Greenbelt
Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

* The orange colour shows the draft boundary of the Paris Galt Moraine prepared by Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing staff in response to the consultation that occurred in 2021 on an initial study area.

than the actual 2022 Greenbelt amendment. The 2021 areas to grow the Greenbelt, and proposed 13 new
assessment and consultation were in the context of Urban River Valleys (URVs) and a study area for a Paris
solely growing the Greenbelt, whereas the 2022 deci- Galt Moraine addition. The proposal included a list of
sion was in the context of offsetting the land removals. the Ministry’s “Principles for Growing the Greenbelt
Despite this fundamental change, the Housing Ministry Expansions,” which included “no consideration of
did not re-assess the suitability of adding these lands to removal requests or land exchanges.” The principles
the Greenbelt as a comparable and reasonable offset to that were used align with the Housing Ministry’s
the removals. “Growing the Greenbelt” document, published and
The Housing Ministry had held a 61-day public sent to municipalities in 2008, which outlined the
consultation from February to April 2021 on initial process and criteria for municipal requests to expand
56

the Greenbelt. In keeping with these principles and the end, in spring 2021, the Housing Ministry conducted
objectives of the Greenbelt Act, 2005 (Greenbelt Act), extensive engagement to gather detailed information
the Housing Ministry engaged with partner ministries on the Paris Galt Moraine’s geology, hydrology (distri-
and other relevant stakeholders on the 2021 proposed bution and movement of water) and natural features
additions and carried out an evidence-based process to inform the proposed boundary. The Ministry stated
for identifying URVs and establishing a boundary for that there was “consensus across stakeholders and
the Paris Galt Moraine. This followed a similar process partner ministries that any legal boundary of the Paris
to the one used in 2017 to select the 24,932 acres of Galt Moraine must be defendable and supported by the
land added. best available provincial scientific data.”
In March 2022, the Housing Ministry announced In the summer of 2021, the government directed
that it had been decided not to proceed with expand- Housing Ministry non-political public service staff to
ing the Greenbelt into the Paris Galt Moraine area. establish a proposed legal boundary for the entire Paris
The rationale provided was that the Ministry needed Galt Moraine for consideration of its addition to the
to understand how the proposed addition may impact Greenbelt, which would respect both the landform and
growth in housing and employment areas. The Min- the important functions it provides in regulating water
istry did, however, move forward with the next phase quality and quantity. As a result, the proposed bound-
of consultation to add 13 URV areas to the Greenbelt, ary was further expanded from the original study area
and Housing Ministry staff prepared maps for the new to align with the objectives of the Greenbelt Plan by
URVs and boundary amendments. incorporating adjacent natural features and prime agri-
However, on April 27, 2022, the day that Housing cultural land (see Figure 15).
Ministry non-political public service staff were However, in December 2022, the Housing Ministry
scheduled to submit the proposal to government added only a segment of the Paris Galt Moraine to the
decision-makers for final approval, they were informed Greenbelt, representing only about 6% of the moraine’s
that the government was no longer proceeding with proposed boundary established in 2021. While the
the Growing the Greenbelt project. Less than six Housing Ministry relied on the natural boundary of the
months later, in November 2022, the 13 URVs and a moraine drawn in 2021 for the northwestern boundary
portion of the Paris Galt Moraine were proposed again of the addition, the boundary along the western edge
as Greenbelt additions, but this time in the context of bisects the Paris Galt Moraine, following municipal
offsetting proposed removals. concession roads. Although Housing Ministry staff
initially recommended adding a larger portion of the
Paris Galt Moraine Addition Paris Galt Moraine to encompass important natural
The Housing Ministry based the boundaries of features and agricultural land, the Housing Minister’s
the 2022 Paris Galt Moraine addition largely on the Chief of Staff gave direction to proceed with the pro-
goal of meeting a 1:1 ratio to offset the removed Green- posal that only added an area closer to the 1:1 ratio
belt lands (in line with the Greenbelt Act requirement necessary to offset the proposed removals (when com-
that amendments cannot reduce the total Greenbelt bined with URV additions; see below). As such, this
Area), rather than on prior goals of respecting natural straight boundary was based on adding the minimum
boundaries and protecting environmental functions amount of Paris Galt Moraine land needed to meet
within the entire moraine. that ratio, with no consideration of the boundaries of
In 2017, the Province identified the Paris Galt hydrological, ecological or geological features.
Moraine, along with six other areas, as potential Green- In addition, the Housing Ministry’s 2022 decision
belt additions to protect important water resources in on which particular segment to add was not based on
the outer ring of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. To that the relative environmental or agricultural value of
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 57

protecting these lands. The Greenbelt Project Team • URVs are considered largely undevelopable
noted that the particular segment of the Paris Galt due to their steep terrain and increased risks of
Moraine added to the Greenbelt was chosen because flooding and erosion in these areas.
it maintained connectivity with the rest of the Green- • Most publicly owned lands in URVs are typically
belt, and because it was “less desirable” than areas already protected by existing provincial land-use
further south on the moraine that might be more suited planning policies and conservation authority
for future housing development and employment regulations, and through municipal Official Plan
opportunities. designations as parks, open space, or recreation,
As noted above, one of the Housing Ministry’s key conservation and/or environmental protection
objectives for adding the moraine to the Greenbelt was areas.
to protect important water resources that contribute to • The Greenbelt Plan’s policies for URVs are
drinking water supply in this region and that support weaker than most existing provincial and muni-
natural features and wildlife habitat. However, the cipal policies, as they only encourage protection
Greenbelt Project Team did not assess the locations rather than require it, and defer to the protec-
of key surface or groundwater features or their rela- tions provided in municipal Official Plans.
tive vulnerability when they proposed which segment • The Greenbelt Plan’s policies for URVs do not
of the moraine should be added. Furthermore, the apply at all to privately owned URV lands added
Greenbelt Project Team did not assess the compara- in 2022 or during previous amendments.
tive agricultural value of the 2022 Paris Galt Moraine While the Province added the URVs, along with
addition. In 2021, the Housing Ministry found that Paris Galt Moraine lands, to reach an area equal to or
some portions of the moraine, particularly northeast of greater than the approximately 7,400 acres of remov-
Guelph and Rockwood (immediately west of the 2022 als, numerous stakeholders expressed concerns that
addition), contain higher quality agricultural land than the URV additions do not contribute to the objectives
others; however, these lands were not added to the and goals of the Greenbelt Plan, and are inappropri-
Greenbelt, in part due to the Greenbelt Project Team ate offsets to balance removals of natural heritage and
identifying higher housing and development pressures agricultural lands. For example, the City of Markham
further south along the Paris Galt Moraine. noted that “replacing lands in the Greenbelt intended
to ensure the persistence of natural features in a con-
Urban River Valley Additions nected natural heritage system with other lands that
Our Office found that the 2,400 acres of URVs added already have protection from development, such as
to the Greenbelt in 2022 do not provide a meaningful river valleys, is a clear reduction in the protection
offset for the natural features and agricultural lands offered by the Greenbelt Plan.”
removed from the Greenbelt’s Protected Country- Further, due to their urban location and steep
side. The Housing Ministry has acknowledged that terrain, URVs also do not help protect agricultural land,
the designation of URV lands in the Greenbelt Plan is one of the core objectives of the Greenbelt Plan. The
largely symbolic and does not carry the same policy Housing Ministry had previously compiled feedback
protections as land designated as Protected Country- from the 2021 consultation on the URVs, and noted
side. Numerous stakeholders asserted that, while that the agricultural sector believes that it is unaccept-
URV additions may serve to promote education and able for URVs to be included in Greenbelt Plan area
awareness around the Greenbelt, adding them to the calculations to maintain the total Greenbelt area if
Greenbelt provides no new protection to the land. agricultural lands are removed for development. For
We found that the URV additions do not result in example, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which
meaningful protection for the following reasons: represents more than 38,000 farm family members
58

across the province, has commented to the Ministry relating to the 2022 Greenbelt changes did not describe
that URVs “do not contribute to the Greenbelt Plan’s the environmental implications of the proposals or
objectives, vision and goals of providing permanent provide an assessment of the environmental, social and
protection to the Agricultural Land Base. In no circum- economic consequences of implementing them. On the
stance should ‘greenbelting’ the [URVs] be considered contrary, the notices simply informed the public that
an acceptable means of maintaining the Greenbelt’s the anticipated regulatory impact of the proposals was
total land area in order to balance the loss of protected “positive.” They did not, for example, identify that 13
agricultural lands to development.” of the 15 land sites (the two exceptions are Sites #2
and #5) proposed to be removed from the Greenbelt

4.8 The Public and Municipalities contained Specialty Crops and Natural Heritage System

Were Not Effectively Consulted on the lands, the removal of which could impact wetlands,

Greenbelt Boundary Changes species at risk and flooding, as outlined in Section 4.7.
In addition, one of the Environmental Registry
4.8.1 Public Consultation on Greenbelt notices listed the criteria the Housing Ministry said it
Changes Was Undermined by Incomplete and had used to evaluate land sites for removal from the
Inaccurate Notices Greenbelt (see Figure 6), including whether:
• the lands have the potential ability to be ser-
On November 4, 2022, the Housing Ministry posted
viced in the near-term with local infrastructure
notices on the Environmental Registry of Ontario
upgrades to be entirely funded by proponents;
(Environmental Registry) relating to the proposed
and
Greenbelt amendments, and provided a 30-day public
• the lands proposed for removal have the charac-
consultation period. The notices outlined proposals to:
teristics that would enable housing to be built in
• amend the Greenbelt boundary regulation; the near-term.
• amend the Greenbelt Plan; However, as described in Section 4.2, we found
• re-designate land in the Oak Ridges Moraine that the Greenbelt Project Team was not able to assess
Conservation Area; and
whether the land sites met these criteria. Also, as we
• revoke a 2003 Minister’s Zoning Order limiting outlined in Section 4.5, Chief Planners confirmed to us
land use in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Pre-
that most of the land removed from the Greenbelt may
serve (DRAP) to agriculture.
not be ready for housing development for many years.
The Ministry had earlier, on October 25, 2022,
posted another notice related to the DRAP, proposing
to revoke the Central Pickering Development Plan. 4.8.2 The Government Did Not Meaningfully
We found that some of the information in these Consult the Public about the Greenbelt Changes,
notices was incomplete and inaccurate—limiting the Analyze or Respond to Feedback
public’s ability to fully understand and comment on
We found that the Housing Ministry did not make suf-
the proposed changes and their potential impacts. To
ficient efforts to consult the public in a meaningful way
meet the EBR Act’s purposes, notices should describe
or to analyze all of the comments received from the
a proposal and its environmental implications in suf-
public consultation process required by the EBR Act.
ficient detail to enable Ontarians to provide informed
The Housing Ministry did not make any changes to
comments. In addition, under the EBR Act, notices that
the proposed removals to address any of the concerns
provide a regulatory impact statement are required to
raised during the consultation.
include a preliminary assessment of the environmental,
The Housing Ministry posted notices on the
social and economic consequences of implementing the
Environmental Registry concerning amendments to the
proposal. However, we found that the proposal notices
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 59

Greenbelt’s boundary, and provided a 30-day consul- The 30-day consultation period relating to amend-
tation period, the minimum time required under the ing the Greenbelt’s boundary was significantly shorter
EBR Act. The EBR Act requires the Housing Minister to than the consultation periods provided by the Min-
consider providing more than the 30-day minimum for istry for past changes to the Greenbelt. For example,
public consultation based on factors like the complex- the 2017 amendments to the Greenbelt (described in
ity of the proposal, the level of public interest and the Section 2.1.6) went through three consultations over
period of time the public may require to make informed a 27-month period, ranging in duration from 47 to 174
comment. To satisfy this requirement for proposed days in length.
Greenbelt amendments, the Housing Ministry had We also found that the 30-day consultation period
developed internal guidance for the Housing Minister’s was particularly challenging for affected munici-
Office in 2020 that advised that public consultation palities. The Housing Ministry posted notices on
for such amendments include “posting on the Environ- the Environmental Registry related to the proposed
mental Registry for a minimum of 45 days.” changes to the Greenbelt’s boundary on November 4,
We found that 30 days of public consultation was 2022, just 11 days after municipal elections. Some
provided even though the Housing Ministry was aware municipal councils were not sworn in until weeks after
that 30 days was insufficient to effectively consult the the election date, limiting their ability to provide com-
public. Before posting notices on the Environmental ments related to these notices by December 4, 2022,
Registry to initiate the public consultation process, the when the consultation period ended. For example, the
Housing Ministry’s non-political public service staff Durham Regional Council, which governs the region
expressed concerns to political decision-makers about with the majority of the proposed Greenbelt land
the proposed length of the consultation. Specifically, removals, was not sworn in until November 30, 2022,
the Housing Ministry anticipated broad criticism on and first discussed comments relating to the Greenbelt
the consultation approach and the limited paths for proposal notices on December 14, 2022—after the con-
engagement, and expected that many stakeholders, sultation period had already ended. Similarly, the York
including municipalities, would not be able to provide Regional Council was not sworn in until November 17,
comprehensive responses in a 30-day window. The 2022, and first considered comments relating to the
Housing Ministry was also concerned that the con- Greenbelt proposal notices on December 15, 2022.
densed timeline increased the risk that owners of lands The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and
being added to the Greenbelt as part of the Paris Galt several individual municipalities, including the cities
Moraine addition would not even be aware that their of Toronto and Oshawa, asked the Housing Ministry
lands were being added to the Greenbelt and that for additional time to review, analyze and provide
there would be insufficient time for staff to meet with comments on the proposed changes to the Greenbelt’s
landowners. boundary. Nevertheless, the consultation period was
The Housing Ministry cautioned that the proposed not extended.
timelines to finalize changes to the Greenbelt’s bound- Although the consultation period was limited to
ary immediately after the consultation period were just 30 days, the Housing Ministry received more than
“very aggressive” and would not allow for substantive 35,000 comments in response to proposal notices for
changes to the proposal. The Housing Ministry noted the 2022 amendments to the Greenbelt boundary. This
that any analysis of comments by staff could only be number of comments is among the highest submitted
high-level and likely only include a cursory review on any proposal notice posted on the Environmental
of submissions by impacted property owners and not Registry in the past four years. The EBR Act requires
a submission-by-submission review of the received the Housing Minister to take every reasonable step
comments. to ensure that all relevant comments received are
60

considered when making decisions about the proposal. any of the proposed land removals as a result of public
We found that, consistent with the warnings it had consultation.
provided to government, the Housing Ministry’s Green-
belt Project Team could not complete a comprehensive
4.8.3 The Public Was Not Effectively Consulted
analysis of all the comments it received in time to fully
on the Repeal of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural
inform decision-making. Instead, the Greenbelt Project
Preserve Act, 2005
Team only summarized the main themes. The team
noted that this constraint was because of the limited On November 16, 2022, the Minister of Municipal
time it had to review the large number of comments Affairs and Housing introduced a bill in the Legislature
received. to, among other things, repeal the Duffins Rouge Agri-
Feedback received on the proposals was over- cultural Preserve Act, 2005 (DRAP Act), as described
whelmingly negative, and many commenters included in Section 2.3.4. However, we found that the Ministry
similar feedback on related proposals (for example, on of Natural Resources and Forestry (Natural Resources
Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022). Themes Ministry), which was responsible for the DRAP Act, did
included: concerns for protection of environmental and not consult the public on this proposal.
agricultural lands; opposition to land swaps and per- The EBR Act requires a minister to consult on pro-
ceived partisan approaches to Greenbelt amendments; posals to amend or repeal environmentally significant
and demands for policies to address the affordability of acts, unless an exception under the EBR Act applies. In
housing and densification of existing settlement areas. this case, the Natural Resources Minister deemed that
There was also criticism of the short timeline of the an exception applied, on the basis that the environ-
consultation. mentally significant aspects of the proposal to repeal
Affected conservation authorities expressed oppos- the DRAP Act had already been considered in the
ition to the proposed removals and were unsupportive public consultation process to amend the Greenbelt’s
of the approach taken to the Greenbelt amendments. boundary. Accordingly, on November 22, 2022, the
Agricultural groups were also opposed, with many Natural Resources Ministry posted an exception notice
requesting a complete withdrawal of the proposal. on the Environmental Registry explaining that consul-
Their concerns were mainly about the loss of viable tations had been undertaken or were under way on the
agricultural land and the impact that the proposed Housing Ministry’s Environmental Registry notices for
changes would have on the agricultural system. The the 2022 proposal to amend the Greenbelt’s boundary,
building and development sector was supportive of the and included links to those notices.
proposal, with most of these commenters expressing We found, however, that none of the Environmental
interest in more opportunities for Greenbelt removals. Registry notices to amend the Greenbelt’s boundary
Environmental groups were extremely critical. They referred to the DRAP Act by name, any of the agricul-
opposed a land-swap approach, and identified a wide tural and conservation easements protected under it, or
range of potential negative impacts related to the loss its potential repeal. Therefore, members of the public
of agricultural lands, loss of biodiversity and increased who reviewed those notices could not have known from
sprawl at a cost to the environment. See Section 4.7.2 their content that the DRAP Act was also going to be
for some of the key environmental risks raised. repealed.
The Housing Ministry communicated to the gov- Moreover, the exception notice stated that there
ernment that the feedback it received on the proposal would be no additional environmental impacts that
notices relating to amending the Greenbelt’s bound- would result from the proposed repeal of the DRAP
ary was overwhelmingly negative. Nevertheless, the Act that had not already been outlined in the proposal
Housing Ministry stated that no changes were made to notices to amend the Greenbelt’s boundary. However,
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 61

neither the exception notice nor the Greenbelt proposal formal agreements governing the relations between
notices communicated to the public that there were First Nations or other Indigenous peoples and Can-
any environmental impacts at all, even though the adian governments. Historical and modern treaties
Greenbelt Project Team knew that the DRAP land site define ongoing rights and obligations on all sides, and
contained approximately 2,600 acres of Natural Herit- may address:
age System lands. • title or rights to land;
Through our work, we determined that the govern- • rights to use and manage lands and resources,
ment was aware that development on these lands could such as hunting and fishing rights;
negatively affect agriculture and natural heritage fea- • self-government; and
tures, and that the natural heritage system in the DRAP • economic, cultural and social rights.
lands connects to other natural heritage systems in the The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently
Greenbelt and surrounding area. confirmed that the Crown must act honourably in dis-
Because of the Natural Resources Ministry’s use of charging its Duty to Consult, and that fulfilment of the
the exception notice, the public did not have complete duty must be meaningful.
information or an effective opportunity to provide The Greenbelt Plan specifies that “this Plan must be
comments on the proposal to repeal the DRAP Act. implemented in a manner that is consistent with the
Moreover, the Housing Ministry did not consider all recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and
of the comments it received on the Greenbelt propos- treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act,
als (see Section 4.8.2). On the basis of the exception 1982. The Ontario government shall consult with First
notice, the Natural Resources Ministry did not consider Nations and Métis communities on decisions concern-
any of the comments submitted on the Greenbelt pro- ing the use of Crown land and resources that may affect
posals prior to the enactment of the DRAP Act’s repeal Aboriginal and treaty rights within the area of the
on December 8, 2022. Greenbelt Plan.”

Greenbelt Removals and Indigenous Treaty Lands

4.9 Indigenous Communities and
Leaders Say the Province Failed to The majority of the land removed from the Green-

Properly Consult Them on Greenbelt belt in 2022 is covered by the 1923 Williams Treaties

Changes and multiple treaties with the Mississaugas of the

Credit First Nation (MCFN). Rights under these treat-
According to First Nations leaders we spoke to, the ies include harvesting rights in certain areas (such as
extent and timing of the Housing Ministry’s consulta- rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather). After lengthy
tion with Indigenous communities was insufficient to litigation about the terms and implementation of
meet the Province’s Duty to Consult with regards to the Williams Treaties, the Government of Canada,
treaty rights and other rights that apply to the areas the Province of Ontario and the Williams Treaties
removed from the Greenbelt in 2022. First Nations (Alderville First Nation, Beausoleil First
Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of
Duty to Consult and Accommodate Obligations Rama, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation
The “duty to consult and accommodate” refers to the and Mississaugas of Scugog Island) reached a settle-
Crown’s, including Ontario’s, constitutional obliga- ment agreement in 2018 that reaffirmed continuing
tion to consult with and accommodate the concerns treaty harvesting rights, entitled each First Nation to
of Indigenous peoples where it contemplates deci- add up to 11,000 acres of land to their reserve land,
sions or actions that may adversely impact asserted or and provided an apology and financial compensation to
established Indigenous or treaty rights. Treaties are the First Nations.
62

Specific First Nations Perspectives that while they received a notification letter from the
In the course of our audit work, we spoke with rep- government, they received no meeting requests, and
resentatives of four First Nations affected by the there was no attempt to conduct risk mitigation. MCFN
Greenbelt changes, namely the Mississaugas of the noted that consultation should begin when the thought
Credit and the Alderville First Nation (in person), the of a strategic idea is created, and notice should be given
Mississaugas of Scugog Island (MSIFN) and the Six at the earliest opportunity.
Nations of the Grand River (virtually). We met the We also met with the elected council of the Six
Chiefs of three of the First Nations, the elected council Nations of the Grand River, who told us that the legal
of one First Nation, as well as, in some cases, other Duty to Consult and accommodate must occur prior
members of each community. All First Nations that we to changes being passed if First Nations’ interests are
met with reiterated that they were unsupportive of to be addressed. However, they expressed that they
the removals from the Greenbelt and that the process were not consulted nor engaged in this process, and
undertaken by the Housing Ministry did not represent that effective consultation would begin when an idea
effective or meaningful consultation. for land-use changes is first formulated, not after a
According to the First Nations representatives that decision is made. Representatives we spoke to told us
we spoke to, the Province’s decision to remove certain that these Greenbelt removals also go against their
lands from the Greenbelt for housing triggers the Duty Nation’s climate change initiatives and that the process
to Consult and accommodate, as housing develop- undertaken by the Housing Ministry fails to meet their
ment on treaty lands may impact the First Nations’ environmental standards.
harvesting rights. Moreover, the terms of the Williams Overall, members of First Nations we met with told
Treaties Settlement allow each of the First Nations us that the Province does not seem open to discussing
party to the treaty to add 11,000 acres to their reserve the adverse impacts of Greenbelt removals to treaty
lands, which could be acquired from Canada, Ontario lands and rights, and that, should development occur
or private landowners. All First Nations that we spoke on these lands, the removals could have profound
to also stressed the importance of consultation occur- impacts on treaty rights, especially in terms of har-
ring before action is taken that may impact Indigenous vesting crops such as wild rice. We were told that, in
rights and treaty lands, not during or afterwards. order to meet the Duty to Consult, the Crown must go
The Chief and other members of the Mississaugas beyond notice of an intended decision, ensuring that
of the Credit First Nation told us that treaty rights are each impacted Indigenous community is given ample
being disregarded, and that the government’s Duty time to review the matter and provide comment, and
to Consult obligation was not fulfilled in relation to that the Crown must consider the concerns of each
the 2022 Greenbelt removals. They told us that there impacted Indigenous community. Moreover, we were
is a high standard to meet for consultation with them told that development on these lands removed from
due to the size of their lands and since many removals the Greenbelt did not prepare communities for major
affect their treaty lands, and that a 30-day comment climate change risks, such as loss of ecosystems and
period cannot replace a consultation process since the flooding.
obligation is with the government to consult, not with Another First Nation mentioned it is important to
First Nations. Members of the community told us there protect biodiversity and water resources across the
was neither sufficient consultation nor a meaning- Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and that more
ful opportunity to examine potential impacts. They development compromises the environment. Some
asserted that this process should ideally involve a com- First Nation members we spoke to felt that there was
plete assessment of impacts to MCFN rights, and should insufficient time to consult on these Greenbelt amend-
consider risks, mitigative measures or accommoda- ments, and the process was not meaningful, as the First
tions. The Chief and community members explained Nation did not feel it could influence the decision at
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 63

all. Moreover, it was raised that First Nations under the land was already removed from the Greenbelt. While
Williams Treaties have a right to 11,000 acres of land to the Housing Ministry wrote to the MCFN and offered
be added to their reserve lands, and that these Green- to meet with them in November 2022, as of June 30,
belt removals may impact those prospects. 2023, the MCFN and Housing Ministry had not yet met.
The MCFN told us that the Housing Ministry has not
Extent of Ministry Consultation with First Nations attempted to engage with their community on potential
The extent of the Housing Ministry’s consultation impacts to MCFN rights and risk mitigation. MCFN told
with First Nations communities consisted of: sending us that poor consultation has resulted in a situation
emails to 12 First Nation Chiefs and Indigenous leaders where the Ontario government’s decisions are vulner-
in November 2022 with links to information about able to challenge, including costly and lengthy court
the 2022 Greenbelt boundary amendment proposals proceedings to protect their rights.
that were posted on the Environmental Registry of
Ontario during the public consultation period (Nov-
4.10 No Formal Framework
ember 4 to December 3, 2022); inviting First Nations
Established to Monitor Whether
communities to contact a Ministry Director to discuss
Developers Are Fulfilling Government
or provide feedback or meet with them; having virtual
Conditions on Greenbelt Land
meetings with three First Nations; and sending another
Removals
email in December 2022 informing the First Nations of
the Greenbelt amendment decision. Although the government publicly communicated its
Several First Nations communities responded to expectations for housing to be built on the land sites
the Housing Ministry’s letter, opposing the removals of removed from the Greenbelt in December 2022, we
lands from the Greenbelt and criticizing the Ministry found that a performance measurement framework
for failing to consult in a meaningful way. Among the has not been developed to monitor whether developers
concerns raised were that the removals will have an will be able to start housing before 2025 and continue
adverse impact on Indigenous and treaty rights. This to build on this land. Moreover, the Province has not
is because the proposal would remove the permanent fulfilled a commitment to develop, monitor and report
protection for natural heritage and water systems on performance indicators to measure the effectiveness
that sustain ecological health. Removing lands from of the Greenbelt Plan’s policies themselves in achieving
the Greenbelt would reduce the lands available to the the goals in the Greenbelt Plan.
First Nations to exercise their treaty harvesting rights, The government’s expectations related to the land
inhibit the movement of wildlife, potentially frag- sites removed from the Greenbelt in December 2022
ment or destroy wildlife habitat, and lead to potential were communicated publicly through the Ministry’s
loss of many of the species the First Nations rely on. notice on the Environmental Registry of Ontario and
Indigenous leaders also told the Ministry of their strong included stipulations that:
objections to the lack of prior notice of the proposed • the government would begin to return lands
Greenbelt changes and the Ministry’s failure to request back to the Greenbelt should developers not
meaningful consultation with them. They also noted show sufficient progress on building homes on
that the Ontario government’s constitutional Duty the removed lands;
to Consult with Indigenous governments must occur • the proponents would pay, upfront and in full,
before, not after, action is taken that could affect their for the infrastructure to service these lands;
rights and lands. • the removed lands would result in at least
The Housing Ministry met (virtually) with only two 50,000 housing units; and
of the seven Williams Treaties First Nations, and one • construction of new homes will begin on these
of those meetings took place in January 2023, after lands by no later than 2025, and significant
64

progress on approvals and implementation will Furthermore, both the 2005 Greenbelt Plan and
be achieved by the end of 2023. the 2017 updated Greenbelt Plan include provincial
However, we found that as of June 2023, the commitments to develop, monitor and report on per-
Housing Ministry and the government have not further formance indicators to measure the effectiveness of
defined these expectations so that they can be meas- the Plan’s policies. To this end, in 2015, the Housing
ured, nor have they established performance indicators Ministry released a report titled Performance Indica-
to do so. tors for the Greenbelt Plan – Part 1, 2015 with a partial
As noted in Section 4.6.2, the Office of the Provin- set of performance indicators, including indicators for
cial Land and Development Facilitator is responsible for the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine
facilitating negotiations between housing developers, Conservation Plan. This report found that the rate of
municipalities and the Province for the 15 land sites housing construction outside the settlement areas had
removed from the Greenbelt in 2022, with the goal of tripled over time, and less growth proportionally was
reaching a signed and binding agreement. The Prov- occurring within settlement areas. In other words,
incial Land and Development Facilitator identified the development was spreading over a larger area over
framework that the negotiation and agreements are time rather than being concentrated in select areas.
being conducted under, including that: The Housing Ministry committed in the 2015 report
• progress milestones will be built into the to future reporting on Greenbelt Plan performance
development agreements on a site-by-site basis, indicators on infrastructure, rural communities, the
and at a minimum, will include substantial com- agricultural economy, aggregates, tourism, recreation
mencement of construction of services for the and cultural heritage. However, no subsequent reports
initial phase of development on every site by have been publicly released.
2025;
• infrastructure and related costs will be paid by 4.11 Developers and Their
developers in full and upfront; and
Representatives Lobbied for Removal
• a minimum number of housing units is to be of 12 of 15 Greenbelt Sites in the Few
included in each development agreement, and
Months Leading up to Site Removals
this number is being negotiated on a site-by-site
basis. As of July 2023, the Provincial Land and As the events laid out in Section 4.2 detail, political
Development Facilitator projected that the gov- staff working in the Minister’s Office selected and
ernment’s minimum target of 50,000 housing ensured the removal of specific parcels of land from the
units will be met. Greenbelt Area.
However, as of June 2023, agreements had not been We found that 12 of the 15 parcels of land chosen
finalized for any of the 15 land sites removed from the for removal from the Greenbelt had been, as noted by
Greenbelt in 2022. Under the Helping Homebuyers, Pro- the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, requested for
tecting Tenants Act, 2023, the Minister has the power removal by developers or their representatives. Many
to make an order requiring an owner of land to enter of these individuals had advocated for the removal in
into an agreement with the Minister or a municipality emails and in-person meetings within a few months
in matters where the Provincial Land and Development prior to their removal. For example, one lawyer repre-
Facilitator or the Deputy Facilitator has been directed senting three housing developers emailed the Chief of
by the Minister to advise, make recommendations or Staff on September 27 and 29, 2022, providing site-
perform any other functions with respect to the land. specific details for the land they sought to develop.
Until an owner has entered into an agreement required About 92% of the land that was ultimately removed
by order, they cannot use the land for a new purpose, from the Greenbelt was requested to be removed by the
but existing uses can continue. developers the Chief of Staff dined with at the Building
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 65

Industry and Land Development Association’s (BILD’s) the staff of a ministry or the Ontario Provincial Police,
Chair’s Dinner on September 14, 2022. must register with the Office of the Integrity Commis-
At this event, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff sioner of Ontario. The Integrity Commissioner has the
and Deputy Chief of Staff were seated at the same table power, through the Member’s Integrity Act (Integrity
as prominent housing developers and a registered Act) to investigate potential non-compliance with the
lobbyist. The Chief of Staff told us two developers Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998. Notably, a lobbyist
provided him with packages at this event containing cannot knowingly place a public office holder in a pos-
information about two sites from the Greenbelt: the ition of real or potential conflict of interest.
DRAP lands in Durham Region (Site #1 in Figure 4) The Office of the Integrity Commissioner issues
and the Bathurst-King site in York Region (Site #9). annual reports. Those annual reports highlight many
We were told that, later, when the Greenbelt Project areas that could be considered to strengthen lobbyist
Team advised the Chief of Staff of the need for more registration and regulatory powers of the Office of the
detailed information about the initial eight sites pro- Integrity Commissioner.
posed for removal, and the Chief of Staff contacted the
housing developer for the DRAP site, the developer
4.12 Potential Contravention of the
provided the Chief of Staff with requests to remove
Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006
additional sites: the Book Road site in Hamilton (Site
by the Housing Minister’s Chief
#4), Leslie-Elgin (Site #12) and Block 41 Lands (Site
of Staff
#13) from the Greenbelt. These three sites were ultim-
ately removed from the Greenbelt. During our work, we noted extensive involvement of
Lobbyists are paid to try to influence the decision- the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff in what we would
making of those in positions of government authority have expected to have been an operational process
and public office. They act on behalf of themselves, an led by the Housing Minister’s public service staff. We
employer or client who may seek such actions as the were advised by the Secretary of the Cabinet that it
introduction or repeal of particular laws, regulations, is not unusual in the development of materials for
policies, programs, funding and contracts. Developers the Cabinet decision-making process to involve both
are considered lobbyists when lobbying on behalf of the non-political public service and Minister’s Office
their organizations. political staff, namely the Chief of Staff or Directors
Lobbying is a practice available to those who have of Policy, to work iteratively in developing a Cabinet
the means to fund it and who know how to contact submission. Although the Housing Ministry highlighted
politicians or their political public service staff. The the risks of considering only specific land sites for
private interests that lobbyists are paid to advance removal and the limitations of the criteria being used,
can be at odds with the public’s interest. Thus, lobby- senior public service staff in the Housing Ministry con-
ing has the potential to influence government to make tinued to work with the Housing Minister’s Chief of
decisions that do not represent the interests of the Staff. Their view was that certain land sites were to be
majority. Although it is a driver of political change and removed from the Greenbelt; hence selection criteria
has always been part of Canadian politics, lobbying is were modified to achieve this end.
closely related to patronage (the exchange of personal As previously noted, almost all of the properties
gifts or favours) and carries with it the potential for removed from the Greenbelt were identified and were
conflict of interest. Therefore, it is usually closely scru- provided to the Greenbelt Project Team directly by
tinized and regulated. the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff after he received
For example, those who lobby the Ontario govern- material from or on behalf of certain developers. These
ment, including its elected officials or their staff, or developers who had direct access to the Chief of Staff
66

stood to significantly benefit financially by having are not elected, yet they are politically partisan. They
received preferential treatment through the use of a work on behalf of the elected politicians and the party
biased process that was non-transparent to the public. that is in power, in paid public service positions such
Although the Housing Minister informed us that he as Chiefs of Staff and Directors of Policy within a Min-
was unaware of what his Chief of Staff was working on, ister’s Office or Premier’s Office. Refer to Appendix 7
and his Chief of Staff told us that he did not inform his for an organizational chart distinguishing political staff
Minister of what he was working on, the Minister ought from public service employees, and showing the rela-
to have known that the Chief of Staff was the primary tionships of those involved in decision-making about
recipient and provider of lands to the Greenbelt Project the Greenbelt boundary changes.
Team, especially given the high-profile, politically The participation of political staff employed in
sensitive and controversial nature of the Greenbelt Ministers’ Offices in operational and administrative
Project. decisions is not unprecedented; their participation is
We spoke with the Secretary of the Cabinet, who governed by the rules in the Public Service of Ontario
informed us that the general practice in Ontario is for Act, 2006 (political activity rules and conflict of inter-
the Premier, the Executive Council and its ministers to est rules) that also apply to regular public servants,
make policy decisions that are then operationalized and the particular rules under Part IV (sections 66 to
by the public service and typically overseen by Deputy 70) that have been established to provide specific oper-
Ministers. However, we were told that in Ontario, there ational guidance to them. Minister’s staff are appointed
is no standard legislated divide between the policy and under section 47 of the Public Service of Ontario Act,
operational responsibilities of ministers and political 2006 by the Premier’s designate. This is the Chief of
staff working in their offices, and deputy ministers Staff and the Director of Human Resources in the Pre-
and staff working in the permanent public service. mier’s Office.
The Secretary of the Cabinet told us that the degree Staff in the Premier’s Office and Ministers’ Offices,
to which a publicly elected minister or that minister’s and public servants, are bound by ethical standards
staff, or regular public servants, participate in the for the performance of their jobs and are governed
administration and implementation of policy decisions by the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and O. Reg.
“can vary depending on the complexity of the matter 382/07—Conflict of Interest Rules for Public Servants
and whether certain of the implementation decisions (Minister’s Offices) and Former Public Servants (Minis-
attract public policy considerations that may require ters’ Offices)—under this act.
the weighing of economic, social and political factors.” The ethics executive for public servants employed
While there are some examples of statutory respon- in Ministers’ Offices is the Integrity Commissioner of
sibilities being assigned to specific individuals who Ontario. Public servants employed in Ministers’ Offices
then work independently of others in a ministry, are required to comply with the conflict of interest
Ontario contemplates a model where all work together regulation made under the Public Service Act of Ontario,
to support the mandate of the ministry, with the min- 2006. Section 6 of O.Reg.382/07 states:
ister having overall responsibility and charge of that
6. (1) When performing his or her duties to the
ministry.
Crown, a public servant shall not give preferential
In this leadership model, non-political public sector
treatment to any person or entity, including a person
employees (permanent public sector employees) work
or entity in which the public servant or a member of
to support the mandate of their ministry, and may do
his or her family or a friend has an interest.
so under the direction of political public service staff.
The minister, who is in charge of and responsible for a (2) When performing his or her duties to the Crown
ministry, is an elected politician appointed to the port- a public servant shall endeavour to avoid creating the
folio by the Premier. Political public service employees appearance that preferential treatment is being given
to a person or entity that could benefit from it.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 67

(3) A public servant shall not offer assistance to a Information and Information Technology (I&IT)
person or entity in dealing with the Crown other than resource guidelines, forwarding government informa-
assistance given in the ordinary course of the public tion to personal accounts is not appropriate because of
servant’s employment. cybersecurity concerns. It also outlines that using non-
government resources to conduct government business
is unacceptable.
4.13 Risk of Additional Non- Under the OPS Acceptable Use I&IT Guidelines:
Compliance by Political Public Service “only the work email account (e.g., @Ontario.ca)
Staff with Public Service of Ontario should be used for government work.” The use of
Act, 2006 non-OPS managed platforms and services including
Zoom for government work also requires prior approval
During the course of our audit, we found several exam-
from an OPS manager.
ples where it appears that political public service staff
Communication between lobbyists and political
gave preferential treatment to lobbyists, potentially in
staff using their personal email accounts also creates
violation of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 (see
the perception of preferential access and treatment,
Section 4.12). This included providing information
and thereby an unfair advantage to those receiving
about the ownership and purchasing of lands, setting
unauthorized confidential information from political
up investment-opportunity meetings with Minister’s
staff.
Office staff, and the consideration of draft legislative
It is important to note that any communication
and regulatory changes.
between lobbyists and political staff about government
As well, during the course of our audit, we found
business is still subject to the Freedom of Information
situations where lobbyists working for developers
and Protection of Privacy Act, and is not excluded from
emailed political staff to suggest amendments to legis-
this act even if the communication occurred on a per-
lation. In these cases, political staff copied and pasted
sonal email account.
the wording of the lobbyists’ proposed amendments
into a new document, which they then forwarded on
to Deputy Ministers for inclusion in legislative pack- 4.15 Record-Retention Policies
ages. Senior non-political public servants, who were for Political Staff Communications
directed by political staff to carry the proposal forward, Needs Reinforcing
appeared unaware that the proposed amendments had
During the course of our audit, we observed that
originated from a lobbyist.
emails were regularly being deleted by political staff.
However, email correspondence relating to the under-
4.14 Use of Personal Email taking to make changes to the Greenbelt was not
Accounts Contrary to Public Service exempt from the Archives and Recordkeeping Act, 2006,
Cybersecurity Guidelines (Recordkeeping Act) and should not have been deleted.
We also noted that descriptions of meetings on political
During the course of our audit, we noted that political
public service employees’ calendars were not fulsome
staff received emails from lobbyists and other external
and clear so as to be able to ascertain the purpose of
parties on their personal email accounts that they then
various meetings.
forwarded to their government email. Conversely,
The Recordkeeping Act governs the manage-
there were occasions when government emails were
ment, destruction and preservation of the electronic
forwarded by political staff from their government
and paper records of public bodies. This ensures that
accounts to their personal email accounts.
records related to the activities of all public bodies are
According to the Ontario Public Service (OPS)
available and fosters government accountability and
Securing Your Workplace Guidebook and the
68

transparency. The records schedule outlined in the

Recordkeeping Act dictates how and when relevant
public records are to be maintained, transferred,
altered or destroyed.
The obligations around retaining and destroying
public records apply to ministers, their political and
office staff as well as ministry program area staff.
Excluded records include ministers’ personal, political
caucus and constituency records. Exemptions to the
records schedule are possible for: an access request
made under the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act; requests by the Legislative Assembly;
legal discovery or other proceedings; or public inquir-
ies through the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 (Inquiries
Act).
Any information used to document, support or
direct government decision-making, policy develop-
ment, activities or operations is captured by the
retention and final disposition schedule outlined in the
Inquiries Act. Relevant records must not be transferred,
altered, destroyed or otherwise disposed of until such
time that one has been notified that the matter is
concluded.
Files that relate to the development and delivery of
the government’s policy and legislative agenda, includ-
ing issues under consideration by the minister that may
form part of the government’s policy agenda, must also
be retained. This includes submissions from the public.
With regard to stakeholder relations, any correspond-
ence, notes, meeting agendas or minutes, and messages
including phone calls must also be retained. Ministers’
correspondence and communications records need to
be retained while the minister is in office and four years
after the file closes, at which point the records transfer
to the Archives of Ontario.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 69

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

1971 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario forms majority government.

1972 Land that would later become the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP) is expropriated by the Province from private
owners for the purpose of supporting a proposed federal airport.

1973 Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act passes, with the purpose “to provide for the maintenance of the
Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such
development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment.”

1985 Province approves the Niagara Escarpment Plan to guide land-use planning within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.

1999 Regional Municipality of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Province begin to sell back previously expropriated
preserve land to the original landowners or tenant farmers after the airport was never built.
Purchasers are required to agree to a conservation easement under the Conservation Land Act to protect the land for
agricultural uses in perpetuity. The easements are held by the City of Pickering, and the prices are based on the value
of lands used for agricultural purposes.

2001 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 passes, providing authority for the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan for the Oak Ridges Moraine Area (an environmentally sensitive, geological landform in southcentral
Ontario that stretches 160 kilometres from the Trent River in the east to the Niagara Escarpment in the west, covering
approximately 470,000 acres).

2002 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is established, providing direction on land use and resource management for the
land and water located within the moraine.

2000 Approximately 3,000 acres of the 4,700 acres of land in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is purchased,
to mainly by developers.
2004

2003 Liberal Party of Ontario forms majority government.

2004 Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 passes and the Ontario government creates the Greenbelt Task Force to assess and
provide recommendations on the potential Greenbelt boundary.

2005 •  Without consulting the Province, the City of Pickering removes the conservation easements on two-thirds of the
properties sold by the Province in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
•  Greenbelt Act, 2005 passes, defining and approving the Greenbelt boundary, and establishing the Greenbelt Plan.
The Greenbelt Area includes areas covered by the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
•  Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005 passes, reinstating the easements on the Duffins Rouge Agricultural
Preserve.

2005 Large housing developer seeks to develop lands in the DRAP and takes the Province to court. The court rules against
to the developer.
2007

2013 Housing Ministry creates a new Urban River Valley (URV) designation in the Greenbelt Plan and adds 630 acres in the
Glenorchy Lands to the Greenbelt as URVs.

Continued on page 70
70

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events (continued)

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

2015 As part of the Province’s Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review of Ontario’s four provincial land-use plans in the
to Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Housing Ministry undertakes the required 10-year review of the Greenbelt Plan, with
2017 the participation of municipalities, staff within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change, developers, Indigenous communities, environmentalists and other stakeholders.
The review includes three rounds of public consultation on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (Environmental
Registry) for 90 days, 174 days and 47 days respectively, resulting in:
• the addition of 24,958 acres to the Greenbelt (including 21 URVs); and
• the removal of 371 acres across 17 areas from the Greenbelt (minor boundary refinements).

2018 • June: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario forms a majority government.

2020 • December: More than half of the members of the Greenbelt Council resign over the Province’s decision to fast-
track development on the Lower Duffins Creek wetland east of Toronto and the intent to disempower conservation
authorities. (Chair resigns December 7.)

2021 • February:Housing Ministry posts a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry for a 61-day consultation period to
expand the Greenbelt by adding 13 URVs and lands from the Paris Galt Moraine.
• March: New rules are implemented to make the Greenbelt Council’s advice confidential and restrict its members,
ability to talk to journalists as per a new media protocol. The Chair becomes restricted to only answering questions
about the Council’s mandate and processes, while other members can answer questions about their roles and
professional backgrounds—but are bound to keep Council deliberations confidential.
• December: Ontario government establishes the Housing Affordability Task Force, with a mandate to provide the
Minister with recommendations to accelerate progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve housing
affordability.

2022 • February
8: Housing Affordability Task Force concludes in its report that Ontario needs to build 1.5 million new
homes over the next 10 years to fill the housing gap.
• March: Greenbelt Council’s terms of reference are changed to weaken its mandate to protect the environment,
including to make its advice confidential.
• March 24: Housing Ministry decides not to proceed with expanding the Greenbelt into the Paris Galt Moraine area
and posts its decision on the Environmental Registry. The Ministry’s rationale is that it needs to understand how the
proposed addition may impact growth in housing and employment areas. The Ministry moves forward with the next
phase of consultation to add 13 URV areas to the Greenbelt, and Ministry staff prepared maps for the new URVs and
boundary amendments for the Greenbelt Regulation.
• March 24: Housing Ministry posts a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry for a 30-day consultation period
to expand the Greenbelt by adding or expanding the 13 URVs consulted on in the first phase of consultation.
• April27: On the day they are scheduled to submit the proposal to government for final approval, Ministry staff receive
direction that the Province is no longer proceeding with the proposal to expand the Greenbelt by adding or expanding
the 13 URVs.
• June 2: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario forms a second consecutive majority government.

Continued on page 71
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 71

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events (continued)

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

• June 29: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Housing Minister) receives a mandate letter from the
2022
Premier outlining the government’s priorities and policy directions for the Housing Ministry. The stated goals
Continued
include: “In Fall 2022, complete work to codify processes for swaps, expansions, contractions and policy updates
for the Greenbelt,” and “This should include a comprehensive plan to expand and protect the Greenbelt.”
• July 4: Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff is appointed by the Premier’s Office Chief of Staff.
• August 9: The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and the Ontario Home Builders’
Association (OHBA) release a five-point plan to address the housing crisis in Ontario. Number three on the plan is
to “make new land available to build housing.”
• August 11: Premier’s daughter’s stag and doe party. News media report that developers attend the party.
• August30: Upon request, Housing Ministry briefs the Housing Minister's Chief of Staff on potential tools available
to amend the Greenbelt boundary, comparing system-wide and site-specific approaches.
• September 14: BILD holds its Chair’s Dinner. Two prominent housing developers approach the Housing Minister’s
Chief of Staff and provide him with packages that contain information on two sites in the Greenbelt (Sites #1 and
#9 in Appendix 4). Shortly thereafter, one of the developers provides the Chief of Staff with additional information
plus information related to Sites #4, #12 and #13. These five sites ultimately make up 92% of all land removed
from the Greenbelt in 2022.
• September 15: Sale of Site #9 in King Township (next to the Newmarket boundary) is finalized and the title is
transferred to the housing developer. The final sale price is $80 million.
• September 16: Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff informs the Housing Ministry that the government wants to
consult on removing lands from the Greenbelt using a site-specific approach. Housing Ministry indicates that the
Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff communicates three priority sites for removal from the Greenbelt: Sites #1, #4
and #9 as listed in Appendix 4.
• September 25: Premier’s daughter’s wedding. News media report that developers attend the wedding. Photographs
of the seating arrangements for the wedding include the developer for Sites #10 and #14 in Appendix 4.
• September27: Law firm sends requests directly to the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, by email, to have Site
#15 removed from the Greenbelt.
• September 29: Same law firm sends letter to Housing Minister in an email to the Housing Minister's Chief of Staff
requesting that Site #10 be rezoned through the Official Plan review of York Region.
• September 29: Same law firm sends another request directly to the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, by email, to
have Site #14 removed from the Greenbelt.
• October3-5: Greenbelt Project Team is formed. Its six members are non-political public service staff in the
Housing Ministry.
• October 6: Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff provides Greenbelt Project Team with hardcopy information from
packages he received on eight proposed land sites (Sites #1, #3, #4, #9, #12, #14, #15 and one not chosen for
removal) as well as the initial criteria for removal.
• October 6-13: Greenbelt Project Team members are required to sign confidentiality agreements. Site #11 is
identified by the Greenbelt Project Team as a proposed property for removal.

Continued on page 72
72

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events (continued)

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

2022 • October 7: Housing Minister's Chief of Staff receives correspondence addressed to him from same law firm that
corresponded on September 29, regarding the same property (Site #10). This letter requests Site #10 be removed
Continued
from the Greenbelt and does not mention the Official Plan review.
• October 13-31: Five USB keys are provided to Greenbelt Project Team by the Housing Minister's Chief of Staff
containing information on proposed sites for removal (includes Sites #2, #5 and #13) and additional information
on previously identified sites.
• October 19: Sites #6, #7 and #8 and two sites that were not removed are provided by Housing Deputy Chief of Staff
to the Housing Minister's Chief of Staff. These properties had been assessed through the Official Plan review and
were proposed for removal because they are in the Greenbelt.
• October 24: Municipal elections are held, 11 days before notices related to the changes to the Greenbelt’s boundary
are posted on the Environmental Registry on November 4, 2022. Some municipal councils are sworn in weeks
after the election, limiting their ability to provide comments related to these notices by December 4, 2022, when
the consultation period ended.
• October 25: Housing Ministry posts a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry to revoke the Central
Pickering Development Plan, a provincial land-use plan that established policies for development in a designated
area in Central Pickering as well as protecting the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve from development.
• October 26: Chair of Greenbelt Council resigns, replaced by Hazel McCallion as new Chair.
• October 26: Housing Minister is briefed in person by Housing Ministry and Minister’s Chief of Staff on proposed
removal of land sites from the Greenbelt.
• October 27: Housing Ministry briefs staff in the Premier’s Office and Cabinet Office on proposed removal of land
sites from the Greenbelt. (Premier is not present for briefing.)
• October 31: Housing Ministry provides second briefing to the Premier’s Office and Cabinet Office on Greenbelt
Project. (Premier is not present for briefing.)
• November 1: Housing Ministry briefs Housing Minister/Associate Minister of Housing on the proposed removal of
land sites from the Greenbelt.
• November 1: Premier is briefed by political staff on the proposed removal of land sites from the Greenbelt.
• November 2: Cabinet approves Housing Ministry's proposal to begin public consultation process to amend the
Greenbelt. (Cabinet members receive proposal material shortly before Cabinet meeting.)
• November 3: Property owners/developers are notified their land is being proposed for removal from the Greenbelt.

• November 4: Housing Ministry’s Deputy Minister and staff provide a briefing on Greenbelt land removal to Caucus.

• November 4: Housing Ministry posts four proposal notices on the Environmental Registry and initiates a 30-day
public consultation period to amend the Greenbelt by removing or re-designating 15 sites (including the Duffins
Rouge Agricultural Preserve in Pickering), adding or expanding 13 Urban River Valleys and adding a portion of the
Paris Galt Moraine.
• November 4: Mayors of affected municipalities are notified lands in their jurisdictions are being proposed for
removal from the Greenbelt.
• November 7: Briefing on the Greenbelt Project is provided to the recently appointed Greenbelt Council.

Continued on page 73
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 73

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events (continued)

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

2022 • November 16: Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022 is introduced in the Legislature. The
proposed act removes additional protection from development for the majority of the area affected by the
Continued
proposed Greenbelt amendments.
• November 22: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry posts an exception notice on the Environmental
Registry exempting the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022 from the public consultation process,
citing reliance on the ongoing public consultation for proposed Greenbelt amendments.
• November 28: Legislature passes Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, which makes significant
changes to the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Land
Tribunal Act to support the implementation of the government’s housing strategy.
• November 28: Member of Provincial Parliament requests Integrity Commissioner of Ontario investigate as to
whether the Housing Minister and the Premier have contravened the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994.
• December 4: During the 30-day public consultation period from November 4 to December 4, 2022, the Ministry
receives over 35,000 responses, overwhelmingly in opposition to any removals or land swaps in the Greenbelt.
• December 8: Legislature passes the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022.
• December 12: Housing Minister is briefed by the Housing Ministry on Greenbelt Project and the Premier’s Office
political staff is briefed by the Housing Ministry.
• December 14: Housing Ministry files O. Reg. 567/22 under the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and O. Reg. 568/22 under
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, implementing the Ministry’s proposed Greenbelt boundary
changes, and O. Reg. 566/22, revoking Minister’s Zoning Order 154/03, which had protected the Duffins
Rouge Agricultural Preserve from development, all of which were approved by the Cabinet earlier that day. The
amendments remove approximately 7,400 acres from 15 areas of land, while adding approximately 9,400 acres
of land elsewhere. No changes are made to the proposal to address the public’s concerns.
• December 14: On the recommendation of the Housing Minister, Cabinet revokes the Central Pickering Development
Plan.
• December 15: Lieutenant Governor proclaims the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022 in force,
repealing the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005.
• December 21: Housing Ministry posts decision notices on the Environmental Registry to notify the public of its
decision to approve the 2022 Greenbelt changes, with no revisions, following the consultation period.

2023 • January 11: Auditor General of Ontario receives a joint letter from all three Ontario opposition party leaders
requesting a value-for-money audit and an assessment of the financial and environmental impacts of the
government’s decision to remove lands from the Greenbelt.
• January 18: Auditor General of Ontario announces her Office will conduct a value-for-money audit into the
financial and environmental impacts of the recent Greenbelt changes.
• January 18: In submissions to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario (as noted in the Office of the Integrity
Commissioner’s January 18, 2023, report), the Housing Minister and Premier “advised that the selection of the
affected lands was made by public servants who were subject to an enhanced confidentiality protocol and that
the minister was briefed and accepted their proposal only a few days before he presented it to Cabinet and the
government made its announcement shortly thereafter.”
• January 18: Integrity Commissioner of Ontario initiates an investigation based on the November 28 MPP complaint.

Continued on page 74
74

Appendix 1: Timeline of Key Events (continued)

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

2023 • March 9: Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario (RPCO) releases a report indicating Ontario’s municipalities
already have 85% of the 1.5 million housing units in their approval pipelines. The report states that “RPCO continues
Continued
to not support in principle the removal of lands from the Greenbelt as a necessary step to address Ontario’s
housing needs.”
• March 16: Office of the Integrity Commissioner launches an investigation as to whether the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing contravened sections 2 and 3 of the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 with respect to the decision to
allow development on lands in the Greenbelt and Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
• April
6: Government's new housing Bill 97, Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023 is tabled to make
amendments to several acts.
• April
6: Government’s new housing bill has its first reading in the Legislature and receives royal assent on
June 8. The Housing Ministry’s Market Housing Division, which generally oversees the implementation of the
Ministry’s housing bills, tells our Office the government intends to release housing bills at least annually.
• June 8: Bill 97 receives royal assent. It amends the Planning Act, giving the Housing Minister the power to require
a landowner to enter into an agreement with the Minister or a municipality in matters where the Provincial Land
and Development Facilitator has been directed by the Minister to advise, make recommendations or perform any
other functions with respect to the land. It also amends the Planning Act to give the Housing Minister the power to
exempt lands subject to Minister's Zoning Orders from complying with provincial policies and Official Plans where
other planning approvals are applied for, such as subdivision plans.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 75

Appendix 2: Typical Application Process for a Proposed Development

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

1. Pre-application consultation
Developer provides basic proposal information to municipal staff. Consultation helps identify key issues.

2. Application submission
Developer submits development application and pays corresponding fees.

3. Application deemed complete/incomplete

Within 30 days of receiving an application, municipal staff advise the developer if the application meets the
requirements.

4. Circulation to internal departments, external agencies and councillors

The application is circulated to relevant internal departments, external agencies and councillors.

5. Public notice
A sign with details of proposed development is put in place and must remain on the site until a decision is rendered
on the application.

6. Public informal open house

Depending on the response to the public notice, an informal open house may be held in order to hear comments
and concerns from the public.

7. Public meeting
Municipal staff hold public meeting (notice must be given at least 12 days prior to the date of the meeting).

8. Planning and Development Committee issues report

The report summarizes all comments received from the public, the Committee’s position on the application
(approve or refuse) and conditions that must be satisfied if application is approved.

9. Decision on Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning Bylaw Amendment

If an application receives approval by City Council, all of the conditions required in the previous step must be satisfied.
If an application is refused, an applicant has the opportunity to appeal if Council refuses or neglects to decide within
the required time frame.

10. Notice of decision by Planning and Development Committee or Council

People who have requested to be notified of the adoption will be notified within 15 days of the Council passage of
the Official Plan Amendment/Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Plan of Subdivision.

11. Post application

• If no appeals are received after notification of decision, the Official Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendment comes into effect.
• Ifno appeals are received after the Notice of Decision of Draft Approval of the Plan of Subdivision has been sent,
the owner must satisfy all of the conditions of the draft approval.
76

Appendix 3: Select Amendments Enacted by Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster
Act, 2022
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Act Affected Description of Amendments

Planning Act • Expands the Housing Minister’s power to amend an Official Plan if it is likely to adversely
affect a matter of provincial interest.

• Expands private landowners’ ability to build additional units on existing residential lots in
urban areas and prohibits the appeal of related official plan policies.

• Removes the planning role of seven upper-tier governments (e.g., Regions) in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe.

• Prohibits conservation authorities from appealing planning decisions.

• Prohibits public appeals of consents and minor variances.

• Changes parkland dedication provisions (except for certain types of projects, and reduces
the amount of parkland to be dedicated) and requires municipalities to spend/allocate
60% of funds each year that can only be used for the purchase or upgrade of parks.

• Narrows application of site plan control for residential buildings.

• Removes the restriction on applying for an Official Plan or zoning bylaw amendment
within two years of municipal adoption.

Conservation Authorities Act • Removes the requirement for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to approve
the sale, lease or disposition of certain lands. (Under amendments to the regulations,
conservation authorities will have to identify which lands in their land inventory could
support housing development by December 31, 2024.)

• Prohibits conservation authorities from reviewing or commenting on proposals or

applications under prescribed acts (including the Planning Act; Aggregate Resources Act;
Condominium Act, 1998; Drainage Act; Endangered Species Act, 2007; Environmental
Assessment Act; Environmental Protection Act; Niagara Escarpment Planning and
Development Act; Ontario Heritage Act; and the Ontario Water Resources Act), unless
related to natural hazards where protecting sources of drinking water.

• Changes the factors that conservation authorities may consider in their decisions on
development permits, by removing consideration of the effects of the development on
“pollution” or the "conservation of land,” and adding the effects on “unstable soil or
bedrock”, while maintaining consideration of the effects on “flooding”, “erosion” and
“dynamic beaches."

• Extends the requirement for mandatory issuance of development permits when Minister’s
Zoning Orders are issued by the Housing Minister under s. 47 of the Planning Act to the
new type of Minister’s Zoning Order in s. 34.1 of the Planning Act.

• Expands Cabinet’s/Natural Resources Minister’s powers to exempt lands, activities, types

of development and types of authorizations from the need for a conservation authority
development permit.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 77

Ontario Heritage Act • AuthorizesCabinet to exempt a ministry or public body from having to comply with the
heritage standards and guidelines in respect of a particular property, if in the Cabinet’s
opinion such an exemption could advance a provincial priority, such as transit or housing.

• Authorizesthe Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism to review the determination of

heritage value of a provincial heritage property and confirm or revise the determination.

• Prohibits
a municipality from designating a heritage property unless it is listed in the
municipality’s heritage register.

• Limitsproperties that can be listed in a municipality’s heritage register to those that meet
two or more of the prescribed criteria (as outlined in the regulations).

• Requires a municipality to remove a property from its heritage register if notice of

intention to designate is not given within two years of listing.

Ontario Land Tribunal Act, • Expands the Ontario Land Tribunal’s authority to dismiss a proceeding without holding a
2021 hearing.

• Givesauthority to Cabinet to make regulations requiring the Tribunal to prioritize the

resolution of specified classes of proceedings.

• Givesauthority to the Attorney General to make regulations prescribing timelines for

Tribunal decision-making.

Development Charges Act, • Exempts “affordable”/“attainable” residential units, non-profit housing and inclusionary
1997 zoning units from development charges.

• Discounts development charges for rental housing.

• Makes changes to the method for determining the amount of development charges.

• Requiresa municipality to spend or allocate 60% of its reserve fund each year for water
supply, wastewater and highway services.
78

Appendix 4: Maps of Land Sites Removed from or Re-designated within

the Greenbelt
Source of data: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

SITE 1 | DUFFINS ROUGE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE

4,288.78 acres (57.86% of the 7,413 acres removed)

Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve

South of Highway 407, west of West Duffins Creek, north of the CP Belleville rail line, in Pickering.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 79

SITE 2 | KINGSTON ROAD AND HIGHWAY 401

133.01 acres (1.79%)

765 and 775 Kingston Road E, Ajax

SITE 3 | NASH ROAD

85.78 acres (1.16%)

Northeast corner of Nash Road and Hancock Road, Clarington

80

SITE 4 | BOOK ROAD

1,809.37 acres (24.41%)

South of Garner Road W, west of Fiddlers Green Road, east of Shaver Road in the vicinity of Book Road, Hamilton

SITE 5 | HAMILTON MOUNT HOPE

162.77 acres (2.20%)

South of White Church Road E, west of Miles Road, north of Chippewa Road E, east of Upper James Street, Hamilton
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 81

SITE 6 | CLINE ROAD

73.45 acres (0.99%)

South of the GO rail line, west of Oakes Road N, north of Main Street W, east of Kelson Avenue N, Grimsby

SITE 7 | 502 WINSTON ROAD

14.94 acres (0.20%)

502 Winston Road, Grimsby

82

SITE 8 | BARTON
9.82 acres (0.13%)

331 and 339 Fifty Road, Hamilton

SITE 9 | BATHURST-KING
655.26 acres (8.84%)

East of Dufferin Street, south of Miller’s Sideroad, west of Bathurst Street, King Township
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 83

SITE 10 | HIGHWAY 48
88.34 acres (1.19%)

10235, 10378 and 10541 Highway 48, Markham

SITE 11 | 10379 KENNEDY ROAD

36.99 acres (0.50%)

10379 Kennedy Road, Markham

84

SITE 12 | LESLIE-ELGIN
15.14 acres (0.20%)

East of Leslie Street, north of Elgin Mills Road E, west of Highway 404, Richmond Hill

SITE 13 | BLOCK 41 LANDS

15.60 acres (0.21%)

North and west of Teston Road and Pine Valley Drive, Vaughan
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 85

SITE 14 | 11861 AND 12046 McCOWAN ROAD

12.81 acres (0.17%)

11861 and 12045 McCowan Road, Whitchurch-Stouffville

SITE 15 | 19TH AVENUE AND McCOWAN ROAD

10.58 acres (0.14%)

5474 19th Avenue, at the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and McCowan Road, Markham
86

Appendix 5: Audit Criteria

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

1. A complete and objective analysis of Greenbelt boundary changes was undertaken based on provincial needs, goals and
priorities, and with regard to the potential impacts on the province, municipalities and Ontarians across relevant factors such as
environmental, agricultural and economic.
2. Greenbelt boundary changes were executed in accordance with applicable provincial legislation, regulations, land-use plans,
agreements and policies.
3. Accurate, timely and complete information (including financial, environmental and demographic data) was collected, analyzed and
used to prepare proposals to amend the Greenbelt’s boundary and to support informed decision-making.
4. The criteria used to support decisions to change the Greenbelt’s boundary were transparent to Ontarians and unbiased.
5. Measurable performance indicators and targets were established for the implementation of the Greenbelt boundary changes
and were reported publicly. Appropriate mechanisms were developed for monitoring and comparing results against targets, so
that timely corrective action can be taken when issues are identified.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 87

Appendix 6: Ownership of Land Sites Removed from or Re-designated within

the Greenbelt
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Note: The table shows the most recent transaction for each registered parcel of land since 2018 (for the 15 land sites removed from the
Greenbelt in 2022). In a case where there were no transactions since 2018, the earliest recorded transaction is noted.

Primary Size of Land Date of Last

Site # Site Name Developer/Landowner (Acres)1 Owner Purchase
1 Duffins Rouge TACC Development Inc. 47.73 Whittan Acres Inc. 31-Jul-20
Agricultural Preserve 19.15 Samir, Shafiq and Noor-Mohammed 22-Apr-20
Adam Patel
9.09 Pydel Properties Inc. 2-Aug-22
5.02 Akkina Developers Inc. 30-Nov-21
2.77 Ashburton Asset Group Inc. 9-Dec-21
2.50 Pedram Maghsoudi Ghjlou 29-Oct-19
2.15 Syed Rabi Alam, Sabrina Sabah 9-May-19
2.15 Tom Burt 14-Oct-21
2.02 Rajani and Rathai Rajendran 31-Oct-19
2.01 Salvatore and Rosanna Modica 19-Feb-20
2.01 Jaswinder and Amarjit Jaswal 5-Oct-20
2.01 Sathiyaseelan Muthulingam, 5-Oct-20
Nagula Rajarathnam
2 Kingston Road and Buena Vista 104.15 2615898 Ontario Inc. 18-Jun-18
Highway 401 Development Corp.
20.25 Not available2 Not available2
3.96 Not available2 Not available2
3 Nash Road Streamliner Properties 86.00 1000366391 Ontario Inc. (bought 8-Dec-22
from Nash Road Developments Inc.)

4 Book Road Fieldgate Homes 49.95 256 Book Road Developments Ltd. 28-Feb-23
29.37 Knollwood Real Estate Holdings 9-Feb-23
Inc., David and Jessica Finn
12.40 Barbara Ann Smith, Wendy Ann 27-Aug-20
Height
12.22 Book Shaver Developments Ltd. 6-Oct-22
10.16 Ralph, David Allen and Erin Leigh 7-Dec-18
Vyn
5.63 Tibor and Anna Anghi 23-Feb-21
4.40 563 Shaver Holdings Inc. 28-Sep-21
88

Primary Size of Land Date of Last

Site # Site Name Developer/Landowner (Acres)1 Owner Purchase
3.00 Norma Gladys and Paul Rowe 21-Apr-21
Chapman
1.01 2363823 Ontario Inc. 27-Aug-21
1.00 Anna and Marek Szeliga 14-May-19
1.00 Darren Joseph and Michelle Maxine 14-Jun-19
Julian
5 Hamilton Mount Penta Properties, 6.90 Sarbjit Singh, Kuldip Dosanjh 22-Dec-20
Hope Melrose Investments, 6.15 Shelley Christine Moscardini 19-Dec-18
Valery Homes
3.85 Michael and Dianne Bernacci 20-Sep-19
2.01 Michael Leblanc, Kaitlyn Walsh 27-Jul-18

6 Cline Road DeSantis Homes, 11.24 Sukhminder Singh, Kashmir Kahlon, 1-Oct-20
Melrose Investments, Yasmeem Kahlon
Valery Homes 0.86 Not available3 Not available3
0.85 Not available3 Not available3
0.65 Not available3 Not available3

7 502 Winston Road New Horizon 14.43 The Trustees of St. Vladimir’s 15-May-19
Development Group Congregation at Hamilton Ukrainian
Greek Orthodox Church of Canada

8 Barton 155090933 Ontario Inc. 9.28 5000933 Ontario Inc. 8-Nov-06

0.44 Not available3 Not available3
9 Bathurst-King Green Lane Bathurst 596.21 Green Lane Bathurst GP Inc. 15-Sep-22
Limited Partnership
88.14 Green Lane Bathurst GP Inc. 15-Sep-22

10 Highway 48 Wyview Group 123.39 2724265 Ontario Ltd. 19-Oct-21

107.20 2724270 Ontario Ltd. 12-Mar-21
104.39 2714791 Ontario Ltd. 20-Dec-21
19.84 2594231 Ontario Inc. 15-Mar-18
11 10379 Kennedy Road Minotar Holdings Inc., 109.43 Beechgrove Estates Inc. 3-Jul-13
Beechgrove Estates Inc.,
Halvan 5.5 Investments
Inc.

12 Leslie-Elgin TACC Development Inc. 4.86 Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. Not available
1.88 The Regional Municipality of York 24-May-18
13 Block 41 Lands TACC Development Inc. 107.37 TACC Developments Inc. 7-May-21
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 89

Primary Size of Land Date of Last

Site # Site Name Developer/Landowner (Acres)1 Owner Purchase
14 11861 and 12046 Torca Inc., 73.27 Torca II Inc 3-Sep-21
McCowan Road Flato Developments
47.64 2743903 Ontario Inc. 8-Apr-22
15 19th Avenue and Flato Upper Markham 102.02 Flato Upper Markham Village Inc. 26-Oct-17
McCowan Road Village Inc.

1. Certain parcels of land had a percentage of their total area removed from the Greenbelt, while other parcels were entirely removed. For example, a property may
be 102 acres in size but only some of that acreage included a Greenbelt removal.
2. This area was a road, so our Office did not purchase a land registration to review this property.
3. Our Office did not purchase a land registration to review this property due to the property’s small size.
90

Appendix 7: Reporting Relationships of Political and Non-Political Staff

Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

Political Staff Non-Political Staff

CABINET Premier

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER CABINET OFFICE

Premier’s Secretary
Chief of Staff of the Cabinet

Deputy
Chief of Staff

Director of Policy
(Housing)

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Minister

Deputy Minister
Chief of Staff

Assistant
Deputy Minister

Greenbelt Project Team

 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 91

Appendix 8: Recommendations for the Secretary of the Cabinet and Chief of Staff
in the Office of the Premier
Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

We recommend that:

Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities

1. Given the extensive influence and direct involvement of non-elected political public service staff in the oper-
ational decision-making of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the demonstrated impact this
has had on what should have been an objective and unbiased decision-making process, the Secretary of the
Cabinet and the Chief of Staff to the Premier:

• clarify and document the role of Chiefs of Staff and the role of Deputy Ministers in policy development
and operational decision-making;

• clarify and document the distinction between policy development and operational decision-making
aligned with normal business processes;

• establish a formal process whereby Deputy Ministers seek the advice and direction of the Secretary of
the Cabinet when Chiefs of Staff or other political staff limit or affect the operational decision-making
of a ministry;

• establish a formal process whereby a letter from the Deputy Minister can be provided to government,
agreed to by the Secretary of the Cabinet, that distinctly highlights that the ministry was not able to
provide a recommendation informed by sufficient supporting documentation and analysis.

Limiting the Use of Confidentiality Agreements

2. In view of the oath of secrecy all public servants take, the use of confidentiality agreements should be
limited to only those circumstances requiring a high degree of confidentiality. The agreements should not
be a barrier to the ability of public servants to consult and collaborate with other staff and experts as may be
necessary, including public servants employed in other ministries and offices. Given public service employees
are expected to maintain confidentiality in the conduct of their work, the use of confidentiality agreements
by ministries:

• be limited and not serve as a barrier to the effective conduct of work by public service employees;
• procedures be put in place that are transparent as to when it would be appropriate to ask a public
service employee to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Compliance with the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006

3. A request be made to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario to determine whether the Chief of Staff to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted contrary to the requirements of the Public Service of Ontario
Act, 2006 with respect to his liaisons with land developers and their representatives.
92

Controls over the Receipt of Third-Party and Lobbyist Material

4. In order to reduce the risk of actual and the appearance of conflict of interest, and so that both the non-political
public service staff and non-elected political staff in ministers’ offices are aware of materials provided by third
parties, the government develop a procedure to ensure that any materials received from third parties, and
that have been considered in the process of decision-making in a ministry or minister’s office, are centrally
recorded and shared with the relevant senior leadership in both a ministry and minister’s office.

Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Conflict of Interest

5. To reduce the risk of the appearance of conflict of interest, and consistent with the authority of Deputy
Ministers under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, to refer conflict of interest matters to the Integrity
Commissioner of Ontario and seek his advice, processes be put in place for Deputy Ministers to proactively
raise matters with the Secretary of the Cabinet, as their ethics executive, and that the Secretary of the
Cabinet and the Deputy Ministers consult with the Integrity Commissioner on matters that may lead to
reputational harm or public distrust of the Ontario Public Service.

Records Retention (with a Focus on Emails)

6. Non-elected political public service staff receive formal training on records retention policy as per the Archives
and Recordkeeping Act, 2006, clarifying which types of emails and other documents are required to be retained
and what information needs to be included on meeting calendars.

Restriction on the Use of Personal Email Accounts for Government Business

7. Non-elected political public service staff receive reinforced communications on the inappropriate use of
personal email accounts for government business with annual, formal documented attestation that this
policy is being followed.

8. Non-political public service staff receive reinforced training from the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario on
the requirements of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, providing situational examples on how they should
appropriately liaise with parties external to the government who have self-serving interests (e.g., developers,
lobbyists and other representatives of developers), also ensuring that the information received is handled
appropriately by decision-makers.

Consultation under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993

9. In conjunction with the Deputy Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, review and clarify the
purpose of the public consultation period required under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 so that the
consultation process respects public input within a time frame that supports and enables meaningful consul-
tation about significant decisions impacting the environment.

Consultation with Indigenous Leadership

10. That Deputy Ministers be required to follow established protocols for appropriate and effective consultation
with Indigenous leadership when proposing any initiatives that have the potential to affect their communities.
 Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt 93

Consultation with Stakeholders

11. To assist ministries in their consultation with stakeholders that may be impacted by government decisions,
Deputy Ministers establish and follow consistent protocols for engagement and consultation with affected
groups.

Cabinet Submission Material

12. For good governance that enables fully informed decision-making on significant issues, that:

• procedures be put in place so that Deputy Ministers raise to the Secretary of the Cabinet’s attention
submissions for which they have not been able to fully conduct unfettered work;

• the Deputy Minister, with a copy to the Secretary of the Cabinet, sign off on the submissions indicat-
ing where work has not been able to be fully performed by public service employees in a comprehensive
and effective manner as expected by the people of Ontario, which as such could tarnish trust in the
public service and trust in government; and

• sufficient time be given to Cabinet members to fully read and review any material provided around
significant and higher-risk decisions.

13. That Deputy Ministers:

• sign a notification to Cabinet, with a copy to the Secretary of the Cabinet, that the public service has
not been able to fully perform work and analysis supporting the submission consistent with public
expectations of the role of the public service and which could result in diminished trust in the public
service and the government; and

• the notification outline any concerns with the process, information and evidence or time provided to
prepare the submission.

Re-evaluation of 2022 Decision to Change the Greenbelt Boundaries

14. Given that the Premier and the Minister of Housing have communicated to us that they were unaware that
the pre-selection of lands for removal from the Greenbelt was biased, controlled and directed by the Housing
Minister’s Chief of Staff (a political public servant) rather than informed by environmental, agricultural and
infrastructure considerations, we recommend that the government request that the Housing Ministry, in con-
junction with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Indigenous communities and relevant stake-
holders, such as impacted municipalities, re-evaluate the 2022 decision to change the Greenbelt boundaries.

Strengthening Oversight by the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario

15. Based on our work during this audit, an independent and comprehensive overall review be conducted of
the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 and Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 to
strengthen lobbyist registration and regulatory oversight powers of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner.
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1530

Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2C2
www.auditor.on.ca

Cover photograph credits:

top: Claire Foran
ISBN 978-1-4868-7251-0 (Print, 2023 edition) middle: North Country Media House
ISBN 978-1-4868-7252-7 (PDF, 2023 edition) bottom: © iStockphoto.com/jimfeng