Deep flaws exist in the Ford government’s controversial use of ministerial zoning orders (MZOs) to fast-track development projects, a report concludes. new report.

The latest report from the Ontario Auditor General reveals that between 2019 and 2023, the government issued 114 MZOs, a 17-fold increase from the previous 20 years. The report highlights significant flaws in the process, including arbitrary decision-making, ignorance of environmental and agricultural impacts, and a lack of meaningful consultation with indigenous communities.

At a news conference Tuesday, Ontario Auditor General Shelley Spence said briefing packages prepared for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing did not even include an assessment of the need for individual MZOs , nor whether MZOs would actually speed up projects or be any more efficient than the normal municipal planning process.

MZO allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to override municipal zoning regulations and approve land use changes.

The ministry has introduced a new MZO frame earlier this year and revokes some orders for slow-moving projects. Spence said the new framework addresses some of the issues raised by the audit but does not fully address concerns such as lack of impact assessments at sites, financial implications or timely identification of risks environmental and agricultural.

Traditionally, MZOs were used for zoning issues in undeveloped areas or to protect agricultural and natural lands. But under the Ford government, more than half of recent MZOs were for residential development, according to the audit.

Half of the MZOs issued between 2019 and 2023 were for housing developments, but the ministry failed to track project results, the audit determined. No specific target has been set for the number of new housing units, affordable or not. And although some municipalities have supported the MZO’s affordable housing requests, the ministry has no data confirming that the housing has actually been built.

Phil Pothen, planning and land use program manager at Environmental Defence, said Ontarians can no longer trust the safety, integrity or legality of sprawling development approvals issued since 2018.

In a statement responding to the Auditor General’s report, Pothen warned that maintaining these MZOs would jeopardize public safety, the environment and municipal budgets.

“Not only has the government failed to engage with key experts to identify (potential public health) hazards, such as flooding, it has also failed to review key information on “natural hazards” ” Pothen said. He further criticized the government for omitting crucial details in the information files, such as the impact on infrastructure capacity, the environment and the financial burdens imposed on regions, municipalities and taxpayers.

Unlike municipal planning decisions, MZOs cannot be appealed to the Ontario Lands Tribunal and can only be challenged through costly judicial reviews.

One of the most controversial case studies highlighted in the audit was the zoning approval of a Home Hardware construction center in Clarington, supported by the local city council. The ministry’s information package claimed the project would support post-COVID economic recovery and provided details of the natural features of the site.

However, the plan does not address how development, outside the settlement boundaries, would impact provincial interests such as ecological protection and water conservation. Despite concerns from the Ministry of the Environment and local conservation authorities about risks to natural features and groundwater, the zoning order was granted in 2021 and the Home Hardware Center was completed in 2023 Environmental impacts, including effects on water quality and species risk, remain unknown.

THE new MZO framework adopted in April more clearly outlines the submission elements for MZOs, including mandatory consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). It also emphasizes that MZOs should only be issued when they align with provincial interests such as housing, environmental concerns and municipal planning processes.

The audit, which examined 114 MZOs and conducted in-depth analysis of 25 of them, revealed significant flaws in the ministry’s past approach. While some MZOs supported essential projects, like housing for the homeless, long-term care beds and a large battery factory creating 2,500 jobs, some others were not justified. For example, MZOs were issued for transit stations in Vaughan and Caledon that were not supported by the transit agency, Metrolinx.

Spence said in many cases the department did not provide alternative zoning options or risk assessments for proposed projects. Municipal requests to address potential environmental or infrastructure problems were often ignored, and no adjustments were made to mitigate these risks before issuing the orders, the report added.

Concerns have also been raised about the ministry’s failure to consider environmental and agricultural impacts. In several cases, key experts were not consulted to identify risks such as flooding, loss of natural features or degradation of agricultural land. Even when expert advice was sought, the ministry often ignored recommendations to assess or mitigate risks, the report notes.

Today, 18 percent of MZO-related projects face significant delays due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, such as water and sanitation systems, according to the report. These delays could have been anticipated and resolved as part of the municipal planning process, highlighting the flaws of circumventing standard procedures, he suggests.

Additionally, in almost half of the MZOs sampled, there was no indication that the ministry engaged with affected indigenous communities, according to the report.

Although similar zoning tools exist in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, they are rarely used. Unlike Ontario, these provinces require additional Cabinet approval or impose strict conditions to protect ecologically sensitive lands. None of these provinces used their equivalent tools between 2019 and 2023.

Recent amendments to the Ontario Planning Act and the Conservation Authorities Act have expanded the Minister’s powers, including the enhanced MZOs introduced in 2020. These changes allow the Minister to cancel municipal site plan approvals and to exempt certain projects from provincial planning policies everywhere except on lands located within the greenbelt. This has reduced oversight and accountability since MZOs can be issued with minimal oversight and government accountability for decisions made under them is limited, the audit found.

The report includes several recommendations for reforming the MZO process, including establishing clear criteria for when an MZO is necessary, early consultation with municipalities and Indigenous communities, conducting thorough environmental and agricultural assessments, and monitoring results of projects approved through MZOs.