I am a grade 9 student who…

I am a grade 9 student who attends Central Peel Secondary School in Brampton, ON. I have been studying what makes a sustainable and liveable community in Canada. I am writing to address the issue with the proposed amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. There are many aspects of this proposal that I disagree with but one stood out to me.

Within the Growth Plan, one of the most important features was the higher density areas to prevent urban sprawl in farmlands. In fact, it even states in the original plan that “The Growth Plan aims to ensure we grow smarter and stop paving over farmland, destroying wetlands, and cutting down trees to build ever-sprawling car-dependent neighbourhoods”. Building more compact areas allows efficient public transportation and decreases the amount of cars being used. Yet, these new additions completely contradict this entire statement. This amendment states that it will be modified to 60 people per hectare rather than 80 people. The proposed changes will indeed help the community, though, it also creates new step backs.

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is predicted to increase 50%, to 13.5 million, in 25 years. With this in mind, I believe that the proposed changes will not only decrease the sustainability of the community but also the liveability. Low-density areas with large populations need more land to accommodate the entire community. If more land is needed, the communities may need to spread into farmlands which is not seen as sustainable environmentally. Unmanaged growth may also lead to unbalanced communities, some being denser than others to shelter the growing population. Using an example, Brampton, where I live, is highly dense which causes traffic and longer wait times for healthcare services. The solution would not be to expand Brampton due to high density but to create higher density buildings that can accommodate more people. The same idea should be transferred to the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It seems as if the heath of our environment is being set aside to make people content.

There are also subtle changes within the wording that suggests controversial topics. “1.2 is further amended by deleting “a clean and healthy environment” and “social equity” and replacing it with “an approach that puts people first”.”. This suggests that the proposed changes are focusing less on the environment and more on the people. Although the community should be cared for, having a clean environment should be just as much of a priority as the liveability of the people.

Despite the fact that these proposed changes will help the community drastically, it comes with its costs. These proposed changes seem to care less about the health of our environment compared to the original growth plan. I believe that these changes should be modified for the better of our environment and the future of our community. Thank you for your time.