This Statement of…

This Statement of Environmental Values from the Ministry of Infrastructure totally IGNORES the value of Green Infrastructure Projects, and this is demonstrated repeatedly throughout this naïve poorly-construed document. While this document pretends to be a statement of environmental values, here are references scattered throughout the document that show there are only economic and development considerations involved:

Under Section 2. Ministry Vision, Mandate and Business

“The role of the Ministry of Infrastructure is to make smart, targeted infrastructure investments to make our roads safer, commutes easier and communities healthier – protecting what matters most to people for future generations. The Ministry is committed to building better infrastructure for the people, making smarter infrastructure investments for the province, municipalities, Indigenous communities, the broader public sector and non-profit organizations across Ontario, creating jobs and growing our economy. Modernizing public infrastructure is the key to strengthening our economy and ensuring that every region across the province can grow and prosper.”

There are absolutely NO references in the avove statement that recognizes the need for an expansion of Green Infrastructure since southern Ontario’s landscape has been denuded and transformed into an increasingly congested polluted landscape, dominated by more roads and more subdivisions (residential, commercial, industrial) and HUGE warehouses. The landscape is FINITE – it is NOT growing.

This gray depressing landscape has been created by successive Liberal and Conservative governments who seem to be in thrall to developers. When former Premier Bill Davis wisely devised an embryonic Greenbelt north of Steeles Avenue, a succeeding Liberal government destroyed it. When the Liberals designated lands for a second Greenbelt in 2005. Citizens of Ontario were relieved. Unfortunately, the Conservative government elected in June 2018 decided to destroy this Greenbelt simply because it had been a ‘Liberal’ idea. When political ideologies are used to destroy essential landscapes by the actions of successive governments, Ontario becomes a poorer less interesting province. As far as the Liberals and Conservatives go, I really see NO difference in how they have misused (abused?) the landscape to the detriment of Ontario residents and native species.

Under Section 7, Climate Change, this Values document states:

“The regulation, which applies to all 444 Ontario municipalities, requires municipalities to consider opportunities to undertake adaptation and mitigation measures to address the impacts of climate change on infrastructure.”

The words ‘adaptation’ and ‘mitigation’ have been used over and over to surrender to pressure from developers, while undermining the landscape. It is a dishonest and disgraceful pretence to pretend that any of the too many burgeoning gigantic developments currently under construction, or planned for construction, can ‘mitigate’ against the loss of the very landscapes which are, or have been, cleared to accommodate MORE hundreds or thousands of unimaginative monster homes over repetitive (connected and drearily expanding) rectilinear planning grids.

As a result of over-development, Ontario has faced some catastrophic flooding over the past five years. Clearly, this ‘mitigation’ nonsense is not working. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said, “Flooding is the new fire” after observing so many flooding claims from southern Ontario home-owners.

No, you won’t get less flooding with even more development and pavement. At some point, development must be optimized and stabilized because the continued conversion and paving of the landscape is a recipe for economic and social collapse. If you think over-development is some type of panacea, go live in China, or India, or some other over-populated nations, to learn why so many people want to migrate away from polluted and congested landscapes there. Why does Ontario want to create such conditions here? The landscape is finite.

Trees, forests, and wetlands have the inherent capability to regenerate themselves when left alone. They are Nature’s way of controlling floodwaters without any need for expensive ‘engineering interventions’ that cost millions of dollars in building costs, operation, maintenance, etc.

We know that natural floodplains and wetlands allow fast water to spread out over a wider area, thereby slowing it down to mitigate against damage. The natural vegetation along those waterways also slows and captures water, collecting and recycling nutrients at the same time to feed various aquatic species. Those marshes also provide habitat for a variety of indigenous species.

The deep and massive root systems of trees and forests perform an essential function when it comes to flood control. This is an area where Ontario really needs to pay attention. For example, one mature eastern white pine will absorb about 100 gallons/day. A fully mature Oak may absorb twice that amount. On average, a mature tree can absorb about 36% of the rainfall with which it has contact. The more trees, the more contact. Through the normal water cycle, almost half of drinking water could be filtered through natural forests where they have been retained.

The trees in forests transpire moisture (and oxygen) back into the atmosphere, providing cooling shade as an added benefit … and they are ESSENTIAL to carbon sequestration., as well as providing habitat for native species.

Small trees produce small amounts of oxygen. Large mature trees produce much larger amounts of oxygen. In other words, trees APPRECIATE in value over time, unlike engineered projects, which depreciate in value over time and require expensive maintenance, repairs, and upgrades.
According to a summary prepared by York Region Forestry in 2014, “It took 475 small trees to produce the oxygen breathed in by one person. However, the same could be accomplished by only 12 of the larger trees.” Ontario had better start planning to preserve remaining forests AND undertake much needed tree planting projects in urban and suburban settings.

The arrival of Covid-19 has demonstrated the ‘value’ of human population density and over-population. Those who are living in the most densely populated cities are trying to self-isolate among multiple millions of other people. There is nowhere for them to go because they may spread this coronavirus around. If we learn nothing else, surely we can learn that there is NO magic in destroying the landscape to repeat the problems associated with continuing forced population growth. For the sake of public health, we need to protect the natural landscape and prepare carefully-planned communities that are not assumed to ‘grow forever’ while forests, wetlands and farmland are sacrificed in their entirety to make way for flooding, or wildfires, or epidemics.

Section 8 continues to treat Indigenous Peoples as an after-thought, not the owners of unceded lands that, in many cases, were not included in Treaties, whose terms were not explained properly to the individuals who signed those Treaties with an ‘X’ decades ago.

Section 9 declares “The Ministry of Infrastructure believes in the wise use and conservation of natural resources and is committed to reducing its environmental footprint by greening its internal operations, for example through in-office recycling programs, as well as waste reduction and energy conservation practices such as minimizing paper use and using energy savings options for idle office equipment.”

Surely, no one is foolish enough to believe that in-office recycling programs, feeble waste reduction … (such as we see in Ontario, which is planning to site 16 NEW or EXPANDED landfills by 2050) … and energy conservation practices are going to make a big difference to the congested urban and increasingly suburbanized landscapes? Will recycling programs save a single species or prevent any flood? No, these types of band-aid solutions have already been proven to be totally inadequate.

I leave the last word up to Premier Ford as reported in July 2019:

“Mayor Comiskey, who describes himself as a small-c conservative, was encouraged by comments made by Premier Doug Ford during a visit to Oxford Country last March.
Ford was quoted on Heart FM's website as saying: "Who are a bunch of politicians in Queen's Park to tell municipalities how to run their municipality? It is up to them, they have an option, to opt in or opt out. That is up to them, it is not necessarily up to us to overrule a municipality. That is the last thing I would want to do. I don't care if someone says they have 300 or 400 jobs, we are not going to stick something in an area that people don't want."

Yes, indeed. Who are a bunch of politicians at Queen’s Park to force municipalities to act against the wishes of their tax-paying constituents, many of whom who have rallied to save remaining natural landscapes?