According to this proposal…

According to this proposal to amend the Greenbelt Area boundary, parcels of land will be removed from the Greenbelt Area to support the “[provincial government’s] municipal partners to plan for responsible growth and help build housing faster … while leading to an overall expansion of the Greenbelt.”
First of all, the Greenbelt Plan is supposed to provide permanent protection to the agricultural land base and the ecological and hydrological features, areas, and functions within the Greater Golden Horseshoe and beyond. Removing lands from protection sends a clear message that such protection is NOT permanent, therefore setting a precedent that endangers the rest of the Greenbelt. “Vaughan Councillor Marilyn Iafrate … has received calls from developers who own land elsewhere in the Greenbelt looking for municipal support to open up their properties as well: ‘Every single landowner with Greenbelt land will start lobbying the government. And we will see more of this.’” (Toronto Star, Nov. 17, 2022)
According to Environmental Defence, the provincial government reviewed current Greenbelt boundaries in 2017 as part of a required 10 year review. They received over 650 requests from developer landowners to remove land from the Greenbelt. With the exception of minor adjustments made to correct mapping errors, these requests were denied because approval would have resulted in islands of development within the Greenbelt. These islands (new subdivisions) would require roads, sewers, water etc. which would create a spider web of development through remaining protected land. They would also negatively impact wildlife and forest habitats, and bring urban development closer to agricultural land with potentially disastrous results (remember Walkerton?).
The provincial government defends the removal of these lands by saying that it will do a land swap by adding land from another area and increasing the overall size of the Greenbelt. In addition to the point above, many of the proposed additions are already protected, thus are being double counted. And what is the mechanism for comparing the lands being removed and the lands being added? Are they of equal value? And how does one relocate, for example, a wetland?
According to the Greenbelt Act, when seeking amendments, consultation is required with municipalities, conservation authorities, the general public, and Indigenous groups. The timeframe is very short, especially considering municipal elections have only recently taken place with some councils not yet sworn in, so supporting their “municipal partners to plan for responsible growth” seems a bit disingenuous to me, as does consulting with conservation authorities (refer to Bill 23, which seeks to strip CAs of their power).
Finally, The Housing Affordability Task Force report, commissioned by the provincial government, states that, “a shortage of land isn’t … the problem. Land is available, both inside existing built-up areas and on developed land outside the greenbelts.” Housing can still be built within existing urban boundaries, and on the thousands of acres of land already designated for development, without sacrificing the Greenbelt, which was established in 2005 to preserve farmland, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and rein in GTHA sprawl. I fear that this is the beginning of the end for the Greenbelt, and an early Christmas present (complete with ‘parcels’) for several developers, some of whom have as recently as two months ago made significant purchases of Greenbelt land.
I strongly object to any changes to the boundaries of this precious, irreplaceable resource.