I am disappointed that the…

I am disappointed that the Ontario Government is walking back on its commitment to protect the Greenbelt, what is and has been a decades-long effort to preserve Ontario's agricultural land and natural water systems. While I understand the need to build more residential homes in anticipation of a rise in immigration, I believe that the proposed plan is an indirect method anyhow to address this issue. I believe that the government has not considered nor exhausted alternative solutions that would directly address housing security for immigrant families while committing to sustainable urban development that would not undermine efforts to address climate change.

While building more houses may seem like a direct solution for a need for housing, I must ask who would be moving in to these newly built houses in what was previously the protected Greenbelt. Immigration is a costly and lengthy process requiring housing, yes, but also transportation, job security, and in some cases, education access. I am not confident that the proposed areas for development meet all of these immigration needs. While an argument can be made that building more housing units will ultimately benefit new arrivals in the area even if they are not the ones moving in to these new units, this would render the proposal an indirect solution, and there runs the possibility of this proposal not adequately addressing the housing needs of immigrant families at all. Our government makes it sound like the housing crisis is immediate, which in many ways, it is. However, if our government is relying on an indirect solution with trickle-down effects to address an immediate crisis, then I question whether our government has chosen the best possible solution.

Furthermore, to align future residential developments with our efforts of curbing the impacts of climate change, ANY new residential development should be assessed for its potential impact on our air, water, and greenhouse gas emissions. New residential developments that rely on a personal automobile as the primary method of transportation would be antithetical to any of your government's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example. A reliable and efficient public transportation system should be integrated into any new residential development plan, and this is something that the provincial government should call on municipal governments to cooperate on. Many of the suburban areas that are targeted in your proposal do not have the reliable and efficient public transportation system required to support these new developments.

Finally, while I commend the government's proposal to expand the Greenbelt elsewhere, I argue that the protections that our government offers at this time are not reliable, given its move to simultaneously remove and re-designate previously protected areas. If it is this easy to remove and add to our Greenbelt, then it seems as though land in the Greenbelt has a mere label that carries no real value. In addition, it is not only the quantity of land in the Greenbelt that makes it an important natural asset to the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is also the location of the land that renders it an important temperature moderator, a flood-risk mitigator, and effective carbon sink. Thus, I would strongly advise our government to reconsider its "More Homes Built Faster" plan and strategy, and opt for a solution that is in line with both current climate change demands and the needs of our growing population.