As currently written, Bill…

As currently written, Bill 23 would be a disaster for Ontario. As the climate crisis worsens, wetlands are essential to stave off expensive floods, and farmland is increasingly valuable - yet this bill would decimate both. We’ve experienced firsthand during COVID how fragile our food system is when we rely on foreign supply chains; protecting local farmland and food production should be a top priority for ensuring that Ontario is resilient and can continue to provide for its citizens during future crises. Many people in Ontario have also experienced firsthand the devastating effects of flooding on their properties, and as we prepare for a future where extreme weather events such as floods are becoming more common due to climate change, it would be foolish to develop on land that is currently a natural mitigation tool against such disasters (in the form of flood mitigation, and also in the sequestration of carbon by green areas). Not only that, but having access to green space and nature is a major factor in quality of life and mental (and physical) health; with a growing population in southwestern Ontario, we will overall need to also plan for MORE green space, not less.

We definitely need more homes in Ontario (especially affordable ones, mind you) - but they need to be built in ways that are smart: where existing infrastructure exists (or can easily be added and maintained by municipalities), increasing density and limiting sprawl. And the people best positioned to make decisions as to where that is are the citizens and elected government of municipalities and cities, not the province. This bill as currently written would remove that power from municipalities, which in many cases have already committed significant resources and planning over recent years to carefully plan where future housing development is best to occur in their regions. It would also sign Ontario up for decades more low-density sprawl, which is more environmentally damaging, more expensive to maintain, and ultimately less affordable – and in fact, there is already plenty of land within city limits that can be developed and built upon without stealing land from our protected greenbelt.

It is difficult to understand, and deeply concerning, that this bill seems to avoid useful measures while instead prioritizing short-term pillaging of essential protected lands. Any environmental or conservation expert knows that you can’t simply “replace” currently protected lands by adding protected lands elsewhere – the land that is currently protected as part of the greenbelt is protected for a reason (for many reasons, in fact): flood mitigation, mature forest canopy (a significant sequesterer of carbon; newly planted trees and treed areas take decades to reach the same level of carbon sequestration and natural habitat as mature forests currently offer), habitat for threatened species (which can’t just decide to “move” their habitat to another plot of land within the greenbelt; instead, if their habitat is removed, they will struggle to survive or eventually die), or ecologically sensitive areas. Even if the total acreage of the greenbelt remains the same (or even is increased) due to the addition of new lands, there will be a net loss in these benefits. Farmland is another thing that can’t simply be replaced by rezoning land elsewhere. The most productive, high-quality farmland in Ontario is south of the Canadian shield, much of it in and around the greenbelt. Any farmer will tell you that not all farmland is created equal, and so adding farmland in other areas won’t result in an equal exchange.

There are many other possible solutions that could be explored to increase the stock of housing in Ontario before jumping to developing on environmentally sensitive lands that are currently protected. The legislation as currently written is irredeemable, and I urge the committee to do all it can to scrap it and start over.