This proposition is…

This proposition is critically flawed:

1. Municipal traffic is the concern of the municipalities: bike lanes do not exist on highways and thus do not impact "provincial" (i.e. inter-city) travel, with perhaps very few exceptions; any perceived congestion impacts residents of the municipality almost exclusively; this makes as much sense as requiring provincial approval for repairing potholes or amending hours of a public swimming pool.

2. There appears to be no evidence/data to support the potential removal of existing cycling infrastructure, specifically projections regarding future increase/decrease of cyclists in municipal areas; as cities (and provinces!) purport to be reducing congestion and improving, among other things, air quality, data would be helpful in motivating any prospective infrastructure changes.

3. Persons who cycle out of necessity (e.g. commuters) fall into one of two categories: car owners who choose to cycle, and non-car owners for whom cycling is the best/only option. The former, if disincentivized from using bike lanes, will instead drive cars, which will -- it is unbelievable that this needs emphasizing -- generate more automobile traffic. The latter category will be forced to cycle on roads without cycling infrastructure, which can only further slow down automobile traffic and risk of accident.

4. For a government that purportedly prides itself on "red tape reduction," it seems at best antithetical and at worst petty and vindictive to add a layer of provincial bureaucracy to what is, again, a fundamentally municipal matter.

Addendum: perhaps a viable alternative would be for the province to spearhead, and fund, construction of underground tunnels for cyclists in municipal areas.