This seems another shameful…

This seems another shameful and thinly veiled attack on oversight under the guise of necessity. For an administration with a track record of trying to develop protected environment, crucial farm lands and public green spaces, while simultaneously attacking infrastructure and development processes that are actually proven integral for citizen and environmental health and safety, this is unsurprising yet disappointing.

Proposing extremely invasive and destructive mega-highways, but ripping up bike infrastructure. Privatization and clearcutting of public land that also serves a key environmental purpose. Commandeering vast swaths of protected land rather than finding ways of supporting its stewards. Sudden closure of institutions that provide environmental education. Routinely ignoring independent research and consulting, or global parallels, precedents, and gold standards for alternative options. What faith should Ontarians have that this is being done in the interest of 'the environment' at all?

It's baffling that those presenting these types of proposals can't understand that the ends they desire can be achieved in less wantonly destructive ways - and perhaps by means that even contribute something of lasting value for current and future generations. The degree to which the focus is narrowed on slashing and burning wrapped in language meant to reassure is deeply concerning. Given the current state of affairs, I should think there are a dozen more pressing issues at hand and alternative approaches to development that have been extensively independently researched, corroborated, and presented that would require no re-structuring of current environmental oversight. As presented this feels like a waste of time and tax-payer money to try to justify gutting protections.

I'm tired of watching these proposals try to present the idea that there is no alternative, when in fact countless alternatives have already been provided that don't involve environmental destruction. How will rolling back environmental protections help protect the resources we desperately need in the face of a global trade war? What infrastructure, housing, and industry is so reliant on the spaces that are protected when there is plenty of actual red tape and nimbyism that should be targeted inside communities and cities across the province to expedite sustainable development, density, and unlocking the economic value dormant there? Reports and responses detailing the need for focus on solutions that already exist instead of deregulation are plentiful and publicly available.

The real work should be invested in reviewing these existing studies for solutions, looking to successful communities globally for adaptable and attainable end-goals, good faith bipartisanship, and getting buy-in from the country and cottage-set who placed their trust in this government. Their property will be a lot less appealing when the rapid onset decay of all these connected ecosystems and economic centers so we can (quickly!) build clusters of paper condominiums and swaths of partitioned, barren cardboard single-family homes next to millions of cubic meters of concrete reaches them.