Although it may seem…

Although it may seem expedient to reduce red tape in certain circumstances, I have major reservations when reading the wording used to possibly expedite housing growth. This is especially evident in the section on the reuse of Brown Fields. The potential for health and safety concerns could become much greater if there is lack of clarity in direction and over sight.

I will list some examples of vague terminology: 1. "reduce requirements to fully delineate contaminants (i.e., additional sampling)", 2. Risk assessments.... "remove unnecessary barriers", 3. 'provide flexibility where exceedances are caused by the use of a substance for safety.....", 4. "reduce delays", and "remove Record of Sites Conditions... " in some cases.
I find these proposals to be unclear and frankly irresponsible in their meaning. The fact that the expertise of an engineers or geoscientist may be involved as well as a major decision maker, named a "project leader", does not reassure me. It is unclear who employs and pays an 'expert', the provincial government or a private company. Nor is it clear as to exactly what this person's role might be.

My overall concern is that the soil, water and air will be affected negatively from hasty decision making regarding development, and people, animals (especially endangered species, plants included) will be put at further risk. Also, the government's assertion that more housing projects will create more affordable housing does not wash with me, because, unfortunately we all know that developers are not very interested in this sector. Developers want to make big money.