Hi I am a resident from…

Hi I am a resident from Chippawa Niagara Falls Ontario, and I oppose plans to remove lands from the Greenbelt” for a few reasons as shown below:

1. The Premier Ford promised his government wouldn’t touch the Greenbelt

2. A report prepared by government-hired consultants said Greenbelt land was not needed to build needed housing.

3. Building on unserviced Greenbelt land will not solve the unaffordable housing problem. We should be building within areas that already have infrastructure and not destroying our precious greenbelt, agricultural lands or encouraging urban sprawl. We should increase density within the cities as precious wetlands and woodlands cannot be replaced once the genetic diversity is destroyed by building on it. Species will be extirpated as they are already declining and removing the remaining few areas that have been protected for development is only detrimental to biodiversity and irresponsible to society and future generations.

4. Greenbelt land was designated after significant scientific studies and extensive public consultation and cannot just be whittled away without significant justification and extensive public consultation.

5. Bill 23 is detrimental and irresponsible to biodiversity and society. The proposals put forward are erasing decades of scientific data, research and knowledge that simply are being changed to benefit developers and ignore responsibilities to protect nature and agricultural lands. For example:

a. Proposals to replace the Provincial Policy Statement, which currently requires natural heritage systems planning and provides strong protections for Ontario’s farmland and natural heritage, including Provincially Significant Wetlands, woodlands and wildlife habitat is being modified to streamline existing policies to facilitate irresponsible development.

b. The government's proposal to completely overhaul the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System for identifying Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs). This will ensure that very few wetlands would be deemed provincially significant in the future along with causing existing PSWs to lose that designation resulting in loss of existing high level of protections.

c. The government's proposal to introduce an offsetting policy to guide efforts to compensate for the loss of wetlands, woodlands and other natural areas as a result of development is irresponsible and excludes science-based facts. Ecological cores that have existed for decades cannot be recreated or restored elsewhere as they have taken decades and centuries to come into their current existence and habitual species cannot adapt to sudden change. To make matters worse the proposal includes a “pay to slay” natural heritage compensation fund. Developers would be allowed to destroy wetlands, woodlands and other wildlife habitats as long as they pay into the fund. According to many scientific papers and Ontario Nature, wetland offsetting in the United States, Canada and elsewhere indicates that offsetting is seldom successful in compensating for the loss of wetland area, functions and values. Offsetting is likely to push the flood gates of destruction wide open for biodiversity especially in its current critical state of decline. This is a time for more protection not less.

d. The proposed changes undermine democracy by;
- Removing requirements for public meetings on certain planning matters along with removing people’s right to appeal planning decisions (e.g., Official Plans, zoning by-laws, minor variances). Community members and groups would be kept in the dark and no longer be able to participate in or challenge development decisions affecting their neighbourhoods or local farmland and natural areas.
- Giving the Minister the power to override municipal planning decisions (e.g., amend municipal Official Plans) and impose development.
- Stripping away Conservation Authorities power and silencing their knowledge by eliminating permits and input on development projects approved under the Planning Act (e.g., regarding water-taking, interference with rivers, creeks, streams, watercourses, wetlands, flood or erosion control).
It is irresponsible to eliminate so much knowledge and science-based planning that has provided our municipalities with the expert advice and information they need on environmental and natural heritage matters.

These proposals eliminate decades of scientific data and knowledge that is needed and was put in place by big picture thinkers that incorporated a vision and knowledge from all perspectives.
At this critical time in our planet's history, we should bring in as much knowledge to support a non-biased approach to achieve sustainable development that would maintain biodiversity.
Our government should be making decisions that incorporate all perspectives and include science-based knowledge and data, not implementing changes to eliminate it.