It's disingenuous that this…

It's disingenuous that this proposal emphasises some greenspace acres gained in these changes, as if all green spaces are equivalent and as if that number directly relates to the environmental effects such changes in greenspace may have. Quoting from the information about the Oak Ridges Moraine (https://www.ontario.ca/page/oak-ridges-moraine): "As part of the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally sensitive, geological landform in south central Ontario..." It's unclear why this environmentally sensitive area must be disrupted when municipalities could explore building more urban density and infrastructure. This feels like a plan to have quick housing progress metrics to show rather than politicians doing the work of navigating (and possibly reforming) other regulatory burdens. And this at cost to our natural environment.

The Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan recognized that "First Nations and Métis communities within the Great Lakes region have a unique relationship with the land and its resources, which continues to shape the history and economy of the area today." (From: https://www.ontario.ca/page/oak-ridges-moraine-conservation-plan-2017) How many times in the past have we used land in a way that has forced these communities out of a way of life due to the way our developments affect the environment? This is not to mention that the GTA (like most of North America) has a serious urban sprawl problem and these land re-designations point to further sprawl.

This was an objective of the conservation plan based on the conservation act (2001): "maintaining, improving or restoring all the elements that contribute to the ecological and hydrological functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, including the quality and quantity of its water and its other resources." How would removing sections of the Oak Ridges Moraine area maintain, improve, or restore ecological and hydrological integrity? Where on the current proposal can one find the environmental impact assessments for removing those proposed areas? It's certainly not obvious that this has been considered at all. The only impacts considered (if you do a ctrl + f) on the proposal is regulatory, housing, and jobs. That seems short-sighted.