If Bill 23 is passed as it…

If Bill 23 is passed as it currently stands, I personally I will be ashamed to be an Ontarian and even more so to be an ecologist. With passing this bill, it will show how Ontario no longer values the protection of clean drinking water, nor the protection of people and property from hazards and other impacts, especially in the face of climate change. It will also demonstrate the short-sighted planning Ontario has set-out with no scientific justification that will be detrimental for generations to come.

The welfare of citizens, present and future, and our natural ecosystems (i.e., natural heritage) should be the utmost importance to the Ontario government. Bringing more business to Ontario will be irrelevant when our land is inhospitable and no longer able to support healthy communities. While this may not be something today's adults experience, planning for the long-term is essential for protecting people and the natural environment. It has been widely shown, that healthy, intact ecosystems support thriving and healthy communities. Related, now more than ever citizens want access to nature and green spaces. All Ontarians should be able to have access to green spaces, however, this requires proper planning and likely the addition of green space, not as proposed, removing green spaces to build more homes.

It is estimated that Ontario has already lost approximately 75% of wetlands on the landscape and we cannot afford to lose more. Wetlands play a vital and necessary role in mitigating flooding, erosion, as well as improving water quality and quantity. Aside from the many important benefits of ecosystem services that wetlands provide, wetlands support countless rare plant and wildlife species including numerous Species at Risk. In Southern Ontario, we should be protective and proud of the rich biodiversity Ontario supports, not searching for ways to weaken the protection of species and their habitat.

I am deeply concerned about many of the proposed changes, including removing the ability to complex wetlands without any scientific justification. The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) could be updated and improved; however, the updates should be as of a result of meaningful discussion and received input from relevant professionals and experts, which has not occurred presently.

The narrative of lack of land in Ontario is a falsehood. We have enough land to increase affordable housing without compromising the integrity of our natural heritage systems. Ontarians do not want more urban sprawl, what we need is densification of housing. The fear felt by many individuals is that these proposed homes won’t be affordable by average Ontarians, instead these proposed houses will be luxury homes.

Removing Conservation Authorities from the equation will result in lost local knowledge and significant loss of protection for people and structures from natural hazards. Conservation Authorities should not be seen a barrier to housing, but rather a very important planning partner.

Suggestions voiced by others that I as a citizen I support include protecting natural heritage systems for the long-term in balance with addressing the housing affordability problem. As well as recognizing and supporting the important role of conservation authorities and upper-tier municipalities in providing knowledge and support in land use planning at a watershed, regional, and local scale. To remove either of these parties will put an unnecessary burden and strain on lower-tier municipalities that are not equipped, nor property staffed to support these changes. Lastly, I support building upon the current systems approach to natural environment planning. Specific examples put forward include continued support of green infrastructure to aid in building affordable communities which will be more resilient to climate change.