[Updated version March 22, 2023 correcting statements made regarding historical landowner compensation]

The topless streaker at Sunday March 12th’s Juno awards ceremonies garnered more news attention for the potty-mouthed reaction from music award presenter Avril Lavigne than it did to the messages the streaker displayed on her body, “Land-back” and “Save the Greenbelt”. That’s unfortunate. We need more adult conversations about how we are using the precious land resources contained within our borders, including and maybe especially the, (as yet), undeveloped land that surrounds our major Canadian cities.

Yesterday’s release of the Sixth Assessment Report, issued by the International Panel on Climate Change and authored by many of the top global climate scientists, paints a dire picture of the world we will leave to our children and grand-children if we don’t accelerate our actions to contain the increase of carbon-emissions into our atmosphere. More storms like hurricane Fiona that pummeled parts of Atlantic Canada. More “atmospheric rivers” like the ones that devastated BC’s Fraser River valley last summer. More wildfires, like the one that wiped-out the town of Lytton BC in the summer of 2021. And more tornadoes like the one that caused severe property damage to homes in Barrie during that same summer. Events like these are causing untold human suffering for many Canadians and un-precedented costs and insurance losses according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

UN Secretary Antonio Guterres told a press conference yesterday, “The climate time bomb is ticking.” The good news, he went on to say, is “today’s IPCC report is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time bomb,”

So what has the latest climate report have to do with a topless lady and the Ontario Government’s decision to make some Greenbelt land available for development? The IPCC says that, “the solution lies in resilient development – finding ways to adapt to climate change or reduce greenhouse gas emissions that provide wider benefits.” The Greenbelt certainly fits into this scenario. Greenbelt lands provide substantial eco-system services and their presence causes us to re-think land-use policy.

Last week a friend of mine asked me if I saw any public value of taking land out of Ontario’s Greenbelt. She said my response was “the best Coles Notes ever”! So I though I would share it with you.

I see no public interest in building on greenbelt lands. I look at this from three perspectives, need, cost and precedence.

In terms of need, independent agencies, including one funded by the PC government itself and another prepared by The Alliance for a Livable Ontario, at the request of GTHA municipal governments, have reviewed the available land considering the government’s target of building 1.5M homes over the next decade. These, plus another review conducted by Environmental Defence all concluded the government can reach its target without touching greenbelt lands. There are already more than 1M homes that either have been approved and waiting for developers to start construction, or are in the process of approval. Another 500,000 homes could be built using existing developable lands where no application has yet been received.

As for cost, in 2003 parcels of crown land, including 4,950 acres in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve near Pickering, was sold by the government of the day at the prevailing market rate for agricultural land. These parcels were declared part of the Greenbelt two years later in 2005. Obviously, land that can never be used for anything but agriculture, managed forestry, or conservation, would not be considered as financially valuable as land that can, one-day be developed for housing. Fast forward, 20 years and now chunks of that Greenbelt land have been redesignated as being developable, resulting in huge windfall gains for certain landowners.

Media articles indicate that many of the re-designated lands were recently sold to developers. So, the public money that was invested 20 years ago to protect these lands has been effectively transferred to the developer. This smacks of potential insider trading no matter how much the government denies they informed developers. Added to this, the government, apparently, has not negotiated any conditions for affordable or climate resilient housing to be built in return. The stipulation is that homes must be built within 5 years or else the land reverts back to the Greenbelt. It should be noted, however, that the Government has recently bowed to pressure from municipalities, environmental groups and others, and has announced they intend on consulting with municipalities and building industry representatives on updating the Ontario Building Code to incorporate green building standards across the Province. This is a step in the right direction but doesn’t change the equation in terms of building on greenbelt lands.

Finally, the decision to remove lands from the Greenbelt sets a precedence. If these land parcels can be removed, then what’s to stop others from being removed in the future. It creates speculative frenzy that will pressure governments to open more land. The whole integrity of Greenbelt designation becomes circumspect.

So, there is no need to take lands out of the Greenbelt other than to provide windfall profits to developers. There is a huge public cost, which has not been justified. And it sets the precedence for more pressure to remove other Greenbelt land parcels. To my mind, this is clear evidence the government has made a bad decision, not counting the environmental damage, loss of habitat, biodiversity etc. caused on the properties being affected.

Given this and the IPCC report what are we going to do about it? Walking topless on the Juno stage apparently isn’t the best option. But calling your local MPP may help. Please, think of your children or grand-children, and pick up the phone!