I am writing in response to…

I am writing in response to the Provincial Government’s proposed revocation of the Municipal Class EA (MCEA) and Private Sector Developer Regulations.

As a practicing field archaeologist in Ontario, I am consistently dismayed by this government’s dismissive response to any concerned stakeholder other than the developer. The Greenbelt fiasco, the remodeling of Ontario Place, and his proposed lithium mining on treaty lands are only a few instances amongst many that highlight the Premier’s disdain for open and transparent planning and his unwillingness to consult all interested parties, be they the public, environmental organizations, heritage associations, or, as has been demonstrated time and time again, Ontario’s First Nations communities.

Mr. Ford wishes to streamline the development process in order to reduce the ‘red tape’ that developers face in their project proposals. I put forward that that ‘red tape’ is vital for the protection of both our natural and cultural heritage and that maintaining and strengthening such legislation is the hallmark of a civilized society. A just society where everyone is afforded consideration and respect. I believe a civilized society – one that has learned from the mistakes of the past – values its natural and cultural heritage.

Bulldozing our cultural heritage without a regulatory process in place simply because it is expedient affords no one respect, particularly our Indigenous communities that have been here for millennia. To do so ignores our commitments to UNDRIP and the TRC, smacks of colonialism and reveals an ugly bigotry. It is an old, outworn attitude that I had hoped we had left behind. Instead, it pushes us backwards.

Do we need development? Of course we do. But we can develop in a way that is responsible, ethical, and open to debate. We need to develop within our current infrastructure instead of continually expanding outwards. We need to increase our densities, not spread ourselves further and further afield, requiring new infrastructure, eating up more and more farmland, and increasing our dependence on cars. We need to develop in a way where we are not doing irreparable harm to the environment or bulldozing our buried cultural heritage.

Mr. Ford’s approach, however, is to throw the doors wide open and, without any thought for the future proclaim, like it’s the Wild West, “Have at ‘er!”

No plan. No transparency. No regard for anyone outside his circle of developer friends.

The regulations that are in place now, although highly flawed, allow for at least some protection of the Province’s 13,000 years of cultural heritage. It allows us to piece together the story of our province, from the first humans to set foot in what is now Ontario, to European contact with its rich and troubled history. For the most part, archaeological sites in Ontario are buried beneath our feet. There is little to see on the surface and so, are easily missed. Revoking the MCEA would leave archaeological sites, both those that are known as well as those that have yet to be found, open to damage and destruction. Once these sites are gone, they are gone forever. We cannot go back. This is our last chance to avoid irrecoverable loss.

Loss of knowledge. Loss of our rich and compelling history. Loss of respect.

As a society, we are more than our economy and its corporations. We live on land that needs to be cared for and that land carries a long and complex history of human occupation that we are only beginning to understand. If these changes go through, we will never know what we have lost. We are standing on the brink of doing irrevocable harm. Sadly, I do not believe Mr. Ford could care less about our cultural heritage or give one iota of thought to UNDRIP or the TRC, or his responsibility to listen (really listen) to every interested party.

As premier, Mr. Ford is beholden to every Ontarian, not just the minority that voted for him. After the last election, Mr. Ford patted himself on the back and proclaimed he’d won a clear mandate to govern. Let me remind Mr. Ford that he won with just over 40% of the vote. That means that 60% wanted someone (anyone) else. A discussion about the merits of maintaining a first-past-the-post system in a political landscape of more than two parties will have to wait, but at some point Mr Ford will have to realize that he garnered a clear mandate from a minority of Ontarians, and it might be worthwhile understanding that he cannot belligerently impose his myopic vision without consultation or any thought to the consequences.

So much for a just society.

Sincerely,
Robert Brown