色色啦

In 2022, Premier Doug Ford鈥檚 Progressive Conservative government attempted to remove 7,400 acres from the protected Greenbelt, and swap in 9,400 acres of land that was already protected under existing policies. It was forced to abandon that plan in the face of criticism over developer favouritism, lack of transparency and inadequate environmental review.

The Greenbelt debacle revealed deep flaws in Ontario鈥檚 housing policy. But the scandal drowned out the important question of how to protect the Greenbelt while still building the homes people need. With GTA housing prices averaging听, can we afford to keep every acre of the Greenbelt off-limits?

With the provincial government poised to begin a mandatory 10-year review of the Greenbelt, David Crombie, a former mayor of 色色啦 and federal cabinet minister and urban reform advocate who led the last Greenbelt review, and Matthew Cory, a land economist and planning consultant, exchanged views in a discussion听seeking common ground on Greenbelt planning that fits the needs of the growing 色色啦 region.

David Crombie:听The Greenbelt has a long history. I was raised in Swansea, then a village of 6,000 people, surrounded on three sides by water. Nature felt like part of our city as it did in many places across the Greater 色色啦 Area. The Greenbelt was established to conserve this environment. It carried a philosophy that ecology, economy and community are mutually dependent.

Matthew Cory:听Yes, but the Greenbelt was never meant to be static, and its boundaries were shaped more by 鈥減olitical science鈥� than by actual science. They were drawn to trace the outer edges of GTA municipalities, creating a containment line around planned growth areas. The Greenbelt鈥檚 premise is sound, and no one鈥檚 saying scrap the whole plan. But it was painted with a broad brush over southern Ontario, and it鈥檚 not perfect.

The Greenbelt was also meant to be tied into two other provincial policies: the (to manage rapid population and employment growth)听and 听(to transform and modernize transit and transportation). For good or bad, we have rescinded the growth plan. And there鈥檚 a long way to go on implementing The Big Move. Everyone is still waiting for the Eglinton Crosstown to open (one of the first-wave projects). So, broad strategic rethinking is needed in the Greenbelt review.

Crombie:听If you鈥檙e making the argument, Matthew, that our problems with housing are related to our lack of land, I think you have a very hard hill to climb.

Cory:听I鈥檝e always made that argument because it depends on the type of housing we are building. I鈥檓 raising a family in a condo on King Street, and I鈥檓 the only one I know doing this. It鈥檚 one thing to say we can build upwards and have higher density, but most families want a house with a yard. We need to accommodate this so that homebuyers are not driven farther away from 色色啦. And for this, we don鈥檛 have enough land.

Crombie: There鈥檚 lots of available land. But the issue with parts of the land development industry is the assumption that we just sprawl land with single-family dwellings. It鈥檚 easier to rezone green land for housing without adding corner stores or other community needs.

I am not saying that there shouldn鈥檛 be any building on the Greenbelt, but any plans need to be carefully assessed. A good example is Ken Greenberg鈥檚 plan for which includes adding airport lands to the new Rouge Park, expanding hamlets and new models of agriculture. The problem with most plans is too much focus on land as a development opportunity without understanding that we鈥檙e building community, not just housing.

Cory:听I agree we have non-Greenbelt land to develop, but we should look at Greenbelt sites next to existing development that maybe shouldn鈥檛 stay in the Greenbelt. When the boundaries were drawn, they zigzagged through buildings and farm fields to hit a two-million-acre target. The Greenbelt limited housing supply and pushed people to seek affordable housing farther and farther from the city.

Without opening existing neighbourhoods to more housing types, more land will be needed. Serviceable land near employment 鈥� even within the Greenbelt 鈥� should at least be considered.

Crombie: My argument is there鈥檚 lots of available land outside the Greenbelt for 30 years or maybe more. There鈥檚 no rush. The crisis is not with where we need housing. It鈥檚 that we need more housing that鈥檚 affordable and readily deliverable.

The market alone can鈥檛 do that, and government alone can鈥檛 do that. So how you bring them together is really important. We need to make sure that the development industry is working with communities and the government. And that can be done.

Cory: Contrary to popular belief, land has already been taken out of the Greenbelt: The last Liberal government removed some and added more in, without ever explaining why. That fed the misconception that the government owns the Greenbelt, when actually 90 per cent is privately held by farmers, developers and individuals.

Crombie: One hopeful sign is Prime Minister Mark Carney鈥檚 鈥�.鈥� (A $6 billion federal initiative to directly build affordable housing at scale 鈥� using public land, low-cost financing and Canadian-made materials). This could revive the part of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that historically brought together the land and resources needed to get projects done. While building more in the Greenbelt may be important long term, right now the priority is affordable housing. There鈥檚 land to do it 鈥� we just need to marshal the resources.

Cory:听I agree with your perspective, David: The money鈥檚 got to come from somewhere 鈥� and the financial requirements are substantial. The government lending money to developers and homebuyers could have a great impact.

That said, Carney鈥檚 a former banker 鈥� and I doubt his banker friends would toast the return of 30-year interest-free loans. But it鈥檚 the kind of thing that has to happen.

Canada鈥檚 growth comes from immigration, and we need affordable homes to attract the best. Many come here with a Canadian dream. They are not expecting to drive Uber Eats and live in someone鈥檚 basement. They want what we have. And if told they can only live in an apartment by a transit stop, they are not going to come.

Crombie:听The current government has not endeared itself to the Greenbelt. They did seriously bad things by trying to just lift land out of there. That is not the way to go about redevelopment. But we need the province to be deeply involved in the review 鈥� and not just with their own biases and prejudices. We are hoping that the review is wide open and that the people they choose to do it are people that we can trust.

Cory:听The next review needs to consider all requests. While developer influence should be managed, some municipalities have also called for removing land from the Greenbelt. One case that stands out is the east side of Highway 404 in York Region, where the Greenbelt boundary was arbitrarily drawn to the highway鈥檚 edge. Community infrastructure and services sit on the west side of the highway, but the east side can鈥檛 be developed for anything.

Crombie:听There鈥檚 not a single answer to this problem. We need a big tent. We need to hurry up the process, change regulations, get the money and dig.

Cory:听I agree there are too many factors for a simple answer. Many want to protect the Greenbelt no matter what. But others, especially those in or near it, say it never really made sense.听

The Greenbelt plan needs to evolve from something draconian and 鈥渇aith-based鈥� to a working document that responds to local realities, within our broader provincial goals.

Crombie:听It鈥檚 the quality of the process for the 10-year review that will decide everything. The government has misspent its trust on the Greenbelt 鈥� and this is its chance to win it back.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. If you have comments or ideas for Bridging the Divide, contact听katharine@lakeberz.com