Last week’s column suggested that I was writing the “final chapter” on the clear-cut in Virgil, so let’s call this a postscript to that.

A few days ago, I received an email from someone whose backyard bordered on the former coniferous forest and whose family now has the unfortunate daily experience of looking out over the desolated lands with the sad anticipation of the lost trees being replaced by a row of townhouses.                   

The individual wrote: “It’s truly so heartbreaking to see these animals lose their homes. The birds have been so confused here and watching them hop through the fallen trees where they probably had nests already was so hard.”

They continued by reporting that a “pond” had formed in the clear-cut lands and was attracting all manner of birds and wildlife including a bald eagle — possibly one displaced by the cutting down of trees near Lakeshore (which had historically been an eagle nesting site) earlier this year — finishing the missive by stating, “It will be another heartbreak when they start the construction process and destroy this little habitat.”

Now, we know that Mother Nature, left to her own devices, will rehabilitate many of the scars left on the land by humans. However, we also know that she will not be given that opportunity by the developer in Virgil.

But, this is only a single, relatively small, local example of the potential devastation which could, and likely will, be visited upon the landscape of this province should the Ford government’s Bill 5 be passed into law.

We visited some of the provisions enfolded within this legislation in the May 14 column of Arch-i-text (“Arch-i-text: Ford government attacks Ontario’s livability“), so I will refrain from repeating myself, except to say that it poses an unconscionable attack on the environment, heritage and the democratic process by concentrating power in the hands of provincial politicians — individuals who lack the expertise to make educated decisions. 

Further, it bypasses any pre-consultation with the First Nations and gives lie to any claim by the government that they are committed to the principles of “peace and reconciliation.”

In response to a hurricane of objections by Ontario’s First Nations, the Ford government amended the bill to include consultation with those nations which might be affected by decisions made under the new law.

However, as Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier of Temagami First Nation pointed out during a Global News interview from May 31 (segment titled “Focus Ontario: Bill 5 Showdown”), this offer is, “after the fact. They are going to pass the bill and then we’re waiting on the graciousness of the Crown to do this (consult).”

And, she continues, “When we wait for the Crown to consult with us, sometimes it never happens.”

Personally, I am not aware of any First Nation in Ontario that has not suffered government abuse and marginalization of their territorial rights.

Consider the appalling example of the Haldimand Tract granted to the Six Nations Confederacy in 1793 which, over the last two centuries, has been systematically reduced — by government complicity, neglect and unilateral decisions — to only five per cent of its original size and is subject to the longest-running unsettled Indigenous land claims/court actions on the planet.

And that’s just one example of many.

Is it any wonder that a government that wishes to pass a law putting the power in their hands now and then promise to consult later might be viewed with incredulity?

Environmental groups across the province have also joined in protesting this piece of legislation, staging protests in several cities and the front of Queen’s Park.

Then there is the concern — yet to be fully understood by the public at-large — that this legislation will apply to any lands which, “in the opinion of the lieutenant governor in council … could advance the following provincial priorities: Transit, housing, health and long-term care, other infrastructure or such other priorities as may be prescribed.”

If we consider the scope of this provision, it provides that the provincial government can unilaterally direct and approve land utilization/development proposals that meet any of its current or future policy priorities, notwithstanding the current use (zoning) of the lands.

Thus, our agricultural (Greenbelt) lands and communities are exposed to the same threat as environmentally sensitive and heretofore protected natural reserves (like parks).

While Doug Ford loudly proclaims that this legislation is necessary to protect Ontario’s economy from the Trump administration’s tariffs, many question the claim based on the unbridled nature of Bill 5.

I just may be a cynic, but I question any piece of legislation that grants a government the power to award benefits to select individuals and corporations at the discretion of a minister — there is just too much potential for decision-making that damages the public good.

Given that the loss of farm land in Ontario has nearly doubled under the Ford government tenure — currently standing at a reduction of 319 acres per day — one has to question the future of the Greenbelt.

Wasn’t there an issue with a proposed highway and the greenbelt a little while back?

Hmmm …      

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.