I strongly oppose Bill 5,…

I strongly oppose Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. This legislation poses a serious threat to my family’s health and future, Ontario’s natural heritage, democratic processes and Indigenous rights. I am highly concerned that the motivations and philosophy behind these are undermining the government’s mandate to protect my family, health and rights. Bill 5 proposes to repeal the Endangered Species Act — one of the few tools we have to protect at-risk wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on. Replacing it with vague “goals” and unenforceable measures will lead to the further decline of species already on the brink and as such, will bring our own species closer to its own brink.
I would like to particularly comment on the following phrases from Bill 5: “…the proposed changes would provide a reasonable, balanced approach to protecting species in Ontario” and “The purpose of the species protection legislation will be to drive species protection and conservation while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario”. I agree that Ontario needs housing and space for balanced economic development in order to be sustainable. However, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act fails to enable this. Implying that the type of development reflected in this act and Bill5 is ‘sustainable’ is erroneous and does a disservice to all living things in Ontario and future generations. It surmises, for example, that human housing and industry only affects the direct footprint of the buildings/ developed space it occupies, without taking into consideration the much more far-reaching implications and needs. For example, the current trend of building mass homes on previously farmable land in Ontario and then importing most of those people’s food from California, Mexico and China is unsustainable and not balanced. Taking more living space away from endangered species by redefining what space they are to be allocated in order to build more of the same un-sustainable housing and industry growth would only support more of this short-sighted, erroneous, self-destructive pattern. Ford needs to do better. Germany, for example, has a population over 2 times that of Canada on a space smaller than Ontario and seems to have more connected green corridors and green space and protections for wild species than Ontario does. It also has more anti-speculation laws and developers do not drive the government. Ontario can do better by re-evaluating what ‘sustainable’ and ‘balanced’ means, so it can better apply it to the bills and acts it develops. I object to the current use of those terms in the current wording of Bill 5 and the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. I demand an explanation of how these are ‘sustainable’ and ‘balanced’.
I reject the sentence, “Under the proposed new approach, instead of waiting for the ministry to approve permits, most proponents will be able to begin an activity immediately after registering.” This is like letting a prospector looking for gold start to dig under my driveway before I can even say that it is my driveway and critical to my home. Through the sentence: “We are proposing to remove the concept of “harass” from species protections”, the Bill basically admits and recognizes that such premature action would be harassment of a species and simply deletes the concept. This is unacceptable. Activity cannot be allowed to start without oversight and pre-evaluation of the species’ needs existing in that space.
The re-definition of ‘habitat’ does not include enough area for the species to actually survive and propagate and needs to take into consideration the migratory patterns and the area required for sufficient food intake. The current wording reflects a misunderstanding of the ‘habitat’ necessary for a species to actually sustain its existence. Vascular plant species require more than “the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species” in order to survive as a species. Trilliums, for example, require about 7-10 years before they propagate by division of roots. Pink Lady Slipper need 5-6 years to propagate through rhizome division. If only the immediate critical root zone were to be protected, how, 5-10 years later, would these be able to create a larger root system for its offspring?
This is not modernization. It’s deregulation that puts short-term industrial gain ahead of long-term ecological and community health. Equally alarming is the creation of “special economic zones” that would allow cabinet to approve major development projects without proper environmental assessment, public input or Indigenous consultation.
This shortcut for developers and those holding capital and wishing to gain more, undermines transparency, accountability and Ontario’s duty to uphold Indigenous rights and treaties. Ontarians have not asked for weaker protections or less say in decisions that affect the province’s land, water and future. Bill 5 would silence community voices, marginalize science and erase decades of hard-won environmental progress. I urge the Ontario government to withdraw Bill 5 in its entirety and instead work with environmental experts, Indigenous leaders and the public to strengthen — not dismantle — our systems of environmental protection. Protecting and enabling nature is not a barrier to economic growth. It’s the foundation of a healthy, resilient and just society. Fresh air, clean water and natural spaces are at the core of our values and our rights and are threatened by such legislation since many endangered and threatened species live in eco-systems that sustain those key components. We can do better.