Comment
I am vehemently opposed to this bill. There is no short-term or long-term benefit to bypassing essential evaluations, assessments or consultations, especially those that are ecological in nature, to fast track building projects. Commercial interests shouldn't come at the expense of wildlife and precious ecosystems that protect and enrich our communities (such as urban centers from climate related harm, such as flooding). Ecosystems need our protection and if building projects can't be completed without the absolute highest protection of our land then those projects don't represent the interests of the people, only the interests of corporations and stakeholders. If projects, such as highways, roads, buildings, infrastructure etc are "too expensive" when duly considering environmental impacts and ensuring the protection of the environment then they *are* too expensive, full stop. There long-term costs to the community, to the land, to our health and well-being, safety, and the health of our environment are too great when we do not adhere to the environmental protection practices in place because the quick, unconsidered completion of any project means that the long-term impacts are going to cost successive governments (and communities) more. This bill is short-sighted and completely unnecessary. And it only benefits those in positions of power and stakeholders who will be making money off these projects, with long-term repercussions being the only outcome for individuals and communities alike. Do not go forward with Bill 5. It is unethical, short-sighted and detrimental to the well-being of Ontario, economically and to the health of our people and ecosystems.
Submitted May 8, 2025 4:35 PM
Comment on
Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025
ERO number
025-0380
Comment ID
135232
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status