Comment
It is my belief Bill 5 and the associated attempts at bypassing environmental and archaeological assessment will be detrimental in various ways! By defining habitat as dependent on finding dens and other dwelling places we would be creating a loophole wherein development may take place despite the presence of protected species in an area, so long as their dens are not found. This leaves far too much room for neglectful assessment for the purpose of development. Alongside the detrimental damage to protected habitat, by fast tracking development through bypassing proper archaeological assessment we would be paving over Indigenous heritage. As an archaeologist myself I see daily how important these assessments are, and as someone who works closely with the local Indigenous communities on these projects I cannot support a bill that would contribute to the continued destruction and neglect of Indigenous history. THIS BILL IS IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO ARTICLE 11 OF THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (UNDRIP) WHICH ENTITLES THEM TO THE PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES. Furthermore, you claim this would be a boost to the economy, however hundreds of workers in the environmental sector would lose their jobs. Affordable housing can be achieved without damaging environmental and archaeological best practice, but we need to be focusing on rent control and curbing greedy people who buy up property they do not need to make a profit. These are my concerns, thank you.
Supporting links
Submitted May 10, 2025 8:59 AM
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
138423
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status