I am very much opposed to…

I am very much opposed to Bill 5 which makes a mockery of the Endangered Species Act by: defining habitat of species as just the nesting site and a bit of soil around it, not the surrounding environment that species need to survive – i.e., eat, drink, breathe, mate, raise their young; limiting involvement of indigenous communities by ending archeological assessment requirements; creating Special Economic Zones where developers can ignore municipal and provincial laws.

I am in favour of RESPONSIBLE development which is SUSTAINABLE over the long term in that it doesn’t have a negative impact on endangered species and their habitat. Approval for any development must take into account the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding natural environment and the wildlife, including endangered and threatened species - who depend on it for survival.

To support RESPONSIBLE development, it is essential that unbiased scientists and biologists continue to use their expertise to advise decision makers on which developments are "responsible" and which ones are not based on their potential negative impact on the environment over the long term. Their analysis must take into account the endangered, threatened and special concern species in the area along with the amount of natural space and the resources these species need to survive. In addition, the archeological assessment requirements must remain in place to ensure that indigenous communities are part of the decision-making process to determine which proposed developments are responsible and sustainable from their point of view.

Politicians do not have the same level of expertise in evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed development as scientists and biologists. In addition, they may be influenced by developers to approve developments even if they are not responsible/sustainable. For these reasons, this evaluation must be done by unbiased biologists and scientists.

The province’s own analysis has shown that additional land is not needed to solve Ontario’s housing challenges, and that the Greenbelt’s land and other environmentally sensitive areas should continue to be protected. As stated in the 2023 Auditor General of Ontario’s “Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt” there is sufficient space for required additional housing to be built within existing city and town boundaries where servicing costs are lower (see pg.8):
“The 2022 report of the Ontario government’s Housing Affordability Task Force, which the govern¬ment has publicly cited as the source of its goal to build 1.5 million homes over 10 years, concluded that a shortage of land is not the cause of the province’s housing challenges. The report also said that the Greenbelt’s land and other environmentally sensitive areas should continue to be protected.”
There is no need to destroy farmland or wildlife habitat to provide more housing.

The Endangered Species Act must remain as it is so that ALL proposed development including housing as well as commercial and industrial development such as aggregate extraction MUST be evaluated by UNBIASED scientists and biologists, with input from indigenous communities, to reach a decision whether it is RESPONSIBLE and SUSTAINABLE over the long term or not.