I am strongly opposed to the…

I am strongly opposed to the Government's plan to create special economic zones for any reason, much less in order to suspend vital legislation to protect our environment.

As a science teacher within a public school board, teaching about the sensitive, wondrous, and awe-inspiring facts of nature is part of the curriculum, as well as incorporating Indigenous worldviews and teachings about the same. Key to all of these understandings are the ideas of "responsibility" and "interconnectedness." As members of the environment, we contribute to our shared ecosystems, and as stewards of our environment, we have a responsibility to maintain it for all time.

This government has repeatedly shown a desire to act fast and get things done, but these actions have led to poor planning and inefficient use of resources and public trust. Bill 124 was a perfect example of this: an attempt to circumvent the current system in order to achieve an outcome that not only failed, it also led to higher costs in the end. Trust was shaken, the process of notwithstanding held over our heads, and all for the thing to be rolled back in the end. These special economic zones seem to me to be attempts to do the same. Why else would the government ask to be exempt from being held liable for the outcomes, if not because they feel that that is a possibility? Why else would these zones serve to remove responsibility for following existing laws, if the government doesn't feel the need to do so? The idea of removing red tape is seductive, and as a public servant and a teacher, I can sympathize with the desire to be more efficient.

But not all slowness is inefficiency, and not all hesitation is cowardice. Actions have consequences, and the impacts might last far longer than any possible gain. I understand how people might view the plight of endangered species dimly. What's one less turtle in the world, after all. But that viewpoint is precisely why we have governments that are responsible and are charged to be stewards of our shared inheritance and our shared responsibility: the land we live on. That turtle, insignificant though it might seem against the challenges and crises we face, is our responsibility to protect, because that turtle is part of the larger system, part of us as a whole. We protect ourselves in protecting that turtle; we protect the system of laws and responsibility and duty that our governments ought to live by. Yes, this will increase complexity and economic challenges; to that I say good! Because that cost and challenge is our promise to the future, and will challenge us to rise to the occasion. We must exploit and develop our resources, but the challenge is to do so responsibly. But think of the possibilities when that happens! Think of what would be when we hold industry to a high standard, which they then meet! Think of what could happen when we develop those resources in a sustainable way! Think of what it could mean for our northern communities when they reap the benefits of those resources without losing!

As a settler society, we have a sacred and legislated responsibility to be wise stewards and humble partners in our relationship with the land and Indigenous communities. This is, in my opinion, neither.

If the government proceeds with this planned bill, I fear it will be yet another way they seek to avoid responsibility. In good faith, I do not think this government actively seeks to lie and manipulate, and this comment process shows that. But I think this proposal is mistaken in its urgency and misguided in its promise. To quote another process: slow is smooth and smooth is fast. There is no pressing urgency in this matter, so why rush into a crisis or dead-end that only costs us in the end?

Why not think of the turtles, and let them teach us: we'll get there in the end, but only by going one step at a time.