To Whom It May Concern, Fix…

To Whom It May Concern,

Fix Problems, Protect the Environment, Defend Endangered Species

Hello, I am a concerned citizen who would strongly condemn Bill C 5 on the principle of the potential mismanagement both legally and environmentally, alongside the irrevocable harm it suggests to cause to Ontario Wetlands/the wider Ontario environments. I would advise strongly that this bill does not pass and that the current protections in place for the Endangered Species Act and the Proper Processes Required for developers to go through for environmental approval unequivocally remain intact.

Upon Review, Schedules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Bill 5 will do nothing to protect Ontario from U.S. threats of economic coercion and annexation or effectively protect endangered species and or the wider Ontario Environment.
While Bill 5 is called “Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act” it would open up potential mismanagement that a new government would want to avoid; Unwisely giving the Premier and his Cabinet authoritarian powers to immunize anyone he likes from all municipal and provincial laws. That includes “friends” and donors who will line up for these special privileges. Far from “protecting” Ontario, Bill 5 would allow all provincial and municipal laws to be violated wherever the Cabinet decides very unconstitutional practice. The Bill would also repeal the Endangered Species Act altogether, ending almost all endangered species protection. As a result sprawl developers and even U.S. companies could eradicate our rarest plants of animals and their habitat without oversight or consequences, that is unacceptable; no person, Company or Government is above the law or criticism for the a reason to protect against proven fallibility.
Publicly, this Bill looks like The Green Belt Scandal Part 2 and fellow citizens, including myself, will not stand for this type of intentional governmental mismanagement.

For just a moment, stepping outside of the Bill C-5’s environmental concern I am equally concerned about the potential mismanagement from a legal perspective on this bill allowing politicians the unnecessary power to exempt their friends’ businesses, properties and projects from any (or all) of Ontario’s laws especially those designed to ensure a real balance between economic progress and enviromanal protections; as we have seen from our neighboords in the states when the rule of law is abanadond their are real harms left in their wake lets rise above that. As such Bill C 5 and its proposals should be abandoned in their entirety, not just because of their harmful legal side-effects, but because they would undermine, rather than advance, any genuine effort to protect Ontario environments and other interests.

Returning to the environmental merits of this bill or the lack there of unlike the Endangered Species Act, 2007, which puts the legal determination of which species are endangered, threatened, extirpated or of special concern in the hands of the arms-length Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, the Species Conservation Act, 2025, would make that recognition arbitrary political decision. The government could arbitrarily refuse to recognize in the regulations that a species is at-risk at all the risk for mismanagement speaks for itself.

Bill 5 also expressly proposes to abandon any attempt to achieve the recovery of endangered, threatened or extirpated species. But Schedules 2 and 10 of Bill 5 would cause much more harm than that by stripping recognition from most critical habitat and eliminating most meaningful prohibitions on the destruction of the tiny slivers that are recognized. These two schedules would drive many of Ontario’s endangered and threatened species, over time, to extinction or extirpation. There is simply no case to be made that such a broad and indiscriminate sacrifice of habitat and wildlife is somehow a targeted measure to resist U.S. attacks or meaningfully enhance the Ontario economy. Endangered species aren’t standing in the way of higher housing output or the creation of new industrial workplaces and this bill does a poor job of addressing those legitimate concerns; the government should be focusing on creating real solutions to the aforementioned issues outside of dubiously timed bills.

Continuing on the topic of the environment, as a matter of fact, it has been well established in Ontario and throughout the world that protecting biodiversity and advancing economic development can occur together. For a local example, Ontario built a massive new Georgian Bay section of Highway 400 highway through endangered species habitat. That project used innovative underpasses and overpasses, coupled with fencing that was able to protect rare species and human lives from car-wildlife impacts. That project was win-win and underscores the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. We can and must do better, cancel Bill C-5 and continue to innovate solutions that can benefit everyone involved, government and environment.

Even the tiny fraction of habitat recognized as such under the new law would not be off-limits for destruction. Unlike the Endangered Species Act, 2007, which prohibits any activities that would damage or destroy habitat, the Species Conservation Act, 2025 would require only that those destroying habitat register that the destruction is happening; meaning that projects with competing interests against the environment would have to "self police" to ensure protections, said kindly this is a shakey proposal for success at best. Even if “registration” under the Species Conservation Act, 2025 comes with concerning conditions that impact the mitigation or direction around the construction of artificial “replacement” habitats, allowing landowners to destroy habitat outright, which would mean extinction or unnecessary environmental stress for many species, especially concerning the long time scales of development projects.

We have heard it put forth that typical mitigation measures (e.g. stormwater ponds, snow fencing) would mitigate the effects of destructive activities enough to preserve habitat values, thisis a bad perspective as it misunderstands and undermines how free flowing bio diversity in environments work making these mitigations entirely implausible. For example:
Stormwater retention ponds worsen the warming of adjacent rivers and streams associated with residential, commercial or industrial sprawl and that doesn’t cover the compounding effect that project spillage or mismanagement could have on the Ontario environment.

The idea that existing habitats can just be replaced elsewhere, let alone using any standardized approach as a fix or effective comprise, this is wishful thinking not based on any solid scientific evidence. A proven reliable way to protect endangered species and their habitats is to prohibit outright the activities that would destroy them.

At a time when the world is acutely aware of how important protecting the environment and effective laws are, this bill and all of its provisions are a step in the wrong direction entirely, especially considering the Premier's promise, upon re-election, was to tackle issues that were important to Ontarians. That means lowering everyday costs, making housing much more affordable, or ensuring that there are good high-paying jobs for the upcoming workforce to be able to benefit from and contribute to the overall economy. This Bill does nothing to likely the direct opposite of those goals; So with the best interest wider Canadian Environment and the legal/enconomic interests of Ontarians we would strongly advise that this bill does not pass and the current protections in place for the Endangered Species Act and the proper processes required for developers to go through for environmental approval unequivocally remain intact.

Fix Problems, Protect the Environment, Defend Endangered Species
Thank you