I do not support the removal…

I do not support the removal of environmental assessments. Thus I do not support this proposal or the rest of Bill 5.

Is this proposal removing environmental assessments just to allow mining to proceed? Why? I do not accept the threat of tariffs or the economy as an answer. Environmental assessments exist to prevent negative impacts, including on the economy. Only when you understand the impacts of a project, can you understand the true footprint of a project. E.g., if a project like this leads to contamination, then it's going to cost more to de-contaminate the area (which will also take longer), and that contamination could spread to things like drinking water of people and other animals downstream.

An environmental assessment is not red tape. It exists to protect the environment and thus public health and safety. I urge this proposal to also be considered with Bill 5 in its entirety because Bill 5 will strip notice and consultation of projects - so will this project go ahead without notifying anyone who even lives in the area if Bill 5 and this proposal pass? How is that fair? If I lived nearby a potential mining site, I would like to know what impacts it may have on my health and my livelihood. I'm sure you would too.

The Ring of Fire has been a debated project for many years. Is this proposal and Bill 5 intended just to speed it up for the province/industry's gain? What about public needs, health, and safety? The environment in the Ring of Fire area is also a carbon sink and home to a large amount of biodiversity, which sustains people. E.g., a healthy environment means clean air, water, and food for people, animals that pollinate our food, an environment to work in/on, a place for recreation, a place tied to cultural heritage and identify, among many others.

We can do both - protect the environment and profit - at the same time. Separating them means you don't understand the big picture and that's where error is likely to happen.

I would appreciate more time for people to comment given that all the proposals linked to Bill 5 were released the day before a long weekend, hardly advertised, and lumped together where they can easily be missed or not understood because the whole picture hasn't been provided. I would appreciate this proposal be re-written with the full picture in mind so people can actually understand what will happen to the area in question.

I support comments from environmental groups on this topic as well. They will probably explain things better than me anyway. I urge the province to actually consider comments; they seem to be pushing through Bill 5 without waiting for comments, which doesn't make the public feel like they are being listened to. The province has a duty to consult.