Commentaire
I am an advocate for affordable housing and transit within all of Ontario's towns and cities. There are far too many people who cannot house themselves even while working full time, and this is incredibly important.
However I am also an advocate for long-term environmental health, and this bill fails to convince me that anything more than a cursory glance at the ecology of a space will be given.
Granting some companies exemptions from environmental reviews altogether is inexcusable, as is the incomplete definition of habitat proposed by Bill 5. Is your bedroom only your habitat, but not your kitchen? How can you possibly expect species to survive when they have a place to sleep but nowhere to eat or a way to migrate? Perhaps having some actual scientists on hand while writing these bills could help you.
Instead of nothing but sprawling subdivisions that are bought up by investors, why don't we have the majority of new constructions open only to families that don't already own a home? Why aren't all new subdivisions also including multi-dwelling units such as small and affordable apartment buildings? We need to increase density and provide a range of housing, not just speed it up. That will perhaps lose some developers a million or two, but we all know they can afford it. The average Ontarian can't.
Soumis le 14 mai 2025 12:32 PM
Commentaire sur
Modifications provisoires proposées à la Loi de 2007 sur les espèces en voie de disparition et proposition de Loi de 2025 sur la conservation des espèces
Numéro du REO
025-0380
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
142462
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire