I’m very concerned about the…

I’m very concerned about the legislation proposed in Bill 5 and the irreversible damage it will almost certainly do to our environment and protected species.

The lack of a clear definition relating to “the area immediately surrounding a dwelling place” poses an issue. It is left entirely up to interpretation, which could easily result in a dwelling becoming unsuitable even though it has not been physically touched. Furthermore , wildlife requires more than simply a “dwelling place” in order to live and thrive; they require access to food and water. An entire ecosystem is required to sustain wildlife, and protection of an animals food source is critical to its survival. Another issue I would like to raise is with the concept of “harrass[ment]” being removed in relation to wildlife—it is an important part of species protection. Removing it would be irresponsible, and detrimental to protection efforts.

Allowing the government to overrule classifications made by COSSARO and remove species from the list of protected species, with no scientific basis required, is an incredibly irresponsible idea. It undermines the work of scientists in addition to having a very strong likelihood of damaging our ecosystems, if used. We hire scientists to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interest of our environment. Having an unqualified party make arbitrary environmental decisions based on what makes the most “economical” sense, as I assume it would be used, completely undermines the entire process. The problem is that the best “economical” sense, according to the government, tends to be incredibly short-sighted. In the long term, environmental protections will save us an incredible amount of money—both publicly and privately. Increases in damage from extreme weather events will cost us greatly. Insurance premiums will skyrocket, as will public costs for infrastructure repairs. The cost of food and clean water will increase rapidly.

The health of our ecosystems and environmental conservation efforts are directly related to our ability to grow food to feed the population, and to withstand extreme weather events. Not only does conservation help in the fight against climate change, it also reduces the likelihood of flooding during extreme weather events. Environmental protections protect drinking water—not only for wildlife, but for rural communities who rely on groundwater. Without a healthy environment, we have an inadequate food and water supply. Even if these damages were to result in a booming economy, the unfortunate reality is that you can’t eat or drink money.

Finally, consultation with Indigenous Nations is not only an important part of environmental protection, but is also integral to reconciliation efforts. It is our duty, as inhabitants of this native land, to consult with the Indigenous Peoples—in particular on resource extraction projects. This bill attempts to allow the government to ignore this requirement entirely.

I am strongly opposed to this bill. It amounts to an undemocratic power grab by this government—a license to destroy ecosystems and ignore processes without consequence. I do not wish for them to destroy our environment in the pursuit of short-term financial gain. As a mother of two young children, I would like for the environment to be protected for decades and decades to come so that my children will continue to have access to nutritious food, clean water, fresh air, and natural spaces. This bill would give far too much power to a government that rarely looks out for any future beyond their four-year term.