There is no aspect of my…

There is no aspect of my life, professionally or personally, where I can support Bill 5. As a lands manager for a First Nation community in Northern Ontario, I know that the impacts from this policy would be far-reaching and negatively affect the quality of life for citizens across the province. "We can be the wealthiest, richest, most prosperous sub-sovereign nation anywhere in the world if we get those critical minerals out of the ground," Ford said on May 6. If we are the most prosperous country, but have dictatorial policies that do not respect the rights of our citizens and the environment is irreparably damaged, we are not the most prosperous country, we are a wasteland. Now, in the climate crisis, it is not the time to be rolling back environmental protections. Ontario has not met its climate targets, and this policy is progressing us backwards.
The narrative that Canada is better than other nations at resource extraction because we do it in a more ethical and sustainable way is thrown out the window should Ontario pass this bill. The critical minerals of the north would be no better than blood diamonds. I am not anti-industry; however, it needs to be done in a way that supports both the people and the land. This bill does neither. To try to push this extremely anti-democratic bill through under the guise of protecting Ontario from the US tariffs is misleading and fear-mongering. Not to mention that 30 days is a very short period to review this policy, while a federal election was also a significant distraction for citizens.
Throughout the bill, there was a neglect of Indigenous consultation, and both UNDRIP and section 35 rights were violated. Indigenous people across the province will suffer disproportionately should Bill 5 pass. Not only will they suffer increased harm due to environmental racism, but they will enter the next chapter of colonization as their lands are stripped of any value (including heritage sites) without their consent or input. Jobs and business opportunities would be radically changed as well.
The lack of transparency and the ability for exemptions to be made are the most concerning aspects of the entire bill. Ministers have far too much power to change the enforcement of regulations with little rationale as to why choices are made, nor do they have to consult with the public or inform them of any changes made. This is incredibly dangerous for setting precedents and becomes a slippery slope to laws increasingly becoming optional.