Our Future Is Not Symbolic

On June 23rd, a Township of Wilmot Council Meeting included a vote on a motion put forward by Councilor Martin opposing the recently passed Bill 5, also known as the ‘Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act’. If you somehow haven’t heard about Bill 5 yet, Councilor Martin describes it well – “Bill 5 includes substantial changes to environmental planning policies, including replacing the Endangered Species Act with a new framework that reduces protections for at risk species, and enabling the creation of ‘special economic zones’ that may override local planning authority and environmental oversight.” In these ‘special economic zones’, ‘designated projects’ are exempt from municipal and provincial laws. This is intended to speed up the process of industrial projects in order to have the means to grow our provincial economy as quickly as possible. This raises concerns when we look at the vagueness that Bill 5 is wrapped in. As a report to Oxford County Council from May puts it, “The lack of detail and clarity raises
significant concerns with respect to the potential for […] side-stepping of important environmental requirements”.  There are few details given regarding crucial factors, such as, how it is decided to designate an area as a ‘special economic zone’, or what projects and proposals will be granted this exemption. This bill appears to have the ability to bend, and even break, existing laws as the
province pleases, at the great cost of the environment.

To quickly sum up this meeting, Councilor Martin and Councilor Cressman voted in favour. Councilor Sidhu, Councilor Dunstall, and Mayor Salonen voted against. Sidhu voted against on the grounds that “passing this motion […] largely seems symbolic to me.”  Sidhu also stated, “[…] there are different channels that we can go through to express our frustrations and express their views.” and this sentiment seemed to be echoed by Mayor Salonen when she explained these different channels, such as AMO.

I am deeply disappointed in the Wilmot Council’s response to this motion. The Council demonstrated that they do not appreciate the extreme harm Bill 5 will cause, and why it is so crucial to push back against it. I am also disappointed by the view that openly speaking out against injustice is just a symbolic gesture and therefore is not worth it. Whether or not it truly is symbolic is
frankly irrelevant; that’s simply a matter of language. What matters is that speaking out against injustice has always been the first step to change. Looking throughout history, we can see that change has always started with someone saying, ‘This is not okay, and I won’t stand for it.’ So, I would like to ask the Council members who voted in opposition: if this is just a symbolic gesture, what action will you instead take to ensure the wellbeing of the communities you are responsible for?

Now, why is Bill 5 so bad? The biggest concerns regard the environmental impacts. Bill 5 aims to streamline the approval process for major infrastructural projects- but aren’t these processes in place for a reason? Current environmental regulations – meager regulations that are already inadequate in the face of the climate crisis – will mean nothing if they can be bypassed in the name of ‘economic growth’. This means ecosystems and species that are currently protected (however weak that protection may be) are now at even higher risk. While the extinction of a couple of at-risk species may not seem like the end of the world, an ecosystem depends on every species in it. The extinction of just one species will throw an entire ecosystem off balance.

Not only are there environmental implications going without address, this bill also goes against our governments claims of commitment to Indigenous rights and reconciliation. Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) claims that States are required to “obtain [Indigenous peoples] free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”. Canada officially endorsed this Declaration in 2010. Bill 5 allows major
infrastructure and extraction projects to begin without the free, prior, and informed consent that is required. Bill 5’s exemptions from assessments, environmental and otherwise, pose extreme threats to Indigenous food sources and livelihoods, as well as
burial grounds. Bill 5 endangers Indigenous safety and cultural wellbeing. In addition to the disregard of Indigenous peoples and environmental wellness, Bill 5 ‘erodes our democratic processes’ and weakens our local autonomy. This is pointed out by Nith Valley EcoBoosters member Julie Jutzi during her delegation at the previously mentioned Wilmot Council Meeting, in which she spoke in favour of Councilor Martin’s motion. Does a community not know themselves best? Do we need someone who does not know our local land, someone who does not know our neighbors, to have the power to do whatever they want with said land?

What I consider to be the most important opposition to Bill 5, is that prioritizing economi needs over the environment will leave our economy worse than we started. Saying that we must address the economy at any cost, even at the cost of the environment, does not recognize the ways that environmental destruction and the climate crisis crumbles ou economic wellness. For example, food
scarcity has a negative impact on the economy and is also a major impact of climate change. Another example is how the increase in climate disasters, such as wildfires, require an increased budget for emergency responses. Climate disasters also warrant additional budget for adjusting infrastructure to prepare for these disasters, or rebuilding the infrastructure altogether when it’s destroyed. ‘Fixing’ the economy at the cost of the environment will just lead to more environmental destruction, which will lead to worsening the climate crisis, which will worsen our economy. Then what?

And, honestly, what does the economy matter if we cannot eat? What does the job market matter if we cannot survive the heat of the summer? What does more housing matter if it’s all bound to get destroyed in a climate disaster? This may sound melodramatic, but many climate experts have made it clear that this is the course we are currently on. Stepping outside and seeing the smokey haze that blankets our towns shows that this disaster is not as far away as we’d like to think. All of these implications and impacts come together to make a bill that will erode biodiversity, put at-risk species at further risk, take away local autonomy, disregard Indigenous rights and lives, and worsen our economy in the long run. So I ask, what pros remain? What good does this bill bring, when it not only makes everything else worse, but also cannot even be assured to fulfill it’s one purpose? And how is opposing this
dangerous law simply a ‘symbolic gesture’? 

To ask a question or suggest an article topic, email me at ashleyropp7@proton.me. As always, thanks for reading!