As a citizen who cares…

As a citizen who cares deeply about conservation of the natural world, I oppose the proposed changes to the ESA and the removal of environmental protections in Ontario. Compared to other provinces, we have an admirable history with our environmental protection including our conservation authorities act which has prevented development in wetlands and valuable habitats. This has prevented catastrophic flooding, which we still see happening in cities like Calgary.

This bill suggests that it will speed up the ESA permitting process, however, the legislation is not the reason for the inefficiency, but cutting of staff at MCEP who used to administer the process is a large cause of delays. Introducing a new process introduces confusion and uncertainty, and will likely result in delays as everyone involved figures out what is required of them.

Moving to a registration system and allowing activities to begin immediately removes opportunity for auditing and preventing unallowable harm before it begins. It doesn't matter if you catch someone who registered but then did something that they're not allowed to, if the habitat or species has been killed. A fine does not undo that damage, and restoration work takes far longer to be effective than protecting what already exists.

Removing the development of recovery plans makes the legislation almost pointless. Recovery Plans and the research on species at risk informs mitigation measures and best practices, as well as understanding what the habitat requirements actually are. In order to protect the habitat of a species, we need to know what that habitat is. There is no point in using our efforts to protect species poorly, only to have them slip away more slowly, when we have the tools to protect them effectively. We should be consulting and supporting experts on this.

Limiting the types of habitat protected and not protecting foraging and migration habitat will make it impossible for most protected species to carry out their life cycles if these habitats are destroyed. This change is in bad faith and ignores the scientific work that has been done on these species. Additionally, only protecting the root-zones of plants ignores the populations needs for light, water, and surrounding plant community. This ignores the scientific literature that has been developed on these species.

Removing oversight for SARA worries me. I expect that protections will be ignored and slip through the cracks. There must be a better way to reduce redundancies but strengthen protections of federally at risk species.

I am somewhat hopeful that the new SAR funding program will actually be used, but I have not seen evidence from this government that they will follow-through, based on their lack of request for proposals to use funding for species conservation work in the last few years, despite promising to.

Our economy cannot thrive in an ecology that is damaged, as it relies on the resources provided by the natural world. This is the basis of Ecological Economics. Protecting the environment protects wetlands that filter groundwater and provide flood mitigation. Forests provide a cooling effect and move water from land to air, influencing rain patterns and keeping the soil moist and in good health. All of these factors are important for our ability to live and grow food. Species are linked together and dependent on each other, and removing the protections we have removes protections for valuable habitats, opening the door to destruction of intact forests and wetlands. This is a waste of money and will undo the good work that has been done.

As humans, we have an incredible power to change the landscape around us, and a responsibility to care for it. As a Christion, I see the world as created and cared for by God, and humans are called to support and care for it, not exploit it. All land is sacred, and is the source of life for future generations.