I am writing to strongly…

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. While I understand that actions are needed to stand up to Trump and to build a strong economy in Ontario, I strongly disagree with achieving growth at the expense of Ontario’s most vulnerable species and the health of Ontario’s environment and its people. The health of Ontario’s economy goes hand in hand with the health of its environment and the health of its people. It is possible to achieve all of these aims and that is what Ontario should be striving for, and what would most benefit Ontarians. Ontario’s environment is a critical building block of a healthy economy, not a trade off to be discounted in order to facilitate unbridled development, all for the sake of speeding up development approvals. It is our children who will pay a dear price for decisions that do not take their future into consideration. That price is already being paid and our children are filled with anxiety and starting to speak up, blaming our older citizens for the destruction we have caused.
Protection of vulnerable species that are already under threat requires preventative actions and recovery strategies, management plans, government response statements and progress reviews, not ad hoc “voluntary initiatives”. These program elements are necessary and must be scientifically sound, yet your proposal will eliminate them. Removal of the Species Conservation Action Agency is also ill advised, and clearly aimed at eliminating conservation charges for developers so they will not have to contribute to actions that support the conservation of endangered species.
While the proposal references the strengthening of enforcement, these statements are meaningless when the laws requiring the protection of critical species have been gutted. For example, the proposal to change the definition of habitat flies in the face of true science and will bring about the extinction of many critical species in Ontario. The proposed definition eliminates any reference to migration and to feeding, with emphasis only on dens or nests or similar dwelling places. If areas required for feeding or migrating are not protected then it is pointless to protect a den or nest and assume that the species will survive. A den or nest is an area used for only a brief period of an animals life. Just because the living space (habitat) of many threatened species can be a fairly large is not a valid reason for changing the definition to eliminate much of their true living space just to make it “more certain” for developers. This makes the definition a political one and not a scientifically valid one. The proposed changes also make critical scientific decisions out of the hands of those who have the necessary scientific knowledge and make it political. It is not appropriate for the government to be able to remove species from the list of those to be protected.
Yesterday we witnessed Premier Ford’s announcement in Wasaga Beach, pledging millions for development of Wasaga Beach for the sake of economic growth and tourism. What he failed to acknowledge was the endangered Piping Plover nesting on the beach not far from where he stood. We were visiting Wasaga Beach for the long weekend to see the plovers. The birds are a draw for ecotourism and they rely on protections to ensure that they survive. Humans and endangered species can share the beach and coexist for mutual benefit. It is interesting that on every can of beer brewed by the Wasaga Beach Brewing Company is a Piping Plover. They know that the plovers are an important part of what makes Wasaga Beach a very special place and part of its identity. Giving much of the beach to the town, as announced by Ford, while gutting the Endangered Species Act will contribute to the loss of a vulnerable species and the loss of part of Wasaga’s identity and a tourism draw to the area. This is inexcusable.
The Endangered Species Act proposal reflects an ignorance that assumes that losing a species is somehow less important than enabling economic development. Loss of species has far greater repercussions as all elements of Ontario’s ecosystems, including its people, are interdependent. What we do to our environment and the species it supports eventually impacts Ontarios resources, its people and its economy. It is ignorance and greed that drives political decisions that fail to take these broader repercussions into account at the outset. Ontario could be a leader in achieving a strong and sustainable economy while maintaining its natural beauty for the benefit of all of its inhabitants. That is how we take on Trump, the Canadian way. We don’t follow his lead, destroying all around him for economic gain, we lead by example, demonstrating that a country can thrive while respecting its environment and its most vulnerable.