This proposed bill is meant…

This proposed bill is meant to circumnavigate and prevent government decisions from taking environmental concerns at face value, and effectively disregards environmental concerns when considering new infrastructure projects. If current regulations in place prevent/delay proposed projects, it is meant to be this way to thoroughly gather factual information to determine environmental impacts on proposed projects. If the province is tabling this bill, it shows complete disregard of environmental conservation efforts and comprises the endangered species habitats and ecosystems in Ontario at a time when a climate crisis currently has governments trying to prevent such destruction. We are at a critical moment where we need these environmental regulations to be enforced, not weakened. If these changes are enacted, there will be severe consequences for generations to come when the problem will grow significantly, making costs to combat climate change even higher.

Furthermore, why do we need a new species conservation program to replace the same program at the cost of $20 million tax paying dollars? Why are we unable to fund the current conservation program and avoid having to make monetary decisions that have no factual justification for such a replacement? How is a registration first approach effective if the ministry cannot review plans before issuing permits? This method leaves only the province "trusting" proponents to obey rules and regulations, and they can start projects immediately after getting a registration. What if the ministry identifies problems and cannot issue a permit AFTER a company has already sent shovels into the ground on a project?

Another proposed change is the no longer making the province responsible for "developing recovery products for species...enabling a more flexible approach" If the province cannot take responsibility to make protections, what is the "flexible approach"? This is too open for interpretation, leaving the province and proponents to create solutions that could be overall ineffective.

Why should the Species at Risk Conservation Fund no longer require proponents to pay a charge, again why do we need to rebuild the conservation program using new funds as well as halting current funding for the current program in place? This seems like an ineffective use of tax dollars.