To Joe Maure re: proposed…

ERO number

019-0880

Comment ID

42786

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

To Joe Maure re: proposed changes to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please note that I am opposed to the changes to the CFSA as proposed. Although the forestry industry is an important sector of the Ontario economy, I believe that the changes to the CFSA will allow companies to be less responsible that they need to be in supporting our forestry and related resources.
First of all, I do not think that forestry companies can continue to be exempted from the Endangered Species Act obligations. I believe that industry has the responsibility to ensure protection of species it encounters in its activities. Changing the language to "mitigation of harm" lets forestry companies off the hook. I can foresee years of legal battles trying to define what is "harm". While these battles would go on, forestry companies would disregard species protection and simply work to promote short-term gains at the expense of the long-term well-being of the boreal forest. After all, they are in business for their shareholders and not for the well-being of the people of Ontario. Your role as government is to protect our resources on a long-term basis, not to jeopardize them by acting as an agent of industry.
You may think that the wood products will be environmentally-friendly. They are to a degree but some of that marketing depends on the harvesting practices. If wood is harvested with all due attention to the protection of species and the preservation of habitat, then the markets available to these products are infinite. If they are harvested unsustainably, then the markets are narrower because some jurisdictions only want wood that is harvested according to high sustainable standards. Protecting species and habitat is good for the long-term interests of the forestry sector.
Please listen to the people and scientists who have argued that this legislation is remarkably flawed in its aim to please the industry and put at risk the viability of species and habitat.