Although I appreciate the…

Although I appreciate the effort put into removing redundancies in this document, I don't like that the government is proposing to water down and decrease protections to wetlands.

Wetlands are of vital importance. They can take in excess amounts of water and slowly release it during dry times, which is increasingly important as our weather and climate gets weirder and more extreme. I wouldn't want to live in a home built on a potential or former wetland: I would worry about water in my basement and the ground settling as it dries out over time. Wetlands are the habitat type with the greatest amount of biodiversity in Ontario. Some wetlands in Eastern Ontario are habitat for waterfowl populations on a continental scale. What happens to their habitat here will affect bird populations all the way down to Mexico. It's important to ensure that habitat of endangered species is protected in order to not contravene the federal Species at Risk Act and to avoid running into headaches and resistance with organizations that have been vocal in the past about protecting endangered species.

The proposed changes, notably on page 5, appear to reduce Conservation Authority and MNR/MNRF ability to protect wetlands. Decision-making ability is shifted to municipalities who, under the strong mayor legislation, in turn can now be heavily influenced by the mayor. That's too much environmental decision-making power concentrated in the mayor's office, which might not have the expertise to make such decisions that will have a permanent effect on our environment.

"The local MNR office has a detailed understanding of the natural heritage features and functions of the area, has access to current and historic reports, may be aware of relevant information and reports not readily accessible to others, and has connections with other organizations that gather natural heritage information." I don't understand why the preceding statement was removed. I think we should be putting to good use MNR/MNRF staff's experience and knowledge. Getting the MNR/MNRF to take a "sober second look" at an evaluator's work should be a helpful failsafe in case the evaluator missed something, so I don't think the MNR/MNRF should be cut out of the process.

Historic reports are important because of the cyclical nature of this type of habitat. In periods of drier years, a wetland may appear to cover a smaller area than in wetter years. I wouldn't want to have a house in a place that was dry for a few years but then becomes swampy if we hit a few wetter years. "Wetlands are dynamic natural systems and the outer boundary of a wetland", or what appears to be its outer boundary, can contract and expand again over time.

I would like to own a house someday, but not on a swamp and not at the cost of destroying part of a wetland.