The proposed amendments…

The proposed amendments would cause irreversible changes to the health of critical ecosystems across Ontario, with associated and major financial impacts.

Ecosystems in Ontario provide a wide range of benefits to humans that can be financially quantified. These services include (but are not limited to) flood regulation, air quality improvements, carbon uptake, and water quality maintenance. Protection of natural environments, species at risk, and biodiversity at large ensures that these services remain resilient in the face of climate change. These services are valued in billions of dollars every year in Ontario (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2025), and humans need these ecosystem services to survive.

See this link describing the valuation of services provided by nature: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/02/an-ecosystems-economic-value-ca…

The government's proposal to eliminate the review of permit applications by the ministry for developments to fast-track the development process will be detrimental to the health of critical ecosystems across Ontario and the services they provide. Without experts to review permit applications, developments may be located in floodplains or natural hazard areas, risking human safety and damage costs. Water quality will be impacted. Air quality and carbon uptake will diminish with the destruction of ecosystems. All of these short-sighted plans for development will cause long term financial strain in light of increased flooding, storm damages, impacts from wildfire smoke, etc. We have experienced the impacts of poor planning of developments when Hurricane Hazel hit Ontario. People were killed, there were billions of dollars in damages, and families lost their livelihoods. Improved protection of ecosystems and environments, permitting, and strategic planning came out of this, and has prevented such tragedy and impact.

Read about the impacts of Hurricane Hazel here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/archive/hu…

Furthermore, it is well-known among the scientific community that a local den or nesting site alone is NOT a habitat. Plans and wildlife need large landscapes for populations to remain stable and healthy, and many critical biological functions, including mating, nesting, foraging, and migration, happen at different spatial scales, in different land cover types, across SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS TO KILOMETERS (Chave, 2013; Moraga, Martin, and Fahrig 2019; Pease, 2024).

Therefore, the approaches which are under review (i.e. elimination of permitting review by the ministry and introducing the government's ability to comment on protection of species at risk and biodiversity) should not be amended. This will prevent economic strain and detrimental impacts to the environment in the future.

If amendments are to be made, it is imperative that the government rely on the knowledge of experts (i.e. researchers, scientists, and environmental practitioners) to inform these amendments.