Hi I've read though the…

Hi I've read though the proposal I'll be referring to. There are a few key points where I find a lack of context and description of the proposed amendments.

Where I do find good context and understanding I have come to the conclusion that the proposal is insufficient to address the environmental impacts that may occur. While there is a need for balance the social and economic needs of Ontario with our environmental needs. I oppose this amendment for what it remits from its predecessor.

What I am more heavily opposed to I'll quote from the proposal

"registration (or permits) will no longer be required for impacts to migratory birds and aquatic species protected under the federal Species at Risk Act"

"the revised definition of habitat will be included and harassment of species will not be an activity that requires registration or a permit"

I understand that the whole proposal may not be public at this time or I am unaware of it. To rush into development and ignore the impacts of construction disruptions to aquatic ecosystems would be a failure of this government.

To scrap a guideline for managing the effects on migratory bird and aquatic systems along with removing the term harassment may open the doors to abuse. That is unless the proposal accounts for this within its guideline.

One final note. For our government to sneak in a proposal allowing them to indiscriminately remove species off of the endangered species list. Is itself an overuse of power allowing them to bypass any and all protest instead of being upfront and providing a real case for why we need to build in critical areas in the first place.

It may be difficult to make use out of the minimal land available. Being involved in a scandal of selling off the greenbelt to wealthy friends to build houses on and getting scammed in the sale of Ontario place aren't the actions of a competent government or a trustworthy one. None the less one I wish to call my own.