Redefining terms, using a…

Redefining terms, using a registry process (which already exists in the current legislation) and allowing proponents to act first and maybe assess the potential catastrophic outcomes later is an extremely short-sited way of streamlining processes to bolster economic growth. What good will removing the review process and recommendations do when our economy collapses because we’ve eliminated a critical eco system? Additionally from a long-term view prospective, this legislation essentially eliminates a critical component of risk assessment that has the potential to make not only future projects more costly, but also life for Ontario residents. For example, allowing a proponent to wipe out an entire species that potentially eats another invasive species, such as insects that have the potential to wipe out an entire species of lumber, has the potential of impacting multiple critical economic opportunities, such as our construction industry (housing) and commodity markets. The result couldn’t be economic stagnation, continued rise in cost for building and purchasing homes. For what reason? So that proponents don’t have to spend on doing due diligence? This proposed legislation requires an approach that pairs long-term planning, risk assessment, research from both proponents and environmental policy makers to understand the true cause of friction in project timelines, rather than a total under dressing for short term profitability within the next 5 - 10 years for people who probably won’t be alive to live with the fall out of half baked legislation. Environmental resources are finite, thus we should not propose changes to existing legislation from a make believe world where resources are infinite. Unless we want to spend the next decades figuring out how to resurrect entire ecosystems so that our population doesn’t die out from famine, but I guess as long as there are McMansions and 10 lane highways our souls will be nourished.