Hello, I oppose this bill,…

Hello, I oppose this bill, which is an attempt to make environmental zones smaller and sidestep environmental assessment processes. Our environmental protections should be made broader and involve more opinions, not narrower and faster.

"The government would also have discretion to remove protected species from the list."
^ I do not like the government being able to remove protections of species.

"Under the provisions of the current ESA, anyone carrying out an activity impacting these species on non-federal lands has been required to obtain authorizations under both federal and provincial species at risk legislation. To remove this duplication, species protections in the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025, would not apply to these SARA protected aquatic species and migratory birds, allowing for projects to move forward in a more efficient and cost-effective way."
^ I do not support cutting off the Federal authorization which this implies. Our provincial activities should adhere to federal legislation as well when - in cases such as this- there is overlap. I understand it is slower, but we in Ontario are also in Canada, so both authorizations should remain.

"Recovery Plans and Documents:"
^ This entire section I oppose. Sidestepping recovery plans and review documents, hiding the paper trail, this is all a slippery slope towards environmental damages being hidden for too long. This enables fraud, and it is unacceptable.

"[...] the government intends to increase investment in supporting voluntary activities [...]"
^ This section seems mostly ok, but the focus on VOLUNTARY activities implies that the government is not going to force itself to adhere to species conservation programs. If they are voluntary for the government, how can we as citizens know that the government will do diddly squat to uphold it? Government programs such as these should be mandatory for the government to complete if you're mentioning them here. The Ontario government should also specifically NAME partners and organizations who will perform these tasks. If noone is given this responsibility, I am lead to believe very few would take up the task. There are many environmental agencies who could do this official task with assistance from the Ontario government and would cherish the government financial support, but I don't trust this "voluntary" action unless I as a citizen can hold my provincial government responsible for this add. It should be mandatory, I do not trust it being voluntary.

"Wind Down of the Species Conservation Action Agency"
^ This seems ok.

"As such, the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee will also be wound down. "
^ This does not seem necessary. I oppose this because it seems the provincial government will have to remake a similar committee in the future anyway, so why wind it down now.

"Updated Compliance and Enforcement"
^ This all seems good.

"Under the new registration system, proponents will be able to get projects started as soon as they have completed their online registration, provided they are following the rules in regulation. This eliminates the step of waiting for the ministry to review and approve permits. We are also committing to investing in upgraded IT systems to support this newly expanded registration regime."
^ I oppose this. Skipping review steps seems like a bad idea and, in cybersecurity terms, this is weakening this system's firewall. All new projects should require review, otherwise environmental damage could be done before a reviewer realizes there were bad steps taken. This is unacceptable.

"the purpose of the ESA will be updated to drive species protection and conservation while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario"
^ How will you know the growth is sustainable if all review processes are able to be sidestepped? It is for this summary reason I oppose the majority of this bill.

We also do not need to sidestep the Ministry of the Environment's decision making process, or sidestep Progress Checks and Reviews. These points in my opinion appear to be requests by those who pushed this bill forward to be allowed to be less careful, less responsible, and to focus on impatient shortsighted UNSUSTAINABLE growth rather than protecting our animals, our farmland, and our people by extension. We need more checks and balances, not less, especially with regards to environmental protections and especially when you compare to our southern neighbour who are tearing down their land for short term profits.

If you want to use our natural beauty, you should have to ask for permission from our governments and human citizens, and the non human species on it. Consider consequences before clearing a forest, be measured and careful. If not, you pave our way to a boiling future.

Thank you.