Hello, Unfortunately, (with…

Hello,

Unfortunately, (with 6 other postings to comment on RE Bill 5) I don't have time to write out just how bad this idea is. Instead I will state first that I stand with everything the organizations I will link below say, in terms of the repercussions of this proposal. Please note especially the relevant part of the submission from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Species at Risk, biodiversity, and our natural heritage are not red tape. No-one is above the law, and it's embarrassing for you that you are trying to change the law for political reasons. It's embarrassing that you are suggesting that non-experts should have the final say on what's on listed as a species at Risk. It's embarrassing that you are suggesting the government not be responsible for recovery products anymore.

Secondly, I know just how much the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks does, and just how little they are funded, how overworked their staff, and how they are told to shut up with their expertise and get on with issuing permits / doing their jobs. I used to work there. Staff are made to feel like the environment is the least important priority for this government, and they'd be right. And Species at Risk is only part of what they do. Just look.. you can't even get a new SEV approved because the way it should look is not the way the approvers want it to look.

Finally, I would like to ask a couple of questions, because this proposal is just bad ideas after embarrassing admissions with some alarming audacity mixed in.

How can anyone that works at MECP even think this is remotely a good idea, or "reasonable"?

While I agree that the ESA may not be working as originally intended, that's because of all the exemptions that either keep getting extended or have been put in place permanently. Please just implement it properly with the right amount of staff.

A species conservation program, with VOLUNTARY actions? And this money you'd be collecting... What guarantees would be there to make sure the money is spent properly this time?.. you admit you haven't spent the money from the Species Conservation Action Agency properly.. what makes this any different? I'm not inclined to trust this government after this admission. ... and the Greenbelt... and all the past erosion it's done already to the ESA.

The only thing I agree with is better enforcement. However, prevention of harm and destruction is better than enforcement after things have happened. By then, it's too late to save the lives and habitats that have been destroyed. As the body of government whose mandate is to protect the environment before anything else, protection and the precautionary principle should prevail. It's worth it!

Everyone thought the greenbelt was bad...well this is removing protections but this time EVERYWHERE in Ontario. I'll comment on the SEZ's separately, of course.

As I read this proposal, you will not be able to sign of on your own SEV if you proceed with it. One of many statements in the SEV illustrates my point: "The Ministry uses a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment." This proposal does the opposite. A responsible decision maker should not be signing this document with this proposal as it is now. Another statement says, "The ministry works to protect, restore and enhance the natural environment by ensuring that planning, which aims to identify and evaluate environmental benefits and risks, takes place at the earliest stages in the decision- making process." In contrast, this proposal proposes that, "Under the new registration system, proponents will be able to get projects started as soon as they have completed their online registration..."

I request that MECP not move forward with this proposal. Thanks.