Commentaire
Hello,
Reducing frequency and scope of audits is exactly how to reduce the oversight that makes government smarter and provides assurance that Ontario's resources are being managed well. Please reconsider your proposal. The government seems to work for industry at the moment, instead of for the people.
Please don't think that if the logging industry is more efficient or makes more money that this will translate into more, or better jobs for Ontarians. In reality, the debts will be paid off and the shareholders will just make more money. Ontario already subsidises the logging industry so heavily, the lack of oversight and enforcement amounts to just another subsidy. Ontarians will get even less value for their money than they already are.
A number of the current proposals will degrade governmental oversight of the forest industry: audits, as here, and environmental assessment as in ERO #019-0691, which claims all the conditions in the declaration order have been incorporated into regulated policy and process... except you're essentially proposing to change those conditions, as here, and elsewhere.... Over the last months, it has been a moving train of proposals (stemming from lobby groups representing industry of all kinds). It's overwhelming. In addition, commenting on one proposal feels like trying to hold back the train with your little finger: futile. And yet I comment here anyway. I'm not the only one that feels this way.
Soumis le 4 février 2020 10:08 PM
Commentaire sur
Révisions proposées au Règlement de l’Ontario 160/04 (Independent Forest Audit) pris en application de la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne qui régit les vérifications indépendantes des forêts de l’Ontario
Numéro du REO
019-1006
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
42895
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire