Commentaire
Re: 019-1006
- I disagree with the proposal to remove the approval process of Audits. While tabling in the legislature does add much time to the process, it could be done by an Order in Council.
- just having it posted on a web site is not sufficient
- similar to proposals to modify a 10-year FMP with vague time extensions and bridging, the Audit process works very well with well-defined 5-year periods. It serves to keep industry on its toes, knowing that audits are going to happen in a regular fashion.
- as you state in the initial paragraph, the forest industry is huge and therefore should be recognized with regularly occurring audits. The system works well and is not broken.
- you state that the forest industry is "not reaching full potential". That may be true but it has nothing to do with regularly occurring audits.
- In fact the entire audit process needs to be better advertised. When people purchase a package of photocopy paper or some lumber from the local lumber yard and products are stamped FSC and FSI certified, they should know that that is part of a very rigorous and regularly occurring process.
Thank you
Soumis le 18 février 2020 8:46 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
45148
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire