I write to express my full…

I write to express my full and unequivocal opposition to the proposed legislative and regulatory changes outlined in ERO Notice 025-0380.

“The proposal represents not only a dangerous rollback of protections for Ontario’s species at risk—it is also a direct violation of my Aboriginal, treaty, and inherent Indigenous rights, as protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and Canada's own United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIPA).” (2025).

As a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, I too carry legal responsibilities to the lands, waters, species, and to my children, grandchildren, and my grandchildren’s grandchildren. As my friend and colleague noted in their post, these responsibilities are not abstract; they are lived, legal, and grounded in Indigenous law, which mandates that decisions consider seven generations into the future. They further note, and I can see in your proposal that this proposed legislation does not even look one year into the future. It is grounded in deregulation and short-term development interests, and it violates my rights—and the rights of future generations—to a healthy environment and the cultural relationships embedded within it.

We are living in a period of the fastest rate of extinction in the history of human existence. Plants and animals are disappearing at the hands of humans, in the name of progress and for perceived financial gain. How egocentric and entitled are you, as governing bodies, to deem yourselves as the rightful destroyers of planets? As an Indigenous person, I have an inherent responsibility to stand up to the actions of your government when it threatens the Earth, the animals, the land, the water, the animals, bugs, birds and trees…all our relations.

As human beings we are a part of this Earth, the ecosystem, nature, the water itself is who we are; not just as Indigenous peoples, but all people! We have responsibilities to care for the land in reciprocity for all the land does for us, the people, my people and yours.

Beyond these responsibilities, each of these beings holds ecological, spiritual, and cultural significance to our people as Rotinonhsyon:ni (Iroquois). Each root, plant, bug, animal, bird, tree, and bush contributes to the complexity of the ecosystems that have existed for millennia and are essential to the continuation of a healthy planet and healthy people into the future. The health of all humans is directly connected to, and impacted by, the health of the environment.

If these beings are destroyed, their genetic lineages and interdependent ecological roles cannot be replaced! If they are destroyed because of the policies of your government, not only will we suffer as human beings from their loss, but you will be responsible for violating natural law, and in effect, responsible for ecological genocide. Beyond that, you also undermine my ability to practice my culture and responsibilities as determined by our laws, and my ability to pass my culture and practices along to my future generations.

It is irresponsible on the part of any government to use singular-visit Environmental Impact Assessment reports as ‘evidence’ of species on-site. These assessments require regular observations & assessments done over the course of at least one-year, and at various locations simultaneously on each site. This is how we get to know land, over time and space. This is something that has been long-forgotten by the western development world.

Reports, such as Environmental Impact Assessments, are often long, technical documents filled with language the average person does not understand without extensive explanation. Municipalities, First Nations, and the general public cannot easily access the content within these documents because of the layers of data, and intensive jargon used within them. No one has the capacity, the time, the funding, or the training to assess and uncover the manipulations of these so-called ‘assessments’, which I'm sure is the intent of the document.

A colleague of mine noted, and I agree that “with the fast-tracking and erosion of the current permitting process, even this limited possibility of expert review disappears. There will be no formal oversight, no mechanisms for challenge, and no accountability for deceitful practices.” This goes beyond negligence, erases any efforts of reconciliation, and, in fact, perpetuates the violence of colonization of Indigenous peoples and lands in a very contrived, systematic effort. Indigenous peoples and communities will be further burdened to take action when they are already working beyond capacity and resources every day.

They further noted several legal inconsistencies in her posting, which I would re-emphasize here. The legal precedents are clear and cannot be overlooked.

• Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004): The Supreme Court established that consultation must occur when there is a real or potential adverse effect on Indigenous rights.
• Mikisew Cree v. Canada (2005): The Court emphasized that meaningful engagement must take place before decisions are finalized.
• Clyde River v. Petroleum Geo-Services (2017): The Court found that regulatory bodies cannot circumvent their constitutional duty by avoiding triggers like permitting.
The permit system under the ESA is a trigger. To remove it is to intentionally subvert the law.

I am in absolute agreement with them on the following as well:

“Under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), the concept of critical habitat is foundational. SARA defines critical habitat as the habitat necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed species, and prohibits its destruction —even if the species is not currently present in that area. The Act also enables protection of critical habitat on provincial lands, particularly where there is a failure to provide equivalent protections. This reflects a scientific understanding that recovery and survival depend on full ecosystem continuity, and that habitat must be protected where a species once lived or could return in future recovery efforts.

Permitting processes must therefore recognize that absence of observation is not absence of habitat. The erosion of the ESA permitting process ignores this scientific and legal reality and allows deliberate mischaracterization of ecological data to go unchecked. Without these processes, Ontario will enable the mass erasure of critical habitat based on bad faith reports, and I know it is the intention that you hope no Indigenous Nation, conservation staff, or technical reviewer will be able to stop it.

Scientifically, the evidence is overwhelming:

• Habitat loss is the single greatest driver of species extinction (IUCN, 2022).
• Ontario’s species at risk rely heavily on ecosystems—wetlands, forest edges, tallgrass prairie, and river systems—that are also prime targets for development.
• Peer-reviewed studies confirm that permit systems with independent review are the most effective mechanisms for protecting habitat and ensuring compliance.”

I call for the complete withdrawal of ERO Proposal 025-0380. I call on governments at every level to engage with Indigenous communities on how to move forward on development with the land as the central consideration and beneficiary to all development.

“No amendments, substitutions, or compensations will undo the damage this proposal would cause.
• Retain and expand the permitting system to ensure public accountability, thorough environmental review by professional certified SAR research experts, and the triggering of constitutional consultation.
• Reinstate the technical and ecological review of natural heritage by conservation authorities in consultation with Indigenous knowledge holders.
• Establish and enforce strict ecosystem-wide protections, not just single-species fencing policies.
• Recognize Indigenous legal orders, including the personhood of species and relational ecosystems, in the development of policy and law.” (2025).

In closing, I am speaking my piece on behalf of tahatikonhsoton:tye (the faces that are coming this way), or the coming generations, on behalf of the relations I have formed in my lifetime with those who share the land, all my relations, and for your children, who will be severely and negatively impacted by the environmental degradation that comes with your proposal.

Again, I will reiterate what my friend has said before me.
“You cannot claim reconciliation while gutting the legal mechanisms that protect our rights. You cannot claim ecological responsibility while empowering those who bribe, bulldoze, and bully their way through sacred lands and life-giving ecosystems.
This proposal is not reform. It is ecological genocide. Withdraw it.”