Well, this seems like a bad…

Well, this seems like a bad dream or a sick joke.

Instead of prioritizing the needs of sensitive and at-risk species and habitats, their needs and right to continue to exist in any existing location (but seemingly no new ones, should they naturally shift, migrate or be relocated?!?) … those will be “BALANCED AGAINST” the perceived ECONOMIC and DEVELOMENT ‘NEEDs’ of human beings, or of the “PROVINCE’ of Ontario.

That alone offers very little assurance that any specific species or habitat will be truly protected at all.

But then the summary of the proposed legislation changes says the intent is to:
“…implement the new Species Conservation Act and facilitate a REGISTRATION-FIRST approach”.

A “Registration-first approach”. Those words sound benign. But, NOPE.

What does that mean?
As opposed to what?
And why is that change of process perceived as important or better?
FOR WHOM?
(Here’s one TLDR for those who don’t have time to read the proposed changes in detail: THE OVERHAUL OF PROCESS to “registration-first” is clearly NOT to protect the environment, but it WILL speed things up for those wanting to reap its resources or ‘develop’ it for profit.
Now instead of those who are in opposition to a development project (aka those who OPPOSE “activities that *WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT* species or habitats” needing to find a way to stop it from commencing, they’ll have to essentially halt a train that’s already in motion, (and there will apoarently have been no environmental impact assessment completed in advance on which to argue for an alteration of permission or plan)???

I REALLY don’t understand how this is being passed off as a ‘BALANCE’ between environmental concerns (like the ability of species and habitats traditionally deemed to be ‘at risk’ or even ‘endangered’ to continue to EXIST, let alone flourish…. and the desire to make it ‘easier’ for humans (or our contrived ‘companies and corporations’ and fiscal ‘economies’ to GROW. This does NOT offer balance, it offers near-blanket permissiveness skewed in favour of ‘growth’ and greed.

Have we all forgotten the message of the LORAX?????

For those wishing to engage in activities…(that I assume would previously had to have an environmental impact ASSESSMENT completed, and received AUTHORIZATION to go ahead?
Authorization that presumably came from some authority (like a ministry or department) who had knowledge of the ‘big picture’ that included both the current situation or condition of vulnerable species and habitats, AND the plans of all of the other people who want to undertake “activities that *WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT* (specifically-protected) species or habitats”, and could make decisions about whether any proposed activities pose ACCEPTABLE THREAT, or not….

We’re bypassing information gathering and competent impact assessments, and bypassing the blanket need to get consent before proceeding?

Instead, developers and others will simply have to REGISTER their intent to “ undertake “activities that *WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT* (specifically-protected) species or habitats”.

OR MAYBE they’ll have to get a permit. (Is that the kind of permit one simply pays for? Or a permit based on some assessment being completed and passed or approved?)?

But then, will they even have to do one of those two toothless things? The wording says they “will either be required to register the activity or obtain a permit”
…. unless the activity is EXCEPTED?!?!

Remember, we’re talking about activities KNOWN or LIKELY to be problematic; the language of the legislation is focusing on “activities that WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT* “ species or habitats.”

What activities are we talking about?
I don’t think we’re discussing the ability of a school group to go on a cross-country field trip around the Wye Marsh, by registering their intent or purchasing a daypass type of permit, rather than getting consent or permission.

I suspect we’re talking about permanently altering habitats by digging, drilling, levelling, infilling, clearing, paving, and constructing on top of lands. Perhaps ‘culling’ local animals whose presence or behaviour is feared or resented by humans who occupy spaces or expand the impact or area taken by their current use of those spaces. (Situations the difficulties that the Parkdale and Liberty Village residents of Toronto have been having with coyotes, ever since the current government of Ontario allowed the removal of something like 800 trees on and around “Ontario Place” in preparation for redeveloping it). Locals have been having close encounters with coyotes since their habitats around Ontario Place were disrupted. It seems there are coyotes who have moved into the nearby ravine (that runs between the VIA /GO railway, and the Lakeshore and Gardiner expressway. Looking for a meal, coyotes have come into these residential areas, where they have stalked or approached people walking their dogs, and community discussions indicate a seeming increase in the number of cats/ other small animals that have disappeared ….

I think this entire shift of policy and law, moving away from ‘assessments and approvals’ to make proposed ‘economic development’ ‘faster’ or ‘easier’ is ABSOLUTELY a terrible idea.

ARE WE really replacing actual assessments of potential environmental impacts, by specialists trained in knowing what to consider, with an option to “go online and create a record of what you plan to do”? THAT is the impression I get from this. PLEASE correct me (via public discussion in the media, not privately) if I’m wrong about that aspect of this.

ARE WE really removing the need for planned activities “that *WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT* species or habitats” to get authorization????

I’m….WELL BEYOND THE ABILITY to further express my concerns about this right now, if I wish to remain the civil person I aspire to be.