There are ten main points to…

There are ten main points to the revised ESA I would like to address. The "pay to slay" where developers can pay into a fund in lieu of fulfilling requirements for on the ground reparation for damage done to an area. This should be an actual representative number calculated by non-government hired ecologist that determine the price using the importance of each species both plant and animal, the number of individuals that will be affected by the changes and the area that will be lost due to development. Typically when other governments have put a law like this one in place the price is extremely low in comparison to the value of each individual of each species in that area. For example one honey bee is worth more to our food, agriculture and society than a ten story apartment building.

Rejecting science, there should be zero input from any person without a background in the environmental and ecological field. Our environment can only success if science is accepted and put forward to change laws. By rejecting science you will cause the environment to no longer exist and the human race will be extinct. In order for the human race to survive this century we need to protect more than 50% of the earth's natural habitat and the remaining species, if we do not succeed we will have no oxygen, no way of farming our food and extreme weather events that will destroy cities. do not reject science, it is the last thing that stands between our salvation and our extinction. Unfortunately this is no longer just a worse case scenario, this is what is happening and the only way to stop it, is the save the environment, save as many species as we can and we can only do this by accepting science and using it to form a plan to help the environment.

Limiting protections, as I stated before if we don't try to help every species we can, we as Ontario citizens will suffer the consequences. We need to make sure we prioritize important habitats and species and protect them.

Edge range species are just as important if not more important since these species show resistance to a change in their ideal habitat. These species are critical for future persistence of the species as our climate continues to change. Species should receive protection especially if their population is low in Ontario even if the population is high elsewhere. We need to protect as many species as we can.

Harmful activities and dodging requirements should be avoided at all costs and there needs to be a remediation plan that doesn't just restore another area to the same status that was destroyed or pay a fee. We need to make it so the environment benefits. Change this so any harmful activities must be reduced as mush as possible and all damage to the environment must be restored by double. Also at no point in time should requirements be avoided or dodged. If an endangered species or habitat is in the spot you want to build you cannot build there, you cannot do whatever you want. There is a reason why the species is endangered, on the endangered species list and there is red tape.

At no point in time should expert input be put aside. For each inquiry that involves the endangered species act there should be a panel of independent expert scientists in the ecological or environmental field that puts the survival of species in Ontario as their top priority and advises the minister on what action the minister should take.

The minister should not have greater discretion on protections. The minister should not have the power to veto protections. There should not be a suspension of protections ever especially for more then three months. Also public and expert consultations should always be required.

The minister should not be allowed to interfere with the listing of a species. The panel of independent expert scientists in the ecological or environmental field that puts the survival of species in Ontario as their top priority should be the only people making science-based listing decisions.

There should be no delay or little time between proposing a listing, planning and reporting on a species at risk using a panel and scientific research to back up the decision. If you delay in any of those steps you can undermine species recovery.