I am completely opposed to…

I am completely opposed to the amendments being proposed to the ESA, as buried in Schedule 5 of the new housing Bill 108.

First, the review of the ESA was neither transparent nor done with any intention to improve or strengthen the current Act. The only goal was to determine how much the government could weaken the current ESA to make it easier for developers and other sectors to destroy critical habitat. As such, the ESA review is a total sham, which completely contravenes the mandate of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. If every Ministry's purpose is now primarily economic, then this government could save taxpayers billions every year by rolling all existing Ministries up into the one, big monolith – the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Obviously, the public expects each Ministry to serve a purpose and act in accordance to their mandate, while serving the public good - not a select few business sectors - otherwise there is no point in their existence.

Second, according to the UN, 2019 report, the planet is at a crisis point with the greatest mass extinction in history underway, all at the hands of human activity. According to the Ontario government's own website and data, Ontario is currently at risk of losing at least 200 species already. Knowing this, it makes absolutely no sense for any government to loosen restrictions, eliminate protections of species at risk or, in any way, make it easier for developers to freely bulldoze or contaminate critical habitats.

According to the various comments submitted to the ERE when this review was undertaken, the public has already expressed their concerns and their expectations for a stronger ESA, not a a weaker one. And, as per the backlash at election time over the secretive promises made by Ford to open up the Greenbelt to developers, it was clear the public has no interest is seeing developers accommodated by sacrificing the environment. If this government truly believes Schedule 5 of Bill 108 was in the public interest, then why are these amendments to the ESA couched amongst a hundred other amendments in a housing Bill? And why was the public only provided a minimal 30 days to learn about it and make comment?

We all know, "paying a fee to kill" vulnerable species will be absolutely no problem for developers or any other sector (a small write-off) but it will cost our environment, and the rest of us, dearly. I'm quite confident, the general public – if they had been properly informed of these amendments - has no interest in seeing the criteria for species status determined by either non-scientists or unilaterally by a Minister with absolutely no scientific credentials. Nor would the public agree that species populations outside of Ontario's borders is enough to open our own up to decimate – how ludicrous is that. Do we not need pollinators in Ontario? Do we not need reptiles, amphibians, bats and birds to control insect populations? Do we not need native species of fish to control algal blooms and ensure a healthy lakes? Do we not need native trees, plants and shrubs as a foundation for essentially every viable ecosystem?

Clearly the changes being proposed in Bill 108 were designed in the best interest of the developers and other business sectors that are not interested in evolving their business practices in a progressive, sustainable manner. Easing restrictions on species at risk to accommodate archaic business practices is the last thing we need. It's bad policy for the environment AND the economy.