I found there was not a lot…

I found there was not a lot of explanation in terms of “how” everything will be accomplished. For example, there were a few statements about “reducing regulatory burdens for industry to access wood” and “reducing red tape”. There was also a line about “streamlining the process for permits and approvals”. To me, this sounds like regulations for environmental protections are going to be removed or amended for quicker and greater access to resources. There is a reason why the process for permits and approvals, especially for natural resources, is a longer process. It’s not as simple as a forest is made out of trees and we are cutting trees. The forest supports so many complex ecological systems, even a single tree has importance to some ecological process, so all decisions must be well thought of and supported by scientific evidence not deadlines.

On a similar note, the draft mentions “reducing species restrictions on wood use”, which begs the question, is there an important reason why certain species are restricted? I would like to think so. Again, they could be important for cultural or ecological reasons. The point being that there is a reason, but it is not stated in the draft and the explanation as to why and how the government is going to reduce the restrictions is also unexplained.

There are many statements about how increased harvesting will still be able to comply with current sustainability management but does not explain how this is possible. Also, there may be more available forest to harvest, but that doesn’t mean it should be harvested. The type, age, and ecological functions of the forest needs to be taken into consideration. Just because you plant a tree in another tree's place does not mean you have evened out the score. No where in the report was anything like this mentioned.

A lot was mentioned about building better relationships with Indigenous communities, but nothing was really said as to whether Traditional Ecological Knowledge would be applied to future sustainability management plans. I am disappointed in the lack of meaningful information presented in regard to Indigenous relations. Their role should be a much more active one.

Lastly, when talking about climate change there is a sole emphasis on CO2 emissions. No where in the report does it mention how the increase in pulp and paper, general infrastructure, access roads, and increased harvesting will affect water quality and quantities, habitat destruction and disruption, etc. I ask that the Ontario government keep in mind that our natural resources do not exist purely for human use, and that the needs of other species cannot be overlooked for human gains.