There are two significant…

There are two significant changes to this document that I believe are not conducive to effective environmental protection.

First, there is significant loss of oversight or consultation between those doing the evaluation of wetands and those charged with the protection of natural heritage (e.g. MNRF, Conservation Authority etc). If the evaluators are working for those who are involved in the development of land, who is watching over them? Who is adding alternative expertise and knowledge to the process? Loss of this oversight will eliminate an invaluable element of the decision-making process. Is the current system overly bureaucratic? Perhaps, but that is not a reason to eliminate a check against the potential loss of our natural heritage features. It would be more sympathetic of the government to eliminate bureaucracy but retain oversight to the degree that it is balanced.

The second aspect I take umbrage with, is the loss to the protection of "wetland complexes". In fact, it seems more like a total obliteration of this concept from the process. Again, it is obvious that the current government wants to reduce bureaucracy and allow for more rapid development. Eliminating this idea, however, is not the way to go about it. Water resources do not follow political or municipal boundaries, they are interconnected areas that are integral not only to our natural heritage and wildlife habitat, but also serve to protect freshwater - a basic human need. We need clean, fresh, water to survive, and recognizing that these systems are interconnected allow for their protection. Wetland complexes are an integral part of Ontario's natural heritage. Too many of these areas have been lost in southern Ontario over the last 200 years, let's not add this loss with narrow-sighted legislation and policy change. Let's grow sustainably to protect our natural heritage for future generations.