I am against the Ford…

I am against the Ford government's continual gutting of environmental protection regulations, like this proposal to change the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Humans and all life need the environment to survive. A healthy environment means clean water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe, and energy to sustain us. Wetlands protect our homes and roads from flooding, which saves money. The benefits are countless. Not to mention that wildlife and plants deserve to thrive just as much as humans. By protecting wildlife, we protect their habitats and their roles, and thus what sustains us too. E.g., protecting space and plants for pollinators allows them to thrive and pollinate the food we eat. E.g., protecting caribou means protecting a large area of forest that absorbs carbon dioxide and helps prevent further climate change (the more climate change increases, the worse things like extreme weather events will be).

This proposal will allow the government to trample Indigenous rights and community consultation, which will silence local voices and concerns. It will slash regulatory oversight, trampling environmental protections and allowing unverified mining and industrial development. The ESA and other regulations are here for a reason. Taking "shortcuts" will, over time, cost more and take longer. The ESA is not "red tape".

The creation of Special Economic Zones Act will allow the province to create law free zones to allow projects to proceed. What about transparency, environmental stewardship, and accountability (values that the province claims to uphold)? What about upholding municipal and provincial laws? What about treating developers fairly? We can't just keep developing endlessly for profit and cherry-picking developers; we need to do things right. Only if you have a healthy environment, can you have healthy people, and then can they create profit. We cannot work backwards. We have to do our research first and that saves time and money in the long-term.

This proposal narrows the definition of "habitat" for animals by excluding areas outside dwelling places and their surrounding area. Let's look an example: a wolverine roams an area of 500-1500km2 and females only build dens when raising their young. According to the new definition, I assume a female in a den would have to always stay there to be protected and a wolverine roaming would have no protection since it's in such a large area. This is not realistic. We can't tell the wolverine how to live or where to go, nor should we. We have to know, from science and local knowledge, how the wolverine behaves so it is not impacted. We should not be putting more species at risk; we should be helping species at risk and trying to keep common species common.

The proposal will eliminate provincial protection for federally listed migratory birds and aquatic species. Many of these are not adequately protected under federal legislation. Thus, there will be significant gaps and chance for significant harm to these species and thus the habitat they need.

The proposal will allow the province broad discretion to refuse to protect species and their habitats. We need the science-based listing and permitting process that exists to ensure that nature is protected. This is the only fair way to treat project requestors.

There is no science backing this proposal's changes. Is the province using the trade war as another excuse in eroding protection for environment and species, in order to allow more projects to succeed? You can protect the environment and have profit at the same time. Look at all the nature-based climate solutions that exist and are huge success stories. Look at the Climate Institute's Damage Report that says, for every 1$ spent on adaptation measures today, $13-$15 will be returned in years ahead in direct and indirect benefits. Protecting land and species is an adaptation measure.

The Ford government has previously made changes to the ESA to weaken it. Weakening environmental protection just caters to big industry (e.g., forestry, mining, developers) and allows them to destroy without consideration for local people, species, or environment. What if they pollute our drinking water, etc? These changes take away responsibility, accountability, and transparency (all values of good government). Local people, including Indigenous People, have a right to speak up. They also often have lots of knowledge about the area that would help a project succeed. This proposal will erode consultation rights by eliminating permits over a broad range of destructive activities. This goes against having meaningful consultation.

Additional changes to the ESA cannot happen. They will jeopardize the environment, upon which our land, water, and future depends. I want my kids and future generations to be able to inherit a healthy planet so they can survive; I want the same for current and future generations of wildlife and plants. The world is not humanity's to do with as we wish. We are a part of nature and we depend on it.

This proposal is not streamlining. It will not reduce the red tape that could actually make a difference. It puts profit first. It is a disguise that will trade biodiversity and ecosystem value for short-term economic gains. This is not what the public needs.

This proposal will gut environmental assessments, which exist to reduce negative impacts. It will fast-track mining and infrastructure projects, like the Ring of Fire, by eliminating proper consultation and the opportunity for consent from Indigenous communities. This is also not in the spirit of reconciliation and does not follow constitutional obligations. It will dangerously set a precendent for bypassing meaningful Indigenous consultation.

This proposal will allow a project to proceed without knowing environmental implications of their project. While yes, it can take time to do research, that research can determine whether or not a project will succeed and whether or not there will be positive or negative impacts. We cannot just ask questions later.

This proposal undermines all aspects of environmental standards. It would erase years of effort and resources spent into creating good standards that are here for a reason. It prioritizes speed over true efficiency. We need to work smart.

This proposal is under Bill 5, which will also have negative impacts to Ontario's clean energy and other aspects. I do not support Bill 5.

I do not support this proposal. I still do not support the changes already made to the ESA. The ESA should be strengthened to better protect our land, water, health, wallets, and future. This proposal will cost all of those aspects too much. Look at what is happening to the environment in the States - this cannot happen here too. Canada can do better, for itself and others. Canada deserves better.

I also don't appreciate the short notice and short timeframe given by the province to the public to comment on this proposal.

I do not appreciate that Ford is breaking the promise made when seeking re-election: protect Ontario. This proposal threatens our environment, communities and future. It will not lead to clean and healthy communities, clean energy, etc.