I would like to counter the…

I would like to counter the argument of your discussion paper, which states that the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) should "increase efficiencies for businesses". This suggested change contradicts both the intended purpose of the ESA and the positive associations between a region's biodiversity and its economic potential. The ESA's primary purpose is to protect Ontario's environmental wealth, as represented by a diverse set of species, habitats and ecosystems. It is impossible to achieve the intended goal of the ESA without setting some limits on industrial development. Wild areas must be preserved, conserved, maintained and even expanded. The future of this province and country rests on the ability of ecosystems to continue to support vital services, including: clean drinking water, carbon sequestration, eco-tourism and agricultural output. Deregulated expansion of industrial activities and land conversion will absolutely compromise these vital ecological services. I urge this government to abandon changes to the ESA that would compromise its ability to protect species and habitats at-risk, and focus on changes that set informed and achievable conservation goals. I submit these comments as both a professional ecologist and citizen who is proud to call Ontario home.

As a final note, I would urge the government to fully disclose ALL proposed changes to provincial legislation BEFORE implementing them, such that public input can be maximized and the full ramifications of the changes can be analyzed and fully understood by all. Neither the changes to the ESA nor Ontario's healthcare and education systems have been fully disclosed, and it is with great trepidation that I await this government's future "efficiencies".