013-4143 Comments on 10th…

013-4143

Comments on 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper

Congratulations to the provincial government for inviting the public's input on the Endangered Species Act , R.S.O. 2007. As temporary custodians of this planet we have an obligation to preserve the natural world regardless of any perceived economic benefit.

Currently our landscape is strewn with the destruction and the waste that has been the result of certain industry activities, those industries that operate within our forests, on our fields, and in or on our lakes, due to bad practices committed in the past. While we now know better, and have so for decades, I have reason to believe they continue to this day.

These industries have operated in areas without concern for the habitat of the animals and plants that have lived or grown there. Mining and milling is one major example with their tailings and slurry ponds as are forestry companies that use the 'clear cut' method of harvesting, is another. Both have a devastating effect on the land and animal habitats. Lakes, rivers, and streams have been polluted by industries including agriculture, and not excluding the public at large.

The question and concern that I have is If businesses and/or industries were required to take a more sustainable approach in their operations could they be granted an exception to any regulation that would, if implemented, be considered to have a negative effect on a company's viability. Would these activities that would be considered to be increasing their operating costs and thus reducing their profits, be allowed to continue without compliance with the regulations?

I am sure that I am not the only one that is concerned that with this provincial government’s mantra of being ‘open for business’ we would see further erosion of our environmental protection laws. Laws that have been cancelled with the mistaken idea of it being positive for business while ignoring environmental concerns. You know the ones, cancelling environmentally sustaining power generation and the ‘Cap and Trade’ system, no matter how flawed, designed to reduce the negative effect of burning fossil fuels. Regardless what they say, this is not an environmentally progressive government, it is more focused on reducing the deficit regards who or what gets hurt.