The changes talk very little…

The proposed change in direction to the Endangered Species Act seems to minimize protection of species and the habitat necessary for their survival in favour of industrial activity and "efficiency" of the process to obtain approvals for commercial interests. That change in emphasis worries me. The changes talk very little about the protection of species and habitat, which I think should be the main emphasis of the Act.

I am concerned about pollution of watercourses and groundwater especially in sensitive areas like the Oak Ridges Moraine that provides clean drinking water for a major urban population. I am concerned about the effects on indigenous populations when species like caribou disappear. I am concerned about companies going into northern areas to develop mines and leaving behind devastation to soil, water and wildlife habitat when the resource is no longer profitable to take out. Government needs to set reasonable standards for development, encourage enlightened planning and monitor results, by using scientific evidence, not simply profitability to determine what is in the interests of species, habitat, the local population, and the province as a whole. When the interests conflict, there need to be laws and regulations that determine solutions rather than politicking, as the Liberals have learned to their cost. The language of the document talks about "positive" actions but does not mention evidence or science. There is little sense in this document that the Act sees either protection or more importantly recovery of species numbers as a priority. This seems a glaring omission.

Efficiency is not a bad thing if it means a reduction of duplicate procedures and if it entails hiring more biologists to conduct environmental assessments that results in quicker decisions. However, it will have a negative outcome for endangered species and the environment as a whole if 'efficiency' means a short-cut around protections for species and habitat without engaging companies to come up with viable solutions and hold them to account. Past Conservative governments were responsible for mandating that forestry companies produce plans for reforestation and environmental rehabilitation and the same governments protected wetlands and watersheds through the development of the Conservation Authority system in reaction to Hurricane Hazel. That system stopped the building of houses on many flood plains and the removal of trees, which keeps soil from eroding into watercourses, reducing the potential of future major flooding to destroy lives and property. I hope this Conservative Government will take a broader outlook to economic activity and not concentrate on short-term gain. Development can also include eco-tourism and environmental sustainability, which should not be anathema to a conservative philosophy.

For these reasons and concerns, I do not agree with the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act and hope it will be improved before it is passed.