Comment
I do not support many of the items put forward by this change.
The government should not have the ability to add or remove protected species at will without consultation with scientists and experts.
It should require more than mere registration to be allowed to proceed with projects that could cause irreversible harm to the environment. An independent review of potential damages should be done before work can be started otherwise what protections would be left.
The proposed new species conservation program being voluntary does not make much sense as what reason would a developer have to voluntarily increase there costs as there would be no consequences to simply not taking any actions to alleviate environmental concerns.
Winding down the Species Conservation Action Agency because it is in this proposals own words "starting up" and has been unable to use it's funds is nonsensical. It's like giving up on a child learning to read because you gave them a book yesterday and they haven't read it yet.
If the reason for all these actions is to increase the housing supply to fix the housing crisis then there is an argument to be made in favour of this proposal. However this would further promote the urban sprawl which is one of the major causes of the housing crisis to begin with. Building suburbs further away from already established population centres will not fix the demand for housing in established population centres. Those areas are large population centres for a reason, it is because there are already businesses, services and job opportunities there to support a population. Building new population centres that require reestablishing public services and extending infrastructure to service them costs time and money and puts the burden of development onto the residents who have to pay a higher tax to expand these services and infrastructure. This would also aggravate the traffic issue as more people would be forced to commute and without good alternatives to personal vehicles would lead to an increase in traffic congestion further taxing our existing infrastructure.
A more sustainable approach is to better utilize our existing space and infrastructure in established population centres and remove barriers that limit denser housing options and alternate transportation options. The impetus should be on the local municipalities to build up their cities rather than having them export their problems to the next city by loosening environmental laws to allow building somewhere else.
Submitted April 19, 2025 11:06 AM
Comment on
Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025
ERO number
025-0380
Comment ID
126282
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status