Comment
It is important to look for ways that we can support our economy, but we also need to consider what we care about as Canadians so that we don't lose our identity in the same breath. Camping, trails, protected forests and environments are all defining aspects of growing up Canadian. As such, I worry about some of these proposed changes.
It is really important to protect the habitats of the species where they gain food and resources, not just where they build a home. You cannot build a home and family without being able to provide food for them, reducing the protective spaces to just where they have dens or migration cuts out the fact that the species require the ability to feed themselves as well.
Picking and choosing which species to protect and which not to is contradicted in this bill. You want to protect homes/nests/dens, but also want to remove the need for provincial approval before companies can destroying these spaces if it pertains to wetlands and birds. Should these not be included as a whole into what the provinces oversees? Or is the province fine to give up it's oversight to the federal government alone?
I also worry about moving of funds aimed at ensuring we can protect our environment into a more general government pot as well as the removal of the committee. It feels more like cuts to ensure that these initiatives fail in the long term. We need specialists who actually understand the science and needs to ensure the government is actually able to protect our spaces for nature to continue to be here for generations to come.
Submitted May 9, 2025 12:23 PM
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
137091
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status