Comment
I oppose the new Species Conservation Act. Many environmental groups have come out and said that this new definition is dangerous to our endangered species.In this law, the term habitat is being defined as the dwelling place of an animal and the area immediately surrounding it. Defining a habitat this way is vague, I believe intentionally. There is no definition given for what constitutes the immediate area. With a definition this vague would the animal's food source be encompassed?
I believe it is the government's job to step in when irreversible harm will be done to ecosystems. Our current development process requires developers to take steps to reduce harm to endangered species when infringing on their habitats. I disagree with streamlining this process and eliminating the need for permits. By doing so, there will no longer be a reason for developers to mitigate damage to habitats. Protecting endangered species requires action -- the current government is demonstrating that they'd prefer to do nothing.
Lastly, recovery of a species has been excluded as mandatory to provincial conservation efforts in this new law. I believe this will result in weaker conservation of species. This means species will become extinct, and then next ecosystems will disappear. The government is showing does not feel an obligation to preserving our vital ecosystems. Our Ontario flora and fauna is worth preserving.
Supporting links
Submitted May 14, 2025 7:03 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
142840
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status