As a member of our…

As a member of our municipality's Environmental Advisory Committee and our local Bird Friendly City team I am very concerned about the replacement of the Endangered Species Act with a watered-down Species Conservation Act.

Particularly concerning is the definition of "habitat" being proposed. The act being repealed defined habitat as "an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding." When I was teaching grade 4 students (20 years ago!) that's roughly what I told the students.

The new Species Conservation Act defines animal habitat as "dwelling place or the area immediately around it, such as den, nest or other similar place."

This is ridiculously narrow and endangers animals--birds being a particular concern--already under threat from habitat loss.These creatures matter, and their welfare is a proxy for the health of our environment.

Another feature of the proposed Species Conservation Act is the removal of all references to "recovery" and "stewardship." The new act references only "protection and conservation" while "taking into account social and economic considerations including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario.

As a retired teacher, I find it deplorable and angering that the environment our children and grandchildren should be able to enjoy, our natural heritage, is being put at risk for the sake of economic growth. There are, surely, better ways to develop our economy.

Another, huge concern is with allowing cabinet to create "Special Economic Zones with no restrictions on location or size. My understanding is that third parties could be given powers within those areas and that municipal and provincial could be overridden. This is manifestly dangerous and undemocratic.

For the sake of all the wildlife that share our spaces, for the sake of future generations, for the sake of following transparent, fair, democratic principles. Please withdraw Bill 5.