I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my opposition to the approaches to species conservation proposed through the “Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025” (ERO number 025-0380).

It is shocking to me that the government would consider dismantling and removing the Endangered Species Act. While your public-facing language suggests you are not gutting this act, a closer look at the proposed cuts and changes reveals the opposite. You are, in effect, undermining years of scientific research, policy development, and taxpayer investment that went into creating this important legislation.

If you had to assign a dollar value to the creation of this act—considering the tax dollars supporting it since before 2005—what would that be? I imagine the figure would be staggering, given the time, expertise, and resources involved in building these policies. And yet, you are proposing to wipe the slate clean and reimpose policies that appear to serve only developers, not the species this legislation was designed to protect. This proposal is a farce, and your messaging to the public should reflect that truth. You are, in practice, removing any meaningful protection for endangered species—and even the minimal policies left in place can be overridden at your discretion.

And who, precisely, in government will be making these decisions? Will there be thoughtful, science-based research to support them? Based on the disregard for science shown in your proposed revisions, I have serious doubts that any such responsibility will be exercised with the care and knowledge required.

Equally disturbing is your narrowing of protection to just a nest, a den, or the patch of soil directly around a plant. What?! Any intelligent person—any child who’s seen a couple of nature documentaries—understands what an ecosystem is. A bird cannot survive in just its nest. What will it eat in its new concrete-surrounded environment? Where will it find water? Every living thing requires biodiversity. And last I checked, Ontario still has staff sitting on the Biodiversity Council. Book your Zoom meeting and have them explain it to you.

I’m especially frustrated by your justification that these changes are necessary to support new housing and solve the housing crisis. When I think about our unhoused and low-income at-risk populations, their needs would be far better served by intensifying development within urban centres, a goal already outlined in many municipal official plans. These vulnerable communities, much like endangered species, rely on ecosystems of support: social services, walkable amenities, and access to health care. Building million-dollar homes on the Oak Ridges Moraine will not address the housing crisis or help the people most in need.

We are already feeling the very real effects of climate change, and there is an overwhelming body of global science to support this. So why are we undoing 20+ years of progress and removing an act that not only protects endangered species but also safeguards biodiversity (which supports our food systems), our land (preventing soil depletion), and our trees (which literally convert carbon into oxygen)? You are jeopardizing our health and our future and I expect better from our government.

You are well-paid, educated individuals. I know you are capable of solutions that protect the vitality of our natural environment, support our climate goals, and address housing needs for those most at risk. Please do better, we should not have to choose between our environment and the economy.