I oppose the bill as…

I oppose the bill as currently written for the following reasons:

* The definitions of habitat for both animals and plants is too restrictive, and does not consider the entire habitat a plant or animal needs to survive throughout its lifetime.  For example, a beaver needs more than its den and “immediate area”; it needs the surrounding vegetation, lake, pond, forest and connecting waterways.  A moose, deer, or caribou needs a vast grazing area, its food sources, and migration corridor throughout its lifecycle. The migration corridor and home territory should not be dissected by busy roadways, ATV trails, developments, or hunting lodges. A plant may need an overhead forest canopy to protect it, other symbiotic plants to nurture and feed its root systems, and pollinators to propagate it. Nothing in nature exists in isolation or in a little self-contained bubble; it is all interconnected.
* The intent to remove the restriction on harassing from the list of actions prohibited under species protection. If this is done, then from the government’s view, it is perfectly acceptable for some mine or manufacturing plant to be built adjacent to an endangered species protected habitat that causes undo stress to the animal so that their fertility plummets and they become extirpated in that area. 
* The government should not have the authority to remove endangered species from the list of endangered species at its whim. The list of endangered and protected species in Ontario should only be administered by an independent, scientific body that also aims to align its priorities with those of the federal government. Elected politicians who are beholden to constituents’ demands should have no say in the matter.
* Simplifying the go-ahead for development to be the act of registration alone, and saying that development can proceed immediately thereafter without having any environmental assessment or other permit review done is a terrible idea. And once the bulldozers and blasting has started, even if it’s found to be in contravention of the Endangered Species Act or the proposed, greatly watered down, Species Conservation Act, it’s highly likely the government will just say “well, it’s too late now, so better just let it proceed”, and maybe issue a slap on the wrist or a small fine to the offender.
We don’t need to lose more of Ontario’s wetlands, Greenbelt, peatlands, or natural forests to sloppily administered regulations or short-sighted political gains, and the endangered and protected species which call it their only home shouldn’t have to lose it either. Ontario should be striving to allow development but in a sustainable way that benefits people, the environment and the economy. This bill as proposed is attempting to take the environment and its wildlife out of that equation.