I strongly appose the…

I strongly appose the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and the proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025 as it prevents the current cabinet from being held accountable, fails to take the proper precautions to protect and restore the populations of Species at risk, and fragments critical habitat potentially causing harm to species who aren’t even currently on the list.

A democratic government must have precautions in place to hold the current cabinet accountable. In these proposed changes to the ESA, 2007, and Species Conservation Act, 2025, proposal, it fails to allow the proper democratic process by allowing the current minister to limit the definition of habitat without vote, creating a decision that could be entirely subjective and not based on scientifically backed information. In the proposed changes, it suggests protection of an animals “dwelling place, such as a den, nest, or similar place, occupied or habitually occupied by one or more members of a species for the purposes of breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, or hibernating.” This proposed change would be equivalent to telling a human they can’t leave the perimeters of their house, not even to go in their own backyard. This change allows removal of important systems that sustains not only one species, but a whole network of animals, plants and insects, removes critical food sources, and potentially puts their lives at risk. The proposed legislation offers too many grey areas that could allow government, industry and developers to irresponsibly destroy crucial habitat and endanger the already fragile populations.

This legislation also rejects scientifically sound protection approaches and targets. Failure to study current populations of species at risk and removing requirements for recovery strategies is turning a blind eye to the state of our environment. What affects a pollinating insect, or bird or even just having the same species close enough for pollination, also affects our wallets. These changes have an almost global impact by destroying habitat for migrating species, affecting areas as far North as Alaska, and as far south as South America.

The Bill suggests the current process is “complicated and takes too long to complete and causes unnecessary delays and costs’. The changes makes it too easy for government, industry and developers to irresponsibly destroy Endangered Species and their habitat. What does registering really accomplish? How can the people hold trust in ministers who back this legislation to make the right decision? There is nothing that gives me hope about the current administration’s, and future cabinets, of making the right decision regarding protection of Endangered Species, especially with the recent narrative of the sitting cabinet.

The new legislation demonstrates a grand ability of ignoring well known dangers caused by habitat fragmentation. I suggest more is done to gain awareness of this. This is a good start: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4643828/

We need legislation that creates stronger protections, that builds the current habitat and connects nature corridors - not destroys them. The only thing that will be benefiting from these changes are the bank accounts of industry officials, developers and their friends while the rest of us are stuck paying even more for groceries (due to decreased populations of pollinators), dealing with environmentally caused health risks (allergies, asthma, effects of pollution, extreme weather events, ect.)