do not support the proposed…

I do not support the proposed changes and feel this would weaken protections and put Ontarios biodiversity at serious risk of harm. We have nothing without the environment.

Specifically, I do not support proponents being able to begin activity immediately after registering - if the activity does put endangered species at risk how many will suffer until oversight is available?

I also have serious concern over the government being able to add or remove species at risk classifications. This opens the door for unqualified individuals making decisions that could have extensive and long lasting negative effects.

I want there to be specifications about harassment of wildlife in protections, because that is the true nature of our potential impacts on them - our activities can be incredibly distressing to wildlife and they deserve that protection of peace.

I want the term habitat to be defined based on science, and be BROADER THAN NECESSARY to provide as much protection to our environment as possible - no matter the time, cost, or inconvenience to anyone or anything.

I want there to be an excess amount of permits, licenses, consultation, red tape, documentation, transparency, about anything that involves putting our biodiversity and endangered species at risk. Because it is so incredibly important and sensitive.

I do want Ontario to invest more in conservation and protecting endangered species. I fear that winding down the species conservation action agency would open the door to spending that does not benefit endangered species, or stop specific programs that benefit them. I support spending it on activities that are in alignment with species protection and conservation goals. Essentially, I support additional funding to maintain the current funds to endangered species ON TOP of supporting other activities.

The advisory committee sounds like a joke, and a convenient way to silence those who put species at risk first. I absolutely do not support removing the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee under any circumstance.

In summary, the proposal sounds like the government wants to:
- Allow proponents to begin activities with no initial oversight & before permits are approved - an ask questions later after damage has already been done approach.
- Open the door for government officials with no scientific background to add or remove protections for species at risk at their unqualified discretion.
- Spend funds where they see fit and not necessarily based on science or with the interest of endangered species in mind.
- Remove the term “harass” from prohibitions; increasing the allowance for wildlife and habitat disruption.
- Loosen the ability and requirement to seek science based advice by stopping the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee.
- Discontinue funds specifically delegated to species at risk.
- Use the terms flexible tools and flexible approach to say weaken protections for endangered species. As well as simplify and streamline activities that could harm them.