As a concerned citizen I…

As a concerned citizen I would like to submit for your consideration the following comments:
A) The Government for the Province of Ontario has an abysmal record for protecting wildlife and flora. (Both Liberal and Conservative governments over the years are deserving of a failing grade.) Ontario lags well behind other prosperous administrations (such as BC or Alberta) in its protection of wildlife and fauna. Tens of thousands of animals are killed in traffic encounters annually because the government has failed to fund and oversee construction of eco-passages; studies have proven eco-passages are not only good for wildlife welfare but also the well-being of motorists and the economy. The Government of Ontario has historically not funded sufficiently the Ministry of Natural Resources where conservation is concerned. To wit, the province's reputation is already very poor where protection of flora and fauna is concerned as it is seen as shorted sighted and lacking any sophisticated thought processes around how and why promoting protection of wildlife and flora is also good economics.
B) The change in definition of habitat reads like it was developed by a lobbyist for mining corporations. It inherently ignores what habitat means and does nothing to ensure the protection of wildlife. I implore the government to adopt a broader definition that reflects common-sense and what scientists generally ascribe to the meaning of habitat.
C) While I agree to efforts to remove duplication of processes between provincial and federal requirements, the new Act essentially removes any protection of migratory birds as it is now silent on what should be required to be considered where migratory birds are concerned. I implore the government to reconsider how migratory birds and their habitats (so beyond what the new definition includes) are impacted.