This proposal would reduce…

This proposal would reduce the power of the endangered species act as a whole because of the proposed looser guidelines that would allow this strict and serious scientifically backed process to become changeable at the will of the government in order to allow for the rapid development of Ontario's economy to take place. We should not be looking at the habitats that hole at risk species as spaces for new development and instead should be improving the infrastructure we already have and re purposing existing vacant buildings and abandoned plots for new opportunities that would boost our economy. The government should be looking to changing abandoned houses, buildings or parking lots into affordable housing or new amenities that would support Canadians in their local environments instead of looking towards the greenbelt and protected habitats to build housing that is far from city centres. This would not only be more sustainable by using existing city spaces but it would improve local communities aesthetics and promote more engagement communities by keeping people within walking distance of amenities and neighbours.

The change regarding the redefining of what a habitat is poses lots of trouble as the definitions may be specific but they are too narrow. These definitions only encompass one aspect of a true habitat, the immediate area of an animal or plant, but this definition cannot happen if there is no rest of the habitat. For example with the new definition of an animal habitat is not encompassing the whole scope of what that animals needs to survive. The upstream rivers that flow into the lake that animal drinks from, or how an animal may need the neighbouring habitat to get it's required nutrients from specific plants that grow there are not included in this definition yet they are vital parts of an animals habitat. Plants are affected by the ground water and water runoff, if something is built upstream or even just up hill of sensitive plants the runoff from the construction and erection of that project will affect those plants by washing the chemicals and sediments from the construction down to where these plants are. This is why the immediate area should not be the only area considered to be a "habitat" as the whole ecosystem is needed to support the immediate area the organism occupies. These definitions are not wide enough to encompass how the environment works together to create one large habitat that needs to be protected as one whole for the individual parts inside it to stay alive and well.

The change allowing the government to add and take off species from the list of protected species is a change that allows the list to rapidly change in accordance to what is needed to meet proposed government goals, and this is not the mindset we should have towards a list of sensitive species. are there limitations to when an animal can be taken off the list or can it be done whenever? If there are no limitations are these species really protected in the first place? What if a species population numbers are not going up and they are still removed from the list? How are they now considered to be a non threatened species if their numbers had not improved? The government has interest in building more housing, what protections will there be to stop the removal of a species from this list if they are in the way of ideal housing land?

Please consider making regulations regarding threatened species more strict for the sake of a declining biodiversity in Ontario that will be hard to replace without significant effort from restoration and conservation initiatives. In the midst of a climate crisis Ontario's species are already under strain dealing with new severe weather events if we continue to push into protected lands by redefining what a protected land is we will end up rapidly decreasing the diversity of Ontario's species and the vitality of what little is left of Ontario's natural ecosystems.