Fundamentally, this act is…

Fundamentally, this act is flawed from the outset, with the definition of habitat being so narrow and unrealistic due to changes made with Bill 5. Habitat is not a single den or tree where a species sleeps.

In the repeated dilution of environmental policy, we are only harming our own population. Endangered species are not in a vacuum; they illuminate how human-caused disturbance is damaging the ecosystems on which we rely to meet our own needs.

This act is not based on science at all. Why have COSSARO at all if the involved ministries can pick and choose, with no schedule for review, which species are granted marginal protections? The COSSARO's report must have the power to make real policy decisions.

With the natural world so stressed by climate change, removing the species of special concern is incredibly short-sighted. With no schedule to add species to the protected list and COSSARO having little power, even if these species of concern have declined, I am very skeptical that it would be addressed.

The goal of reducing needless red tape is positive in the case of the dozens of species being removed due to overlap with federal policy. Why is the option not available to align the Ontario regulations with the federal ones, so there is not a duplicate of mandates for the same species? All current species should remain on the list, as it would allow funding to continue supporting these vulnerable species.