I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the…

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and the proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025 for NUMEROUS reasons.

Generally speaking, it is HIGHLY apparent that the purpose of these proposals is to severely diminish protection for endangered species for the sake of speeding up development. This is extremely shortsighted, and is only adding to the burden future generations will bear for the decisions of politicians today.

Specifically, what is the point of having a committee of experts to assess and classify species at risk if the government has the power to add or remove species from the list at will? This is a blatant conflict of interest! The power of this committee is critical to maintain integrity of our environment and to ensure that a proper process is followed for any development.

The vague language in identifying "the area immediately surrounding a dwelling place" allows for development to encroach on a species habitat and completely ignores the necessary surrounding habitat needed for survival. Cutting off corridors, shrinking habitat, and isolating species risks rapid decline of populations.

Your claim that the current definition creates confusion ignores the reality that habitats and ecosystems are complex environments whose management shouldn't be reduced to black-and-white language that fails to include the nuanced interactions necessary for species survival.

The sentence "activities that are harmful to species cannot proceed unless the person carrying out the activity has registered the activity, or in limited situations, obtained a permit" is absolutely ludicrous. So all that a person or organization has to do is register and they now have permission to harm species, including threatened or endangered ones, as long as they follow the rules of how to do so? This makes no sense whatsoever!

The removal of the requirement for recovery strategies and management plans is essentially removing the requirement for any accountability for actions taken and the potential for action to be taken where recovery isn't possible.

While additional funding for a new species conservation program sounds excellent, the line indicating these activities are only voluntary and not required is alarming. Who will take on this "voluntary" work? What happens when nobody does?

While I support strengthened enforcement, this does nothing to protect and conserve species at risk given this will be happening after-the-fact. Once a species or its habitat has been destroyed, no amount of money or penalty is going to change that.

Given the historical lack of government ability to hold violators of environmental protection laws to account, why create a structure that practically encourages a "beg forgiveness" or "see if we can get away with it" approach vs. applying a rigorous vetting process?

In summary, these proposed changes are alarming and don't even make a pretense of showing any concern for the survival of endangered or at-risk species, the protection of critical habitat, or the ecological integrity of our province. Shame on you.