The definition of habitat…

The definition of habitat needs to be widened. The new definition, which limits habitat to a species' dwelling place and its immediate surroundings (or critical root zone for plants), is far too restrictive and will undermine protection efforts. The previous, broader definition included areas used indirectly by a species for its life processes. This previous broader definition needs to be implemented.

The Act needs prioritize a science-based approach and not economic considerations so that protections for species at risk are strengthened.

Environmental safeguards need to be strengthened otherwise it could have devastating impacts on biodiversity.

Species, such as those classified as "special concern" need to be included in the Act. The aquatic and migratory birds already listed as threatened or endangered under federal law should be included in the Act to avoid gaps in provincial protection.

The new legislation violates Indigenous and Treaty rights and undermines the foundational principles of transparency and democratic oversight.

The government needs to prepare and implement recovery strategies or management plans for at-risk species. Without this requirement it's tantamount to admitting a critically ill patient to a hospital but administering no health care.

No Special Economic Zones (SEZs) should ever be designated in any place with species of concern or species at risk. Even a child in elementary school would be able to figure this out

Independent scientists need the have the final say on which species classified as at risk receive legal protection, not elected politicians.

The New Act does not prioritize biodiversity and species at risk as well as species of special concern. This Act needs to include all of the protections in the previous Act.