Commentaires

Consulter les commentaires qu'a reçus cet avis par l'entremise du registre. Vous pouvez soit tous les télécharger, soit utiliser la fonction de recherche et de tri ci-dessous.

Certains commentaires ne seront pas affichés en ligne. Apprenez-en davantage sur l'état du commentaire et sur nos politiques relatives aux commentaires et à la protection de la vie privée.

Télécharger les commentaires

Recherche de commentaires

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170648

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Many of the aquatic species being removed from the list are already facing severe habitat fragmentation. Provincial protection offered an additional barrier against development. Without it, industries now face one less challenge to exploiting these waterways.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170649

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
This is not a case of redundant protection. It is strategic removal. Species most threatened by industrial development are being quietly erased from provincial oversight, leaving only federal systems already overwhelmed and under-enforced.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170650

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
There is no such thing as too much protection for species at risk—especially aquatic species that are sensitive to chemical contamination, noise disruption, and water level changes. Their removal is about deregulation, not conservation.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170651

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Hello, my name is Desiree and I'm a citizen here in Ontario. I oppose these changes and demand Bill 5 be repealed, including restoring protections for our environment and the at-risk and endangered species here in Ontario. Thank you.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170652

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Aquatic ecosystems require precise, overlapping, and multi-jurisdictional protections. By retreating from responsibility, Ontario is helping ensure that harm will fall through the cracks. And when it does, it will be irreversible.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170653

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
The removal of aquatic species is framed as “avoiding duplication.” In truth, it’s a cost-saving maneuver that benefits developers. Species don’t survive on paperwork—they survive on actual, enforceable barriers to harm. This amendment guts those barriers.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170655

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
A species is not endangered in isolation. It is endangered because its home is under attack. By weakening habitat protections through registration and exception clauses, the SCA allows development to chip away at the very ground species depend on.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170656

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
You cannot protect species without protecting habitat. The SCA allows harmful activities to proceed with permits, or worse, without any permit at all. This is how you legalize extinction—not by direct violence, but by removing shelter.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170657

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Habitat fragmentation leads to reproductive collapse, loss of migration routes, increased predation, and starvation. The more these laws weaken core habitat protections, the more they guarantee the long-term loss of entire ecosystems.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170658

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Species are woven into systems. Remove their habitat, and you unravel everything connected to them—pollinators, seed dispersers, predators, prey. The SCA treats each species as a separate checkbox, ignoring the deep interdependence that defines life.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170659

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
I oppose the changes to remove 106 endangered species. Repeal bill 5 and protect our natural habitats. Lire davantage

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170660

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Development approvals under the SCA are structured to proceed quickly, with mitigation only required “where possible.” This leaves species in the position of adapting to destruction, rather than being protected from it. That is policy cruelty disguised as compromise.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170661

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Every species removed from protection represents an area of land or water that becomes open for exploitation. The real targets of this amendment are not just plants and animals—they’re forests, wetlands, breeding grounds, and migration corridors.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170662

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Ecological collapse doesn’t happen all at once—it happens in increments: a permit here, an exception there, a habitat sliced into parts. This amendment accelerates those cuts while pretending the system can hold. It won’t.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170663

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
The registration model lets developers write their own conservation plans, often with minimal oversight. That is not stewardship—it’s privatized environmental assessment with built-in incentives to minimize or obscure damage.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170664

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
The idea that habitat damage can be “mitigated” after the fact ignores how many ecosystems are non-recoverable once disturbed. You cannot reassemble a forest, a wetland, or a shoreline once it has been cleared, paved, or drained

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170665

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Ontario’s ecosystems are already strained by climate pressure, invasive species, and pollution. Removing legal protections for habitat doesn’t just harm species—it makes entire ecosystems brittle. And when they collapse, recovery is measured in centuries—if it comes at all.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170667

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Bill 5 and the SCA ignore Indigenous law, which recognizes species and land as kin, not commodities. Transferring species protection to government permitting frameworks violates both relational ethics and established Indigenous conservation protocols.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170668

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Many of the species being removed or deprioritized are of cultural, spiritual, and ecological importance to Indigenous communities. The government's failure to consult Indigenous nations during this overhaul is a breach of both duty and treaty responsibility.

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

170669

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses
Traditional Ecological Knowledge has kept species alive for millennia. This legislation silences those teachings and replaces them with registration forms. That is colonialism in environmental clothing.