Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

170648

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170649

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170650

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170651

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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 I oppose these changes and demand Bill 5 be repealed, including restoring protections for our environment and the at-risk and endangered species here in Ontario.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.

Comment ID

170652

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170653

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170655

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170656

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170657

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170658

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170660

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170661

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170662

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170663

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170664

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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

Comment ID

170665

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170667

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170668

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.

Comment ID

170669

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved 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.