Similarly to Bill 5 changes,…

Similarly to Bill 5 changes, this amended Act and proposed changes will concentrate the power with the Minister, an elected person and not an expert. It shifts decision-making authority from expert individuals and bodies to elected officials. It has been documented that inserting political interests into the conservation decision-making processes reduces the effectiveness of those same conservation efforts. Furthermore, the Auditor General's 2021 report on ESA states that the past changes have resulted in tremendous increase in the number of approved activities causing harm to species at risk. It would seem inappropriate to additionally change this act to explicitly consider only the economic considerations, where, clearly, we should do the opposite.

The best data and relevant information is important when making decision on any issue, so it is important to retain involvement of expert individuals and environmental organizations, and not to shut them out of this process. ERO postings are not enough.

Specifically, I am concerned that the addition of “…or to provide for alternative habitat” to potential non-compliance orders will effectively encourage non-compliance. As a person involved in forest management in NWO, I would like to see more compliance, not less. The creation of new habitat is lot less effective than the restoration the impacted area.