AREA OF FOCUS 1: I am for…

AREA OF FOCUS 1: I am for improving outcomes for species at risk. However, a landscape approach can easily be over generalized, and there is a lesser opportunity for a species to be treated with more care, especially if it is highly vulnerable. A landscape approach sounds like it may be effective at preventing extinctions, but not so effecting at promoting species recoveries as each species will not have a specific recovery strategy that is tailored to its needs.

AREA OF FOCUS 2: If there is not enough notice, a better communication platform for the automatic listing is needed so that businesses are informed as soon as species are listed. I strongly disagree with ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat. That is giving too much power to people, and ignoring scientific facts. If a species is found to be endangered and there are laws in place to protect it, nobody should be allowed to remove its protection for economic reasons. In the case that COSSARO is not transparent enough or there is conflicting information, additional reviews and assessments should be able to be requested.

AREA OF FOCUS 3: Nine months can be a long time for an endangered species, so I disagree with extending this time limit. I don't believe that species will benefit from additional time. Perhaps an expansion of the review team for recovery approaches would be best. A longer timeline for review of recovery progress makes sense, and the timeline could vary due to how fast a species reproduces and how long its life span is. K-selected species could have a bit of a longer timeline for review and R-selected species can maintain the 5 year review. However, even with these laws in place, some SAR still don't receive a 9 month response statement or a 5 year review. If the timeline is extended, how can we ensure that ALL species at risk receive both of these on time?

AREA OF FOCUS 4: This area of focus seems the most like it prioritizes economic development over any form of environmental protection, and completely disregards the value of ecosystem services and the economic benefits of protecting species and the environment. An extensive requirement to obtain authorization is for the purpose of making it more difficult to be an exception to the rule, and making it so that economic developments are thoughtful and as environmentally conscious as they can be. Making the requirements less extensive shows the governments priorities. I completely understand the need for economic and urban development and the compromise between protecting and developing. However, an extensive requirement allows for checks and balances, and ensures that economic development take the best possible measures to be aware of environmental impacts. Upon read this, it is obvious that simplifying the requirements is completely and solely for the purpose of enabling economic development, and adding the phrase 'while providing positive outcomes and protections for species at risk' is ironic, unnecessary, and meaningless.

Looking at world news right now, I am honestly terrified and worried for the earth. I have always thought that Canada was a frontrunner in environmental protection, as there is so much nature and essential forests to protect here. I understand politics is a world of power struggles and chaos and sometimes even the MOECP does not have much say. But please find a better balance between the two, you hold so many peoples future in your hands.