I think the most important…

I think the most important thing to remember as you rip apart the endangered species act is the precautionary principle, per the protection and recovery of species legislation.

(3) In preparing a strategy under subsection (1), the persons who are preparing the strategy shall consider the principle that, where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. 2007, c. 6, s. 11 (3).

Also important is the *purpose* of the act:

1. The purposes of this Act are:

1. To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.

2. To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk.

3. To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk. 2007, c. 6, s. 1.

A few other motherhood observations:

Extinct is forever

Businesses don't go extinct. Wildlife does and is.

We no longer have a science advisor or (soon) and environmental commissioner to advise and oversee your legislation and its effects.

Now to your discussion paper...

I'm not 100% sure what a 'landscape approach' is, but if it means truly protected areas, then I would suggest that
a) we need large amounts and they should be connected
b) with climate change, we can't be sure that areas protected today will be suitable in the future
c) protected areas need buffers

Overall, your discussion paper reeks of putting development ahead of the environment. Just as you tried to do with Bill 66. The legislation was already weakened under the previous government to enable development.

One of your discussion questions is
•In what circumstances would a more strategic approach support a proposed activity while also ensuring or improving outcomes for species at risk?

Note that your main goal is to support [development] activity. The legislation is supposed to be about protecting species.

Your discussion paper lists the following as a 'challenge'
•There is not enough public notice before a new species is automatically listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List.
•In some cases, automatic species and habitat protections can contribute to high uncertainty and costly impacts to businesses and the public.

And one of the associated questions is
•What changes would improve the notification process of a new species being listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List? (e.g.,longer timelines before a species is listed.)

Please explain, transparently, how on earth longer timelines would help species at risk. I think a longer timeline is counter productive. Remember the precautionary principle.

Other related discussion questions:

•Should there be a different approach or alternative to automatic species and habitat protections? (e.g., longer transition periods or ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat.)

Longer transition periods don't appear to help endangered species, nor does removing or delaying protections. Remember what the original purposes of the act are.

•In what circumstances would a different approach to automatic species and habitat protections be appropriate? (e.g., there is significant intersection between a species or its habitat and human activities, complexity in addressing species threats, or where a species’ habitat is not limiting.)

The idea is to protect species and their habitat from being destroyed by human activity. Significant interaction implies it is even more important to implement automatic species and habitat protection.

Your next set of 'challenges' includes
•In some cases, the time limit of nine months to develop the Government Response Statement for an endangered or threatened species is too short, and there is no option under the Act to extend this timeline when needed.

The associated question was
•In what circumstances would a species and/or Ontarians benefit from additional time for the development of the Government Response Statement? (e.g., enable extending the timeline for the Government Response Statement when needed, such as when recovery approaches for a species are complex or when additional engagement is required with businesses, Indigenous peoples, landowners and conservation groups.)

I don't see any such circumstances. What causes the time to be too short? If you need more resources, then employ them. And as always, apply the precautionary principle.

Your discussion paper also cites this challenge:
•In many cases, conducting a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of a species within five years of the Government Response Statement is too soon.

Then provide independent expert analysis of why it is too soon.

In the context of authourizations, your discussion paper asks
•What changes to authorization requirements would better enable economic development while providing positive outcomes and protections for species at risk? (e.g., simplify the requirements for a permit under s. 17(2)d, and exemptions set out by regulation.)

I looked up s.17(2)d and found:
•Significant social or economic benefit permit, s. 17(2)(d): A significant social or economic benefit permit may be issued for an activity that will result in a significant social or economic benefit to Ontario, but the activity would have impacts that are otherwise prohibited under the Act.

Again, use the precautionary principle. The NEB recently used similar twisted reasoning to greenlight the TransMountain extension *despite finding it would have significant negative impacts on at least one endangered species*.

That is unjustifiable and flies in the face of the purpose of endangered species protection legislation.

In closing, I would ask that you *improve* endangered species protection as opposed to opening their habitat up for business.