You are talking about…

You are talking about overhauling the last line of defense for the most vulnerable species. These are species that we have already failed by decimating their numbers to a point that they cannot be sustained without outside protections. If anything the existing protections do not go far enough. Fines should be higher, buffers should be larger, restricted access periods should be longer, and conservation and enforcement efforts should be greater. These regulations are already so riddled with loop holes that they barely protect the species in question.

I have worked in the oil and gas industry for several years as a wildlife biologist, and I can say definitively that when lobbyists petition to relax protections for sensitive species, or governments feel that they are spurring economic growth by reducing regulations they are not actually saving any money. More often than not construction activities can be adjusted so that they do not result in disturbance to sensitive species during the times of the year that they are most vulnerable, and then restarted once the species has vacated the area.

If you want evidence of this-- just look at Alberta, their regulations and enforcement put Ontario's to shame, and yet they're somehow able to carry on with development and have companies remain profitable. If you're looking to save money or spur economic growth this is not the place to do it.