I do not agree to the…

I do not agree to the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007. We should not be included government discretion on classifying species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened. They are designated these categories for a reason, we cannot be changing them in order to "build houses faster". This is not going to help our society, taking away habitat protection and reclassifying species to a less strict designation will only hurt southern Ontario. We have already removed over 70 percent of our wetlands in southern Ontario, we do not need to match that with species at risk.

As for changing the definition of habitat for species at risk, it is not sufficient for vascular plants. Critical root zone is more appropriate for trees not other vascular plants (i.e. ginseng). Ginseng thrives in upland deciduous forests. A small ginseng needs more than just it's critical root zone, it needs the overall natural community it is found in. Many vascular plants need each other to thrive or have symbiotic relationships. By refining the habitat definition we could be taking away entire species if this becomes a common practice.

We do need to expedite the permitting process, but it should not be at the expense of species at risk. Maybe we can:
- Put a time frame on agencies as to when they need to have a turn around on reviews, give them a
strict time frame (i.e. two months to review and respond to an application). Put a time clock of some
kind.
- Make a manual clients can follow that agencies agree with when it comes to compensation of
species at risk. Having a guide to follow that is approved by the agencies I think would really speed
things up. It wouldn't be a guessing game if they would approve it or not.
- Have MECP confirm a stance on dealing with species at risk. It is all to subjective.
- Have incentives for clients when they do follow the process and are not impacting species at risk.
-Could have a check box tree diagram, where if it leads to no impact. Then there should be a shorter
timeframe for approvals. Could have timeframe ranges set out depending on the level of development
and impact to species at risk present onsite.