Hello, I do not agree with…

Hello,

I do not agree with the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. I have many thoughts and I will list my top concerns for you.

The minister should have limited to zero discretion when making decisions regarding species-at-risk. If the minister is capable of overriding the input given by independent, third party scientists...then what is the point of consulting them? I would think, especially in this case (where the minister has no academic background in Biology or Ecology), he would appreciate advice given by qualified professionals in relevant fields of biology, ecology, and conservation.

"The proposed changes would also authorize the creation of a new board-governed provincial agency. The agency would receive the funds and ensure informed, unbiased and expert decisions are made to disburse the funds to third parties that will undertake the activities in accordance with the purposes proposed to be set out in the statute. The proposed amendment would restrict the funds to fund only those activities that are reasonably likely to support the protection and recovery of prescribed species. The Minister would have the ability to establish guidelines (e.g. objectives and priorities) for funding and set standards for activities that receive funding."

If the minister has the ability to establish guidelines, then how are we to guarantee that he chooses guidelines that encourage the perpetuation of endangered species?

Further, the Minister should have zero input into classifying species. He should also not be able to suspend the classification of species under any circumstances. (Perhaps, if I was not so certain that the minister was so biased towards industrial and commercial industries, I could understand giving the minister more discretion, but given the actions of the Conservation government, I am inclined to believe this discretion is only suggested so that the minister may do as he wants and destroy any potential for our children to experience and know Canada's native biodiversity).

Under no circumstances should any business or company be able to buy their way into destroying habitat for species-at-risk. The minister and the premier should be ashamed of themselves to even consider it.

Extending the review period from 3 months to 12 months may mean the difference between perpetuation and extirpation/extinction of a species.

"E. Require COSSARO to consider a species’ condition around its broader biologically relevant geographic area, inside and outside Ontario, before classifying a species as endangered or threatened. If the overall condition of risk to the species in the broader biologically relevant geographic area is lower, COSSARO would be required to adjust the species’ classification to reflect its overall condition."

As a biologist in southern Ontario, it is apparent to me that this suggested change specifically targets species in southern Canada that exist in the northernmost part of their range, like five-lined skinks and blue racers. If the minister and the premier had done their research (see why I do not trust the minister's discretion?), they would know that the Canadian populations of these species represent the most hardy of their species, as they are able to tolerate Canada's tougher climate. Ensuring the survival of the Canadian populations of these species strengthens the entire geographic population, especially as we enter an era of changing climate and weather patterns.

Etc, etc, etc.

My preference would be to see the ESA remain as it has since its inception.

Thank you for your time and attention. I sincerely hope the minister and premier reconsider their proposed changes. Their recommendations reflect the "here and now", and the ESA should consider not only the species of today, but the species of tomorrow. The actions of humans caused the decline of all Ontario's endangered species, and it is our duty and responsibility to ensure we do everything we can to improve their odds of survival.