If the ESA is going to be…

If the ESA is going to be changed by your Conservative government, it needs to be strengthened not loosened. It is not the case that we have a strong law now which is onerous to business. The current law which the Liberals changed in 2013 is a joke. It provides virtually no protection to species at risk as the government has never failed to give an exemption ("permit") to businesses who harm species at risk. Businesses that damage species at risk in one area should have to have an "overall benefit" to the species, by providing enhancements in another area. Permits should also be individually considered and the public should be able to have input. If the permit is given it should have to be posted on a public website with reasons why it was allowed and what they are doing to enhance habitat and conditions for the species. Permits should not be a rubber stamp like they are now. Currently, there is no enforcement of the weak ESA. Any changes by your government will have to include staff in the field enforcing the ESA.

It is also important that the endangered species list be based on science and not politics. We can't choose not to protect a species because it might be expensive or inconvenient. Each species has a right to exist. All species on the list need to have a recovery plan which is developed in a timely manner and needs to be actually implemented.

Environmental regulations like the ESA are not red tape. They protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the species we rely on for ecosystem services.

By not strengthening the ESA, and potentially weakening it, you are not doing what is good for business, you are just picking winners and losers. For example, if a quarry or forestry operation damages wildlife, they hurt the fishing industry and the tourism industry, but don't pay the cost for this damage. You are benefiting some businesses while hurting others, this doesn't make sense!