Generally, the basic intent…

Generally, the basic intent of many (not all but many) of the proposals in the discussion paper is clearly, or can reasonably be seen to be, aimed at making it easier for the ministry, businesses such as logging and mining, and and other property owners such as resort developers, to advance their economic interests (read "develop") at the expense of certain habitats and, as a consequence, endangered species. More transparency and more notice before automatic listing of additional species is a worthwhile goal but not it "transparency" ends up preventing decision for several years that should be taken soon because they reflect a solid evidentiary basis and a consensus or at least a strong majority of the qualified scientific community. "[S]ignificant social or economic benefit to Ontario" is no justification for the extinction of a habitat or its dependent species, not least because future medical research may well discover that significant benefits for humans can be derived from such habitants or species.

I'm a resident of Hamilton, Ontario. My PhD is in Ontario history, not habitat preservation, and I'm not a member of any conservation group. I am, however, someone who is highly suspicious of what the Provincial Goverment's goals my be in proposing more "efficiency" and "less bureaucracy" and more "ministerial discretion".