This is the kind of incredibly unfair question that really vexes scientists, because we always want to know what it is that you really care about. If you care about one thing or the other, then we can much more easily recommend a particular course of action.
There are two main things that I would strongly suggest. The first is that we need to dedicate a great deal of our resources to improving connectivity at semi or continental extents to enable species to respond to changing environments so that they will always be able to move to a new place and find habitat ready and waiting for them. This is one part of the strategy.
Another part is not just to focus on protecting areas that continue to be important for biodiversity because they have not yet been destroyed, but to think about the other side of the coin: restoration in areas where we have disproportionate gains just waiting to be made. We can do an awful lot of good in places like southern Canada where we have seen—degradation is maybe not the word I would choose—land use changes that have altered nature in ways to make nature essentially inhospitable to species that traditionally lived there. Restoration work in these places offers enormous potential to pull back many of Canada's species at risk from the brink.