Bill 5’s Schedules 2 and 10…

Bill 5’s Schedules 2 and 10 making interim changes to and replace the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are totally unacceptable. They undermine the critical conservation of species at risk of extinction and their habitat for their life cycle. The very proposal of interim changes to the ESA and later replacement with the Species Conservation Act demonstrates that this Bill was hastily conceived, poorly planned, and needs more consultation. For multiple reasons, this Schedule and Bill needs to be withdrawn and abandoned.

The Minister’s Task Force on the Endangered Species Act in 2006 reviewed other jurisdictions’ legislation and developed a strong, effective package of recommendations that made Ontario a notable example in this field. That ESA has already been weakened significantly by the Ford government through previous changes to the Act and regulations. It is not the legislation that is the problem, but it is the administration of it that has not been up to par. Certainly, the extirpation of species from Ontario is a more significant event than any human project that, if need be, can wait a little to ensure conservation measures at a critical stage can be taken.

Among others, this Bill and Schedules fail to deliver conservation on multiple fronts:
• The purpose is supposedly “balance” between conservation and the economy, even in the face of the growing imbalance in emphasis on and impacts of economic growth at the expense of extensive loss of biodiversity in our province. This is not an either/or decision – economic prosperity is based on a healthy environment, including species and habitats, and both can flourish together if thoughtful measures are taken. As one person has been quoted, “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.”
• It does not provide automatic protections for species at risk, allowing species to be removed from the listing and associated protections.
• It permits harassment of species at risk that can harm their breeding and vitality success, which is currently prohibited in the ESA.
• It focuses on a species’ dwelling and immediate area, repeating this significant fault in the federal legislation, rather than the full life cycle habitat needs of the species as found in the current ESA.
• It eliminates requirements for recovery strategies and management plans to address threats and recover species.
• It repeals provisions that support voluntary measures and agreements for stewardship of habitat and thus species recovery. This is an easy and inexpensive way to engage land holders to support protection and recovery of species at risk. With immediate repeal of ESA provisions, and transition to the Species Conservation Act and the Species Conservation Program expected early next year, likely after the Ontario Budget is approved, there may be at least two years’ gap in funding and program delivery for stewardship and recovery of species at risk. Such a gap will disrupt the staffing, funding and continuity of existing MECP and on-the-ground programs, creating inefficiencies and additional expenses for restarting such efforts.

These amendments may also have other unintended and significant consequences. It would not meet the requirements of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, may risk invocation of federal restrictions under the Species at Risk Act, and may disenfranchise hundreds of rural Ontario landowners from property tax incentives for species at risk habitat provided under the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. While the better enforcement powers are welcome, they will only be temporary while the ESA remains in effect.

This package of changes are unconscionable and in no way achieves “balance” but rather skews the legislation away from conservation results. Ontario and Ontarians have responsibilities to protect these most vulnerable and impacted species – this is a moral and ethical duty. This Bill and Schedule undermines our values and responsibilities and does a discredit to the government that is representing our citizens.

Ontarians also have responsibilities under our constitution, international law, and treaties to consult with Indigenous peoples and accommodate their rights. The legislation must retain the steps and triggers for such consultations and consent. The removal of protections for species at risk and their needed habitats, including some which are culturally significant to Indigenous peoples, is a violation of their rights to be in relation with, possibly harvest, and understand these species.

Accordingly, these Schedules 2 and 10 must be withdrawn, consultations on species at risk conservation must be undertaken with Indigenous peoples, and conservation measures added to strengthen the current Endangered Species Act to achieve true balance with the economy.