Overall, the proposed…

Overall, the proposed changes to the ESA and the new Species Conservation Act highlight a lack of transparency on how these proposed changes were decided upon. It puts species conservation unnecessarily indirect conflict with sustainable development. The proposed changes highlight a diminishing level of accountability for the provincial government to consider sound scientific and evidence-based advice, Indigenous ways of knowing and the colonial impacts of government, and the long-term impacts for the environment and thereby the health and well-being of Ontarians. The proposed changes remove accountability for this government and future governments to protect species at risk and their habitat. There are several proposed changes that contradict any intent to protect and conserve species in a balanced and reasonable manner.

Purpose:
The purpose of the intended changes to the ESA and to the proposed new Species Conservation Act do not align with the intention of the ESA, which is:
1. To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.
2. To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk.
3. To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk
Protecting and conserving nature should take a wholistic and well-rounded approach by considering what species require to carry out their life cycle, their habitat needs, as well as what the needs of the surrounded community are and what the historic and potential future impacts are. People need nature to thrive. A balance and reasonable approach would be inherent collaborative and include considering the colonial impact on these lands and species into future decision making, it would prioritize those who are and have been disadvantage (e.g., Indigenous communities, underserved communities, species at risk), and it would consider the long-term impacts of the decisions made today. A balanced and reasonable approach would focus on making well-informed and evidence-based decision making in an equitable manner. None of the above are reflected in the proposed changes and new Species Conservation Act.

Species Classification and Listing:
As the 2021 Auditor General Report indicated, the Environment Ministry misses achieving its central purpose to protect and recover species at risk and the Ministry is not acting in the best interest of species and their habitat. Proposed changes continue to demonstrate this is the case.

Prior to 2019, COSSARO was formerly made up for members from various sectors including academic experts who were able to directly influence the species listing and delisting process. It is now made up of a large majority of industry members, while other academics and people who worked in conservation were dismissed without being told the reason (Auditory General Report 2021). Indigenous perspectives are also not represented on the committee. Along the 2019 amendments to the ESA, the now bias make-up of the committee, influenced by this government, demonstrates the disregard for a balanced and evidence-based approach towards species assessments, the reduction in accountability for COSSARO to carry out their intended function, and this government’s lack of accountability and that they cannot be trusted.

In addition to weakening the credibility of COSSARO and reducing their role in the species listing and delisting process, no information is provided for how “social and economic” considerations will be incorporated into the proposed changes to the species listing and delisting process. The government is not an expert on species at risk, nor an expert in social and economic factors that impact Ontarians. Will these considerations be done through an independent body making recommendations to the Minister as the intent was with COSSARO? How will transparency and accountability be ensured? How can the public trust this government to do so, considering the demonstrable lack of transparency and accountability in their approach to COSSARO appointments?

Redefiing Protection:
Changing the definition of habitat demonstrates a disregard for science. The biological and scientific definition of habitat is the area that contains the resources a species needs to survive and complete their life cycle. Similar habitat for humans might include a home, grocery store, school, work, recreational areas, nature, etc. to live a fulfilling life, habitat for other species we coexist with is essential in their conservation. Furthermore, permitting “harassing” species encourages a disregard for a species well-being. The rationale for the changes to the definition of habitat and removal of the concept “harass” demonstrate the disregard for scientific knowledge, the disregard for the protection and conservation of species, and clearly indicates the bias for social and economic development over species protections. This is not balanced decision making demonstrating this governments lack of accountability.

Reduced Duplication with Federal Legislation:
There is no indication that any collaboration or coordination took place in the deciding the proposed changes. While duplication may exist between federal and provincial legislation, the proposed changes omit what protections will be lost if ESA authorizations no longer apply to aquatic and migratory birds. Was there any consultation with the federal government to understand where the duplication is, and where it’s not? And whether it served any purposes? The lack of transparency in these proposed changes contributes to a growing distrust for this government ability to serve in the best interest of Ontarians.

Recovery Plans and Documents:
There are several concerns with the proposed changes regarding recovery planning products.
1) Similar to the aforementioned section, was there any consultation or collaboration with the federal government to streamline any duplication in recovery planning documents? Ontarians should be able to expect that provincial and federal government to work together and complement regulatory processes and implementation. There are distinct differences between the two types of planning documents. Removing the requirement for provincial recovery documents without consultation with the federal jurisdiction would demonstrate an unwillingness to work with the federal counterpart in the best interest of Ontario.

2) The ESA was once considered a strong legislation when enacted in 1971 and has been weakened over the last few decades, particularly in the last 6-7 years. Stating that rules set out in the current ESA are “too rigid” is not a strong rationale to further weaken protections for species at risk. Legislation is a tool to hold governments accountable to act in the best interest of the public they serve. There are 264 listed species at risk in Ontario. The reality is there are more. The 2021 Auditory general reports highlight that there have been few improvements to species recovery, as well as decreases in investment in related programs. This government calling the rules of the ESA too rigid tells Ontarians that they are not willing or able to hold themselves accountable to current legislative standard and serve in the best interest of Ontarians.

3) There is no information provided on what “conservation guidance” means, what it will be based on or how it will differ from existing recover planning products. Was there an analysis done to suggest that creating a process of “conservation guidance” would be more effective for species protection and better use of public funds over investing in existing processes?

4) Removing the requirement for provincial recovery documents not only eliminates scientific advice that the public can use to direct recovery goals and actions, but it also blatantly eliminates scientific advice to the government and the explicit commitment form the provincial government to protect and conserve species at risk and their habitat. Once again, this proposed change diminishes the transparency and accountability of this government and future governments to the people they are supposed to serve.

New Species Conservation Program
Where does $20 million per year come from? How will funding be prioritize among voluntary activities if there are no provincial recovery products to provide direction or help guide this process? Was there an analysis of whether reinvesting this money into SARSP was more constructive that investing in an entirely new program? The lack of information provided raises serious cause for concern that the lack of direction and uninformed decision making will increases the likelihood of poor outcomes and inappropriate use of funds. Ontarians deserve to have programs that protect species and they deserve to know and see that there are checks and balances for the government to invest in a way that ensures their success. The proposed changes with little information demonstrates the lack of transparency and accountability.

Wind Down the Species Conservation Action Agency:
Where will the existing funds that were dedicated to supporting protection and recovery of species go to? The provincial government has spent the last 4 years investing in the SCAA only to now wind it down. This exemplifies the inefficient use of public funds by haphazardly investing in a program, decreasing investment into existing species at risk programs, and then proposing to start brand new one. Where are the checks and balances to determine the needs of supporting species protection and recovery in a government program? Or an evaluation of what works in existing programs? How are Ontarians supposed to trust this government’s public spending and expect there to be any positive outcomes for species at risk?

Advisory Committees:
There is little information provided as to why the new legislative framework removes the express ability to establish an advisory committee and why the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee will wind down. This demonstrates an unwillingness for the government to receive and consider advice from an independent body to make informed decisions. The change in the makeup of the committee in recent years to be more biased towards industry (2021 auditor general report) also demonstrates a reduction in transparency and accountability.

Indigenous Engagement
The proposed changes will have drastic impacts on species and lands in Ontario and are in direct conflict Truth and Reconciliation’s call to actions. Was there meaningful consultation in the decision making of the proposed changes? The lack of respect for species and lands, as well as the lack of meaningful Indigenous engagement in the proposed changes demonstrate a continuation of harmful colonial practices by government and disingenuous intent.

The proposed changes to the ESA and the proposed SCA, as well as other proposed legislative changes under Bill 5 harm Ontario’s ecosystems that all Ontarians need and benefit from. Protecting nature, recovering species at risk and their habitat does not have to be at odds with sustainable development. This provincial government has time and time again pitted economic development against nature conservation rather than taking a collaborative approach to make informed decisions that truly benefit all species including humans and that will benefit future generations. Overwhelming scientific evidence and Indigenous ways of knowing tell us that protecting nature is critical to humans. We are well aware of what the severity of impacts are when we do not steward and care for nature. We are currently experiencing many of them. It is irresponsible of this government to knowingly continue perpetuating this harm and worsen this harm. I urge this government to repeal these proposed changes and to use well informed evidence-based information and meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities to make decisions that benefit all Ontarians for the long-term in an equitable manner.