I am commenting as a…

I am commenting as a concerned citizen. I am an environmental consultant and trained biologist who regularly works with developers to assist them in Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. I am acquainted with the process of how the ESA is administered and also the needs of developers.

I do not support Bill 5, in particular the schedule amending the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the schedule to enact the Species Conservation Act. The Government of Ontario has obligations with Canada under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and these schedules would breach that obligation. These schedules will also do nothing to support economic growth in Ontario.

The Bill 5 proposes to redefine “habitat” under the ESA as only areas immediately adjacent to a dwelling. This proposal does not reflect the biology of most species listed under the ESA, as they require additional areas for feeding, foraging, and surrounding areas (i.e., headwaters) to thrive. In the case of vascular plants, these species also need areas for seedling establishment to thrive. The existing definition of “habitat” in the ESA is deliberately inclusive of these additional areas. The proposed definition would be tantamount to expecting a community to thrive while everyone is locked in their houses.

I do not support repeal of the ESA prohibition on harassment, as it could cause species decline. This prohibition is intended to reduce stress on endangered or threatened species that would cause behaviour change and potentially affect their survival.

Recovery Strategies, Government Response Statements, and Progress reviews are important for Ontario to maintain its obligation support the conservation of biological diversity. I do not support removing this requirement of the government, as it would not provide a more flexible approach and only lead to ill-informed decision making on the part of the proponent. More educational material and standards are needed from Ministry staff (e.g., bat habitat and thresholds), not less.

Schedule 10 of Bill 5, which proposes to enact the Species Conservation Act, would repeal the ESA and remove provincial protections on migratory bird species and fish listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). The proposal describes how SARA duplicates the protections of the ESA; however, this is far from true. SARA only provides full protection on federal lands. On private lands, SARA protection is limited to fish habitat (e.g., watercourses or lakes) and the area surrounding an active bird nest. For fish, surrounding areas (i.e., headwaters) that maintain the watercourse environment are not protected under SARA; therefore, the proposed act would lead to the decline of endangered and threatened aquatic species. For birds, the proposed act is particularly problematic, as they depend on feeding, foraging, and large nesting areas in order to thrive. In practice, the proposed act will facilitate the destruction of habitat of endangered and threatened bird species in the winter, without consequence or replacement of that habitat, ultimately leading to the decline of those species.

Schedule 10 proposes to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to not regulate a species classified by COSSARO as endangered or threatened, thus creating the opportunity for the Government of Ontario to ignore scientific assessments and breach their obligation to conservation of biological diversity.

Although Bill 5 seeks to address problems with the ESA, it misses the mark. The focus on the lack of action by the Species Conservation Action Agency is a problem; however, winding down the agency is extreme and not a solution. The concept of funding off-site compensation is useful in developments that have no suitable area for on-site habitat compensation and should remain implemented. The fact that “habitat” under the ESA is inclusive is also a problem, particularly for non-experts, and this problem can be solved by funding expert staff at the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to develop and maintain publicly-accessible educational material and standards, in addition to Recovery Strategies, in order to support a streamlined approvals process. Without maintenance of such materials and standards, attempts at species conservation cannot be supported by science.

I support the concept of a well-funded Species Conservation Program in order to allow endangered, threatened, or special concern species to recover and thrive. I also support a progressive compliance model.

The schedules to amend the ESA and enact the Species Conservation Act will do nothing to support economic growth in Ontario, as the problems they seek to resolve do not limit development. Limitations such as labour shortages, high materials costs, and other factors are the underlying problems and will not be resolved by this Bill.