I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my concerns with a number of aspects of the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act.

Species Classification and Listing:

Amending the Act to allow the government to have discretion to remove protected species from the list of species at risk in Ontario is very concerning. What is the point of having a committee of experts review the best available data, and follow internationally recognized criteria only to have their assessments overridden? In the recent 10 year review of the ESA, provisions for the minister to request COSSARO to conduct a reassessment and to delay regulating species under the ESA were incorporated. This blanket permission for the government to add or delete species from the list further erodes the scientific rigour of the species assessment and listing process. At very least, there should be specific wording to indicate under what circumstances the government would be permitted to do so (as we can see from our neighbours to the south, giving politicians sweeping authority without bounds can result in abuses of powers). As written, this stipulation completely undermines the intent of COSSARO and the ESA.

Redefining Protections:

The definitions of habitat for animal species omits specialized environments for feeding. Perhaps more concerning is the very narrow definition of habitat for vascular plant species. Even if the critical root zone around the species is unaffected, plants can be vulnerable to changes in other microhabitat conditions, such as canopy cover. If the forest canopy is removed around shade-dependent American ginseng, for example, it is unlikely to survive, even if the root zone around the plant is undisturbed.

The background information explains that under the proposed new Species Conservation Act, “activities that are harmful to species cannot proceed unless the person carrying out the activity has registered the activity”. By logic, if this is reworded without the conditional negatives, this means that activities that ARE harmful to species CAN proceed as long as the person has registered their activity. A stipulation is included that “persons engaging in those activities must comply with the rules associated with the registration or permit”. Conservation best practices consistently point to the Precautionary Principle as the way to ensure that species at risk are not further imperiled by activities when there is uncertainty. It should be the responsibility of the proponent to demonstrate that the will NOT negatively impact SAR before being given the green light to proceed with their project. If projects are able to begin immediately upon registering, what oversights are there to ensure that proponents are not underestimating the potential risk to listed species? This seems to set the government up for a situation of “begging for forgiveness” (with little evidence available for enforcement) rather than “seeking permission” to do something that will potentially harm species at risk. Could efforts to streamline permitting processes be structured more like a tiered approach, similar to the former Class Environmental Assessment process for Provincial Parks & Conservation Reserves in which routine activities that are pre-screened to have negligible impact are given a green light, but those with potential to impact SAR are slated for more complex review and permitting?

The background documents mention that the registration-first approach is already successfully used for many species and other environmental authorizations. Where? What evidence is there of this approach’s success elsewhere? What evidence can you provide that this approach has ensured that developments did not impact species at risk? What criteria were used to determine "success" (less red-tape for development? Fewer species impacted? Ideally BOTH criteria must be met for this approach to be deemed successful). If projects are permitted to proceed immediately upon registration, how is it possible to monitor success? What opportunity would there be to gather baseline data on the number and condition of species prior to the development in order to claim that they were not adversely affected by the project?

Recovery Plans and Documents:

The avoidance of duplication of efforts where federal plans are prepared for SARA species that occur in Ontario seems reasonable. However, there are cases when species on the Ontario list are not listed at the same threat level or at all under the federal Species At Risk Act. This should be reworded to say that the province will adopt the federal recovery documents when provincially threatened or endangered species are listed as threatened or endangered on the SARA list. When they are not, then there should still be provincial responsibility to develop these plans.

New Species Conservation Program:

Allowing any species classified by COSSARO to be eligible for funding sounds like a reasonable expansion of eligibility criteria for funding, where projects involving data deficient or special concern species could be eligible for funding, instead of just those species that are classified as endangered or threatened. For clarify, I presume that a species classified by COSSARO as Not at Risk, would not be eligible (technically NAR species are COSSARO-classified species, just not ones that the committee classified as At-Risk).

Wind Down of the Species Conservation Action Agency:

I am glad to see that “paying to destroy habitat” will no longer be an option. This reversal of policy would be acceptable in my opinion if habitat loss and harm to SAR was not permitted, period. However, I am concerned that this is a further erosion of the ESA – will the activities involving habitat destruction that previously required some sort of financial contribution to this fund now be permitted to proceed without even a financial mechanism to offset the loss?

How will funding for Species Conservation projects be generated without this fund? Will there be a minimum amount of funding directed to this fund from the overall provincial budget? Will it be adjusted proportionately based on increased amount of development permitted by this new registration process? If these proposed changes to the ESA result in increasingly worsening statuses of listed species will additional funding be directed towards conservation activities?

Updated Compliance and Enforcement:

There are claims that increased enforcement will be a part of the proposed changes. But what evidence would these officers have to enforce the laws and regulations if activities that have potential to kill, harm, capture, or take species at risk can proceed immediately upon registering? What “before” data could be used to prove an infraction of a rule if the work proceeds without a site visit or review by SAR staff prior to development?

The purposes of the current ESA are to identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge; to protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk; and to promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk.

If the new Species Conservation Act additionally adds a purpose to "take into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario", this would insert conflicting purposes into the act. Without identifying one taking priority over another makes the act very hard to interpret and enforce. For example the previous dual mandates of the federal and provincial parks acts led to ambiguity until they were updated to clarify that ecological integrity was to be prioritized over other purposes of the parks. The ESA was intended to protect species at risk. These species are listed because very carefully determined criteria reveal that they are in decline at rates that jeopardize their existence in the province. They need special consideration and solid laws that protect them if there truly is to be any claim that the economic growth in Ontario is "sustainable".