I am opposed to Bill 5 and…

I am opposed to Bill 5 and the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act and the development of the Species Conservation Act.

The current Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) has been considered the gold standard for species at risk protection and recovery, although it has been weakened over the years (including by this government). This proposal is multiple steps backwards and is in no way science based.

The issues with the ESA are in its administration, and not the act itself. The primary reason the process is slow is because of this government’s decision in 2019 to move the ESA program to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which subsequently reduced the number of program staff to likely less than 25%. The program has not been staffed appropriately in the last six years.

I would also urge the government to do a fulsome review into the delays to determine what is causing the process to be slow. How often is it the developer or their consultant causing the delay? There should also be a fulsome review into how many project actually end up with permits, agreements and registrations since the ESA uses an avoidance-first approach.

The process is complicated because of nature of what is trying to be regulated – species biology/ecology. It does not help that the government has failed to produce meaningful policy to support the program. That is where the resources should go – policy/regulation development to support the current ESA and not dismantling the current act and then creating a sham for new legislation. This “new” approach will not protect species at risk. Instead, there will be mass extirpation/extinction.

I do not support the registration first approach. I would urge the government to complete a fulsome review of registration-first approaches for other environmental legislation to determine if it is working, certainly before proposing this approach for extremely sensitive species at risk. Has the government completed a review of the current conditional exemptions under the ESA? How is compliance with existing exemptions, permits and agreements? There is significant risk in going with a registration first approach – this legislation deals with species at risk – we cannot undo the damage and get species back. The ERO posting states that the registration approach is already in place for 95% of projects subject to ESA – then why is a change proposed? It seems like the projects that require permits/agreements now are too high-risk and should stay in the current permit process.

This proposal says there will be strengthened compliance – is there staffing to support additional compliance and if not, will this government increase staffing resources so compliance is actually possible? How is ESA compliance working now? Increasing compliance without staffing support is not going to matter. Increasing compliance without knowing compliance rates and whether the process is working now is pointless.

I do not support the species protection legislation purpose - “drive species protection and conservation while taking into account social and economic considerations and need for sustainable economic growth.” This is an inappropriate purpose – the purposes of current ESA (protect, recover, stewardship) should remain as is. There is already socioeconomic considerations built into the current ESA – D permits and the Minister’s ability to delay protection (e.g., Black Ash). We can have a strong economy, economic growth WHILE protecting and recovering species at risk under the current ESA.

I do not support change to listing process giving government discretion to add and remove species from list. The process should remain science based and there should be no minister involvement. The Protected Species List will also not include special concern species. There will be significant implications with not acknowledging these species on a list – e.g., Planning Act – Significant Wildlife Habitat, limiting knowledge/research on the species (e.g., threats, monitoring etc.).

I do not support the changes to protections. The “core protection essential to conservation of species” must include all habitat the species depends on to carry out life processes and should not be limited to solely overwintering and reproduction or the critical root zone. This is not science based and will result in significant loss of species at risk in Ontario. The Ontario government should expect a high chance of federal government involvement because this will not align with critical habitat.

The posting claims that the current definition of habitat creates uncertainty and confusion. Instead of the changes proposed, this government should direct resources to the development of science-based habitat regulations and General Habitat Descriptions to create certainty and reduce confusion. The resources that will be spent writing potential Species Conservation Act can be focused on habitat guidance under current ESA.

I do not support changes to recovery planning – the development of these documents critical to species recovery and supports government transparency. Most of the time, Ontario adopts the federal recovery strategies, so this reduces use of provincial resources.

I do not support the voluntary actions mentioned regarding the Species Conservation Program if this is intended to replace overall benefit/compensation actions required under permits, agreements, exemptions. If that’s the case, $20 million is an extremely low number and Ontario taxpayers will be paying for actions of developers, while they profit significantly from residential developments, commercial developments etc. It does not seem fair.

This proposal will cost taxpayers. This government is already in court over bike lanes, being sued by a youth group on climate change issues. This is likely to get challenged by the federal government and Indigenous communities, if not other groups as well.

I urge this government to work with the ESA program and species at risk experts to address the administrative issues with the current ESA and leave the Act alone. Ontario needs to continue to protect and recover species at risk under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Otherwise, there will be a biodiversity crisis (just like the climate crisis). This government needs to do better for younger generations of Ontarians.