Re: ERO # 013-4143, MECP’s…

Re: ERO # 013-4143, MECP’s 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act
February 23, 2019
I have been involved in studying, monitoring, writing about, advocating for and actively protecting species at risk for more than 40 years.
During the ten years since the implementation of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), I have noted numerous occasions during which the implementation and enforcement of the act fell far short of actually protecting and recovering specific species at risk. A careful reading of the current discussion paper reveals that, rather than improving matters for species at risk in Ontario, the proposals are likely to make them worse. The proposals, which appear to be strongly focused on facilitating avoidance of compliance with the spirit of the ESA, seem to be aimed at advancing business and economic interests through increased deregulation.
I therefore urge the government to commit itself to using the ESA for the actual protection of species at risk. The set of proposed changes to the act appear geared to making a public show of pretending to improve protection for species of risk while actually moving towards authorization of increased harm to such species.
The focus of this legislation and its implementation must be the interests of species at risk, not economic interests. Instead of making changes to the legislation, I urge the government to provide sufficient resources to implement and enforce the act as actually intended, for the benefit of species at risk.
Here are some specific comments:
Focus 1: Landscape approaches
Many species at risk have very specific requirements that would be detrimentally served by a landscape approach that grants broad-scale permission over a wide geographic area for actions harmful to species at risk in order to facilitate business interests. Many species at risk, if they are to be successfully recovered, need to have their issues addressed individually. The legislation should not be changed to fast-track detrimental actions and apply them over wide areas. This very much goes against the purpose of the act. Retain existing legislation and use enforcement tools to focus on actions of actual benefit to species at risk. If a landscape approach is used, it must be to set aside large tracts of land in order to benefit one or more species at risk.
Focus 2: Listing process and protections
The listing process is well established and has been working well for many years. A big problem lies in the implementation of protection and recovery for listed species, after they have been listed. Some threatened species still do not have a recovery strategy ten years after listing. The legislation does not need to be changed; rather the government needs to make an actual commitment to the spirit of the legislation and to allocate adequate resources to ensure protective actions are taken on behalf of listed species. When some listed species have been sitting on the shelf for as much as ten years waiting for a recovery strategy it is disingenuous to suggest that changes need to be made to build in further delay before species and habitat protections are implemented.
Focus 3: Recovery policies and habitat regulations
There is no need for changes to legislation here. Instead there is great need for the government to put resources towards implementing the provisions of the act to carry out recovery and enforcement in the interests of species at risk.
Focus 4: Authorization process
What is needed is more consistent commitment to benefit species at risk. What is not needed is increased opportunity for political decision making that would negatively serve species at risk while favouring business and political interests. There is no need for legislative change, only better implementation and enforcement. The focus of the act must be the protection of species at risk, not the facilitation of business interests. The concept of payment into a “penance” fund should not replace the requirement to provide truly meaningful benefit to the particular species that is actually harmed. Currently, some of the mitigation required is worse than useless (as it does no benefit to the species at risk and wastes money). Authorization to carry out activities that harm a species at risk should never be allowed unless there is mitigation implemented that actually benefits the harmed species.