Public Input Coordinator…

Public Input Coordinator
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Species Conservation Policy Branch
300 Water Street, Floor 5N
Peterborough ON K9J 3C7
Phone: (705) 755-1963
To the Public Input Coordinator,

Comments: EBR Registry # 013-4143:
10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA): Discussion Paper

We are writing on behalf of Animal Alliance of Canada, the Animal Protection Party of Canada, Born Free, Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre and Zoocheck. We are dedicated to protecting abundant wild species in order to prevent their endangerment from human activities. We also support Ontario’s Endangered Species Act which is designed to protect those species already threatened with extirpation and extinction.

Therefore, we are very concerned with the direction taken in the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: A Discussion Paper”. We hoped that the Review would provide an opportunity to strengthen protection for species at risk and address the failed implementation by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as highlighted by the Environment Commissioner.

Instead, the discussion paper suggests changes that will not enhance the protection and recovery of species at risk and will not improve the implementation of the permitting process but will make it easier for industry and development representatives to proceed with activities that will harm the species and their habitats. In addition, the Minister’s possible resolutions to the “challenges” highlighted in the Paper would undermine science-based listing, mandatory habitats protection, and legislated timelines for planning and reporting.

Focus 1 – Landscape Approaches:

The current Act already allows for both individual species protection and recovery and where needed, multi-species recovery strategies. This paper seems to suggest that the Minister considers the ESA as an impediment to business interests and a “challenge” to planning and development activities.

The current Act allows for approval of activities where mitigation measures will protect species at risk. In other instances, the Act prohibits activities where mitigation measures will not work. Our assumption is that the “authorization measures” referred to in the challenges section would allow activities that would in fact harm species at risk and their habitats.

As a result, we oppose any changes to the Act that would allow planning and authorization on a broad scale because it would undermine the intent of the Act to protect species at risk and their habitats.

Focus 2 – Listing Process and Protections for Species At Risk:

It is imperative that the science-based listing of species and the automatic protection afforded species and their habitats remain intact in the Act. Changing the Act to allow for ministerial discretion of the automatic protections will only make the listing and automatic protections process politically driven as opposed to science-based. We are opposed to changes that would allow the Minister discretion to remove or alter protections for both species and habitats.

Focus 3 – Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations:

In this section the Minister raises concerns about the timelines required under the Act, including the 9 month timeline for the Government Response Statement and five years for reporting on the progress toward protection and recovery of a species. The Minister also highlights “challenges” with the development of habitats regulations for at risk species.

We would argue that both timelines are reasonable and speaks to the urgent need for protection for both threatened and endangered species. We would also argue that habitats protection for these species is critical to the reversal of their status.

Instead of weakening the legislation by undermining required reporting times, we urge the Minister to enhance the Species at Risk programme within the Ministry in order to meet the timelines set out under the Act.

Focus 4: Authorization Process:

The importance of the Act is that it prohibits harming, harassing or killing of a species listed as threatened or endangered and it prohibits damage or destruction to their habitats. The Act already allows the government to issue permits or authorizations that would otherwise not allow such activity. It is our view that the ESA provides sufficient flexibility through the authorization process and we oppose providing more ways to circumvent the intent of the Act.

The “challenges” as listed in this section use such language as “administrative burdens”, “barriers to economic development” and “duplication and delay of activities”, which are all business-related concerns.

Not once does the Minister include the “challenges” faced by the Ministry and others to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

Recommendations:

We recommend that the Minister:

1. Require that any amendments to the Act and Regulations should strengthen protection for species at risk and their habitats.

2. Enhance the Species at Risk programme within the Ministry in order to meet the requirements of the Act.

3. Maintain the science-based listing of species and the automatic protection afforded species and their habitats.

4. Eliminate consideration for ministerial discretion to delay or remove those protections.

5. Maintain timeline requirements for Government Response Statements and Reviews.

6. Maintain the current authorization process which would prevent simplification for exemptions and would maintain requirements for Section 17(2) permits that would be issued only under exceptional circumstances for activities “that result in a significant social or economic benefit” provided that they do not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

Conclusion:

An Ontario that is “open for business” does not have to be an Ontario that is uncaring about protecting Ontario’s wildlife and its habitats. This is particularly true for species at risk. We urge you to strengthen, not weaken, the ESA.