In Ontario’s Places to Grow…

In Ontario’s Places to Grow Act 2005 its preamble states:
...planning must occur in a rational and strategic way.... making efficient use of existing infrastructure and preserving natural and agricultural resources and .....recognizes that identifying where and how growth should occur will ... sustain the natural environment...

“Sustainability can help a community ensure that its social, economic, and environmental systems are well integrated and will endure”. By removing endemic species, an environmental system is degraded and does not endure. There are countless examples in Ontario to draw from. Once degraded, it can take decades for the environment to recover – eg. Sudbury started restoration efforts in 1969.

The province needs to make every effort to ensure a sustainable future. As you know, the World Wildlife Foundation comments that we are undergoing the 6th mass extinction. If we don’t act responsibly soon, it may be too late.
A large scale ecosystem approach needs to be developed , similar to the Green Belt but expanded on a provincial scale. This would identify known areas of endangered spp., Provincially Significant Wetlands, arable land, migratory routes, human habitation areas, water (lakes/rivers) quality and resource exploitation (forestry, mining) areas etc. updated on an on-going basis as new information becomes available, which could be linked to multiple Ministries. This information should become easier and easier to obtain with technology advances. Proactive work defining these areas gives everyone clear guidance.

ESA comments:
I have included the proposed change in quotes with my comment below.

…”the transition of the file from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to MECP”. With the transfer of the Endangered Species Act to MECP have you also transferred adequate resources and experts to be able to effectively deliver this program?

a) “Require COSSARO to consider a species’ condition around its broader biologically relevant geographic area, inside and outside Ontario, before classifying a species as endangered or threatened. If the overall condition of risk to the species in the broader biologically relevant geographic area is lower, COSSARO would be required to adjust the species’ classification to reflect its overall condition.”

This is short sighted and flawed reasoning. By isolating populations, over time they evolve to become distinct populations that adapt to their local environments. In addition, if MECP has any trained biologists or ecologists they would understand that it is difficult or impossible to reintroduce many species to an area, so once a species is removed from an area, in many cases it cannot be repopulated with that species.

b) “Provide greater Minister’s discretion on protections, while keeping the assessment as a science-based process at arm’s length.”

Ministers should not ignore independent scientific information. Expert advice in the area of endangered species should be given the highest priority, especially given the recent UN report by 100’s of experts from 50 countries who have identified over 1M spp. are at risk of extinction over the next few decades. This has implications to our food and water supplies, amongst other things.

c) “provide the Minister with authority to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years for some newly-listed species when the following specified criteria are met: “

A three year period is too long and could render a species extinct. Live, endangered species should be treated just as sacred, if not more so, than finding artifacts which would render a stop work order.

i) “applying the prohibitions to the species would likely have significant social or economic implications for all or parts of Ontario so additional time is required to determine the best approach to protect the species and its habitat;”

Significant needs to be defined. In many people’s minds significant social/economic implication could be defined as a species going extinct. Based on the responses on the EBR most would find spp. at risk to be significant. However, human population and home construction does not seem to be scarce, or at risk of decreasing.

ii) “broad distribution in the wild in Ontario “–

as mentioned this is a short sighted and flawed line of reasoning ie. isolated populations may become a distinct spp. over time.

iii) “additional time is needed to address the primary threats to the species, or co-operation with other jurisdictions is necessary to reduce the primary threats to the species”,

As mentioned, once an endangered species is identified, a stop work order should be issued until such time as protection can be established. Primary threats are usually human induced. Using a moral code with integrity vs a monetary code should expedite the assessment of these situations.

d) “habitat regulation”-

If the purpose of this is an ecosystem approach for multiple spp., I think that would be a positive approach to be used on a larger scale.

e) “Give the Minister discretion to extend the nine-month Government Response Statement development timeline, for some species”.

Nine months seems excessive and could be a reflection of lack of resources to give this program the attention that it needs.

f) “Clarify that recovery strategies are advice to government, and that Government Response Statements are the government’s policy direction for species at risk.”

What are the enforceable actions, given that this is only advice to government and policy direction? Strong enforcement should be applied to minimize those trying to exploit endangered species areas.

g) “Allow the Minister to extend timelines for conducting the review of progress towards protection and recovery based on individual species’ needs.”

Any extension of timeline should not be to the detriment of the species at risk.

h) “Remove duplicative requirements by removing specific reference to posting under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and instead requiring that certain products under the Act be made available publicly on a government website.”

The EBR should be the one window approach so that the public can be notified of any changes to government instruments – that is its purpose. It is useful to obtain local, site specific information from informed individuals.

i) “Species at Risk Conservation Trust, to allow municipalities or other infrastructure developers the option to pay a charge in lieu of completing certain on-the-ground activities required by the act. The funds would support strategic, coordinated and large-scale actions that assist in the protection and recovery of species at risk.”

It is a good idea to have a fund for endangered species but not at the risk to the endangered species. That is in definite conflict of the purpose of the ESA. What price can you put on causing the extinction of a species that has taken millions of years to evolve to its current state?

j) “Continue to operate for twelve months following the application of new species or habitat protections while they seek amendments to their permit or agreement to address newly listed species. Currently, existing holders would, upon the species being listed and protected, need to stop their activity that impact the species or its habitat and wait for their permit or agreement to be amended.”

It is unfortunate that stop work orders are issued for artifacts but not for endangered spp. Why is it that old or dead artifacts are more important that living creatures? Newly listed species should be just as important as pre-existing listed species. To provide the greatest protection, a stop-work order should be issued and/or conditions provided to protect the spp.

k) “If the proposal for the change to allow the Minister to order by regulation a pause of the protections for listed species passes: we are also proposing a change to the EBR General Regulation (O.Reg. 73/94) to exempt the regulations containing Minister’s orders made for the purpose of pausing protections from EBR posting and consultation requirements. This is being proposed in to preserve the ability of the Minister to act swiftly and minimize associated social or economic impacts”.

Good governance is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, inclusive and effective. This applies to all Ontario citizens, not just one sector of the population. By exempting individual segments of the population from EBR posting and requesting consultation it demonstrates that good governance is not being practised.