Response to the “10th Year…

Response to the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes”

The planet is currently facing its sixth mass extinction and this one is driven by human activity. The recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report listed five major driving factors in the global loss of biodiversity, including “changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of animals and plants; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species”.

Strengthening and enforcing the Ontario Endangered Species Act should be of paramount importance to the Ontario government in the face of these global threats to biodiversity. Ontario was the first province in Canada to implement an Endangered Species Act in 1971, and was once heralded as setting the “gold standard” for species at risk protection. We as a province have a responsibility to continue to be a leader in species’ conservation and recovery. To do so, we must reinforce protections for species at risk and their habitats and promote their recovery.

It is extremely disheartening that the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes” has proposed such detrimental updates to the act. These updates will only weaken the protections put in place for species at risk. The changes are selfish and short-sighted, and are not written in the best interest of environmental protections. I do not support the proposed changes to the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) and list below the most problematic changes. I call for the Ontario government to do better. I believe that Ontario has a responsibility to preserve our biodiversity and natural spaces for future generations.

1) Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List

Currently, once COSSARO submits a report the Minister, the species must be added to the SARO list within three months. Once listed, the species and its habitat gain legal protection. The proposed changes suggest extending this timeframe from three to twelve months. There is no reason to extend this timeline and doing so is contradicting the goal of the ESA.

The proposal also states that the minister can veto COSSARO recommendations. The Minister should not have the authority to undermine a committee composed of independent experts and single-handedly decide which species will be added to the SARO list. I would also like to point out that the current Minister, Rod Phillips, has no scientific background or training in environmental policy, conservation or restoration science. He was the former CEO of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and should not have the authority to veto COSSARO recommendations.

The proposed changes to SARO listing protocols will also result in less protections for edge-of-range species. Protecting edge of range species is important - Ontario makes up the northern-most extent of ranges for species currently listed under SARO. Within the onset of climate change, range sizes are shrinking and Northern ranges are particularly vulnerable. We must continue to enforce protections across a species’ entire range.

Finally, there is concerning and ambiguous language surrounding COSSARO membership being open to those with “community knowledge” and opens the door for membership to be exploited.

2) Defining and implementing species and habitat protections

The proposed changes suggest that a SARO listing does not mean automatic protections to a species at risk and its habitat. The Minister would have the authority to suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years. This is a glaring problem and once again contradicts the spirit of the ESA.

3) Developing species at risk recovery policy

The proposed changes to the ESA include more pointless and detrimental delays. The Minister would have the authority to delay the development of Government Response Statements and reviews of the progress towards protection and recovery. There is no scientific or environmentally sound reason for these delays, nor do they act in the best interest of species at risk.

4) Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions

Allowing municipalities or other infrastructure developers to pay a fee instead of abiding by the protections put in place by the ESA is an egregious flaw and incredibly problematic. I do not support this “pay to slay” policy. Ontario should not put a price on our biodiversity. Once again, this is in direct contradiction to the goals of the ESA. The proposed changes also state that the Minister no longer needs to meet with independent experts when considering issuing permits and exemptions, which is a gross oversight.

Summary:

I disagree with the proposed changes to the Ontario Endangered Species Act that the Government of Ontario wants to push forward.

The goals of the proposal are to “improve the effectiveness of the program for species at risk by ensuring Ontario’s best-in-class endangered and threatened species protections; include advice and species’ classifications from an independent scientific committee and modern approaches to enforcement and compliance; species and habitat protections; and recovery planning”.

In contrast to these goals, the proposal is ignoring the advice of an independent scientific committee of experts. It is severely crippling enforcement and compliance. It is weakening species and habitat protections. It is delaying recovery planning. It is giving unnecessary and damaging authority to the Minister, who has no reason to veto, suspend or delay species at risk protections. In no way do the proposed changes meet the goal of the ESA.

I am disappointed in this proposal and charge Ontario to do better. In the face of the current global biodiversity crisis, we must advocate for the preservation of species at risk.