**NB - There is nothing in…

**NB - There is nothing in this submission that would prevent it from being published as a comment in the final decision notice.

May 17, 2019

Public Input Coordinator
Species Conservation Policy Branch

Dear Madam/Sir,

Please accept this submission as Environment Hamilton’s formal comments on the government’s proposed changes as part of the ‘10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act’.

We have a number of concerns about the changes the government is proposing to make to this important piece of legislation. Our concerns are that much greater in light of the very recently released Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPBES warns that ‘(N)ature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history — and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely…’. According to IPBES chair, Sir Robert Watson, ‘(T)he health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.’ Given this reality, we believe that the province needs to rethink proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act and consider taking steps to further strengthen, not weaken, this important legislation.

We share the concerns that many other community stakeholders have that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks (MECP) wants to allow developers & other proponents of harmful activities to contribute money into a fund rather than being required to fulfill obligations for on-the-ground compensation. This proposed approach reduces accountability to the broader public and to the planet, making it far easier to proceed with activities that harm species at risk & their habitats at a time when vulnerable species are more vulnerable than ever before.

Our understanding is that the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) – which plays a critically important role in assessing whether a species is at risk – is currently comprised of highly qualified scientific experts. We DO NOT support MECP’s proposal to broaden the members of COSSARO to include those with “community knowledge”. The only exception we believe should be made is to include indigenous knowledge/ traditional ecological knowledge to guide decision-making. This approach would require the careful establishment of a clear definition of what constitutes valuable ‘community knowledge’ within the COSSARO process. Currently, we fear that the proposal to include those with community knowledge is too vague and could open up the committee to those who do not have adequate expertise in species assessment or to individuals who have other interests besides the stringent protection of species at risk. We cannot afford to jeopardize the important work of COSSARO at this point in our planet’s history.

We are also concerned that a change is being proposed that would require COSSARO to base its assessments not on the status of a species in Ontario as is currently the case, but instead on its status throughout its range. We worry this will lead to less or no protection for southern Ontario endangered species that are located at the northern limit of their range, depending on their status outside Ontario. This is especially concerning in the face of climate change because healthy species populations are needed at their northern limits to help species adapt to changing climatic conditions. Our concern regarding this issue is especially pronounced here in the Hamilton area, where we have some of the most biodiverse natural areas in the country.

We are also deeply concerned about the proposal to confer a number of new powers on the Minister of Environment, Conservation & Parks. We are concerned about the proposal to empower the Minister to limit Endangered Species Act protections in order to make them applicable in specific areas of the province or under specific circumstances. We do not support this approach as it could lead to the exclusion of important habitat areas in the province and it could prevent the protection of certain endangered species. We also do not support the proposal to confer powers on the Minister to reject automatic protections of threatened and endangered species and the habitats they depend on. We do not believe it is appropriate to empower the Minister to suspend species and habitat protections for as long as three years for social or economic reasons. And we definitely do not support the proposal to exempt the requirement for such delays to be subject to the public posting and commenting requirements under the Environmental Bill of Rights. This approach works against openness and transparency and opens the door to political manipulation that could undermine species protections. Again, now more than ever before, we cannot allow this to happen. We do not support the proposal to empower the Minister to require the COSSARO expert group to reconsider its science-based listing decisions. This proposed change would open the door ot political manipulation of the process – something that could put endangered species at even greater risk. Private sector players could lobby the government and potentially disrupt the scientific-based process for listing species if these players believe the species threatens their development or business endeavours. Finally, we are strongly opposed to the change that would remove the requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert before creating any regulation that could jeopardize the survival of a species, or before the Minister issues any permits for undertakings that, while they might provide significant social and/or economic benefit, put a species at increased risk.

The MECP proposal to create “landscape agreements” for proponents undertaking harmful activities in multiple locations is also a change we do not support. This approach does not facilitate consideration of site-specific or species-specific concerns and consequently presents unwarranted additional risk for species already in peril. We hold similar concerns about the MECP proposal to allow activities approved under other laws without any additional authorizations under the Endangered Species Act even if these activities harm threatened or endangered species or their habitats. This approach could result in the permanent exemption of industries like the forestry sector which, for obvious reasons, must remain subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act if we have any hope of ensuring adequate protections for species at risk.

We are also strongly opposed to the proposed delays in the timelines set out for the listing, planning and reporting on species at risk. For instance, the proposal to list species nine months after COSSARO makes its assessments public leaves species at risk during this interim period; their habitats could be destroyed before appropriate protections kick in. Again, we cannot afford, at this point in the planet’s history, to allow species protections to be weakened.

Finally, we worry about the proposal to update classifications of enforcements by removing certain designations – like conservation officer. This proposed change makes us fearful that the MECP plans to enlist MECP staff that may not possess the appropriate skills sets to take on the role of enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.

All in all, we believe these proposed changes are short-sighted and ill-informed and are being proposed at a point in time when our planet is in greater peril than it ever has been before. Changing these important rules now will set the MECP and this current provincial government up to leave a sad legacy for future generations to contend with. We are deeply concerned and opposed to these changes.

Thank you

Lynda Lukasik, PhD
Executive Director
Environment Hamilton
TEL: (905) 549-0900
EMAIL: llukasik@environmenthamilton.org