RE: Bill 108, More Homes,…

RE: Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019
Proposed Changes to: Schedule 5 - Endangered Species Act, 2007

I am writing as a private citizen who lives in Norfolk County, a biologically diverse area of Southern Ontario within the Carolinian Zone, the home of many of Ontario’s at-risk species. I have always been deeply concerned about protecting our environment, and wanted to express my concerns about the proposed changes to environmental protection as outlined in Bill 108.

I am very concerned about proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, as outlined in the recent Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019. The preamble to the proposed changes is very disturbing: “Protecting Species at risk while clarifying roles and paths to compliance to not unnecessarily burden development.” I did not think that development was a core mandate of this Ministry.

I have reviewed the proposed changes and amendments, and it is my opinion that they will lead to widespread species extinction across Ontario, and a reduction in habitat (the “homes) for many of our at-risk species. The general focus of these changes appears to assist industry and business to develop natural areas where they are currently restricted. I am concerned that this will lead to degradation of habitat, and threaten our most vulnerable species in Ontario.

Schedule 5, Endangered Species Act, 2007

Any changes to this Act should strengthen, not weaken, protection for our most at-risk species, especially in light of recent studies which predict widespread extinction if our current land use practices are not changed. The proposal to reduce the regulatory function of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) removes much of the impact of its scientific recommendations, and instead puts that power in the hands of the Minister.

Time is a huge factor for the protection and continued existence of our endangered species in Ontario. I am very concerned by the proposals to extend the timing of a decision by the Minister to accept a species as “endangered”, and whether or not to protect the habitat. Specifically:

When COSSARO makes a recommendation, the proposal is to make that public within 3 months, then the Minister may list it 3-12 months after that. This creates an opportunity for habitat destruction and/or species extermination in the interim by the developer, to eliminate the requirement for industry/business to comply with the ESA.

The proposal for the Minister to require COSSARO to reconsider the status of a species outside Ontario also creates a time delay in protection, along with a dangerous precedent of expecting that the United States will protect a species so that we can avoid our responsibility for protecting it or maintaining its habitat.

It is a mistake to reconsider Ontario’s endangered species outside of Ontario, and to adjust their classification based on the assumption that they will be protected in their southern range, especially into the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump has made every effort to gut any environmental regulations during his term; the future of any species or natural habitat in the United States is questionable while he remains in office.

Also, why would we consider the actions of another country when protecting or not protecting vulnerable species in our our Province and country? Ontario is blessed with an abundance of unusual plant and animal species that other provinces, and countries, do not have. We have a duty to protect these species. Why would we risk losing this impressive biodiversity? Aside from its important ecological value, this biodiversity brings many benefits to the Province, including extensive, low-impact, sustainable tourism.

The proposal to de-couple the listing process from automatic protections could give the Minister the ability to suspend protection for species and habitat protections for up to 3 years for newly listed species. Again, this is a huge issue, because in 3 years, an endangered species could easily become extinct if it, and its home (habitat), are not protected. The additional proposal to exempt the Minister from posting these “protection suspensions” on the Environmental Bill of Rights, or consultation requirements, means that the Minister’s actions will not be transparent or accountable. It is distressing to read that this is to “preserve the ability of the Minister to act swiftly and minimize associated social or economic impacts.” I thought that the mandate of this Minister was to protect the environment.

Pay to Develop: Proposed creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency

A new layer of bureaucracy, proposed to be named “Species at Risk Conservation Trust”, would allow municipalities and developers to pay instead of protecting habitat or species. This is diluting the responsibility of the Ministry to ensure protection of habitat and species, and allowing the opportunity for widespread habitat destruction. It also opens the door to decisions made not on the basis of their environmental protection, but on how favourable it might be for development. We already have Ministries that promote development. We need your Ministry to help protect the environment.

The proposal to allow industry and business to pay a fee to an agency in return for non-compliance to regulations is a poor way to protect species. The wording in the proposal seems to indicate that the business in question could protect an endangered species that could be put at risk, but not necessarily the one in question. Putting funding in the hands of a Board that does not necessarily have a background or understanding of ecology or the requirements of endangered species for their continued survival, is risky. This additional layer creates a time delay, and extra cost, and the threat of political interference in decisions that should be made with scientific data. This is underlined in the statement made that this new agency will, in part “Give greater certainty to business....”

Instead of creating “more homes”, the proposed changes to the ESA will be setting the stage for widespread habitat and species destruction, effectively removing the “homes” of many of our most vulnerable fellow citizens of Ontario. by reducing the requirement for reporting to the EBR, and consulting, you will be removing the ability for concerned members of the public to have a say in the future survival of these species. By creating another layer of bureaucracy, and by giving your Ministry the ability to delay protecting habitats and species, you put these species at even greater risk, and dilute the effectiveness of the Act. By allowing developers and industry to pay a fee instead of following the law, you set a dangerous precedent for these endangered species.

Norfolk County, and many other rural counties in Ontario, derive a lot of business from ecological tourism and recreation, in the form of birding, nature tours, art, hiking, fishing, camping, and hunting. Allowing habitat for our at-risk species to be threatened, will affect our economic stability. We depend on the diversity of species in ways we don’t understand yet - exterminating them will diminish our quality of life. We also have a duty to protect the many species that we share this land and water with, and need to have strong enough laws to do that.

I would urge the Minister to re-consider and reject these proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act.