In 1971, Ontario passed an…

In 1971, Ontario passed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) that was considered one of the best of its kind in Canada. Since then, further legislation has weakened the ESA, but recent proposed changes by the current Ontario government will weaken the ESA far too much. In particular, the Species at Risk Conservation Fund creates a situation where developers can simply pay into the Fund, and then proceed with the development project. The information here on the EPO website states, "The proponent will then have the option to pay a species conservation charge into the Fund rather than completing certain on-the-ground actions as a condition of the conditional exemption." The alternative of an “option to pay” pervades the entire proposal, and for many developers, this is the easy way out. It is the case that guidelines have been set out as to how much money a developer must pay before starting the development, but there is no requirement that the money paid into the Fund has to be used to create habitat equivalent to what was lost. The developer does not have to participate directly in the actual habitat restoration, as that is done through grants to other organizations. The eventual restoration does not even have to address the damage done to Species X in the original development; the restoration could be stated to help Species Y. Hence, the habitat destruction is totally separated from the restoration. Developers can simply pay, and then brush off their hands and get to business. The amount paid into the fund includes an administration fee; however, if the administration fee does not cover administration costs, will the administrative money simply come out of the funds set aside for habitat restoration, thus weakening the conservation efforts further?

The Species at Risk Conservation Fund, as described in this proposal, is very unlikely to conserve at risk species. It will not address the adverse effects on communities as a result of destructive developments. It is not transparent to Ontario taxpayers. It fails the meaning of “Species at Risk” as well as the concept of “Conservation.”

Nith Valley Ecoboosters
New Hamburg, ON