As someone that works…

As someone that works directly in the industry supporting individuals who require SAR authorizations, permits and notice of activities (registration). Under registrations actions for example to damage/ remove habitat and therefore replacement often does not follow updated science, and legislative language does not allow for modification /updates where new information becomes available or site / project specific changes are necessary to reach the same outcome but in a slightly different way.

A perfect example is barn swallow replacement habitat and bat boxes; these have been proven as ineffective overall by industry experts and constantly implemented improperly under self-regulation. In Ontario we have seen this for chimney swift, Bobolink, Barn Swallow, Butternut (ones that are already have registrations). Finding land, ownership and easement agreements, planning approvals, zoning approvals or where building the habitat replacement before the activity / development takes place are all the challenges we in the industry know about but on the surface as pitched/marketed by the government as " streamline" do not acknowledge. So, registration may be seem streamlined upfront but does not account for these hurdles making implementation impractical and ineffective for species protection and recovery.

Government must:

Allow for innovations and new science to be used and language to allow for such changes while not being vague or restrictive.

Fines are already in place for violators the ministry simply does not have the capacity to enforce and the prosed changes under current funding. Unlike the federal government (ECCC) the province while a positive step is simply not sufficient and with each new government budget and funding gets axed.

Compliance of rules governing exemptions/ registrations must be prioritized. This is not within the proposed changes.

Parties that hold exemption/ registrations permits must be required to pay bonds prior to their activities/ as part of the registration to repair any illegal damage to species or their habitats that was not implemented as required rather than lengthily court battles for violations. This would incentivize individuals and corporations to comply. Bonds would be released once the required registration period is over. For example, with bobolink habitat if after three to five years as stipulated in the reg. habitat is appropriate and constructed bonds are released. Note: this is not the species conservation fund. This is typical standard practice already in place in Ontario to ensure what is required to be delivered (in this example habitat replacement) is in fact delivered, appropriate and effective. The bond would only be released when approved by a qualified expert independent of the applicant / registrant. Similar to how substantial completion works in the province for development and landscape installation.

Registration process and ways to determine eligibility is simply not effective under the proposed additional self-regulation and has outdated portals and forms that are inefficient. These must be changed and updated to include better clarity and simplified language to makes sure eligibility is clear and expectations are also clear especially where additional or complementary permitting from other agencies may be required (for example DFO, MNRF electrofishing permits, MNRF fish and wildlife collection permits etc.)

The existing tools under the current legislation are sufficient (not perfect, but supportive for species protection and recovery), enforcement tools are already in place (just not used or funded), self-regulation is not working and proven to be ineffective (just look at the countless barn swallow structures placed inappropriate locations (and not required to move or rebuilt them), bult inappropriately (nest cups flush to the roof), bobolink replacement habitat /fields filled with weeds not hay and surrounded by roads and commercial development (not supported for nesting), unused bat boxes placed low to the ground, not sized correctly abutting roads where bats can fly in or out and where used are known to have bat die off.

Must have avenues for rejecting SAR exemption applications, and denying registration, the current " if asked within 14 days" is not enough. Violations are never prosecuted. There can be streamlined ways to increase efficiency while still undergoing a review process for registration eligibility under the current system.

The changes do not include rigorous guidelines that determine the success or failure of an exemption or registerable notice of activity.

The changes do not include a live (weekly updated) tracking database with open access to successful designs (for example with chimney swift towers) rather than reinventing the wheel every time. For example, similar to eBIrd and iNaturalist

If we cannot implement proper habitat replacement and species protection under the existing self-regulation requirements these new proposed changes do nothing to ensure species / habitat protection, species recovery goals or hold violators accountable