ERO 025-0380; ERO 025-0391…

ERO 025-0380; ERO 025-0391

Comments on the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025 and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025.

These proposals suffer from a series of misleading, often naïve, and misinformed assumptions and wrong-headed solutions. I list, and comment on, some of the more egregious ones below.

1. The summary ‘complains’ that the conservation of species is complicated and causes unnecessary delays and costs for housing, transit, and critical infrastructure.

Comment: The proposal fails to document how species can be conserved more simply (e.g., by habitat conservation) and similarly provides no evidence to support its other statements.

2. “Most proponents will be able to begin activity immediately after registering.”

Comment: In other words, begin activity in ignorance of legitimate environmental and conservation concerns.

3. “Support voluntary initiatives like habitat restoration.”

Comment: This proposal basically allows developers and others to destroy or alter habitat at will and places the burden of attempted restoration on volunteers.

4. “The purpose…will be to drive species protection and conservation while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario."

Comment: The sad reality is that social and economic considerations always trump the conservation of nature. Sustainable growth must include sustainable biodiversity. The prime directive must be to conserve biodiversity.

5. “The government would also have discretion to remove protected species from the list.”

Comment: This is a massive overstep of power, authority, and competence. Any such action must come with a notice to citizens outlining the government’s reasoning and provide a viable mechanism for scientific assessment and public rebuttal.

6. “The definition of habitat…for animal species will be a dwelling place, such as a den, nest, or similar place…and the area immediately surrounding a dwelling place…”

Comment: This definition is permission to kill. It is equivalent to stating that a developer cannot destroy a person’s home but can destroy everything that the homeowner requires to make a living, and to live. The legislation must use a defendable, objective, and peer-reviewed definition that recognizes habitat as supporting multiple individuals as in: “An area or volume, often distinguished by physical, chemical, and biotic properties, within which the collection of individuals expresses a different pattern of fitness accrual than do similar collections in other areas or volumes.” https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjfas-2024-0256

7. “For vascular plant species the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species.”

Comment: Again, this is permission to kill. How will the individual propagate itself? Species conservation is not conservation of individuals. The same criticism applies to “all other species”. Protecting a den site, critical root zone, or area for direct dependence on life processes is no protection whatsoever.

8. “Activities that are harmful to species cannot proceed unless the activity is registered.”

Comment: This is equivalent to closing the gate after the horse has escaped the corral. Yes, the registration carries obligations, but only with respect to individual organisms, not to the compounding effects on populations and species.

9. “The proposed amendments…would remove the requirements to develop recovery strategies and management plans…”

Comment: This, and the “New Species Conservation Program” place the onus on volunteers to preserve Ontario’s native heritage for the benefit of current and future Ontarians. If government is willing to abrogate its responsibilities for biodiversity, then it should also enable volunteers to decide on whether projects harmful to nature should take place.

10. The Special Economic Zones Act enables government to designate designate special economic zones, vetted projects, and trusted proponents.

Comment: These designations are short-hand for development without environmental oversight. They place the government’s definition of “economy” above all other concerns. They are a recipe for social disruption, environmental catastrophes, and ever declining biodiversity.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

The proposed legislative changes reflect an attitude that environmental concerns, including the biodiversity that enables human persistence on this planet, are secondary to “economy”. Sadly, it reveals an ideologically driven agenda to maximize profits here and now and let others deal with the consequences. It fails to understand the importance of biodiversity, the responsibility to preserve it, and the methods by which we can do so.

We do not need an Endangered Species Act or a Species Conservation Act. The cause of declining biodiversity is well known to be habitat loss. Ontarians need and deserve a Habitat Conservation Act that acknowledges the definition of habitat at the level of populations of interacting individuals. Anything less will further erode Ontario’s biodiversity and Ontarians sustainable future.

Economies recover. Climate change can be reversed. Extinction is forever.