COMMENTS ON PROPOSED INTERIM…

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED INTERIM CHANGES TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 2007 AND A PROPOSAL FOR THE SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT, 2025

ERO NUMBER: 025-0380

As concerned voting citizens of Ontario and long term residents of this province, we have witnessed the benefits, over the last five decades, of the highly respected and effective provincial Endangered Species Act. It was enacted to ensure a balance between economic and residential development and protecting our environment, its various unique ecosystems and their support of provincial flora and fauna including endangered and threatened species.

The current provincial government must maintain this essential balance between necessary housing, transit, critical infrastructure and other proposed resource and commercial development with the vital requirement of preserving and protecting our natural environment and the biota it supports.

The proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and the proposal to replace the ESA with the new Species Conservation Act, 2025 does not preserve this balance. This government was not elected to promote necessary development at the complete expense of our environment and essential ecosystems.

Specifically, we have objections regarding the following points:

REPEALING ENDANGER SPECIES ACT AND PASSING SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT

The replacement of the highly respected and effective provincial ESA with the new SCA is unnecessary, backward and environmentally destructive. Regulatory processes overseeing permitting of development projects can be streamlined through more effective investment in the hiring of provincial government subject knowledge experts, implementation of more efficient management systems, and improved funding and increased provincial personnel for compliance and enforcement functions.

AUTHORITY TO LIST / DELIST ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

The authority to list or delist endangered or threatened species should remain the sole authority of The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). The sole involvement of scientific knowledge experts in this function is essential to the effective protection of endangered and threatened species. No involvement of a non-expert provincial environmental minister, other cabinet minister or Premier in the maintenance of this listing should be allowed especially where those elected government representatives are influenced by lobbyists and developers whose interests are not in maintaining a balance between developmental growth and environmental protection. The current gold standard legislative instrument of the ESA and the supporting function of the COSSARO exist to maintain this balance.

DEFINITION OF HABITAT

The definition of habitat for flora and fauna must be maintained as currently described in the existing ESA and must not be reduced to the immediate dripline of a plant or tree colony or a dwelling place of an animal species. A plant or animal species depends not only on its immediate dripline or dwelling place, but includes all areas of the local habitat that the species relies on for living, gathering food, migrating, hibernating and reproducing - all essential activities to the survival of the species. The same can be said for the human species. The new habitat definition is not an expeditious simplification for developers, but an oversimplification guaranteeing the destruction of the species in the proposed area of development.

FEDERAL VS PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY ON NON-FEDERAL LANDS AND RECOVERY PROGRAMS

Existing complementary legislation in the current provincial ESA must not be removed and result in the province relying on only the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to protect certain aquatic species and migratory birds on non-federal lands. Profit-motivated developers cannot be relied upon to obtain or obey federal authorization on land under provincial jurisdiction. Although the federal government has the power to order the province (and thereby the violating developer) to protect the critical habitat of designated endangered or threatened species, it is rarely executed, and why would our provincial government place itself in such a position by eradicating its own existing legislation? By the same argument, the province should not eradicate its current ESA recovery strategies and management programs for species-at-risk and rely only on federally specified recovery programs.

SPECIES AT RISK PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee mechanism must be maintained, utilized and relied upon consistently by non-knowledge expert elected government representatives involved in decisions regarding the protection and conservation of natural environments, ecosystems and the biota they support.

ONLINE REGISTRATION PROCESS VS PERMIT PROCESS

Replacing the current Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks review and permitting process for proposed land development, infrastructure, aggregate pit and quarries, and other significant projects, with only an online registration process allowing immediate project start-up, is not acceptable and insufficient in ensuring the protection and conservation of our natural environment. If an online registered project of this type is implemented without preliminary review and oversight, it would likely result in irreversible damage and destruction of natural habitats and supported species including those at risk. Developers rightfully focused on controlling costs and maximizing project profits necessary to honour affordability and investor expectations cannot also be relied upon to police themselves regarding environmental, ecosystem or species protection. That is the role of provincial government environmental and conservation specialists and regulators that we support with our taxes and expect to act accordingly on our behalf. The current ESA is an essential instrument that guides this process and maintains the balance between environmental protection and economic and residential development.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Compliance and enforcement of present or future regulations for protection of endangered or vulnerable species is required to hold the development community accountable. The provincial Auditor General has found this has not taken place in the past, i.e. in the Audit of the Management of Aggregate Resources, where it was found that inspection, enforcement and oversight activities were inadequate. Equipping provincial officers with clearer inspection and investigation powers and new order powers is laudable, but without sufficient funding and personnel to carry them out, will prove ineffectual in protecting the environment, local ecosystems and biota. Maintaining a fulsome review and permitting process before approving start-up and building of land development, infrastructure, aggregate pit and quarries, and other significant projects is crucial to a proponent’s full understanding of their environmental, conservation, and recovery responsibilities and should support compliance with provincial restrictions, regulations and expectations along with an adequate and effective inspection and enforcement process.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

Overarching environmental and archaeological assessments are key components to any major development project proposal and their required execution must be maintained and implemented in any approval process. Through past mistakes and avoidable destruction of our environment and First Nations and colonial heritage, we recognize them as key components to ensuring that similar errors are not repeated.

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES IMPACT

The creation of ‘Special Economic Zones’ (SEZ), as proposed in new Ontario legislation by the same name, allowing the cabinet power to designate these zones and the provincial government exemption from following its own laws and regulations in these regions to provide rapid approval to resource, commercial, and other strategic development projects is undemocratic and unfair. It is vulnerable to potential serious violations by ‘trusted proponents’ including inflicting serious irreversible damage to the environment, local ecosystems and the supported biota of those regions. By extension, these unacceptable outcomes may also have negative impacts on the local existing economic activities of both First Nations and other residents. As citizens of a parliamentary democracy we oppose any such legislation that bypasses democratic processes.