I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my deep concern and opposition to Bill 5, the “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act”. As an environmental professional who has dedicated my education and career to the recovery of Ontario’s Species at Risk, and as an individual who cares deeply about our natural world and everything it gives us, I am beyond fearful of the future of Ontario under the proposed “Species Conservation Act”.

Under the SCA, the definition of habitat would be narrowed significantly. This amended definition ignores generations of Western and Indigenous knowledge, including the government’s own science. Protecting only a dwelling or the root system of a plant is inadequate on a scientific level to protect the species as a whole. This definition will allow for habitat degradation and fragmentation to take place entirely within the law, eventually forcing species to leave an area or be driven to local extinction. Removing the prohibition on harassment will accomplish a very similar result, allowing proponents to force a species out of an area so they no longer have to responsibly manage its presence. I can only assume that this is the precise goal of these changes.

Increasing enforcement efforts does not mitigate the impact of harm to species at risk. In nearly all cases, indirect or direct harm cannot be undone with charges and other enforcement measures. If a proponent kills a nesting Snapping Turtle who took 15-20 years to reach maturity and begin nesting, no charge can reverse the loss of that individual. Similarly, if a proponent bulldozes an endangered dune ecosystem that took thousands of years to form, a fine cannot bring that dune back. It is gone for good, along with the species that relied on it. Additionally, the amended definition of habitat and the removal of the prohibition on harassment will leave very little for the government to enforce. Ontario’s species at risk have reached their current state of ruin largely due to centuries of indirect harm, which will be allowable under the amended act. Offences involving direct harm to a species are already infrequent, and are not the primary cause of the broader decline of Ontario’s biodiversity.

Many of the proponents that will benefit from this legislation are billion-dollar corporations, to which a massive fine is a drop in the bucket financially. How could more enforcement save these species when almost nothing that harms them is against the law, and when charges are already insufficient to deter proponents from damaging habitat under the current legislation? Additionally, you intend to remove the power of environmental officers to impose stop-orders. How can you say you are protecting species at risk, while simultaneously taking away the ability of an officer to stop harm to a species from occurring?

Increasing funding for habitat restoration and other voluntary conservation efforts is not sufficient to recover species. This increase in funding is being used as a primary speaking point for the province to refute anyone who says that the new act won’t conserve species at risk. In reality, with so much working against these species, no amount of money will be able to mitigate the harm that will occur. This funding will act as a bandaid, perhaps slowing the decline of some species on private or protected land if we’re lucky, or helping to keep remnant populations just barely above the point of extirpation. Additional funding will not lead us on a path towards recovery unless it is accompanied by complete, science-based, and rigidly enforced legal protections for species at risk.

Introducing a registration-first approach will insufficiently protect species at risk and will require increased enforcement efforts, which seems to be anticipated by the province. As mentioned earlier, once damage has been done, it is often irreversible. Permits, at the bare minimum, allow us to be aware of the damage that will be done before it occurs, and in many cases allow us to stop or mitigate it. Without this important process, unchecked damage will occur. By simply keeping the permitting process in place and increasing the capacity of the government to process these permits, you could reduce wait times while preventing enforcement efforts and habitat restoration from needing to occur in the first place.

I am disturbed by the proposal to give the Ontario government the full discretion to add or remove species from the protected list in the province, regardless of the recommendation of COSSARO. The population status of a species is not something that can be “decided” by an individual. The status cannot be influenced by politics, social, or economic considerations. This process must be objective, based on hard facts and nothing else. To give yourself the power to simply decide a species will no longer have protection, despite knowing it is critically at risk, is a willfully ignorant approach that has no place in our province or anywhere else. The premier of Ontario, nor any member of parliament, does not know more about these species than the expert committees appointed to independently examine their status.

Implementing Special Economic Zones would be a violation of Indigenous Rights, as well as a violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights. The duty to consult, and the right for Ontario residents to participate in environmentally significant decisions, should never be bypassed. Exempting swaths of land from all provincial law is unacceptable, regardless of their “economic value”. Additionally, the province of Ontario is a signatory of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. The Accord outlines commitments to independently designate species at risk, protect their habitats, and develop recovery plans. The amendments to the ESA and the proposed SCA violate many of the specific agreements under this accord.

To pass Bill 5 is to abandon the very concept of recovering the species at risk that call Ontario home. Instead of continuing to claim that the new Species Conservation Act will still protect and recover species at risk, you should simply call it as it is; you no longer intend to or have an interest in recovering Ontario’s species at risk to their historic population levels. You are only willing to legislate the absolute bare minimum to support them, or in special cases, nothing at all.

As parents, grandparents, and members of your communities, you must understand that this is not the right path. Your grandchildren will never have the chance to see the sunshine yellow throat of a Blanding’s Turtle as it basks in the sun. They will never know the joy of watching a tiny, peeping Piping Plover chick run to their mom and tuck underneath her wing. They will never hear the cry of a Whip-poor-will on the first spring camping trip of the year. They will never raise and release a Monarch butterfly, hear the howl of an Eastern Wolf, or see the intricate beauty of a small white lady’s-slipper flower. This will be because of your actions. Are these moments truly worth nothing to you? When your grandchildren ask where these species went, what will you tell them?

The goal of this bill is to “Protect Ontario”. If we cannot adequately protect our most vulnerable species, what exactly are we protecting? I ask that you reject Bill 5, and instead use your power to strengthen protections and recovery efforts for species at risk.

“When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.” -Alanis Obomsawin