I have been an environmental…

I have been an environmental scientist and environmental consultant for more than 30 years and have worked for a multi-disciplinary engineering firm for most of that time. Given this, one could suspect that I have a certain bias. However, over the years I have worked with many developers prior to, during and after development of large residential subdivisions, industrial sites and commercial properties.

After review of the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025, I have several concerns with changes to the applicable legislation.

Keeping COSSARO as a science-based committee is irrelevant if its data/science can be overturned by government personnel with little to no knowledge or understanding of the specific issues/species.

There is a reason that habitat must be protected. Protecting the den or living space of one organism within an area that will be graded and developed only means that the organism will perish at a later date and without procreation. There are no scientific disciplines where a dwelling equates to habitat, We watch documentaries or PSAs about the plight of (choose your species – like a snow leopard) and ask why this could happen and even send money to help. But the underlying cause is always loss of habitat. And indicating that “the current definition of ‘habitat’ creates uncertainty, includes broad areas beyond core species protections, and results in confusion when making decisions about what actions to take when carrying out required protections” is not only disingenuous, but also false. The term ‘habitat’ has a specific ecological and biological meaning and splitting that description up into several unconnected bullet points such as “breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, and hibernation areas” only serves to confuse the situation rather than clarify the issue, which is the stated goal.

It cannot be denied that the Species Conservation Action Agency (SCAA) has had issues fulfilling its mandate. However, the ideals and programs for which it was started have merit and it would behoove the government to fix the administrative problems rather than end its mandate. It appears that the eventual dissolution of the SCAA is simply a money grab, as all monies collected to date are to return to the government. The description indicates the money is to be used for purposes “in alignment with species protection and conservation goals”, however no where else in the available information identifies what this specifically means.

“Under the proposed new SCA, activities that are harmful to species cannot proceed unless the person carrying out the activity has registered the activity, or in limited situations, obtained a permit. Persons engaging in those activities must comply with the rules associated with the registration or permit. These activities include:
• activities that are likely to kill, harm, capture, or take a member of a species listed on the Protected Species in Ontario List
• possessing, transporting, collecting, buying, selling, leasing, or trading a member of a species listed on the Protected Species in Ontario List
• damage to or destruction of the habitat of a species listed on the Protected Species in Ontario List.”

The first and third bullet points are items that require outside expertise from consultants. However, nowhere in the proposed changes does it indicate that such consultation is required and the level of expertise/knowledge required to register. The second bullet point requires input from law officials capable of determining whether any of these transgressions have occurred. This is assumed to be a Conservation Officer, but this is not identified specifically. Given the info presented in this paragraph, it would seem that studies and/or outside expertise are required prior to registration, which is not significantly different than the current process. Unless a person/developer receives unwanted findings and chooses to ignore or submits the registration without any input.

Developers can have a poor reputation environmentally; however I have worked on numerous development projects with different developers, and many of them have had few issues with the current legislation and have not found it onerous. So, one needs to ask, who are the people who have significant problems with the current legislation.

I understand the impetus for reducing red tape and permitting development to happen as simply as possible. We have a need for housing in the province. However, the new legislation aside, there are far more productive and simple solutions to this problem. While this is not a discussion on O. Reg. 153/4, as amended, streamlining the entire Record of Site Condition legislation would do more to provide residential housing sites than changing the way Ontario looks at the environment. Utilizing thousands of Brownfield Sites for residential purposes simply makes more sense.

A time will come where the current legislators are all gone and replaced by our children and future generations. And they will ask how we messed things up so colossally, as many already are. These legislative changes are not small and will not really help solve the problem that they were set up to do. More importantly they are permanent, and the resultant outcome of this legislation cannot be undone; we can’t throw up out hands and say ‘we were wrong, just go back to the old’ because it will be too late.