As an environmental…

As an environmental professional practicing in Ontario, I am concerned by the proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the proposal for a Species Conservation Act.

Once considered to be the “gold standard” of protective legislation for Species at Risk, the ESA has been eroded over years in a scenario that can only be described as a “death by a thousand cuts”. I urge the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to uphold the Endangered Species Act and work with the public and Indigenous communities to strengthen Ontario’s environmental legislation.

My primary concerns are:

1. Species Classification and Listing

The government should not have discretion to add or remove species to the list of protected species. Ontario’s list of Species at Risk should be based on the best available western science and Indigenous Knowledge. COSSARO alone should be responsible for determining what species are listed as at risk. Our list of Species at Risk should be determined independently from, and not based on, the whim of the government.

2. Redefining Protections

It is concerning that the definition of “harass” is proposed for removal in species protections. Harassment is defined under the ESA as an activity that disrupts a species’ normal behaviour in a manner that adversely affects the ability of the member to carry out one or more of its life processes. Harassment can have significant impacts to Species at Risk if it interrupts essential activities such as foraging or reproduction. Harassment should not be removed from the list of illegal actions.

Furthermore, the definition of habitat is proposed to be reframed to be merely a dwelling place for breeding and overwintering; this undermines the importance of habitats for foraging, thermoregulation, and other purposes that are critical for species persistence and survival. Rather than narrowing the definition of habitat, the government should work to identify and clarify critical habitat for Species at Risk, so it is clear to Proponents when they need to make decisions about what actions to take when carrying out required protections.

3. Registration-first Approach

The proposed changes will include allowing proponents to begin an activity immediately after registering instead of waiting for approved permits. The government states that this is “a process already successfully used for many species and other environmental authorizations”. However, there is no information provided to corroborate this statement. Activity registration fosters an environment with little oversight and accountability. Instead of taking a proactive approach where impacts to Species at Risk are considered at the outset with mitigative actions identified beforehand, this leaves it up to the Proponent to handle on their own without oversight.

4. Recovery Strategies

Recovery Plans are critical documents that outline the path to species recovery, including clear actions to improve outcomes. Federal recovery documents are not a replacement for Ontario-specific recovery strategies. The Ministry should continue to produce recovery strategies and other documents that are based on the best available western science and Indigenous Knowledge.

5. Species Conservation Programs

The proposed Species Conservation Program supports habitat restoration that protects “species”, but does not clearly commit the funds towards Species at Risk initiatives. While voluntary actions for all species are important, Species at Risk deserve special funding, attention, and recovery efforts. The Species Conservation Program should be focussed on Species at Risk.

6. Species Conservation Action Agency

The Species at Risk Conservation Trust has been available to Proponents since 2021. Since 2021, no money from this fund has been spent on projects that support Species at Risk. The Ministry needs to be more accountable as to how this money will be spent on “activities that are in alignment with species protection and conservation goals”. This is an unacceptable use of funds and greater clarity on the Fund's usage is required.

In addition to these concerns, I concur with the following:

- The government needs to strengthen its ability to enforce species protection laws to ensure that proponents comply with the rules and expectations of our environmental legislation. However, a repeal of the ESA is not required to achieve these actions.
- The government should not allow for proponents to pay into a fund in lieu of on-the-land beneficial actions. Removal of the Species at Risk Conservation Fund is appropriate.

The proposed repeal of the ESA and the proposal for a Species Conservation Act will not support sustainable economic growth in Ontario, rather, it will continue to degrade the fabric of our province: the forests, wetlands, grasslands, and habitats where plants, animals, and people thrive. Economic growth should not be at the detriment of our few remaining natural areas and our Species at Risk. I urge the MECP to work with the public and Indigenous communities to strengthen the ESA, rather than tear down what was once a gold standard piece of legislation in Canada.