To Whom It May Concern:…

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on ERO posting 025-0380. Please see attached an electronic submission from the City of Burlington. Below are the key points extracted from the submission, c/o of City's Community Planning Department.

In its responsibility to make decisions under the Planning Act, the City must have regard for, among other things, the protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features and functions. This responsibility is furthered by the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) which recognizes the importance of the long-term ecological function and the biodiversity of natural heritage systems.

The focus on a systems-based approach to long-term environmental protection is one that has been supported by the City as it recognizes the integrated nature of natural features and functions. It is understood that the implementation of the ESA is predominantly a Provincial responsibility; however, this responsibility is just one aspect of an integrated natural system. It is common for species at risk (SAR) and their habitat to overlap with other key features and contribute to the assessment of the ecological function of those features.

It is unclear how the new direction for SAR protection at the provincial level is intended to be decoupled from the broader approach to natural heritage protection, and how this should be interpreted in the development planning process. An update to the Natural Heritage Resource Manual (NHRM) should be considered in this regard.

With respect to key definition changes, namely two terms that are addressed in both the interim approach to the ESA and the proposed SCA: 1) the removal of the concept of “harass”; and 2) a new definition of “habitat”:
- The term “harass” will be removed from the prohibitions regarding harm to species. It is unclear how the removal of this concept will operate alongside the new definition of habitat.
- The new “habitat” definition is focused on where a species is directly observed but may exclude critical components of habitat including feeding/foraging areas, migratory paths, and movement corridors. Generally, many species are considered ‘at risk’ due to indirect impacts to components of their habitat for which their overall life-cycle depends upon. For example, some amphibians and reptiles migrate to other environments to breed; without protection of migratory paths or movement corridors these species will not be successful and likely will not recover. This new approach to defining habitat of SAR species, combined with the proposal to end the Province’s responsibility to develop recovery strategies for SAR species, is likely to result in undesirable outcomes for SAR in Ontario.

With respect to provincial government discretion to add and remove extirpated, endangered, and threatened species:
- While the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario is proposed to be retained, the proposal sets out that the government will have the authority to add and remove extirpated, endangered and threatened species. This shift in approach risks politicizing a science-based process for the purpose of economic growth, which may lead to an erosion of credibility from the public and professionals who rely on these listings to protect at-risk wildlife.

With respect to removing requirements for recovery strategies:
- The proposal removes the direction recovery strategies and management plans, government response statements, and reviews of progress for SAR. It appears that the Province is moving into an identification and compliance approach for SAR. What is unclear is where the responsibilities related to prevention and restoration will now reside.

With respect to removing duplication:
- The Province has proposed changes for the stated intent of eliminating duplication in the process of protecting SAR. Development seeking to harm or disrupt any migratory bird or aquatic species with protections under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) will only require applicable Federal approvals.
- The interplay between SARA and the future SCA may introduce further complications in implementation.
- The opportunity to be more specific contextually for Ontario is valuable in both acknowledging regionality of species and their habitats, as well as maintaining control in the planning process for matters dealing with SAR. The proposal to subject migratory birds and aquatic species to SARA, instead of an Ontario-specific legislative tool, is broad in application and should be specified on a species-by-species basis. Approval authorities will require explicit direction on where permissions or permits need to be obtained to avoid confusion and/or delay in the process.

With respect to eliminating the Species Conservation Action Agency and the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee:
- A number of changes are proposed with respect to the former Species at Risk Conservation Fund and creating a new “Species Conservation program and account”. The proposal indicates that money in the fund must be “spent on activities that are in alignment with species protection and conservation goals.” The funds currently in the Species at Risk Conservation Fund, presumably, were collected to specifically recover the species for which the Fund was created. That is to say, project(s) in Ontario impacted the habitat of those species, and money was placed into the fund by the proponent to recover that habitat elsewhere in the Province. It is concerning that this funding may not be used for the purpose in which it was deposited, considering those impacts to SAR were presumably realized. Given that little is known about the use and success of the Species at Risk Conservation Fund, it is difficult to provide constructive feedback on a new program.

With respect to the expansion and clarification of compliance and enforcement roles/responsibilities for contraventions of the ESA (future SCA):
- No substantial information on this component is provided within the ERO posting.

With respect to the future SCA:
- The interim changes to the existing ESA and the proposed SCA represent significant changes to the Provincial approach to SAR and are likely to result in undesirable outcomes for SAR in Ontario. The revised purpose of the interim ESA, as well as the proposed purpose for the SCA, has been provided as follows:
(a) To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and Indigenous traditional knowledge; and
(b) To provide for the protection and conservation of species while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario.
- If the intention is that recovery is no longer of importance, the foundational question of the purpose of the ESA/SCA must be addressed. When a species' whole habitat can no longer be protected, and there is no strategy to recover that species, it is unclear what the ESA/SCA is intended to achieve regarding SAR. Listing species and then taking a reactive, compliance-based approach to their management is unlikely to result in their conservation or protection.

We look forward to continued collaboration on Bill 5, and please feel free to contact us should there be any follow-up questions or information required.

Best,

Jayson Doll
Corporate Strategic Lead, Government Relations
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
jayson.doll@burlington.ca