Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The planet is currently facing its sixth mass extinction and this one is driven by human activity. The recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report listed five major driving factors in the global loss of biodiversity, including “changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of animals and plants; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species”.

Strengthening and enforcing the Ontario Endangered Species Act should be of paramount importance to the Ontario government in the face of these global threats to biodiversity. Ontario was the first province in Canada to implement an Endangered Species Act in 1971, and was once heralded as setting the “gold standard” for species at risk protection. We as a province have a responsibility to continue to be a leader in species’ conservation and recovery. To do so, we must reinforce protections for species at risk and their habitats and promote their recovery.

It is extremely disheartening that the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes” has proposed such detrimental updates to the act. These updates will only weaken the protections put in place for species at risk. The changes are selfish and short-sighted, and are not written in the best interest of environmental protections. I do not support the proposed changes to the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) and list below the most problematic changes. I believe that Ontario has a responsibility to preserve our biodiversity and natural spaces for future generations and these proposed changes will actively work against this goal.

The main purpose of the ESA should be to protect species, not to expedite development. Any changes to the ESA should be made with great care, as without diligent legislation there is a risk of additional habitat loss and population declines. Further declines in some species may cause them to become extirpated from Ontario, and such losses to our natural heritage are unacceptable in the face of so many other unmitigated threats to biodiversity.

The public should be notified quickly of COSSARO’s species’ assessments, and the listing should be immediate. Waiting one year after the species is listed could result in harmful effects on the species. We must stress that a lot of these species, particularly amphibians and reptiles, are already facing rapid declines, so immediate protection is strongly recommended.

I also strongly disagree with the possible suspension of listings for up to three years, as such long delays could allow large developments and lack of mitigation, potentially wiping out populations of species before protection is enacted. Furthermore, Threatened and Endangered species should have expedited, not delayed, Habitat Regulations, as these species are especially vulnerable.

The current proposal calls for including those with “community knowledge” – a vague term that could open up COSSARO to those who do not have unbiased expertise in species assessment or that have a different agenda altogether. I still strongly oppose that the minister should be able to overrule decisions made by COSSARO, as such veto power explicitly undermines the arms-length scientific approach that is supposed to be used to assess species. COSSARO assessments are based on IUCN criteria that have been refined over many decades, and the majority of COSSARO's assessments have already been fully vetted through the federal listing process (COSEWIC), which includes significant peer review from provincial and federal governments, stakeholders, ATK, biologists and taxa specialists.

I also strongly oppose COSSARO being required to base its assessments on the status of a species throughout its range, as opposed to in Ontario only. For species that have a small portion of their range in Ontario, these populations often present unique adaptations and reservoirs of genetic variation, facilitating resilience to climate change. Loss of our Ontario populations means loss of global diversity in the species.

Allowing species to be wiped out in Ontario simply because they occur elsewhere is short-sighted and not indicative of the values placed on Ontario’s natural heritage by residents of the province. Furthermore, SAR play an important role in our local ecosystems, and as species diversity declines, so does the overall health of our natural areas. Ontario will likely become an important region to safeguard populations as the impacts of climate change worsen; this potential cannot be overstated.

Finally, Ontario must never rely on neighbouring provinces and countries to protect SAR. This passes the responsibility and control on to others, and shows Ontario’s lack of interest in protecting its biodiversity. Ontario residents have widely embraced the protection of SAR, and have provided countless volunteer hours to ensure their protection and recovery. The proposed changes will quickly negate those efforts, as species will lose the protection and the heightened awareness provided by listing, and lost funding opportunities that often provide the minimum requirement to get volunteer efforts started.

The Species at Risk conservation trust could be a powerful tool under some circumstances, but there is great room for such a program to be abused. This trust could allow for areas facing development to be developed by simply paying into the trust as opposed to protecting the resident species at risk.

The proposed changes include amending the act to strike out “the environmental registry established under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993” and substituting “a website maintained by the Government of Ontario”. Such a change would mean that the opportunity for public input is lost. Removing opportunities for public input eliminates government accountability to the public and prevents the public to participate in the protection and recovery of SAR.

Lastly, I agree that better enforcement is necessary to protect SAR. There is a strong need for enforcement of the ESA through fines and if necessary, incarceration. Increasing SAR protections and enforcement would also create needed jobs in the environmental sector.

The purposes of the ESA are:
1. To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.
2. To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk.
3. To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk. 2007, c. 6, s. 1.

I believe that the proposed changes do not align with the stated and intended purposes of the ESA and actively works against them. These changes will make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals. I strongly believe we need to reconsider the proposed changes and further consult with the public and qualified professionals, to use a collaborative and transparent approach to responsible development, while also protecting SAR.