The Auditor General of…

The Auditor General of Ontario has not been impressed with the Governments protection in regards to the ESA. So any plans should address the following items . The comments below are i

1) The Caribou should be protected, and there should be no exceptions to the plan, as the auditor said in their review.... The number of authorizations (permits, agreements, conditional exemptions) for harmful activities has increased by 6,262 percent – from 13 authorizations in 2009 to over 800 per year since 2017.

2) There should provide rigour oversight to ensure the Caribou are protected, as the auditor has said ...
The government has never conducted inspections of authorized harmful activities to ensure compliance with the rules. That’s 6,539 agreements, permits and conditional exemptions with no government oversight of what is happening on the ground.

3) There should be enforcement in place. The Auditor says currentyl that ...
Enforcement of the law is minimal. The number of charges laid under the ESA has declined dramatically since 2018, with no fines and no charges laid in 2020.

4) There should be specific actions, plans, timelines etc to protect the Caribou, The auditor says ....
The government has no long-term strategic plan to improve the status of species at risk in Ontario – no priorities, no timelines, no planned actions and no performance measures to evaluate effectiveness.
Forestry’s permanent exemption from ESA requirements leaves 12 endangered or threatened species – including boreal caribou.

5) there should be better representation from scientists and environmental activists in creating and approving any plans. ...
The Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee, advising the Minister on implementation of the ESA, is currently stacked with industry representatives (10 of 15 members).

6) there should be a better plan and action for Caribou than currently in place, The auditor said ...
The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, responsible for implementing the ESA has no plan to fundamentally change its ways in light of the audit findings. Only six of the ministry’s 21 responses to the audit recommendations were deemed to be “sufficient” by the Auditor General (see Appendix 1 of the audit). For example, the ministry would not agree to developing transparent and accountable procedures for appointing new members to the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario which determines species listings.