Proposed Protected Species…

Proposed Protected Species in Ontario List regulation

At its inception, Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) was considered one of the strongest pieces of legislation protecting vulnerable species and their habitats.

A species habitat extends to any and all areas required for that species to carry out its life processes – including, but not limited to feeding, migration, breeding, reproduction, den sites, etc. This definition ensures species survival and is backed by science-based information and data. There has been no scientific data to back up the governments claim that severely restricting the definition of habitat, as is the plan, will not impact these species. Species that receive very basic protections under other federal legislations (Fisheries Act, SARA, Migratory Birds Convention Act) will no longer benefit from increased habitat protections. Habitat loss is the greatest threat to our native species – i.e federal protections are not as strong as those provided in the ESA.

Proposed Registration Regulation
It has been proven that “self-regulation” does not work. Individuals lacking the understanding of how to interpret basic legislation, or when to register vs when a permit is required, and those who will twist the project to try to make it “fit” a specific description/definition. For any activity that is registered, there should be a commitment by the government to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the regulations and are conducting activities as they have been registered. Regular compliance visits must be undertaken by ministry staff, and those staff should be given the authority to issue stop work orders should rules not be followed. There must also be strong reporting requirements, and requirements to submit reports for review on a regular basis in order to document works being undertaken, mitigation measures taken, any monitoring activities and any other relevant information.

There should be strict requirements when registering a project​ – to ensure that all required and applicable information is submitted.

​Proposed Permit Regulation
Certain activities being considered for inclusion includes killing of a protected species, this could theoretically be construed as destruction of sensitive habitat for the species. If the habitat that the species depends on to carry out life processes is destroyed (i.e. known JESA ponds, migration corridors and habitat) then it would be fair to say that the activities would indirectly result in death to individuals. Re-introduction of a species to its former range should be a permitted activity, however, if the reintroduction plan is successful, then no further damage/development/adverse activities should be permitted to be undertaken within the habitat.

Proposed Exception Regulation
Wildlife that is not protected under the SCA still receives protection under the FWCA, and may still be subject to requirements under the FWCA (SC species). However, for any SC species, there should be a tool for notification as this would provide critical information concerning the health of these species via tracking locations and numbers, which will in turn help resource managers monitor these species for issues associated with decreasing numbers, disease, etc.

Proposed Transition Regulation
Disagree with allowing cancellation of permits, especially if the project is currently underway. Permit holders should commit to complete any works as per the conditions of permits, etc. already provided to them. Allowing cancellation of previously approved permits would be considered to be handled in bad faith handling by the government by the public. Should activities impact a newly uplisted species then works should cease and new permit should be required. No amendments should be considered for projects that are currently being undertaken under a permit.

Proposed Regulatory Amendments under the Environmental Bill of Rights
Any major or minor development with the potential for impacts to SAR and their habitats should be subject to public input. If this govt claims transparency and accountability, then there should not be any push for its removal. These should not be exempted from the requirements of Part II of the EBR.

Legislative and Other Regulatory Amendments
The amendments are not meant to improve clarity and consistency, but rather are meant to remove protections on vulnerable species and permit developers to go full speed ahead with no regard for species, habitats or public opinion/input.

Doug Fords government needs to re think this approach. The claims by this government to “for the people” and to “protect Ontario” is clearly smoke and mirrors. Fords conservatives are not interested in protecting this province and the only “people” he is for are the multimillionaire land developers who have him in their pockets.