Despite the Government's…

Despite the Government's reassuring words, it feels to me like this "effectiveness on environmental protections" does not consider what is best for the environment, and will be mostly based on deregulation. Remember - there is no economy (good or bad) without the environment. The functions and services provided by the environment, such as clean air, clean water, water infiltration, flood control, erosion control, carbon sequestration would be worth trillions of dollars if were converted to currency.

The 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion paper provides little to no data to support its assertions. It is not clear where these “challenges” and “discussion questions” were based on or who has been consulted to formulate those. While I agree that there is certainly room for improvement in the outcomes for species –at-risk in Ontario, I would like to point out that the problem is not the Act itself, but its implementation and enforcement. The conversation should be around implementation improvements, such as additional staff to keep the Government on schedule with Government Responses/Management Plans/Recovery Strategies, or additional staff to provide a more efficient enforcement. Instead, the overall direction of this review seems to be environmental deregulation (“to cut red tape”), and I am deeply concerned that the Act will be changed to facilitate depletion of natural resources to allow for “development” in detriment of the at-risk species and their habitat. Species are at risk primarily due to habitat loss – to improve the Act we need to improve habitat protection, not make it easier for certain business to operate in habitat. Additionally, the current exemptions should be repealed - there is virtually no protection for the at-risk species in those habitats (e.g. forest harvesting on Woodland Caribou habitat).

Please note that the three main 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. (ESA 2007, c. 6, s. 1. ). If any modifications to the Act are proposed, they should be consistent with these objectives.

An automatic species and habitat protection is one of the most important portions of the Act and it must not be removed. It is consistent with the precautionary principle: taking preventive measure in face of uncertainty, particularly when there is significant intersection between a species or its habitat and human activities. The burden of proof should be on the proponents of an activity that could cause impacts to the at-risk species and their habitat, and not on the legislation or the species/habitat themselves. Otherwise, if protection is conferred only after years while the impactful activities continue, it is likely that by the time the protection is granted, there won’t be enough habitat (or population) left to protect that species. Additionally, the more destruction is allowed on the habitat of the species-at-risk, the more expensive their recovery will be.

The landscape approach is already possible in the existing Act, and it is a great additional tool to implement in habitats where multiple species are at-risk. However, it cannot replace the case-by-case and species-specific policy, since in many cases, this is the only approach that will work.

It is also of concern to me the proposal that application, removal or temporary delay protections for a THR or END species or its habitat could be based on Ministerial discretion. This decision should be based on scientific knowledge, such as the way in which the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario assess and classify each species, and not on political will.

While I understand that the current Provincial Government focuses on increasing the economic growth for Ontario, I believe that there are other ways this could be achieved, other than cutting down on protection for species-at-risk (or health and education). For example, the Government could consider focusing in investing in sustainable development, renewable energy, and development of technology. Having an economy based on depletion of natural resources (hard commodities) is simply no longer viable in this age; this is the development model of the past centuries, it is outdated and no longer applicable. I believe that Ontario could achieve great economic development while preserving its natural resources, including SAR, for generations to come.