Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion paper for the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. I have read the discussion paper fully and have the following general comments:

The Act should not be weakened in any way. We are experiencing a period of frightening decline in many species, which could rip apart the stabilizing capacity of our natural ecosystems and has the potential to result in mass extinction by 2100 if we do not act. This would be a crime of negligence against future generations for which our generation would be justifiably vilified in history.

The Act as it is needs to be more rigorously enforced. There are far too many exemptions; I understand that virtually all requests for exemptions are granted. The logging industry in particular seems to have carte blanche, but other industries are also succeeding in obtaining approval for habitat destruction and other activities that harm the environment. We must develop an economy that does depend on damaging more natural ecosystems.

The science-based decision-making process must be maintained. I think it’s understandable to expect transparency in the basis for listing species as threatened or endangered, however I strongly object to the proposed Ministerial discretion to overturn decisions of the science-based panel.
Finally, we must act as responsible stewards of our natural environment, and project the consequences of our actions over very long time frames – thousands of years. It is vitally important that we act on existing commitments such as protecting 17% of our land; especially forests, wetlands and areas enabling migration of land-based species.

I have the following comments with respect to specific sections of the discussion paper:

Area of Focus 1 – Landscape Approach

"Longer timelines before a species is listed"

Given that a proposed species is endangered and therefore its population is declining, any changes that would delay action would be counterproductive.

"Longer transition periods or ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat."

The Minister should not have discretion to remove or delay protections, as this would be subject then to political interference. Any changes in status should be based only on sound science.

"Is [there] significant intersection between a species or its habitat and human activities, complexity in addressing species threats - as reasons for delaying or failing to protect a species or its habitat"

We cannot fail to protect a declining species for these reasons; given the damage already done to natural ecosystems, if we apply this criterion then it would provide far too little protection for endangered species and important habitat. The intersection of human and species activities is exactly the space that is most challenged, and we must learn to limit our activities that are damaging to other species.

Area of focus 4 – Authorization Process

"Significant social or economic benefit permit, s. 17(2)(d): A significant social or economic benefit permit may be issued for an activity that will result in a significant social or economic benefit to Ontario, but the activity would have impacts that are otherwise prohibited under the Act."

We cannot remove or fail to apply protections to species because there would be social or economic benefits to destroying habitats (or other activities). This would leave a huge hole in the Act and basically anybody could do anything they wanted if it was to provide an economic or social benefit.

"Aboriginal persons – permits and agreements, s. 19: Instruments under this section maybe issued to (or entered into with) a band (as defined in the federal Indian Act), a tribal council, or an organization that represents a territorially-based Aboriginal community."

I may be mis-reading this, but if the intent of this section is to allow Aboriginal people to hunt species that would otherwise be protected by the Act; I cannot support it. It doesn’t make it any less problematic if endangered animals are killed by people of any particular racial origin.

"What new authorization tools could help businesses achieve benefits for species at risk?"

Many people would agree that compliance with environmental regulations can be onerous because of their complexity and possibly scientific nature, especially for small businesses. This is particularly the case if many small businesses all have to go through the same expensive learning process. Therefore, assistance for companies to comply will be beneficial through cost-effective access to knowledgeable advisors who know the regulations, how to assess potential impact and how to comply (not how to find loopholes and get around them). Make counsel available for small businesses and individuals to expedite and reduce the cost of their compliance.