March 4, 2019 The Honourable…

March 4, 2019

The Honourable Rod Phillips
Minister of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks
Government of Ontario
Toronto, Ontario

Dear Minister Phillips:

RE: 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act -- ERO 013-4143
Kingston Field Naturalists Submission

The Lennox and Addington Stewardship Council (LASC) is a community organization that has been working towards ensuring a healthy and sustainable natural environment in the county of Lennox and Addington. Ours is a county blessed with diverse natural surroundings. From Lake Ontario in the south, to the Canadian shield in the north, woodlands, wetlands, rivers, grasslands, and alvar landscapes provide habitat for abundant biodiversity. The members of the LASC are from diverse backgrounds but they are united in their desire to protect this natural heritage for present and future generations. The LASC promotes education, awareness, conservation and restoration of many ecosystems in the interest of preserving this biodiversity. However, like many other like-minded organizations, we are aware of the growing number of species that are designated “At Risk.”

We, the LASC embrace the Ontario Government and Parks’ (MECP) desire to improve protection for species at risk in Ontario through a revised, enhanced and effective. ESA. We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Discussion Paper: “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act” (the “Discussion Paper”). We are encouraged by the Ontario Government’s indication that it wishes to “consider modern and innovative approaches to achieving positive outcomes for species at risk.” The Government of Ontario has the responsibility to the citizens of Ontario to protect diversity of species for present and future generations. To achieve positive outcomes in a revised ESA, the protection of each species at risk must always be the focus in the implementation of modern and innovative approaches.

In response to each focus we offer the following comments.
Focus #1 Landscape Approaches:
• The law should not be changed to allow landscape approaches instead of species-specific approaches. The existing law already provides for this. No change is necessary.
• The authorization of harmful activities at a broad scale, such an approach is inappropriate for endangered and threatened species. It doesn’t lend itself to addressing site-specific or species-specific concerns and consequently presents unwarranted additional risk for species already in peril.

Focus #2 Listing Process and Protection:
• There should be no change to the ESA regarding the listing process and the role of COSSARO. The law sets out a transparent approach to listing based on a consideration of “the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.” (sec. 5(3)). There should be no alternative to automatic species and habitat protections (e.g., through ministerial discretion to remove or delay protections).
• Improving notification is an implementation issue which should be addressed through better communications. In its listing process, COSSARO is required to consider species listed by the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (sec. 4(2)a); there are years of notice embedded in this process, from the release of COSEWIC status reports to the listing by COSSARO.

Focus 3 Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations:
• There should be no change to the legal requirement to produce Government Response Statements (GRS) within nine months of the release of Recovery Strategies (sec. 11(8)). Failure to meet the legislated deadline is an implementation issue. The required five-year reporting on progress is reasonable and ensures transparency and accountability.
• The government should legislate additional reporting requirements (e.g., every five years) to drive ongoing action and monitoring beyond the first five years.
• There should be no changes to the legal provisions for habitat regulations, which describe specific boundaries or features of areas deemed to be habitat and provide enhanced certainty for ESA implementation and enforcement. They can include areas where a species “used to live or is believed to be capable of living” (sec. 55(3)b), presenting a significant opportunity for protection and recovery efforts to extend beyond places where species at risk currently persist.

Focus 4 Authorization Processes:
• This is the Endangered Species Act, not the Endangered Business Act. The priority must be on protecting and recovering species at risk. There are already sufficient authorization tools. No new tools are needed. Challenges should be addressed through improved implementation.
• Do not simplify requirements for exemptions through regulation. On the contrary, make the requirements more stringent by amending the law (sec. 57) to ensure that exemptions are premised on providing an overall benefit to species at risk and cannot jeopardize their survival or recovery
• Enhance transparency and accountability by amending the exemption regulation (242/08) to require all proponents of harmful activities to automatically submit their mitigation plans and annual reports to the government and to ensure that these are publicly available.

The Lennox and Addington Stewardship appreciates this opportunity to comment on the MECP’s Discussion Paper about the ESA review (ERO# 013-4143).

Sincerely,
Marilyn Murray
Chair, The Lennox and Addington Stewardship Council