Re: Consultation Proposal:…

Re: Consultation Proposal: 013-4143

10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Protecting and Recovering Species at Risk in Ontario

I have reviewed the Discussion Paper and the Areas of Focus.

Area of Focus 1 – Landscape Approaches
A landscape approach is already enabled by the current legislation (Endangered Species Act, 2007). No changes are needed to use this approach more effectively. It has been implemented with respect to the Woodland Caribou and could be used for other species and groups of species.

Area of Focus 2 – Listing Process and Protections for Species at Risk
No changes are needed for the listing process or notification of upcoming assessments. Better use of existing tools such as the COSSARO website would improve notification. For example, I looked at the current COSSARO website (http://cossaroagency.ca) and noticed that the information on upcoming meetings and the list of species to be assessed is almost two years out of date! Why? It would improve notification to simply have the website made up to date by devoting more resourcing to it.

No changes are needed to automatic listing, and automatic species and habitat protection. These mechanisms are the core functions of the Act and to change them would be destroying the very reasons for which the Act was created.

Area of Focus 3 – Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations
The Discussion Paper does not provide any examples of when or why the timelines for preparing the Government Response Statements (GRS) or Five Year Reviews (FYR) are considered too short or too soon. Nor are there examples of species for which habitat regulations are not needed.

There is no need to change the timelines for development of the GRS or FYR, or to restrict the use of habitat regulations. The GRS and FYR are key to implementing recovery. One of the main threats to species at risk is loss of habitat and requirements such as the habitat regulation are key to ensuring the appropriate amount and location of habitat is protected.

Area of Focus 4 – Authorization Processes
The Endangered Species Act has a suite of authorizations that enable activities to occur. No specific examples are given which would demonstrate that there is a need to widen the suite further.

Overall benefits must be set up to give a benefit to the species being affected by an activity. An option such as donating to a conservation bank would not be species specific and would be much less likely to benefit the species. Other options presented such as simplifying permit requirements for s. 17(2)d, would lessen the protection given to species at risk and be to their detriment. Permitting requirements should not be weakened through regulations in the name of efficiency. It is not clear that there is sufficient inspection and compliance monitoring of existing permitting regulations let alone if additional methods of authorization are created.