On behalf of the Toronto…

On behalf of the Toronto Ornithological Club we offer our comments and recommendations below on the review of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). The TOC is one of the oldest birding clubs in Canada established in 1934 and we are committed to the ongoing conservation initiatives of migratory birds in Toronto and the surrounding areas, with a sound basis in contributions to scientific projects and studies. The TOC is very concerned with the proposed review of the Endangered Species Act (2007) and the associated revisions.

The TOC is very concerned that environmental deregulation - making it easier for industry and development proponents to proceed with activities that harm species at risk and their habitats - appears to be the overall direction of the options put forward for consideration. Statements that the review is intended to “improve protections,” “improve effectiveness” and provide “stringent protections” are very misleading, in light of the proposals that Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is inviting the public to consider. These include options that would undermine the very cornerstones of the law: science-based listing (including Indigenous Traditional Knowledge), mandatory habitat protection, and legislated timelines for planning and reporting.

The TOC is deeply concerned by the indication that MECP is considering alternatives to automatic species and habitat protections, including removing or delaying these protections at the discretion of the Minister. This is clearly a matter of letting short-sighted economic or political interests override the protection and recovery of species at risk. Alternatives to automatic protection will politicize decisions, undermine intended safeguards and expose highly vulnerable species to additional risks - all for no good reason.

There are already many flexibility mechanisms in the ESA to allow harmful activities to proceed, as described in the discussion paper. More are simply not needed. The options under consideration reflect a desire to make it easier for industry and development proponents to proceed with activities that harm at-risk plants or animals and damage or destroy their habitat. The suggested options are inconsistent with the purpose of the ESA which is to protect and recover species at risk. Protection and recovery must be the priority.

The TOC strongly opposes the option of simplifying requirements for exemptions through regulation. The long list of regulatory exemptions for forestry, hydro, mining, aggregate extraction, commercial development and wind facilities, approved by Cabinet in 2013, have significantly undermined not only protections for species at risk and their habitats but also transparency and public accountability. According to the Environmental Commissioner, ESA authorizations have “drastically increased” since the 2013 exemptions were put in place. Exemptions have become the primary means for allowing harmful activities to proceed. As of October 11, 2017, there had been 2,065 registrations for exemptions and about 85 percent of these were for activities that violate ESA protections for species at risk and their habitats. These exemptions already allow industry/development proponents to proceed without providing an overall benefit, without government approval and without public scrutiny. What more do proponents want - carte blanche to proceed without any regard for species at risk?

There are, nevertheless, improvements that could be made to the ESA or its regulations to strengthen protections for species at risk, should MECP proceed with amendments.
• Require additional reporting beyond the current requirement to produce a report five years after the release of the GRS;
• Repeal the sweeping 2013 regulatory exemptions for harmful industrial/development activities;
• Amend section 57 of the ESA so that exemptions are allowed only if the overall benefit standard is met and the exemptions do not threaten the survival or recovery of a threatened or endangered species;
• Amend Ontario regulation 242/08 (the exemption regulation) to require proponents of harmful activities to automatically submit their mitigation plans and annual reports to the government and to make these publicly available; and
• Amend the ESA to give enforcement officers the power to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with exemption conditions.

Rather than reducing its administrative and role and relinquishing its authority through exemptions, the ministry would be wise to embrace its role as a defender of the broad public interest in conserving biodiversity and securing a healthy environment for all. Investing in and incentivizing stewardship would offer, for example, a much more positive and promising means of protecting species at risk than finding new, streamlined approaches to allow proponents of harmful activities to damage and destroy critical habitats.

Angela Brooks
Toronto Ornithological Club