My wife and I have comments…

My wife and I have comments which are provided for each numbered part of the proposal. I hope you actually read and consider them because we spent quite a while thinking about the issue. It is very important.

1. Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List
We believe that extending the delay for listing of species from three to twelve months is too long when one considers that species may be at critical risk. Therefore we believe a reasonable compromise would be to extend the listing delay to six months.
We agree with the consideration of the distribution of species populations outside of Ontario.
We are against including non-experts in COSSARO. While knowledge of ecology, wildlife management or community is valuable, membership in COSSARO needs to be limited to experts qualified in determining the endangered status of species. People without those qualifications should not decide on the endangerment of species. Those subjects (ecology, wildlife management and community knowledge) are appropriate for developing and managing species protections, but those considerations would seem to be independent of the information (i.e., population data) needed to determine species endangerment.

2. Defining and implementing species and habitat protections
This seems reasonable except for 2.C. We do not agree with removing the mandatory requirement and timeline to develop a habitat regulation proposal for newly listed threatened or endangered species and retaining the option to develop a habitat regulation when needed. Firstly, “when needed” is not defined, nor is there any description of how such a determination would be made. Secondly, it give the option to do nothing, and that is wholly unacceptable. The proposal introduces more flexibility to develop and implement management plans, and this is reasonable. What is not reasonable is to have the option of doing nothing.

3. Developing species at risk recovery policies
This part of the proposal does not put a limit on extending deadlines for developing Government Response Statements or progress reviews, and effectively would allow these deliverables to be put off indefinitely. Obviously, this cannot an acceptable way to address the needs of threatened or endangered species. The proposal should be revised to quantify new extended time limits.
However, a five-year review of progress does not seem to us to be unreasonable so we do not understand why the government would need to extend that time limit.

4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions

Regulatory Charge

To us, this is the most problematic part of the proposal. We can envision situations where the type of flexibility described here would be desirable; i.e., projects which have already received investments when a new threatened or endangered species listing is made. We can also understand the need to balance economic needs with the need to protect species. A win-win situation would be to allow progress both in economies and species-recovery. Our concern is that if not managed properly, the proposal can be abused to the detriment of species at risk, and also conceptually the proposal seems flawed.

The concern about “abuse” relates to the potential situation of always allowing the payment of the Regulatory Charge because there are no limits mentioned in the proposal. It seems that underlying this proposal is the flawed assumption that something can always be done elsewhere for a species with the funds obtained from the Regulatory Charge. Clearly, such as with a limited distribution of a species or the disruption of a migratory route, this cannot always be true.

There will be situations for which the payment of the Regulatory Charge, with compensatory species protection and recovery actions elsewhere, may be appropriate, and other situations for which such an arrangement would not be possible. Therefore, the proposal needs to be amended to include conditions under which the payment of the Regulatory Charge would be allowed and under which it would be prohibited. The proposal needs to be revised to include definite limits to the ability to pay a Regulatory Charge.

Despite the proposal claiming to use Canadian best practices, the proposed Regulatory Charge, as stated, would be a first for Canada. To be embark on such a course is risky and should be done very cautiously. There should be a follow on study to determine the effectiveness of this new scheme, or better yet, some pilot studies should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness before employing the scheme across the province.

Additional Changes

Allowing a transition provision for existing permit or agreement holders to continue to operate for twelve months while the permit or agreement is amended to accommodate a newly-listed species is problematic because irreparable damage could be done to that species during that time. Twelve months seems like a long time. A shorter period (e.g., three months) would allow for some flexibility while limiting damage to the newly listed species.