It is with great concern…

It is with great concern that I have read the proposed changes to Ontario's Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The overarching theme of the proposed changes is the extension of timelines. For example, the time between when a report is given by COSSARO to the minister and when the species is listed under SARO will be extended from 3 months to 12 months. Also, rather than a species being immediately protected upon listing, the proposed changes "will provide the Minister with authority to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years for some newly-listed species". These two extensions combined could mean that a species and its critical habitat are left unprotected for 4 years following the submission of a COSSARO report - the drafting of which report is itself a lengthy and involved process. This is an unnecessarily long period of time, and many changes and impacts could occur within this window, putting these species at greater risk.

The second point above (the potential delaying of protection for three years) lists a series of criteria for the delay to occur. However, it is unclear how these criteria would be assessed and how much time the governing bodies would be provided to make this assessment. Without these items clearly defined, the process will lack robustness and delays will likely be implemented without adequate support.

Another timeline extension is proposed in giving permit/agreement holders the ability to operate for a full year following new listings and habitat protections. This would further extend the delay above to a total of 5 years, and would allow operators to work in areas where they knowingly are having impacts on listed species. While understandably inconvenient to those permit-holders to cease activities while waiting for permits to be amended, projects have constant delays for a multitude of reasons, and waiting to ensure the most appropriate decision is made before continuing activities is the ethical approach.

One of the most concerning proposed changes is the Species at Risk Conservation Trust, which would allow developers to pay a fee rather than follow ESA requirements. The cost would be within the range of costs typically incurred; however, there is no mention of how this would be determined. As someone who has worked on several infrastructure projects in protected areas, I am well aware that initial quoted or estimated costs are often substantially below the actual costs of performing a job safely, effectively, and with meaningful results. By charging a fee rather than determining compliance through measured benefits and results or long-term monitoring, the achieved offsets are unlikely to match those expected or required. Also, it is unclear how this agency would be funded. Would these funds be coming from the fees paid by developers (thereby even further reducing offsetting or remediation efforts), or would it be independently funded by taxpayers?

I am also concerned by the removal of the requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert. The Minister cannot be expected to be an expert in these matters, and they should rely on the opinion of those who are. Leaving more decisions to the Minister's discretion without appropriate consultation and council from experts in the field is irresponsible.

Lastly, making a habitat regulation proposal optional rather than mandatory is inadequate. If these regulations are not always required, then the exceptions should follow a specific suite of criteria. In other words, the onus should be on the proponent to demonstrate that a regulation is not required, rather than relying on individuals who already have full workloads to find the time and resources to draft optional regulations. Making this requirement optional would, for all intents and purposes, lead to the elimination of habitat regulations.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on these proposed changes. I hope that the changes are strongly reconsidered, and that species at risk do not lose any important protective measures.