Comments as follows: General…

Comments as follows:
General comments:
Comment #1
This entire proposal is far to vague to actually assess what these changes could mean in a future where development in sensitive habitats is not only encouraged but rewarded by the current government regime.
Comment #2
If this government is dedicated to being transparent with the tax payers of Ontario, then the government should be providing clear details and rules on how they will be dealing with instances when the private sector pressures the Minister into making certain decisions because they want their business or development to go through without regard for the short or long term impacts it might have to the natural environment. How are you going to ensure that the Minister stays genuine and is not corrupted by big business?

Section 1. Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List
Comment #3
In the following section:
A. Provide the public earlier notice of COSSARO's species’ assessment and classification results by making its report available to the public no later than three months after it is received by the Minister. Also, extend the time from when a COSSARO report is received by the Minister to when listing is to occur from three to twelve months (i.e., when a species must be added to the SARO List).
Comment: What is stopping developers from going and destroying all the at risk species on their sites while the species don’t have protection yet because you delayed the implementation?

Comment #4
In the following section of the proposed change:
D. Allow the Minister to require COSSARO to reconsider the classification of a species where the Minister forms the opinion based on scientific information that the classification may not no longer be appropriate. For species that are not yet on the list or are listed as special concern, the proposed changes provide that the species would not be added to the SARO List or listed to a more endangered status during COSSARO's re-assessment."
Comment: How is the Minister forming this potential decision, and what scientific information are they using to make this decision? What sources will be allowed or not allowed to be used for this "scientific information"? How will the scientific information be vetted? Does the Minister have complete power to decide to not take certain available scientific truths into consideration if someone whose vested interest is not in the protection of species at risk tells them to? The public deserves to know how such an absolute power will be handled in very specific detail.

Comment #5
In the following section of the proposed change:
E. Require COSSARO to consider a species’ condition around its broader biologically relevant geographic area, inside and outside Ontario, before classifying a species as endangered or threatened. If the overall condition of risk to the species in the broader biologically relevant geographic area is lower, COSSARO would be required to adjust the species’ classification to reflect its overall condition.
Comment: How broad is broad? Are you actually suggesting that the Minister can force COSSARO to de-list or decide not to list species because they are common 800km away in the southern United States? Broad needs to be defined and measurable, and potentially different for each species. Details are required here.

Section 2. Defining and implementing species and habitat protections
Comment #6
In the following section of the proposed changes:
A. De-couple the listing process from automatic protections and provide greater Minister’s discretion on protections, while keeping the assessment as a science-based process at arm’s length. While the role of classifying species would remain with COSSARO and listing of classified species would continue to be required, the proposed changes would provide the Minister with authority to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years for some newly-listed species when the following specified criteria are met:
i. applying the prohibitions to the species would likely have significant social or economic implications for all or parts of Ontario so additional time is required to determine the best approach to protect the species and its habitat;
ii. the temporary suspension will not jeopardize the survival of the species in Ontario; and
iii. one of the following further criteria is met:
1. the species has a broad distribution in the wild in Ontario;
2. habitat availability is not a limiting factor for the species;
3. additional time is needed to address the primary threats to the species, or co-operation with other jurisdictions is necessary to reduce the primary threats to the species,
4. other criteria that may be specified by regulation.
Comment: What training or higher education does the Minister have to make discretion decisions on highly scientific and complex environmental systems? The current Minister has degrees in political science and English. How will the Minister’s education be supplemented in order to make informed decisions? Who is advising the Minister, and are those individuals competent in these complex environmental systems? Will the Minister be receiving training from the scientific community in order to make these decisions? Or will the Minister who is not educated in such things have the power to make decisions without understanding the full impact that those decisions have? Perhaps it would be in the best interest of everything that calls Ontario home to have a Minster who is actually educated in environmentally related topics.
Further, how is “significant social or economic implications for all or parts of Ontario” defined? Does the Minister have the ability to just make arbitrary decisions that something that isn’t truthfully a significant economic impact now is because a business pressures them to?
How is “broad distribution” defined under (iii.1.)? Who is defining this?
Under Item 4, what other criteria is this in reference to? What regulations are being targeted here? More details are required here.

Comment #7
In the following section:
B. Enable scoping of species protections, where appropriate, via new Minister’s regulations. This proposed new authority would enable species protections to apply to specific geographies or in specific circumstances (e.g., to species that are not affected by disease).
Comment: How is this notion of lifting protection for certain areas being regulated or managed? Who decides this? How is the Minster developing these regulations? And this section notes a new authority- what is this?

Comment #8
In the following section:
C. Remove the mandatory legislative requirement and timeline to develop a habitat regulation proposal for each newly-listed threatened or endangered species and retain the option to develop a habitat regulation when needed.
Comment: Why are you removing the development of habitat regulations for species? What criteria is being used to decide when you will do it?

Comment #9
In the following section:
D. Enable the Minister, rather than LGIC, to make species-specific habitat regulations.
Comment: Again, what qualifications does the Minster have to be making such decisions? Who will be advising the Minister on these decisions? How are you ensuring that the Minister stays true and is not being coerced into making poor environmental decisions to help benefit the pockets of corporations and business? How is that situation beneficial for tax payers?

Section 3. Developing species at risk recovery policies
Comment #10
In the following section:
A. Give the Minister discretion to extend the nine-month Government Response Statement development timeline, for some species.
Comment: How is the Minister deciding when this happens? Who is advising the Minister on this? The Ministry or businesses? How will it be determined what species this can be done for?

Comment #11
In the following section:
C. Allow the Minister to extend timelines for conducting the review of progress towards protection and recovery based on individual species’ needs.
Comment: What qualifications does the Minster possess to be able to determine the specific needs of species? Who is advising the Minister on this? What metrics will be used to determine these needs? When are you saying it would be appropriate to delay research into the progress of species?

Comment #12
In the following section:
D. Remove duplicative requirements by removing specific reference to posting under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and instead requiring that certain products under the Act be made available publicly on a government website.
Comment: Why? Why are you making this change?

Section 4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions
Comment #13
In the following section:
Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency – “The funds would support strategic, coordinated and large-scale actions that assist in the protection and recovery of species at risk…. The proposed amendment would restrict the funds to fund only those activities that are reasonably likely to support the protection and recovery of prescribed species.”
Comment: How is this going to be managed? Will there be timeframes and locational restrictions on where the money can be spent, and by whom? For example, if you let a developer destroy a wetland to build a commercial plaza, and that wetland contained species at risk that can be destroyed in this “pay to play” regime, will the money collected be used to benefit this wetland species? If not, then how is this pay to play regime beneficial to that species? Will there be timeline restrictions on how long the government can wait between allowing for the destruction of species at risk and their habitat, and when the money has to be used to provide benefit? How will you ensure that all the species destined to be destroyed in this “pay to play” regime are receiving equal benefit from the pool of money? Will each species have their own pool of money?
Further to this, who will own the land where the money is being spent? What is stopping a situation where restoration has occurred with money from this fund, and then a developer comes along and wants to build infrastructure on these funded restoration lands, and then that is destroyed because the developer paid into the fund, and now you have a net zero gain from all the previous destructions because their restoration has now been destroyed?

Comment #14
In the following section:
Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency – “…The proposed charges would only be available in respect of species prescribed by regulation… The proposed changes would provide for the ability to make a regulation to prescribe a subset of the species prescribed under the listing regulations as eligible for the payment-in-lieu charge.”
Comment: Who is deciding which species are going to be destined for destruction? How is that being managed or updated? If a species on this destruction list becomes even more endangered over time because they continually get killed by developments, is there a mechanism to remove them from this destruction list?

Comment #15
In the following section:
Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency – “…Clients would still need to fulfill some on-the-ground requirements, including considering reasonable alternatives for their activity and taking steps to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on the species at risk.”
Comment: What would these on the ground requirements look like? Who determines what they will be? How will these activities be overseen to ensure they are actually completed?

Comment #16
In the following section:
Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency – “…The agency would receive the funds and ensure informed, unbiased and expert decisions are made to disburse the funds to third parties that will undertake the activities in accordance with the purposes proposed to be set out in the statute. … The Minister would have the ability to establish guidelines (e.g. objectives and priorities) for funding and set standards for activities that receive funding… The proposed changes would include regulation making authority in respect of the composition, operation, governance and management of the agency (for example, composition of the board of directors for the agency).”
Comment: How is the agency going to be unbiased if the Minster determines the guidelines, regulations, and can influence who is on the board of directors? Shouldn’t the money be spent based on scientific truth and the opinion of qualified persons?

Comment #17
In the following section:
Additional Changes relating to Issuing Permits, and to Agreements and Regulatory Exemptions- A. Remove the requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert in the ‘D’ permit process and replace the requirement for LGIC approval with Minister approval.
Comment: How is the Minister qualified to make decisions that were previously made by an independent expert? What training is the Minister receiving to now take on this role?

Comment #18
In the following section:
Additional Changes relating to Issuing Permits, and to Agreements and Regulatory Exemptions- B. Broaden the approach to minimizing adverse effects for permits and agreements (e.g., ‘C’ permit, ‘D’ permit, landscape agreements, section 18 harmonization) by shifting the focus from ‘individual members’ of the species to the ‘species’ more generally.
Comment: How are you ensuring that this change will not result in the extirpation of species from geographic areas where there are limited numbers of individuals found? Or is the government intending on extirpating species that they believe are in the way?

Comment #19
In the following section:
Additional Changes relating to Issuing Permits, and to Agreements and Regulatory Exemptions- D. Enable the Minister to establish codes of practice, standards or guidelines with respect to species at risk or their habitat, and enable regulations made under the Act to incorporate documents to supplement requirements or conditions related to species at risk.
Comment: How is the Minister qualified to establish these standards and guidelines? Who will actually be developing these guidelines?

Comment #20
In the following section:
Additional Changes relating to Issuing Permits, and to Agreements and Regulatory Exemptions- F. Replace s.18 with a new provision that would include a more flexible test and would allow the Minister to prescribe activities by regulation, to allow them to be carried out without requiring any additional authorizations under the ESA. An activity could be prescribed for this purpose, where it…
Comment: How are these regulations being decided? What checks and balances are in place to ensure these are not developed each time a business wants to develop in an area with species at risk and they just don’t want to have to deal with the “problem”?

Comment #21
Additional Changes relating to Issuing Permits, and to Agreements and Regulatory Exemptions- G. Remove the requirement for the Minister to consult with an expert if the Minister forms the opinion that a proposed regulation is likely to jeopardize the survival of the species in Ontario or to have any other significant adverse effect on the species
Comment: How is the Minister forming this opinion? Who is advising the Minister of this opinion? If a regulation is in fact jeopardizing the survival of a species, how is the Minister being informed, and what obligation does the Minister have to make a change to ensure the species does not become extirpated or extinct?

With regard to the details provided in Bill 108:
Comment #22
In the following section:
3. Same(5)If consideration of the condition of the species both inside and outside of Ontario under clause(4) (b) would result in a species classification indicating a lower level of risk to the survival of the species than would result if COSSARO considered the condition of the species inside Ontario only, COSSARO’s classification of a species shall reflect the lower level of risk to the survival of the species.
Comment: What regard is being given to distinct population groups? For example, if an endangered species in Ontario has a more populous group of relatives further into the states, but the genetic makeup of the two populations is different, are you still suggesting of downgrading the Ontario population even though it is genetically different from the population across the border? Is genetic testing studies being completed to check this? Having increased genetic diversity within species is important to ensuring resiliency as the climate starts changing and plants and animals are forced to adapt.
Comment #23
In the following section:
Delay of prohibitions upon initial listing 8.2
Limitations(3)Subsections (1) and (2) authorize a person to carry out an act that would otherwise be prohibited under clause 9 (1) (a) and subsection 10 (1) or to possess or transport something contrary to clause 9 (1) (b), subject to the following limitations:1.The person shall take reasonable steps to minimize the adverse effects of the activity that was authorized by the permit or agreement referred to in subsection (1) on the species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species for the first time.
Comment: What are “reasonable steps”? How are reasonable steps defined? Who decides if the steps are reasonable? Reasonable steps to a developer are going to be a lot different than the reasonable steps an ecological expert would be taking.

Comment #24
In this section:
Exception,species regulations(1.2)Subject to section 57, the Minister may, by regulation, limit the application of the prohibitions in subsection (1) with respect to a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species.Same(1.3)Without limiting the generality of subsection (1.2), a regulation under that subsection may,(a)provide that some of the prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to a species or provide that they do not apply in specified circumstances;(b)limit the geographic areas to which all or some of the prohibitions in subsection (1) apply, or the times at which they apply, with respect to a species;(c)limit the application of all or some of the prohibitions in subsection (1) to a specified stage in the development of a species; or(d)provide that a limitation set out in the regulation is subject to specified conditions.
Comment: Under what specified circumstances would protecting endangered species be deemed not applicable? How is the Minister deciding when this can occur, and what flexibility do they have in making such a decision?

Comment #25
In this section:
Benefiting species(2)The benefiting species under a landscape agreement are not required to be an impacted species under that agreement, subject to clause (3) (a)
Comment: If a developer comes in and wants to develop the last remaining habitat in a geographic area of the say Blanding’s Turtle, and you allow it under a landscape agreement, because there were other species at risk also impacted, and the developer decides to benefit the Barn Swallow because it was also in the area, how is that in any way a benefit to the Blading’s Turtle, that has been much more significantly impacted? The benefits in a landscape agreement should go to the species most severely impacted by the activity.