• Considering a species…

• Considering a species condition around its broader biologically relevant geographic area, inside and outside Ontario increases the risk that the species will be extirpated from the province which can have significant ecological and economical impacts, while also reducing the protections for the species and preventing proper conversational efforts from being implemented leading to a more reactive rather than proactive approach to protecting our species. Species reintroduction programs are very costly and few are truly successful.

• Providing the Minister with the authority to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years for newly-listed species can be detrimental on the survival of a species depending on the sensitivity of the species to ecological changes; especially if they have particular mating habits or require a very particular set of conditions to not only survive, but to be able to reproduce.

• I'm concerned about the new proposed section 8.2 under the ESA mentioned in the Bill 108 proposal:

New section 8.2 provides that, for a period of one year after a species is listed
on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species
for the first time, some of the prohibitions under subsection 9 (1) or 10 (1)
will not apply to persons who were issued permits or otherwise authorized under
the Act to engage in activities before the species was so listed. This one-year
delay applies in addition to any order made under section 8.1 that temporarily
suspends the relevant prohibitions for a period of up to three years.

As mentioned above, any type of delay in establishing protections for a species can be detrimental to its population numbers. This section can also get tangled with new section 27.1:

New section 27.1 gives the Minister the power to order a person not to engage in an
activity or to stop engaging in an activity that may have a significant adverse
effect on a species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an
extirpated, endangered or threatened species. The order may also require the
person to take steps to address the adverse effect of the activity.

If I'm not mistaken, if you combine these two new sections in a real life scenario, the Minister now has authority to allow allow activities to occur if a species was newly listed, while also giving the Minister the authority to come back after the one-year delay and order said person to no longer engage in the activity that may have a significant adverse affect on a species and also force said person to remediate the situation. This is a very reactive approach. This approach not only has the potential to increase harm on the species population, but may lead to an increase in costs for protection and remediation efforts. I fear negativity will follow no matter which decision the Minister will make in this position, whether proactive or reactive as a result of the authority given by these two new sections of the ESA.

• I don't agree with the proposed change to create a regulatory charge that would authorize individuals to pay to carry out prohibited activities. I understand that the Government wishes to reduce timelines to get projects up-and-running while reducing regulatory burden, however, I don't believe that allowing individuals to pay a fee to by-pass the process of obtaining permits and obeying regulations is the way to go. This proposal is especially worrisome considering the proposed changes for the Environmental Assessment Act. Under the ESA proposal, there is a line in the summary which states "Clients will 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". However, under the new EAA proposal, the Government wishes to exempt low risk projects from having to undergo a EA and change the classification of some medium-risk projects and moving them to low-risk classification. I'm confused as to how the Government will monitor these on-the-ground requirements and what would be considered reasonable alternatives depending on the new risk classification of projects. For example: would someone wishing to establish a septic bed in a region near a wetland with an endangered turtles be able to by-pass the Environmental Assessment step as well as pay the regulatory charge under the ESA and carry forward with the project? - More clarification on this regulatory charge and the types of projects that may be eligible to by-pass permits, agreements, etc. would be good to see.

• The new transition provision for existing Endangered Species Act permits would allow holders to continue operations for 1 year following the listing of new species or habitat protections while the permit or agreement is amended. How will this work for those who paid the regulatory charge? Will they also be limited to 1 year while the Ministry explores alternatives to ensure the protections are accounted for and make the operators adjust their activity accordingly or will the be exempt from this process?