Many species are declining…

Many species are declining across the world and in Canada. The province of Ontario is not immune to these declines; there are currently more than 200 species at risk (SAR) in the province. The main purpose of the ESA should be to protect species, *not to expedite development*! Any changes to the ESA should be made with great care, as without diligent legislation there is not just a risk of additional habitat loss and population declines, but a virtual guarantee. Further declines in some species may cause them to become completely extirpated from Ontario. Further losses to our natural heritage are completely unacceptable in the face of so many other unmitigated threats to biodiversity. Ontario should take the opportunity to be a leader in biodiversity conservation, with an ESA that is the gold standard to which other jurisdictions aspire.

I agree that the public should be notified quickly of COSSARO’s species’ assessments, but listing should be immediate. Waiting one year after the species is listed WILL result in harmful effects on the species, at minimum on various localized scales, and at maximum across its range in our province. I must stress that a lot of these species, particularly amphibians and reptiles, are already rapidly declining both locally and worldwide (the barn swallow has declined more than 90% in the last 40 years, for example), so immediate protection is strongly recommended. I also strongly disagree with the possible suspension of listings for up to three years, as such long delays could allow large developments and lack of mitigation, potentially wiping out entire populations of species that should be listed but whose listings have been unnecessarily delayed for the sake of lining developer's pockets. The path to extinction is not immediate - it's an ongoing march, step after step, of repeated localized extirpations. Carried out across a landscape over time, you will reach a tipping point from which species cannot recover (i.e. Passenger Pigeon, Eskimo Curlew, Golden Toad, Heath Hen, etc., etc.) Furthermore, threatened and endangered species should have habitat regulations, as these species are especially vulnerable.

COSSARO is an independent committee with expertise in scientific disciplines and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (TEK), and these individuals take great care and consideration when making decisions about which species should be listed as at risk. I do agree with broadening member qualifications, but this should not take away from the legitimacy of the organization. The current proposal calls for including those with “community knowledge” – a vague term that could open up COSSARO to those who do not have unbiased expertise in species assessment or that have a different agenda altogether. I still *strongly oppose* that the minister should be able to overrule decisions made by COSSARO, as such veto power explicitly undermines the arms-length scientific approach that is supposed to be used to assess species. If this proposed change goes through, I would be ashamed to call myself Canadian, and the minister should be ashamed as well; no one person should be given that much power in this day and age, especially in our society.

I also strongly oppose COSSARO being required to base its assessments on the status of a species throughout its range, as opposed to in Ontario only. Such a proposed change For species that have a small portion of their range in Ontario, these populations often present unique adaptations and reservoirs of genetic variation, facilitating resilience to climate change. Loss of our Ontario populations means loss of global diversity in the species. As Aldo Leopold said, “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” Allowing species to be wiped out in Ontario simply because they occur elsewhere is at best short-sighted, and at worst arrogant, irresponsible and wildly reckless; anyone who thinks that is a GOOD idea will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

The Species at Risk conservation trust could be a powerful tool under *some* circumstances, but there is too much room for such a program to be abused. This trust could allow for areas facing development to be developed by simply paying into the trust as opposed to protecting the resident species at risk. It places a dollar sign on the worth of a species' population at any given site. Such a proposal runs the risk of jeopardizing the social license that many large companies currently have. If companies are seen to be “buying” the right to destroy the habitat of endangered species, they will be viewed as poor corporate citizens and definitely lose business in the long term, not to mention be openly brazenly flaunting their embrace of an oligarchy. Under some certain circumstances, SAR habitat may be lost, and such a program could result in compensatory habitat creation elsewhere. In those cases there should result a net gain in quality SAR habitat for the same species. Net gains or losses should not be measured as simplistic aerial extent of habitat lost versus created, as the quality of habitat and whether it is actually occupied by viable subpopulations is more meaningful. Although complex to measure, indicators that are relevant to the SAR classification system should be used, such as numbers of mature individuals, survival rates, reproductive rates, area of occupancy, and long-term viability of the mitigation project.

The proposed changes include amending the act to strike out “the environmental registry established under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993” and substituting “a website maintained by the Government of Ontario”. Such a change would mean that the opportunity for public input is lost. Removing opportunities for public input eliminates government accountability to the public and prevents the public to participate in the protection and recovery of species at risk. Sort of the opposite of a democratic society where a responsible government can be held accountable by the people it serves.

Lastly, I agree that better enforcement is necessary to protect SAR. There is a strong need for enforcement of the ESA through fines and if necessary, incarceration. At minimum, court-imposed fines, especially those levied against corporations and businesses, should at least cover the costs of the crown's enforcement and legal proceedings - currently there is little reason to spend money enforcing a law when it costs more money to do so than what is won back in punitive or other damages. Increase the economic incentive to punish those who ignore the law!

Looking to more advanced societies than our own in other countries, it is evident that societies as a whole do better with quality of life and happiness when their environment is not looked upon as something whose care is a chore better ignored, but rather a valuable asset whose overall health is necessary for our own well-being.

The purposes of the ESA are:

1. To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.

2. To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk.

3. To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk. 2007, c. 6, s. 1.

I believe that the proposed changes do not align with the stated and intended purposes of the ESA. These changes will make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals. Given that, I strongly advise you to reconsider the proposed changes and further consult with the public and professionals, to use a collaborative and transparent approach to responsible development while also protecting SAR.