May 18, 2019 To Whom it may…

May 18, 2019

To Whom it may concern;

RE: EBR Registry No. 013-4143 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act:

As an ecologist, health care worker with a Masters of Science in global health and a rural landowner, I would like to submit a comment to this discussion on the amendments to the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007.

As the UN report just released revealed, we are at a crossroads for nature and ourselves, with extinctions, caused by humans, threatening over a million species. Canada still has something to protect so we need to at least protect the legislation that is attempting to protect its endangered species. Proposed legislative amendments needs to be science-based, not politically or financially motivated.

The habitat for endangered species is already quite fragmented in southern Ontario, reduced further due to low-density urban sprawl. Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) under Section 5 of Bill 108, “More Homes, More Choice Act” makes endangered species more susceptible to destruction rather than lending to furthering their protection.

Protecting communities, protecting the environment should be a priority for this government.
Amendments to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) defeats the purpose of the ESA. The ESA was developed to “protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk”. The proposed amendments as described below provide developers with exemptions and contradict this goal.

First, the proposal to charge a fee so developers would be able to destroy the fragile ecology of the lands that harbour protected species is quite problematic as proposed under sections 20.1 to 20.18. Creating a fund to compensate for the loss of endangered species in developing the lands that would normally be protected under sections 9 to 10 of the ESA, is not going to bring back a species once they are extinct.

Second, stretching timelines to list species as endangered as proposed under section 7(4), 8(3), 8(4), 8.1 and 8.2 only further undermines the overall objective of the endangered species act. One must weigh the cost of wiping out the last of the species to the expense of delaying business for someone.

Third, new subsections 9 (1.2 to 1.4) which gives the Minister the power to make regulations which override science-based species listings is unacceptable. The continuation of science-based listing of species at risk by the independent panel of scientists of COSSARO and the protection of their habitats (sec. 9, 10) is a cornerstone of the ESA and must remain as such. Based on the news and personal pledges, people in Ontario value evidence-based policies not motivated by the special interests of a few small parties, which would be suspect, if ministerial discretion about protection became policy. The ESA already provides enough flexibility through permits and exemptions.

Fourth, the landscaping agreements for developers in sec. 16.1, is problematic because it goes beyond the landscape-level to large-scale level building authorizations and with obviously larger impacts. Although “landscaping” is a nice buzzword, the ecosystem and species-specific approaches are the equivalent as per sec. 13, 14 and so there is no reason for this new amendment.

Fifth, expanding those who can join the COSSARO advisory panel with those without scientific or aboriginal-knowledge, or to those who have an invested interest in the decision is not best-practice and is dangerous. There is no reason to change the way the current system appoints people via the Lieutenant Governor. As currently proposed, Bill 108 offers few details on who will be allowed into the broadened membership of the advisory panel.

In summary, I would like to point out that there is a fundamental difference between revising and amending the law and improving its implementation which seems to be the theme of many critics of Bill 108. To improve outcomes for species at risk we need to improve ESA implementation not weaken the law.

Although, there was a news release of a new fund to do exactly this, exactly one month ago at website : https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2019/04/implementing-recommendations-of-… the deadline to apply was so time- limited and given its timeframe coinciding with this submission process, I expect there wasn’t enough time for many organizations or interested parties to apply. By reconsidering expanding the deadline and announcing this to those who submit in this process may be a positive step to helping fix the problem.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these concerns. Lastly, I would like to point out that as a landowner, organizations with broad mandates may not necessarily represent the general population of its membership but these organisations seem to have a great deal of influence. The fact of the matter is that we will all be poorer by the loss of these species which are endangered if we weaken the laws that protect them. I urge you remove Schedule 5 from Bill 108 (the schedule that contains the changes to the Endangered Species Act).