Comments on the proposal…

Comments on the proposal summary:

Proposals 1A and 1B and Proposal 2 (all of it):
It is odd that this government thinks 3 months notice of changes to the SARO List, with press releases and public announcements, is not enough time for industry or the government to adjust to the changes, but 30 days is sufficient for the public to find out about and comment on extensive changes to this law that were quietly published with no announcements. Odder still that this government allowed people more time (47 days) to comment on a simple change to the regulations about the placement of bear bait. Worse yet, the bill went through second reading in the legislature before the 30 day public comment period ended. Sounds like the "Government for the People" doesn't actually want to hear from the people on this.

Up until this point, the government has been successful in passing regulations that provide temporary exemptions for newly listed species in that 3 month time frame. It has also been successful in publishing habitat descriptions and other documents in that time frame. Is this government less efficient than the Liberals?

Species don't suddenly become at-risk when COSSARO makes its assessment; they were already declining/at-risk and need immediate action to reverse the trend. One year is far too long for species to go without protection once COSSARO has made its assessment. Three years is unacceptable. In the US, this type of delay has repeatedly led to to developers/landowners rushing in to destroy species habitat or directly kill any members of the species on their land before the species can be protected. The goal of this legislation should be to provide better protection for species at risk and speed up their recovery, not wipe them out faster.

Proposal 1C: COSSARO meets 2 times a year and can hold emergency meetings when they, the species experts, feel it is warranted. The meeting dates and species to be assessed are posted on the COSSARO website and have been for a few years now, so the timing of the meeting report should not be a surprise, nor should the list of species being reviewed. I'm ok with requiring them to submit a report every January, but COSSARO must be allowed to submit additional reports at other times of the year, too. It is not efficient or transparent to make them hold on to species assessments for months. It is also not reasonable or efficient to expect them to assess all of the species on the annual priority list at a single annual meeting. These people are not full-time government employees; they have regular jobs that they have to take time away from to attend the meetings. Their per-diem barely covers travel expenses (according to the information on pas.gov.on.ca most of the members barely get enough to cover the cost of most hotel rooms these days) so they are essentially volunteering their time and expertise to do this.

Proposal 1D: COSSARO reports are based on the best scientific information, community knowledge, and aboriginal traditional knowledge available at the time the species is reviewed (Clause 5 (3)). COSSARO and COSEWIC always send out requests for new information to the scientific community and others before finalizing the species report. What "credible scientific information" could the Minister possibly have access to that COSSARO does not? This sounds like a loophole that the Minister can abuse to delay the addition of species to the list (by insisting that COSSARO re-assess the species, or by tying up COSSARO's time with mandatory re-assessments of species already on the Species At Risk In Ontario List).

Proposal 1E:
This proposal shows a lack of understanding of the principles and importance of biodiversity at the regional level and to the spin-off benefits to air quality, water quality, and other species (including humans) that come from protecting the habitat of species that are rare in Ontario. It is much easier and cheaper to recover a species that still has healthy populations in neighbouring states and provinces than species that have already become at risk there too. No species should be allowed to become extirpated from Ontario due to human causes just because it's still common in other parts of its range. Ontario has no control over the actions of other provinces or countries. Therefore the legal status must only reflect the status of the species in Ontario.

The reports on biodiversity published by IPBES (referred to as the UN in media coverage) in early May 2019 (the "Summary for Policymakers of the global assessment report on Biodiversity and ecosystems services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services" and the "Summary for Policymakers Report of the IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas") emphasize the importance of acting immediately to slow the rate of loss of biodiversity, even at the local level. Section D2 of the main report: "Strengthening environmental laws and policies and their implementation, and the rule of law more generally" is one of the five main interventions that "can generate transformative change by tackling the underlying indirect drivers of nature deterioration". It is embarrassing that Ontario would chose to dismiss these reports and go in the opposite direction. It makes us look like a bunch of backwards ignorant slackers who are either incapable adapting to the new reality or are waiting for someone else to do all the work for us. Is that really how you want to portray Ontario to the world?

Finally, all of these changes are being made under the Better Homes, More Choices Act, which is written under the assumption that it is municipal development fees, environmental protection regulations, and other planning regulations that are causing the lack of affordable housing. None of these address the real causes: poor urban planning, allowing developers to design our cities instead of social engineers, houses that are sitting vacant because the owner is just going to resell it as soon as the price increases a few months later, and allowing developers to build subdivisions full of 5 bedroom 3 bathroom monstrosities instead of houses that are a suitable size for today's smaller families. All this Act will do is put more money in the pockets of developers while impoverishing the struggling families you promised to help if elected (E.g., restricting development charges means municipalities will have to increase property taxes for everyone to pay for servicing new developments instead of the developer - and the people who will buy those homes - paying for it).

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE ACT:

Clause 3 (4) (a) - these changes are positive, although ecology and wildlife management are typically considered to be aspects of conservation biology so the distinction isn't really necessary

Clause 3 (4) (b) - addition of "community knowledge" experts to the committee is concerning. Community knowledge experts tend to have only very localized knowledge (i.e., what's found in their immediate area), not the broad range of knowledge and expertise that is required to assess the status of species throughout Ontario. I noticed in the comments on the 10-year review discussion paper (publicly available on the Environmental Registry) that several farmers made statements along the lines of "we know what's on our land, we could have told you where to find more of x species if we'd been included in the review". As someone who comes from a farm background, I can tell you that is somewhat true; many (but not all) small farmers know what is on the land that they farm, but most do not have the ability to identify plants or animals that are not directly relevant to their farm operations. Farmers that are managing several hundred acres are not likely to know anything except what is their barns or cultivated fields. COSSARO members rely on data from many reputable sources not just their own personal knowledge. The committee needs members who have the ability to assess the validity of this information. Instead of having a "community knowledge" expert on the committee, COSSARO needs better ways to access community knowledge in preparation for a status assessment. COSSARO also needs ways to verify any community knowledge (e.g., funding for surveys to confirm new populations) before meeting to assess the species.

During preparation of my comments I looked at the biographies of the current COSSARO members (Available to anyone on the COSSARO website). It includes people who have worked in the forest industry, consultants whose full time work is helping developers design and build good projects, NGOs like the Nature Conservancy of Canada that work directly with private landowners all the time, and people heavily involved in large amateur and professional associations like the Entomological Society of Canada. Anyone would consider these people as having "expertise drawn from community knowledge" as well as having relevant scientific expertise.

Aboriginal traditional knowledge is generally not available through other traditional channels. ATK experts are needed on the committee to facilitate access to this information. A "community knowledge expert" would not be able to perform the same function.

Ontario's "Government for the People" needs to assure the people of Ontario that anyone with an anti-listing agenda will NOT be appointed to the committee for their "community knowledge expertise". Better to just leave this criteria out and instead give COSSARO more resources and tools for accessing community knowledge.

Proposed additions to Section 5:
The intent of the Endangered Species Act is to ensure no more species become extirpated FROM ONTARIO, not just to prevent extinction at the global level. Adding these clauses to the Act compromises the intent of the Act. Ontario has no control over other jurisdictions. Similarly, only Ontario can take action to protect its biodiversity and prevent species from disappearing within the province (unless the federal government invokes section 61 the Species At Risk Act because we fail to adequately protect a species listed under that act!).

The species on the Species at Risk in Ontario list that are "at the fringe of their range" in Ontario are there because they used to be more common and widespread in Ontario but human activity has destroyed the habitat (Prothonotary Warbler, all salamanders, most invertebrates, all prairie and alvar species) or killed off populations either inadvertently (Red Mulberry and other plants, invertebrates) or through deliberate collection (Ginseng, Goldenseal, Spotted Turtle) or persecution (Gray Ratsnake, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake). As others pointed out in their comments on the discussion paper, climate change (which the province admitted is real in its opening arguments to its constitutional challenge of the carbon tax) is causing species to disappear from the *southern* fringes of their range. Maintaining populations at the northern fringe of the range will become more critical if we are going to maintain global biodiversity.

More importantly, COSSARO ALREADY TAKES THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL STATUS OF SPECIES INTO ACCOUNT during its review, and they do it in a biologically valid way! See pages 5 and 6 of the Categories and Criteria for Status Assessment which is accessible to anyone on COSSARO's website (www.cossaroagency.ca/species). These criteria are based on the internationally recognized standard (the International Union for Conservation of Nature - IUCN) and were refined through consultation with stakeholders. COSSARO's approach to incorporating the status of the species in its broader range is more appropriate than the proposed new clauses. The criteria for assessing the status of species should be left to the experts (i.e. COSSARO and the stakeholders they consulted), not politicians.

Instead, I recommend revising Section 5 as follows to make it clearer that the intent is to protect Ontario's biodiversity:
5 (1) 3. A species shall be classified as an endangered species if it lives in the wild in Ontario but is facing imminent extinction or extirpation from Ontario
5 (1) 4. A species shall be classified as a threatened species if it lives in the wild in Ontario, is not endangered in Ontario, but is likely to become endangered in Ontario if steps are not taken to address factors threatening to lead to its extinction or extirpation.
5 (1) 5. A species shall be classified as a special concern species if it lives in the wild in Ontario, is not endangered or threatened in Ontario, but may become threatened or endangered in Ontario because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

If you insist on going ahead with this weakening of the act by forcing species assessments to be based solely on the species status' on areas outside of Ontario where the species is doing better instead of sound biological science (e.g., an expert assessment of the species' ability become re-established naturally through immigration from the rest of its range) you also need to adjust the status in Ontario if the species' status worsens outside Ontario afterwards. Add the following to either section 5 or section 6:

"Where a species was classified at a lower level of risk to the survival of the species under subsection 5 (5), if any government within the broader biologically relevant geographic range of the species classifies the species at a higher risk of survival after it has been classified in Ontario, the species shall automatically be reclassified to the same higher level of risk in COSSARO's next report to the Minister."

Section 6:
I support the proposal to revise subsection 6 (2) of the current Act to set a consistent deadline for the mandatory annual report (so it cannot be delayed to a time that is politically convenient for the Minister)

I DO NOT support the proposed prohibition on submitting additional reports. COSSARO is required to meet a minimum of 2 times a year. This is necessary to keep up with the COSEWIC assessments, clear the backlog of rare species that have not yet been assessed, and re-evaluate species on a regular basis. The committee should not be forced to sit on non-emergency status changes for 6-8 months. While this may be more convenient for politicians, it will create a workload issue for the Ministry responsible for actually implementing the Act as well as making it more difficult for them to find enough qualified experts to write the recovery strategies to meet the deadlines. An experienced business person knows it is a much more efficient and effective use of staff and resources to spread out the reports, and the workload, over the course of the year.

Also, if COSSARO becomes aware of new credible scientific information that a listed species is actually not at risk, they should not have to wait for the Minister to request the report. Instead of putting this in the Act as another clause, keep it simple. Don't prevent COSSARO for submitting additional reports as it sees fit!

Proposed clause 6 (3) (b). If you go ahead with prohibiting COSSARO to submit additional reports, this clause should not be restricted to species that are not already listed as threatened, endangered, or extirpated. If COSSARO becomes aware of new credible scientific information that indicates that a threatened species is now facing imminent extinction or extirpation (e.g., a forest fire has wiped out half the population in Ontario), they should be able to submit a new report. COSSARO should also be able to submit a new report if the committee becomes aware of new credible scientific information that indicates that a species previously thought to be extinct or extirpated is still present in Ontario but is facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Proposed amendment to Subsection 7 (4):
I applaud this government for keeping the species assessment and status assignment as a strictly science-based, arms length process. Species status should only be based on how the species is faring. Socio-economic impacts should only be addressed through regulations and permits, not the listing process.

However, 12 months is far to long to wait to list a species, especially species that are at imminent risk of extirpation or extinction (i.e., endangered). That is plenty of time for landowners to deliberately wipe out any populations and habitat on their properties, resulting in worse outcomes for species at risk instead of the government's stated goal of improving outcomes. The previous government managed to prepare exemption regulations, habitat descriptions, and other supporting documents in 3 months. Why does this government believe they will be incapable of meeting that deadline? Because you cut the responsible ministry's budget so they won't have the resources to meet the deadline?

If you absolutely must increase the time between receiving the report and revising the list, choose a shorter timeline than 12 months.

Also, until the list is revised, the status assessment must be kept confidential in order to protect the species from persecution. Even the people/corporations who provided generous campaign contributions to the Minister and other members of parliament must not be informed of the decision until the list is revised.

Section 8: Much of this section is a directly contrary of the government's stated goal of "improving outcomes for species at risk". It's impossible to improve the outcome for a species if you delay protection for individuals of the species or their habitat for too long. The only possible outcome in that scenario is extinction or extirpation.

Subsection 8.1 (1):
Instead of making a regulation that "temporarily" suspends the subsection 9 (1) and 10 (1) prohibitions for all people and activities, it would be better to revise section 23.13 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 to provide temporary exemptions for developments that are already at an advanced stage of planning. This would allow those developments to proceed as is (as long as they take steps to avoid killing or harming individuals of the species) and give them time to come up with a mitigation plan (e.g., to create replacement habitat somewhere else). Any projects that are in an early stage of planning do not need extra time to include the newly listed species in their plans; there are a lot of other things other than species at risk that are going to cause revisions to the plans anyway!

8.1 (3) (a): this is a good requirement!

8.1 (3) (b) (i): in this situation, individuals of the species should still be protected. Otherwise, as has been demonstrated many times in the United States, people will deliberately kill individuals of the species so their property won't be affected when the habitat protections come into effect.

8.1 (3) (b) (i): Also, "parts of Ontario" is troubling. It sounds like you will delay protecting the species in all of Ontario just to address challenges it causes in a relatively small area like the Golden Horseshoe. There also needs to be transparent, standard, measurable criteria for what "significant social or economic implications" means (similar to the clear and transparent criteria COSSARO uses to determine a species' status)

8.1 (3) (b) (ii): this is a good requirement! As long as the Minister makes this decision based solely on the advice of qualified experts - preferably COSSARO. For transparency, way that the Minister came to this conclusion (e.g. List of people consulted) is included in the subsection (4) order as part of the reason for suspension.

8.1 (3) (c) (i): it's not enough for the species to be widely distributed. There must be viable populations broadly distributed across the province.

8.1. (3) (C) (ii): this is a critical requirement

8.1 (3) (c) (iii): this is not a valid excuse for failing to take action to protect a species. You can prohibit people from killing, harming, harassing, possessing, collecting, buying, selling etc. individuals of the species and destroying their habitat while figuring out how to address other threats e.g., climate change. Otherwise, by the time you figure out how to address the other threats, there's a good chance that the species will be in much worse condition because populations have been wiped out by development.

8.1 (3) (c) (iv): this is unacceptable. The purpose of the ESA is to protect the species in Ontario from threats in Ontario. Species need full protection in Ontario while inter-jurisdictional negotiations are ongoing. This sounds like an excuse to never protect species like migratory birds. It doesn't matter what's going on in other jurisdictions that could be causing a decline; Ontario needs to take responsibility for what happens in this province and lead by example. Ontario can't demand that other jurisdictions to takes steps to recover shared species when Ontario openly refuses to do anything other than put the species name on a list.

8.1 (4) (d): include a summary of the information and the experts that were used to come to this conclusion. This will ensure transparency in decision making and assure the people of Ontario that the Minister used credible sources.

8.1 (5) (b): the date should be no later than three years after the day the Minister received the report from COSSARO. The Minister should be taking full advantage of the time between receiving the report and the date the species at risk list is changed (which you are proposing to be 12 months!!!) to develop habitat descriptions/regulations, strategies for addressing the primary threats, and suitable mitigation measures to protect and recover the species. As written, this could mean that a species would go FOUR years without protection after COSSARO has determined that it is at imminent risk of extinction/extirpation (endangered species) or is likely to become endangered (in Ontario) if steps are not taken quickly to protect the species

8.1 (5) (b): since endangered species are facing imminent extinction or extirpation, the maximum end date for an order for a newly listed endangered species should be shorter than for threatened species

8.1 (6): this is fine, as long as the species is not likely to disappear from these geographic areas during the transition period (I.e. As long as populations here are not at greater risk than in other parts of the province)

8.1 (7) this is a good requirement and provides clarity.

Subsection 11 (8): this sounds like an excuse to never reintroduce an extirpated species - unless it's a game species (e.g., wild turkey). Feasibility should be the only factor. Reintroducing species, where feasible, is another way Ontario fulfill its obligations to help preserve global biodiversity.

Section 12.1: This is one area where a longer time line may have been beneficial. The Government Response Statements that have been published so far have been laughably lacking in tangible commitments from the government, and have instead made vague statements about "supporting" non-government organizations to do the government's work. If a longer time period would result in the government actually committing to real, measurable actions, I would support changing the standard time limit to 12 months as well as the option set out in 12.1 (4).

Section 12.2: This is a big improvement over the previous Act. I fully support this change.

15 (2) (c) (i) (B): ABSOLUTELY NOT! Paying into the fund should be an optional PART of the overall benefit plan for the species, not a substitute. The person must still obtain a permit and follow the conditions of the permit to minimize direct adverse effects on the species and its habitat, and take steps to provide a direct benefit to the species. What good will this money be to the species if you allow developers/industry to destroy all the habitat and kill all the individuals of the species? People should take more than financial responsibility for their actions.

15 (2) (d) (ii): since this should only apply to projects that would bring billions of dollars into the economy (.e.g. Ring of Fire development), the "species conservation charge" should be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; it should be equal to the savings the proponent would realize by not doing extensive activities to bring benefit to the species that would have been required under the previous version of this Act.

The Species At Risk Conservation Fund:
I do see value in having this fund. However, the wages and compensation packages for the employees of the fund must come from the province's general coffers, not from the contributions to the fund. 100% of all money given to the fund or earned through its investments must be used for projects that benefit the species.

I also do not want to see a long list of conservation fund employees on the sunshine list! For example, I was horrified to see that there are 140 people in the WSIB who make over $100K a year. No wonder they do everything they can to avoid paying someone who was injured on the job, and then pay out as little as possible. Don't let this happen to the Conservation Fund!

Most importantly, this should not be turned into yet another opportunity for a Premier to give a plum high-paying CEO position to his or her friends and political supporters. The most important work for this fund (deciding which funding requests will be approved) can be done by a Board of Directors, with members remunerated similar to COSSARO and the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission.

20.18 (1): No. Since The Crown is ultimately responsible for the activities of the Agency, the people of Ontario need a legal means to hold The Crown accountable for the actions of the Agency.

55 (1) (f) (viii): what commercial activities would the Agency need to carry out? The only thing it should be doing is funding species at risk research and recovery projects.

57 (1): this is good, but it shouldn't have to be stated in the Act, it should be automatic! For transparency, add a requirement to publish the reasons that the Minister is of the opinion that the regulation will not jeopardize the survival of the species or have an other significant adverse effect on the species.

Finally, I noticed that proposed changes include striking out every reference to the "environmental registry established under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993" and replacing it with a reference to an unnamed website "maintained by the Government of Ontario". First, this makes me suspicious that you are planning to repeal the Environmental Bill of Rights, something that a true "Government for the People" would not do. Second, it makes me suspicious that you are going to make it more difficult for the public to find out about, and provide input to, proposed regulation changes, permits and other authorizations, draft recovery strategies, and Government Response Statements. This is the opposite of transparency! The new Environmental Registry website is quite nice and is easier to use than the previous one, which did need some updating. Please keep using this registry, so the people of Ontario only need to monitor one website to find out what their government is doing for the environment, including species at risk.