My reactions to the…

My reactions to the discussion paper are mixed. I agree that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) could be improved; I do NOT in any way support changes to the ESA or its administration that result in reduced protection for Species at Risk (SAR). I agree that the administration and implementation of the ESA’s policies and regulations is sometimes slow; I do NOT believe that the way to improve review times is to make the review process less comprehensive, but rather that more staff should be hired to facilitate. If there’s a wait time at your garage for getting your winter tires put on, would you suggest they expedite things by only installing two out of four tires, or only tightening the lugnuts halfway?

My overall impression of the discussion paper is that its authors have little interest in improving protections to SAR in Ontario, no matter how much lip service is paid to that goal, and that the focus is instead on making it easier for businesses to circumvent protections in order to make money. But financial gain is never sufficient reason to compromise the survival of a species or the health of the environment. “Efficiency” should not be used as an excuse for cutting out vital steps in a system that provides protection for the most vulnerable parts of our ecosystems.

I find the statement that “the Act has been criticized… for creating barriers to economic development” frankly absurd. What the Act does is ensure that developers and businesses cannot destroy or irreparably harm SAR and their habitat in the pursuit of higher profits, and yet somehow that is being spun that as a bad thing.

With respect to some specific discussion points mentioned in the document:
- P.3, re: utilizing a “landscape approach instead of a case-by-case approach”. Firstly, as a general rule, environmental assessments in Ontario are already required to look at both the landscape-level and the site-level in order to assess connections and trends. It is disingenuous to present “landscape approaches” as a new tool to be introduced as an improvement. Secondly, SAR frequently require very specific habitats – often, part of what makes them rare in the first place is a dependence on uncommon habitats or site conditions. Even those that require large tracts of habitat on a landscape level can also have site-specific requirements. Therefore, I do not believe it’s possible to only look at a landscape level and still provide appropriate protection.

- P.4, re: the suggestion of longer timelines before a species is listed. What benefit would increased timelines provide to SAR? If a species has been designated a SAR, it is in danger and protection is appropriate; in some cases a rapid response may be necessary. Providing more advance notice prior to listing would, quite frankly, just allow businesses or people with conflicts more time to conveniently erase those conflicts without fearing legal consequence. I’m not against a certain amount of “grandfathering” for projects that are near completion (although I still believe these should be reviewed and that ways to minimize impact should be incorporated), but a broad blanket policy to delay listing is not an improvement to the ESA.

- P.7, re: the suggestion of creating a conservation fund. I wholeheartedly disagree that this should be allowed. Firstly, money coming out of a “conservation fund” has no guarantee to address the specific site or species that is being affected. And secondly, putting a set dollar value on compensation simply makes habitat destruction a line-item cost that gets added in to the project budget as a first choice rather than a last resort. Avoidance should always be the first choice – per your own document, “avoiding impacts to species at risk and their habitat is an integral part of protection and recovery”. Compensation – i.e., the idea of enhancing or creating habitat elsewhere to replace what is lost – should always be the last option (as it is often ineffective) and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if is it even feasible from a conservation standpoint, and if so then how best to go about it.

The discussion paper as a whole is filled with leading questions and economic-based spin that does not lead to productive discussion regarding actual improvements to SAR protection in Ontario. For example, discussion question #3 on pg. 7: “what changes to authorization requirements would better enable economic development while providing positive outcomes and protections for species at risk?” Economic development should not be the driving factor in determining what is appropriate for SAR protection. Improving economic development should not be the focus of legislation (or the 10-year review thereof) pertaining to SAR. Rather, the focus should always, first and foremost, be on the PROTECTION OF SAR AND THEIR HABITAT.