Overall the discussion paper…

Overall the discussion paper is very vague and therefore it is hard to provide meaningful comments. In trying to decipher the vagueness, it appears, despite the occasional phrase that the review is meant in part to help protect and recover SAR, that the intent of the review is to make it easier for developers and industry to impact SAR and their habitats. As such, I do not support the review.

The discussion paper states that the "Act has been criticized for being ineffective in its aim to protect and recover species at risk, for being unclear, administratively burdensome, time consuming and costly for applicants, and for creating barriers to economic development". A good discussion paper would include the source of this criticism and evaluate data that supports or refutes the claims. As this was not done it appears that the province is simply taking claims at face value and contemplating changes without proper evaluation and analysis. This represents irresponsible governance.

As far as I am aware, only the first criticism is backed with any data: the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), the office the province irresponsibly decided to close, has outlined that data and made it clear that the previous weakening of the Act to include exemptions for industry were largely to blame. As this discussion paper is focused on making it easier for industry, those data and the associated criticism is clearly being ignored. It appears that only the unevaluated criticism by industry and their lobbyists is being heeded.

Having worked with the Act since its inception through my land use planning career, I completely disagree with all of the industry criticisms. The Act is very clear, and the majority of administrative burdens, time, and costs that they bear is industry's own doing. Slight administrative tweaks could improve the process somewhat (such as not requiring Ministerial approval of every permit - a time consuming part of the process with little value) but vastly larger improvements would be realized by industry changing their practices. To be sure, industry's propensity to fruitlessly argue over every provision of the Act and poor submissions cause significant time delays. If these criticisms have any substance, why isn't anything in the discussion paper aimed at improving industry practice such as incentives for good submissions? Effective solutions are never realized by only looking at one side of a problem.

Despite the above, if the province was interested in addressing those unsubstantiated industry criticisms, it is unclear why it was decided to move responsibility for the Act to a different Ministry. It is my understanding that only a small number of the staff currently implementing the Act are moving ministries to continue its implementation. Far fewer staff suggests an increase in administrative delays. Unless of course, the province is planning on hiring new staff (which will inevitably cause delays as they proceed through their learning curve) or the province is already planning to further dilute the Act and its implementation through more "self-regulation" or similar (which is already shown to be ineffective in protecting SAR by the ECO). If the latter case were to be true, the public consultation associated with this discussion paper would be a sham. Would the province do that? Time will tell.

The discussion paper indicates that the province is most interested in comments on the four areas of focus. Below are my comments on each:

Landscape Approaches - Overall this section is extremely vague. The "challenges" are unsubstantiated and it is not clear what the "Discussion Questions" are contemplating. All that is clear is that the province is contemplating 'something' to make it easier for industry. There does not appear to be anything that would help SAR. As a guess, it appears that this section is contemplating 'trade-offs' whereby impacts to SAR and their habitats are allowed in one location due to some action elsewhere that is supposed to help SAR. In addition to the fact that most scientific evidence indicates that we are generally ineffective at creating quality habitat, this sounds like a massive increase in administration with associated time delays. Regardless, I do not support 'horse trading' SAR and their habitats. All SAR and associated habitats should be protected fulsomely, not strategically.

Listing Process and Protections for SAR - The challenges are unsubstantiated. For instance, the COSSARO website lists, in advance, what species are going to be reviewed and when that review will take place. Further, anyone is welcome to provide input into the review including by attending the meetings. The notion that there is not enough notice before a species is listed is ridiculous and can only represent shoddy industry practices in that they are not paying attention. Similarly, the notion that COSSARO's process is not transparent enough is false. Advance notice of assessments, the ability for anyone to participate in (and attend!) the assessment, and the fact that the reports are published online after the results are presented to the Minister provide evidence of the falsehood. All of this can be found out within thirty seconds with an easy internet search. The discussion questions are also problematic. The first and fourth relate to the false 'challenges'. As indicated above, there is ample notice of species assessments and anyone can provide any current science during the assessment. Regarding the second and third, I do not support politicizing SAR protection and science. This would result by giving the Minister power to apply, remove, or delay protections. I do not support allowing impacts to SAR habitat because it is 'not limiting'. This is a red herring - if the habitat is being used by SAR it is important to SAR. Causing the species to look elsewhere for habitat it didn't initially choose represents an impact.

Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations - In general, I do not see the challenges in this section. Without any substantiation, it appears to just be the province not doing its job. The discussion questions are similarly perplexing. Why would there be a need to extend timelines for a GRS due to complex recovery approaches? The approaches are already outlined in the Recovery Strategy. Why would engagement take longer than 9 months? This is truly laughable considering the province is only engaging on the entire Act for 45 days! How would a longer timeline for progress reviews improve outcomes for SAR? Currently, there is very little funding for any of the approaches outlined in GRSs; therefore very little is done. Extending timelines would not improve this. Further, species data are not the only way to report on progress. Funding monies provided, number of activities/projects implemented, amount of outreach conducted, etc. are all useful metrics that can be reported on in the first five years for every species. These metrics could also be assessed against the species data obtained in future progress reports. In general, this entire section appears to be bureaucratic challenges that are erroneously being disguised as scientific (or other) challenges.

Authorization Process - in general the challenges are bureaucratic in nature. Fix government operations not the Act. The recent move of responsibility for the Act does not appear to be fixing anything. The first challenge is spurious. If an applicant has to file numerous applications/registrations, even for routine activities, they are obviously undertaking an activity or activities with a high potential for impacts. Why shouldn't they have to demonstrate that they are protecting SAR? The discussion questions give many examples. I absolutely do not support the creation of a conservation fund to allow proponents to undertake activities in SAR habitat without requirements. This is very unlikely to support the protection and recovery of SAR. Conservation banking could be effective but only if the current 'overall benefit' standards and project types as described in regulation are banked. It is not clear what is being contemplated for a conservation agreement; however, as long as it meets the current 'overall benefit' standard and practice it could be effective (e.g. in Secondary Plan processes). The examples of possible changes to authorization requirements are very unlikely to provide positive outcomes for SAR. The 17(2)d exemptions are already being erroneously used and the registrations for all of the exemptions lack any government oversight or enforcement (as detailed by the ECO). I do not support further relaxing of the rules to support economic development. Finally, enhanced inspection and compliance powers is warranted in all cases - there is very little now. However, changing the Act and its regulations means nothing if there are not resources (staff) to undertake these powers. Without the resources, enhanced legislative power is just smoke and mirrors. Good for marketing purposes but no actual improvement.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments. Unfortunately, I have little faith that my comments matter. As reported by the ECO, over 11,000 comments from the public on the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act were provided, including mine, with less than 1% of the comments expressing clear support for its cancellation. However, the Act was still cancelled. Why would I view this consultation any differently? Sigh.