Re: EBR 013-4143: 10th Year…

Re: EBR 013-4143: 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ESA review discussion paper. I have reviewed the document and am submitting comments based on my experience working as a biologist in Ontario for over 40 years. I support the stated intent in the discussion paper to provide more stringent protections for species at risk, however almost all of the proposals being considered will not accomplish that goal.

I recommend that MECP:
• Improves implementation of the ESA and not make any changes to the legislation;
• Increase resources for additional staffing to handle any backlog and to respond in a timely manner to listings under the ESA;
• Ensure that the public is informed of COSSARO meetings through the maintenance of an up-to-date website with information on the species to be considered for listing and date and location of the next meeting. Currently the website is more than six months out of date;
• In order to improvement monitoring and ensure that information in status reports is current, enter into an official agreement with the Natural Heritage Information Centre, OMNR, to monitor populations of SAR and ensure that all populations of endangered and threatened SAR have been inventoried at least once every five years;
• Consider broad-scale landscape approaches only for extremely wide ranging, mobile species, such as caribou and wolverine. An example of the effectiveness of this is the Caribou Conservation Plan. However the vast majority of species cannot be adequately protected in this manner.
• Collaborate with Ontario Parks in the protection of SAR;
• Collaborate with NGOs, such as land trusts and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, in the identification and protection through land purchase of multi-species SAR hot spots within Ontario.
• Initiate routine compliance monitoring for permits and authorizations;
• Do not amend the ESA to “harmonize” with the CFSA. Do not renew the exemption for forestry or make it permanent. Instead, use section 18 authorizations, which exist for this purpose, retaining the requirement to provide an overall benefit to species negatively affected by authorized activities; and
• Maintain COSSARO’s current science-based listing process.

It is imperative that the following remain unchanged since they are the cornerstones to the protection of endangered and threatened species under the Act:
• Maintain automatic species and habitat protections;
• Maintain the primary focus on individual species;
• Maintain the legislated timeline for public notice before a new species is automatically listed on the SARO;
• Maintain legislated timelines for listing, recovery strategies, government response statements and habitat regulations;
• Maintain legislated timeline for conducting a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of species; and
• Maintain mandatory habitat protection with no ministerial discretion.

If the government is determined to make amendments to the ESA, they must support its purpose of protecting and recovering at-risk species. To that end the following changes should be considered:
• Providing legislated powers to conservation officers to enter private property and conduct an inspection to determine if activities are harming endangered or threatened species and to determine compliance with an authorization or permit. Officers with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have this type of power to allow them to inspect for forest pests;
• In cases where authorizations for mitigation or rehabilitation are not going to be appropriate for meeting the recovery objectives of SAR, create a fund for the sole purpose of purchasing land or perpetual conservation easements for remaining populations of the SAR that is being impacted. This is particularly important for species that have complex life histories and/or habitat requirements. However it would be imperative that all inputs into the fund be tracked and designated specifically for the species that was impacted by a particular activity. The value of the contribution to the fund would need to match the cost of a land purchase or conservation easement for any remaining populations of the SAR;
• Making the COSSARO selection process more transparent to the public;
• Removal of the 2013 exemptions for the forestry, hydro, mining and development industries; and
• Amend section 57 (1)1 of the ESA so that exemptions will only be allowed if they do not jeopardize the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species.

In 2013, exemptions were approved for many industrial activities, including logging, from prohibitions under the Act. These legislative changes were extremely broad reaching and have had potentially detrimental impacts on Ontario’s SAR, although the extent is unknown because there were inadequate legislative provisions for monitoring of the exemptions. As is evident by the ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Crown Forest Sustainability Act Integration Project, almost 10 years after the ESA came into force, forest management planning in Ontario still does not fulfill the requirements of the ESA and has been exempt. Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA, 1994) is not a duplication to the ESA. The ESA prohibits damage, authorizing otherwise prohibited activities contingent upon the achievement of an overall benefit for the species, whereas the focus of the CFSA is to “minimize adverse effects”.

It is quite disheartening to see that the government is again proposing changes that, for the most part, would make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of Ontario’s most vulnerable plants and animals. I strong urge you to improve the implementation of the ESA and not to undermine the protection that the currently ESA affords.