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.

The current system fails our endangered species. The proposed changes will only further erode Ontarians belief that our government truly wants to protect our environment, preserve our natural heritage features and protect our species at risk. Our experience has been that if left up to Ontario government agencies, endangered species will be allowed to die in order to allow for development, even when many species at risk will die and just a few taxpayers will benefit.

Though I support the stated intent to provide more stringent protections for species at risk, the proposals being considered will not accomplish that goal. On the contrary, for the most part they would make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals.

Our struggle as follows, demonstrates how the current system failed endangered species in Ontario:

For over three years now concerned residents have attempted to have an application denied for an ESA Overall Benefit Permit that once approved, allows for the killing, harming and harassing of species at risk on Johnston Point, Loughborough Lake and/or to damage or destroy their habitat.

Two thousand, four hundred people signed a petition to have this permit denied.

Six species at risk (SAR) have been acknowledged by the MNRF as living on Johnston Point. The developer presented two Environmental Assessments to authorities and both of these assessments claimed that no living species at risk existed on Johnston Point.

It was only through the tremendous efforts of local citizens and at much personal cost that it was proven at least six species at risk live on Johnston Point. It is very possible that there may be as many as nine more.

Local citizens early on reported evidence of species at risk on site at Johnston Point. They advised Township, County and attempted to present evidence on living SAR at the OMB hearing. They were however, denied. Frustrated that officials were approving residential development in protected Provincially Significant Wetland and in an ANSI, (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, recommended for protection by the MNRF in 1993), these citizens went to work. They held conference calls with the MNRF, attended Township meetings and attended County meetings. They commissioned independent scientific reports. They sought out expert opinions, scientific and legal. They drafted a petition. They publicly commented on the proposed permit through ER 013-1130. They asked for delegations and presented evidence of breach of Conditions of Draft Plan approval to the Township and to the County and the CRCA. They wrote numerous letters to Township, County, the MNRF and the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) and their locals MPPs, both current and former.

They did all of this, and more much. All this to protect species at risk that were living in area Ontario had already designated as protected.

None of their letters to the Township, County or the CRCA were ever answered. The Township asked the MNRF to come to a Council meeting and explain what is an Overall Benefit Permit. The MNRF cancelled the very morning of the agreed meeting. For months the MNRF did not re-schedule and eventually replied that they could not attend due to financial cut backs. The Township offered to pay their expenses. The MNRF never came.

In the end, all of the citizen’s efforts were in vain. There has never been an Overall Benefit Permit denied and this one was no exception. It was issued October 28, 2018 and officially announced three weeks later. The permit provides no details of any overall benefit to the two species at risk listed on the application, and no mention at all of the four species at risk that will be impacted by this development but have never been addressed.

We have been told that the permit was issued on Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks letterhead.

Tragically, it appears that development, even unnecessary development, will continue to triumph over endangered species, even in Ontario's most environmentally sensitive and protected areas.

For this reason, I ask that any amendments to the ESA must support its purpose of protecting and recovering at-risk species. To that end, I urge MECP to genuinely protect species at risk and:
- Repeal the 2013 exemptions for the forestry, hydro, mining and development industries;
- 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;
- Maintain COSSARO’s current science-based listing process;
- Maintain mandatory habitat protection with no ministerial discretion; and
- Maintain the requirement for proponents of harmful activities to provide an on-the-ground overall benefit to species impacted with no backdoor option to simply pay into a fund to compensate for harm.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.