I reviewed the document, and…

I reviewed the document, and found it confusing - that is, it seems to be heavily biased in favour of changes to the Act in order to support development with no recognition of the consequences to the natural world. This seems short-sighted to me. To get a better read, I consulted a professional biologist, who submitted the following comments:

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.
My overall impression from this document is that you have little interest in actually improving
protections to species at risk 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 the government is attempting to spin that as negative.

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 that you intend to introduce 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 habitat 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 pro-development bias that does not
lead to productive discussion regarding actual improvements to SAR protection in Ontario. This is
particularly apparent in, 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. The focus of legislation pertaining to SAR should always, first and
foremost, be on the PROTECTION OF SAR AND THEIR HABITAT. Appropriate protections for specific
areas or species can be determined through science-based analysis, and no amount of simplified
applications or exemptions can or should allow more “economic development”