I am writing to address the…

I am writing to address the potential changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. As a citizen of this province I am gravely concerned with the proposed changes to the ESA, an act which by its nature is designed to protect one of our greatest resources, our ecosystem and our biodiversity. Our natural systems, including endangered species, are an interwoven web that sustains life in Ontario, including the lives of the people that live here. Allowing for the encroachment on endangered species and their habitat does a great disservice to the people of Ontario and their children who will inherit a landscape altered by the choices being made today.

As written, the current ESA is a scientifically sound tool for classifying the species in our province that are at the greatest risk of extinction. The proposal to shift away from a scientifically based approach to endangered species classification and protection sets a dangerous precedent going forward in Ontario. Our Ontario wilderness and biodiversity is a source of pride for many citizens of the province, and nature itself provides its own direct revenue (in the form of tourism, be it skiing in Blue Mountain, or camping in Algonquin Park) and indirect revenue. It is this indirect revenue that needs the most protection. Preserving habitat not only preserves the homes of species at risk, but also protects the pollinators that keep our farms and orchards in production, the birds and bats that control pest populations, the plants that purify our air and water, the wetlands that store carbon and prevent flooding, and the spaces that people use for hiking, boating, fishing, hunting and camping.
The changes proposed to the ESA are signalling that the government is willing to sacrifice the future of our province, and Ontario’s greatest asset, to push forward an agenda that serves to enhance the lives of a few at the expense of the many. Responsible government is one that accepts the necessity or protecting the environment and adapts an environmental policy that works with industry and business to move forward in a sustainable direction that allows growth without sacrificing the very thing that makes our province special. Some specific thoughts:

• Keep science in policy. The decision whether projects should go forward or not needs to be informed by scientific knowledge not by a minister or government official who doesn’t understand the context and importance of endangered species.
• The law should not be changed to allow landscape approaches “instead of” species-specific
• approaches. The fine scale of species-specific status assessments, listings and protections is needed.
• Regarding landscape planning, the ESA already provides for this. No change to the law is needed.
• With regard to authorizing harmful activities at a broad scale, such an approach is inappropriate for endangered and threatened species. It doesn’t lend itself to addressing site-specific or species-
• specific concerns and consequently presents unwarranted additional risk for species already in peril
• Science-based listing and automatic protections provide certainty.
• There should be no change to the ESA regarding the listing process and the role of COSSARO. The law sets out a transparent approach to listing based on a consideration of “the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge.” (sec. 5(3)).
• Improving notification is an implementation issue which should be addressed through better communications. In its listing process, COSSARO is required to consider species listed by the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (sec. 4(2)a); there are years of notice embedded in this process, from the release of COSEWIC status reports to the listing by COSSARO.
• There should be no alternative to automatic species and habitat protections (e.g.,through ministerial discretion to remove or delay protections)
• There should be no change to the legal requirement to produce Government Response Statements (GRS) within nine months of the release of Recovery Strategies (sec. 11(8)). Failure to meet the legislated deadline is an implementation issue.
• The required five-year reporting on progress is reasonable and ensures transparency and accountability. It provides an impetus for action, ensuring that effectiveness is assessed, and contributes to institutional learning and adaptive management.
• The ESA already allows the Minister to delay the development of a habitat regulation (sec. 56(1)b) or to not proceed with a habitat regulation (sec. 56 (1)c). No change to the law is needed.
• There should be no changes to the legal provisions for habitat regulations, which describe specific boundaries or features of areas deemed to be habitat and provide enhanced certainty for ESA implementation and enforcement. They can include areas where a species “used to live or is believed to be capable of living” (sec. 55(3)b), presenting a significant opportunity for protection and recovery efforts to extend beyond places where species at risk currently persist.
• This is the Endangered Species Act, not the Endangered Business Act. The priority must be on protecting and recovering species at risk.
• There are already sufficient authorization tools. No new tools are needed. Challenges should be addressed through improved implementation.
• Proponents of harmful activities should NOT be allowed to simply pay into a conservation fund -an easy way out that reduces accountability and facilitates harm to species at risk and their habitats.
• Do not simplify requirements for sec. 17(2)d permits. These are intended to be available only for projects that “result in a significant social or economic benefit to Ontario” and that will not “jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species in Ontario.” These are appropriate requirements and ensure that such permits are issued only an exceptional basis.
• Do not simplify requirements for exemptions through regulation. That would only make it easier for harmful activities to proceed, without public scrutiny, government oversight or enforcement
• The ESA (sec. 18) already provides a means to harmonize its requirements with other legislative or regulatory frameworks. No legislative change is needed. This is an implementation issue
• Don’t ignore climate change.
The decisions you make today will have a lasting impact on the children of tomorrow. The environmental well being of our province is of growing important to the people of Ontario.