I am writing as a concerned…

I am writing as a concerned citizen of Ontario to implore a reconsideration of Bill 108. I am a 30 year veteran of the healthcare sector, as well as a zoology PhD candidate.

The omnibus Bill (108), offers many benefits and new opportunities to land developers and associated industries. However, the Bill also has far-reaching consequences, in particular for the quality of our natural environments as well as the protection of our endangered species. This omnibus Bill alters 15 existing Bills and Acts, it is noteworthy that a full third of these are Bills and Acts that enshrine environmental protections that have made Ontario the “gold standard” in environmental policy and brought the Ontario Government immense respect in the international conservation community as a whole.

Our Endangered Species Act (ESA) is built on 3 important foundation blocks: an evidence-based and science-supported process to assess and list vulnerable species, immediate and automatic protections of these listed species and their habitats, and mandatory planning and implementation of recovery strategies.

The proposed revision of the ESA is riddled with inconsistencies, circular logic, and a complete lack of evidence as to tangible benefits the revisions will offer justifying changes resulting in the following:
1. Weakening of the classification process for species at risk
2. Discretional power given solely to the Minister to delay automatic protections for endangered species without rationale
3. Assessing which species are at risk by distribution, without consideration of the many interrelated factors that define and maintain distribution
4. Placing the onus of protection outside of Ontario, relying on the assumption that such parties will engage in species conservation
5. Allowing non-scientific and non-expert participants to join COSSARO
6. Indefinitely delaying the release of Government Response Statements about species at risk, while limiting, in some cases eliminating, scientific and public consultation
7. Reducing transparency
8. Creating a pay-in-lieu fund for developers to circumvent being held accountable to recommendations under the ESA
9. Removing the requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert and get cabinet approval
10. Create “landscape agreements” for developers who seek to build multiple projects in one area—an arrangement that inherently limits oversight and accountability
11. Reduce or eliminate second party oversight, an essential element of transparency, and the fiduciary responsibly of a Government to its constituents
An Example: the case of Listing based on Species Distribution

The current Bill introduces numerous detrimental revisions and new policies, while providing no rationale or scientific support for their implementation. A few weakly shingled examples (gray fox, barn swallow) are offered, based on speculative information, or incomplete presentation of scientific fact. One example is the concept of total geographic distribution of a species. The Bill suggests that consideration of distribution alone provides a reliable index of species condition, and therefore a useful listing criterion. This ‘not in my backyard’ approach demonstrates a complete ignorance of the complexities of species’ population and behavioural ecology. Total distribution is a static snapshot of individual observations that are mapped geographically. It relies on census and tracking information which is limited by available resources both for implementing population studies, and for following population dynamics over decades. Relying on a total distribution approach to justify delisting species-at-risk omits the following factors regarding range, and whether range alone is sufficient to determine the health and/or risk of a species:

- Density versus area
- Abundance, both overall and as patterned throughout distribution
- Genetic exchange
- Migration
- Day range, versus home range, versus population range, versus total range
- Genetic diversity, both as a whole, and by local population
- The periodic effect of catastrophic and stochastic events
- The effect of disrupting historical gene flow amongst adjacent populations
- Edge effects
- Potential pseudoreplication of observations inflating abundance

One need look no further than examples of many of the great National Parks of the world where habitat fragmentation is correlated to a precipitous decline in genetic heterozygosity, immunological health, as well as fecundity and resilience in many of the world’s most charismatic species. These data are easily found and can easily be provided.

As a concerned Ontario citizen, and in the spirit of Canada’s commitment to maintaining its biodiversity, I urge the Government of Ontario to reconsider the proposed revision of the ESA as it is presented under Bill 108. To endorse such a Bill without intense scrutiny and debate is reckless. Bill 108 will have longstanding outcomes that will be difficult if not impossible to repair.

Respectfully yours, a concerned Ontario citizen