These comments are being…

These comments are being provided on behalf of the membership of Nature Guelph; an organization that promotes conservation and education about nature to its 185 members and the public at large.

We find the proposed changes put forward in Schedule 5 of Bill 108 to be alarming. We have difficulty determining what type of development would be stopped in this watered down version of the Endangered Species Act. These changes would eliminate species at risk, not enhance their protection and the protection of their habitats! The changes would essentially leave the Endangered Species Act as existing in name only and that claims of improving habitat for species at risk are false. We find the overarching theme in the proposed changes of putting decisions in the hands of the Minister, rather than being based on science and recommendations from experts, to be particularly alarming.

We have the following specific comments:

1. The proposed changes that COSSARO assessments be based on the “biologically relevant geographic range” rather than the status of the species in Ontario would lead to the elimination of species at the edges of their naturally occurring range. This will promote an effect where the range of the species at risk is slowly eroded over time until they disappear altogether. Populations at the edge of their range are arguably the most important as they provide a buffers for conservation and restoration efforts at the population’s heart. Like a cookie, if you continue to nibble at its edges, it will disappear altogether.

2. Under the proposed changes, the Minister would be allowed to use their discretion to suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years based on social and economic considerations as well as limit protections so that they apply only in specific geographies or in specific circumstances. The ESA should be a rock solid document with clear guidelines for species protection that are not vulnerable to the whims of individuals or parties in power. This proposal would never work in the favour of species at risk. These changes should be eliminated.

3. Bill 108 proposes that the Minister can delay indefinitely Government Response Statements after the publication of a Recovery Strategy or Management Plan, as well as delay carrying out a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of species. Clearly, theses proposed changes will allow the Minister (yet again) to circumvent the intentions of the Act. These proposed changes should be withdrawn.

4. Currently, the ESA only allows harmful activities to proceed when certain permits, agreements and regulatory exemptions are met. However, the proposed the changes would allow development proponents to proceed with harmful activities by paying into a fund in lieu of fulfilling their obligations to species at risk!! The point of the ESA is to protect species at risk and the habitats in which they live and reproduce; not by putting a price on their heads! This reduces accountability and promotes harm to species at risk. Please maintain the current requirement of the ESA that development provide an overall on-the-ground benefit to species at risk.