Below are my comments on the…

Below are my comments on the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act as a result of the 10th Year Review

1. Assessing and listing species at risk
- Science-based listing of species at risk by COSSARO and automatic protection of listed species and
their habitats are cornerstones of the ESA. They provide certainty, whereas ministerial discretion
politicizes the process, inviting delay and controversy.
- 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)).
- Edge of range species should not be denied protection based on their status outside Ontario.

2. Species and Habitat Protections
- There should be no alternative to automatically protecting threatened or endangered species and
their habitats upon listing.
- Allowing the Minister to remove or delay protections is inappropriate and invites political meddling.

3. Species at Risk Recovery Policies
- Legislated timelines are intended to ensure that actions needed to recover species occur without
undue delay. There should be no change to the legal requirement to produce GRS within nine months
of the release of Recovery Strategies or Management Plans. Failure to meet the legislated deadlines
is a chronic problem, which should be addressed through improved implementation, not weakening
of the law.

4. Permits, agreements and exemptions to allow harmful activities
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 tools for authorizing harmful activities. 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 fund rather than
providing on-the-ground reparation for damage done. This easy way out reduces accountability and
facilitates harm to species at risk and their habitats. Retain the current requirements to provide an
on-the-ground, overall benefit to species harmed.
- Do not remove the requirement to obtain Cabinet approval or to consult with an independent expert
regarding 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 remove the requirement for the Minister to seek an independent opinion on regulations that
might jeopardize the survival of a species in Ontario. That would only make it easier for harmful
activities to proceed, without proper scrutiny.
- The ESA (sec. 18) provides a means to harmonize its requirements with other legislative or regulatory
frameworks, based on the standard of providing an overall benefit to species negatively impacted.
Unless this standard is maintained, species will continue to decline.

5. Enforcement
- This is an improvement as this inspection power is currently lacking. However, if the government were serious about improving outcomes for species at risk, it would remove the regulatory exemptions put in place in 2013 that have enabled over 2,000 of these harmful activities to proceed in the first place,without inspection or enforcement.

Thanks for your consideration.