Protecting species-at-risk…

Protecting species-at-risk in Ontario was initiated in 1971 under the guidance of Premier Bill Davis, a Progressive Conservative, who ensured this province became one of the first jurisdictions in the world to pass an Endangered Species Act (ESA). Though this was ground-breaking protective legislation, it was so new that it was based upon current knowledge of its time. Only several species were identified for protection, but their numbers have reached into the hundreds (though a complete inventory of Ontario’s species has never been done) because habitat protection was not a major consideration in 1971.

The Act was reframed in 2007, recognizing the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) as an independent body, whose members must have relevant scientific expertise or aboriginal traditional knowledge, deemed to be the apolitical group of specialists who would make final decisions re: the listing and designation of Species at Risk. In other words, the identification of Species at Risk became an impartial and science-based process. Recovery Strategies and Management Plans for At-Risk species also became part of the law. The Minister of Nature Resources was responsible to select which species needed to be assessed by COSSARO.

Unfortunately, the Act was weakened in 2009 by a Liberal government. In response to the weakened bill, then Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gord Miller (appointed earlier by the Mike Harris government), produced a report, requiring that MNR ensure Recovery and Management teams be composed of members who had the necessary expertise AND the authority to act independently.
More importantly, Mr. Miller’s report advised: “MNR should ensure that habitats are prescribed on an ecological basis, rather than being driven by economic or social constraints.”

You can read this detailed report at http://docs.assets.eco.on.ca/reports/special-reports/2009/2009-Last-Lin… but I believe ECO’s observation regarding economic and social constraints is relevant to the results of the current 10 Year Review of the ESA, EBR 013-4143, which closed on March 4, 2019.

The purpose of the ESA SHOULD ONLY BE the protection and recovery of species facing extinction in Ontario; it is already weak and allows harm to be caused to species at risk. Now protection for at-risk species has been further undermined when it comes to the results of the recent 10-year review. Anyone who perused the results of the responses to EBR 013-4143 could see the vast majority of respondents wanted to see the ESA strengthened.

The EBR exists to protect the environmental rights of Ontarians and enable us to participate in environmental decision-making. By taking our right to be notified and participate in decisions to remove, reduce or pause protection for endangered and threatened species, the government is undermining the value we, THE PEOPLE OF ONTARIO, place on our environment. This is unacceptable.

Specifically, I OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS presented in this posting, as listed below:

1. A) Extending the timeline between the Ministry receiving a COSSARO report and legal listing of assessed species from 3 months to 12 months;
D) Allowing the Minister to require COSSARO to reconsider the classification of a species where the Minister forms the opinion based on scientific information that the classification is no longer appropriate;
E) Requiring COSSARO to adjust a species' classification to reflect its overall condition across all jurisdictions if it exists beyond Ontario;

2. A) Decoupling the listing process from automatic protection, allowing the Minister to suspend the protection that should be afforded to threatened and endangered species;
B) Limiting species protection via "scoping" with the Minister's discretion;
C) Removing the mandatory legislative requirement and timeline to develop a habitat regulation proposal for each newly-listed threatened or endangered species;
D) Enabling the Minister, rather than LGIC, to make species-specific habitat regulations;

3. A) Giving the Minister discretion to extend the 9-month Government Response Statement development timeline for some species;
C) Allowing the Minister to extend timelines for conducting the review of progress towards protection and recovery based on individual species’ needs;
D) Removing specific reference to posting under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and instead requiring that certain products under the Act be made available publicly on a government website;

4. Creating the Species At Risk Conservation Trust, and the regulatory charge that applicants seeking to destroy species at risk habitat will pay;
A) Removing the requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert in the ‘D’ permit process and replacing the requirement for LGIC approval with Minister approval;
B) Broadening the approach to minimize adverse effects for permits and agreements to ignore risk to individuals rather than whole species at risk;
C) Providing a new transition provision for existing Endangered Species Act permit-and agreement-holders to continue to operate for twelve months following the application of new species or habitat protections;
E) Creating a new landscape agreement for clients to use to destroy species at risk habitat;
F) Weakening the test for a s. 18 provision;
G) Removing the requirement for the Minister to consult with an expert if the Minister forms the opinion that a proposed regulation is likely to jeopardize the survival of the species in Ontario or to have any other significant adverse effect on the species.

The examples provided in the above numbered four sections show the Conservative government is not interested in protecting at-risk species and their needed habitat'

Finally, let me repeat that I am unalterably opposed to any amendments to the EBR that reduce our rights to be notified or consulted re: any environmental decision-making. Surely the government has learned from the public outcry AGAINST SCHEDULE 10 of BILL 66 that ONTARIANS OPPOSE BEING EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION. This represents the antithesis of democracy. If Premier Ford believes that he is “FOR THE PEOPLE”, then his government needs to realize that it must ALWAYS consult with, and LISTEN TO, the PUBLIC WHOM IT PURPORTS TO SERVE.

Clearly these amendments serve to open up at-risk species and their essential habitat to development and destruction, and remove protections of the imperiled species themselves so that special interests will not be punished for harming, extirpating, killing, or even driving them toward extinction. The ESA is already deficient for NOT listing species that have already been driven to extinction to remind us of what has been lost as a result of inadequate action, or plain ignorance, in the past. The suggested amendments also present serious and transparent attempts to undermine science as part of the listing and protections process in these amendments; yet, SCIENCE should be the 'driver' in this process.

Specifically, the amendment states: “The proposed changes would authorize the creation of a regulatory charge that could be paid by persons who are permitted to carry out otherwise prohibited activities under certain permits, agreements, and regulations. The charge would be paid in lieu of fulfilling certain potential conditions that could otherwise have been imposed under the permit, agreement, or regulation. The proposed charges would only be available in respect of species prescribed by regulation. The price for the payment-in-lieu (i.e. regulatory charge) will be within the range of costs that a client would have otherwise incurred through meeting the species-based conditions of an authorization.” This shows that the government is deliberately GUTTING protection for species at risk.

This government desperately needs to read the ENTIRE recent report from the United Nations, available at https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-u… which states:

“The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

and

“We find sources of food, medicine, livelihoods and innovation in nature. Our well-being fundamentally depends on nature. Our efforts to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems must be underpinned by the BEST SCIENCE that humanity can produce.”

I urge you to abandon the above amendments and strengthen the implementation of the ESA in the following ways:

A) Repeal the exemptions created in 2013 to permit forestry, hydro and mining industries to conduct activities that negatively impact species at risk;

B) Repeal the exemption created in 2016 to allow hunting and trapping of the threatened Algonquin wolf;

C) Amend section 57 (1)1 of the ESA so that exemptions will only be allowed if they do not jeopardize the survival and/or recovery of endangered and threatened species;

D) Amend the ESA so that all permits that allow habitat or species destruction pass the overall benefit test, and are monitored and enforced to ensure the benefits support species at risk recoveries.

Protecting Ontario's endangered species is vital to the future of our province's biodiversity, the health of our environment, and the ecosystem services on which all Ontarians rely for sustenance and survival. I will be monitoring this important issue closely, as will many other members of the Ontario Public.