Bill 108, Schedule 5 (ERO…

Bill 108, Schedule 5 (ERO 013-5033) Proposed Amendments to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the ESA. I strongly oppose the changes that are being considered. They will not improve outcomes for species at risk. On the contrary, they would make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals.

More specifically, I do not support changes which would introduce broad ministerial discretion to interfere with the science-based listing process, to suspend and limit protections, and to ignore legislated timelines for policies and reporting. Nor do I support the “pay-to-slay” scheme that would grease the wheels of destruction by allowing developers and other proponents of harmful activities to pay into a fund in lieu of fulfilling requirements for on-the-ground reparation for the damage they do to species and their habitats.

Improving outcomes for species at risk requires enforcement, not weakening, of the law. It also requires investment in stewardship, not writing off species at risk and their habitats as red tape.

Further to the above:
The provincial government is proposing a new approach to getting species off the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list. And it’s not by addressing threats, preventing further declines or implementing recovery measures. Nothing that involves real, on-the-ground improvements. Rather, it would simply require basing species assessments on how our most vulnerable plants and animals are doing outside Ontario, not here at home.
This new approach to listing is just one of the many disturbing changes the government intends to make to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Like the other proposed amendments, it’s bound to please developers and industry players looking for ways to circumvent the law’s protective measures. Strangely though, I have recently learned that it holds some appeal even for people in the conservation field who would prefer that recovery efforts be focused only on globally imperiled species.

I strongly disagree this perspective, and here’s why…
1. Over 100 species on the SARO list could be removed and no longer considered ‘at risk.’ Many others could be down-listed from threatened or endangered to special concern. In either case, most of the species currently recognized as threatened and endangered in Ontario – and their habitats – might no longer be protected under the ESA.

Take for example our turtle species, all of which are on the SARO list. Based on their global rankings (Natureserve), the wood turtle could well be down-listed to special concern (and consequently no longer protected from harm or habitat destruction) while the spiny softshell, spotted, Blanding’s, snapping, musk, eastern box and northern map turtles could all be removed from the list entirely. The government could be sentencing an entire order of animals to continued decline.

2. Most of our at-risk species are concentrated in southern Ontario, the most heavily developed and populated part of the province. The proposed change could open the floodgates to further loss and degradation of the region’s remaining woodlands, wetlands, streams and shorelines. Many threatened and endangered species serve as umbrella species for others insofar as protecting their habitats helps other species using the same habitats. We could lose one of our most effective legal tools for protecting entire natural communities.
An example is the least bittern. Currently listed as threatened, this bird often stands in the way of development approvals in wetlands, benefiting many other wetland inhabitants at the same time, from frogs, fish and dragonflies to muskrats, rare orchids and black terns. Removing the least bittern from the SARO list would mean one fewer lines of defence for these other species.
3. Most of the plants and animals affected are ‘edge of range’ species at their northern limit in Canada. Edge of range species generally are considered important in conservation efforts, particularly in an era of climate change. They may be better adapted to extreme climates than core populations or may have other characteristics that will facilitate adaptation. Excluding them from protection could result in a significant loss of genetic diversity and reduce the ability of species to persist, for example through geographic range shifts.

4. Many of these species are also important culturally, socially or economically. Their continued decline or disappearance from Ontario could be deeply felt by communities and individuals across the province. Take for example American ginseng, a treasured medicinal plant that inhabits the rich, mature deciduous woodlands of southern Ontario. Though legally cultivated, very few viable wild populations remain in Ontario. Under the new rules it could potentially be down-listed to special concern, as its global status is vulnerable. Wild populations would then be subject to harvesting, a primary driver of its decline.

5. The proposed approach would prevent new listings of and thus legal protections for species that are in trouble in Ontario.
For example, a recent study indicates that the American bumble bee is in drastic decline in Canada. Not yet listed in Ontario, its global status is vulnerable, which means it could be listed only as special concern when it is assessed by Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). In that case, it would have no legal protection under the amended ESA.

I, for one, don’t believe it’s acceptable to sacrifice species in Ontario just because they’re doing better elsewhere. We must not allow the government to wipe its hands of responsibility for our fellow creatures in need and precipitate their disappearance from our province.