Banting Responds to Ontario Species at Risk Act Changes

10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes | Environmental Registry of Ontario
Proposed suggestions relating to the points in the proposed changes of the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5033

1. Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List

• We 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.  
  
• We are concerned about 1A -  the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act R.S.O.2007 would allow for a species to not be added to the SARO list or listed to a more endangered status during COSSARO's reassessment. We fear the damage that could happen to the species in question during the twelve months of research that it would take the scientists to determine the status of the species. We, and many other people believe that there should be a strict policy to prevent any damage to their habitat to reducing the amount of species destruction during the extended period of time that it would take for a species to be added to the SARO list. Without imminent change to protect habitats and species, a developer, or any other person, could destroy or disturb the habitat of the potential species at risk within the new alloted twelve month policy extension, which was previously three months. During this year long period, a developer has newfounded rights to the land that were approved prior to these policy changes. Our concerns our found within the following proposition, “Provide the public earlier notice of COSSARO's species’ assessment and classification results by making its report available to the public no later than three months after it is received by the Minister. Also, extend the time from when a COSSARO report is received by the Minister to when listing is to occur from three to twelve months (i.e., when a species must be added to the SARO List).”
• We have concerns about 1D - “Allow 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 may not no longer be appropriate.” With this statement, we believe that the judgement of the Minister may be questionable. For an example; what kind of scientific research will they base their reports of endangered species? Will this be based on one scientific report or multiple reports and findings? Will the sources be unbiased and credible? Will the species and environment be what they base their conclusion on, or will it be money and industry?
  
• We are concerned about point 1E - “Require COSSARO to consider a species’ condition around its broader biologically relevant geographic area, inside and outside Ontario, before classifying a species as endangered or threatened. If the overall condition of risk to the species in the broader biologically relevant geographic area is lower, COSSARO would be required to adjust the species’ classification to reflect its overall condition.” This would allow habitat and species to be destroyed (even if it was also located in another area) and this is unacceptable. We have to look at genetic diversity and the importance that each pocket area brings to diversity and survival of the species.  
  
• We are concerned about 1F - “Broadening COSSARO member qualifications to include members who have relevant expertise in ecology, wildlife management, as well as those with community knowledge.” We are concerned that an expert scientific committee of experts that have studied these issues through their research and with their scientific expertise will be diluted out and that non- scientific people such as land developers  who care about land development will override the experts opinions. There seems to be a lack of consideration and appreciation for scientific knowledge… it seems to be disrespected by the new government.

2. Defining and implementing species and habitat protections

• They would make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals.
  
• 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.
  
• We are concerned about the proposed limiting protections where the ESA protections only apply in specific geographies or under specific circumstances. This could cause exclusion of important habitats and species from protection, further endangering the species.
  
• Concern about decoupling the listing process of endangered species from automatic protections and also giving the Minister' full discretion on this decision. The minister may not base the decision of scientific facts and may include opinions in the overall decision of protection a species at risk. The minister may completely ignore scientific research and findings.
  
• The minister may deem that a land with current habitat protection can have social and economical benefits, the current protection on the habitat can be dismantled to allow the use of the land for up to 3 years. This is a concern as habitat protection is a huge part of protecting endangered species, and with the loss of this protection, some species can potentially become extinct. This veto of automatic protections allows the Minister to have “discretion on protections,” including suspending protections for up to 3 years without public consultation. Removing expert input as a requirement for the Minister to consult with an independent expert prior to creating regulations that would jeopardize the survival of a species in Ontario.
  

The act allows the dodging of requirements allowing activities to be approved under other laws to be carried out without any additional authorizations under the ESA, even if they harm threatened or endangered species or their habitat. This allows the sweeping of authorizations for harmful activities to create “landscape agreements” for proponents undertaking harmful activities in multiple locations.

• This act also interferes with the listing of species at risk to allow the Minister to require COSSARO to reconsider its science-based listing decisions.
  
• We are concerned with 2A. We are concerned with providing the Minister greater discretion on protections. Why is science-based being kept at an arm’s length. It should be the basis of the decision?  “2A De-couple the listing process from automatic protections and provide greater Minister’s discretion on protections, while keeping the assessment as a science-based process at arm’s length. While the role of classifying species would remain with COSSARO and listing of classified species would continue to be required, the proposed changes would provide the Minister with authority to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years for some newly-listed species”  when specified criteria are met.
  
• We are concerned with 2B - the new act will not be protecting all geographies in Ontario for species at risk - that they can say for example select an area they want to develop and cut that one out so the area can be developed. “2B. Enable scoping of species protections, where appropriate, via new Minister’s regulations. This proposed new authority would enable species protections to apply to specific geographies or in specific circumstances (e.g., to species that are not affected by disease).”
  
• We are concerned about 2C - “2C Remove the mandatory legislative requirement and timeline to develop a habitat regulation proposal for each newly-listed threatened or endangered species and retain the option to develop a habitat regulation when needed.”
  
• We are concerned with 2D…..that the Minister without expertise in the area can make species-specific habitat regulations - the Minister would not necessarily care about the species at risk with these new changes but care more about land development   “2D. Enable the Minister, rather than LGIC, to make species-specific habitat regulations.”

3. Developing species at risk recovery policies

• They will not improve outcomes for species at risk.
  
• The idea of deserting “Edge of Range” species will have a harmful impact on the future of the species. The proposition is to require COSSARO to base its assessments not on the status of a species in Ontario, but instead on its range. For example, southern Ontario endangered species at the northern limit of their range may receive less or no protection depending on their status outside of the province of Ontario.
  
• Concern about the multiple delays that are proposed for the listing, planning and reporting on species at risk, undermining species recovery.
  
• The proposed changes would:

1. Give the Minister discretion to extend the nine-month Government Response Statement development timeline, for some species.
2. Clarify that recovery strategies are advice to government, and that Government Response Statements are the government’s policy direction for species at risk.
3. Allow the Minister to extend timelines for conducting the review of progress towards protection and recovery based on individual species’ needs.

4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions

• We do not 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.  

 

5. Enforcing the Endangered Species Act

• Concern about linking the endangered Species Act to the  Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019.
  
• Concern that the view of the government is that economics, building  and big business is more important than the environment, habitat and species. According to the proposed changes they state  “This is being proposed in to preserve the ability of the Minister to act swiftly and minimize associated social or economic impacts.” Once we destroy this habitat and species and the genetic diversity of species within the pockets of habitat they are lost. The social impact of loss of natural land and spaces is ultimately very negative for humans including those in Ontario . The UN has just come out with their report on the destruction of species and the impact. Wee need to move forward with protection of species and habitat not backwards as these new proposed changes would do. See:
• https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/  
• https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/be-the-change/ AND
• Listen to the interview with Michael Runtz, Professor of Natural History, Carleton University
• https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1505969219707 - Interview with M Runtz
• https://carleton.ca/biology/2019/mike-runtz-talks-the-new-ontario-endangered-species-act-on-cbc-radio/

There is NO PLANET B