Since 98% of those who
commented on the ESA Discussion Paper were in favour of INCREASED rather than
decreased protection for species at risk, it is clear the government does not
care what the “People” think. Clearly this new ER consultation and the previous one are meaningless, as the proposed changes included
in Bill 108 will not be modified prior to enactment. Despite the fact that my comments on the
10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper were
completely disregarded, and that I believe this entire consultation process to
be a sham, I am submitting additional comments on proposed Bill 108 so that
our extreme concern with these changes will at least be a part of the public
record.
The Ford governments’ false premise is that “the Endangered Species Act is getting in the way of development”. This is a complete untruth. Not a single development application in Ontario has ever been denied because of the Endangered Species Act or because protected species were present.
Here is another
outright lie I have seen in recent articles. A spokesman
from MECP commented that the government is making these changes based on what
they have learned from a decade of implementation of ESA. This is completely untrue because 1) the ESA
was being implemented by MNRF and not by MECP, and 2) MECP refused to accept
any of MNRF’s advice in regard to recommended changes that would improve ESA
implementation. MECP currently has 1
month of experience with ESA and the proposed legislative changes were
released prior to transition of the legislation from one Ministry to the other.
Another
false premise was stated online by The Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The OFA claims they would like the ESA to be
changed because it is a regulatory burden to farmers!!? In my 10 years of experience implementing the
ESA, there have not been ANY ESA permits issued to farmers, and to my knowledge
the presence of a protected species has never prevented a farmer from
continuing to farm their land. The two
species that are affected most by farming (Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark) are
subject to a PERMANENT ESA exemption, allowing farmers to kill them during the
breeding season with impunity.
Challenges
in ESA implementation should be addressed through improved planning and
investment in communications, program development and staffing, not
environmental deregulation. The
government has moved the ESA to a new Ministry, cut the staff responsible for
implementation by 2/3rds, forcibly moved a number staff with no ESA
implementation background to MECP from MNRF, and now proposes to gut the
legislation even more, instead of following the recommendations provided
through the ER consultation process and the Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario’s 2017 report (which was extremely well done and absolutely accurate in
its examination of the poor implementation and enforcement of the ESA). This is
just completely irresponsible and certainly doesn’t achieve the stated goal of increasing
the efficiency of ESA implementation by any means.
