The sad demise of the Endangered Species Act, 2017 in Ontario

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.