Ontario’s nature is drowning in deregulation. Grab a paddle.

• The subjective language in the guidelines should be clearly defined or replaced with language that sets out clear criteria. For example, the guidelines currently state:
  • “Activities are taking place in the area or are being proposed that, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are or will be economically significant or strategically important to the Ontario economy.”
  • The area is, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, no larger than necessary to encompass the activities described in paragraph 2.

At present, the above language means that cabinet can approve anything it deems important, at any size.

• The disproportionate reliance on the “opinion of the Minister” to make key determinations fundamentally undermines the purpose of developing criteria in the first instance.
• The environment minister must be of the opinion that the project will benefit communities in Ontario, but wildlife communities are not specifically taken into consideration, even if they are at risk.
• The minister considers whether a “trusted proponent” has a plan for engaging and working with Indigenous communities, but the criteria do not require that the “trusted proponent” uphold Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and, in particular, the duty to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples regarding initiation of projects.

• It makes no ecological sense to reduce the definition of “habitat” to mere immediate dwellings like dens, nesting sites or critical root zones. Species need large areas not just to sleep but to carry out their life processes like foraging, hunting and mating.
• The list of species at risk must be determined by an independent scientific body; it must not be discretionary. Further, species that overlap with federal jurisdiction must not be removed from the provincial list; the province cites that this “removes duplication for species already receiving protections federally” but has not attested to the levels of protection currently afforded by the federal government. Further, approvals for habitat-destroying activities such as industrial resource extraction and development occur at the provincial level.
• Further, this approach runs counter to the federal, provincial, territorial Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, which stipulates a need for provinces to develop complementary species conservation initiatives.
• Clear conditions and binding requirements must be outlined prior to allowing developers and/or industry to merely register their activities and proceed.
• The elimination of recovery strategies makes it nearly impossible to effectively recover at-risk species.
• The commitment to obtain free, prior and informed consent for project approvals and initiation must be integrated into law and policies that pertain to species recovery.