COMMENT ON ERO 025-0380:…

COMMENT ON ERO 025-0380: Opposition to the Proposed Changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007
I write to express my full and unequivocal opposition to the proposed legislative and regulatory changes outlined in ERO Notice 025-0380.

The proposal represents not only a dangerous rollback of protections for Ontario’s species at risk—it is also a direct violation of my Aboriginal, treaty, and inherent Indigenous rights, as protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and Canada's own United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIPA). I am of Mohawk and European ancestry, so I write from the stance of living in 2 paradigms - one that lives in relationship with all, and one that generally sees land only as a commodity. Part of my lineage descends from the caretakers and stewards of this land, and in the spirit of those ancestors, I am deeply opposed to this proposed legislation. I carry responsibilities to these lands, waters, species, and to the future generations - my children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren and beyond. These responsibilities are lived, legal, and grounded in Indigenous law, which mandates that decisions consider seven generations into the future. This proposed legislation does not even look one year into the future. It is grounded in deregulation and short-term development interests, and it violates my rights—and the rights of future generations—to a healthy environment and to the cultural relationships embedded within it.

Species Protection Includes Habitat—And Habitat Means Ecosystems
This legislation will undercut a wide range of rights of people - Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Under the Constitution, Section 7 protects the rights of all to health. When you damage ecosystems, you inevitably damage the health of all - people, animals, plants, water, etc. Also under the Constitution, Sec. 25 and 35 - Aboriginal inherent and treaty rights are guaranteed. This proposed legislation will undermine the right to inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. There is a common misconception that Indigenous rights relate only to individual species. That is false. Indigenous rights are relational—we do not merely interact with species; we exist in relationship with them, and that relationship includes the ecosystems they inhabit and require to survive.

Every species currently listed under Ontario’s Species at Risk registry is of cultural and ecological importance to Indigenous peoples. They are of deep significance ecologically, spiritually, and culturally. They form the complex web that sustains not only our communities, but the planet itself. It has taken each of these species millions of years to adapt to the specific environmental conditions of their critical habitat. Once destroyed, their unique genetic lineages and interdependent ecological roles cannot be replaced. This has a profound bearing on how we will meet the current climate change crisis, particularly in relation to the need for bio-diversity and its implications for overall resiliency. I will quote a colleague, Erin Hayward, who shares her professional experiences here, as a biologist and as a Mohawk woman:

"These habitats must be protected in full—not only in their immediate zones, but including the entire ecological network: the hydrology, soil structure, pollinators, adjacent wetlands and uplands, and everything in between. These are not separate pieces—they are relational systems. Destroying them violates the natural law of balance and directly undermines my ability to practice my culture and responsibilities.
In my professional capacity, I regularly meet with developers and proponents of development projects. These proponents hire planners and project managers who do not understand their legal or ecological obligations. I’ve been directly asked in meetings, “What species at risk are in this area?” They do not do their homework. They do not read legislation. And they are now emboldened by a government that is rolling back what little oversight remains.
A particularly egregious tactic I’ve witnessed is the commissioning of consultant Environmental Impact Assessment reports based on single site visits, often conducted in late fall—when migratory birds have departed, reptiles and amphibians are hibernating, and tree identification is difficult for the untrained eye due to leaf drop. These reports routinely conclude that “no species at risk were found.” Of course none were found—it’s biologically predictable. These surveys are designed to produce an illusion of absence, which is then used to argue that the site is not habitat for species at risk.
This is a deceptive practice that misuses the absence of detection as proof of absence, even though ecologists and regulators know full well that absence cannot be proven through single-season, poorly timed surveys. These reports are often hundreds of pages long, filled with technical language and hidden behind layers of data and jargon. Most municipalities lack the capacity to review these reports critically. Most First Nations barely have the capacity to review them either. The average community, staff person, or council simply doesn’t have the time, funding, or training to uncover these manipulations. But alas we continue to do so despite the odds stacked against us.
With the fast tracking and erosion of the current permitting process, even this limited possibility of expert review disappears. There will be no formal oversight, no mechanisms for challenge, and no accountability for deceitful practices. This is not just negligence—it is a systematic failure that rewards ecological misinformation and shifts the entire burden onto Indigenous communities who are already doing too much with too little.
Legal and Scientific Inconsistencies
The legal precedents are clear:
• In Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004), the Supreme Court established that consultation must occur when there is a real or potential adverse effect on Indigenous rights.
• In Mikisew Cree v. Canada (2005), the Court emphasized that meaningful engagement must take place before decisions are finalized.
• In Clyde River v. Petroleum Geo-Services (2017), the Court found that regulatory bodies cannot circumvent their constitutional duty by avoiding triggers like permitting.
The permit system under the ESA is a trigger. To remove it is to intentionally subvert the law.
Under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), the concept of critical habitat is foundational. SARA defines critical habitat as the habitat necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed species, and prohibits its destruction —even if the species is not currently present in that area. The Act also enables protection of critical habitat on provincial lands, particularly where there is a failure to provide equivalent protections. This reflects a scientific understanding that recovery and survival depend on full ecosystem continuity, and that habitat must be protected where a species once lived or could return in future recovery efforts.
Permitting processes must therefore recognize that absence of observation is not absence of habitat. The erosion of the ESA permitting process ignores this scientific and legal reality and allows deliberate mischaracterization of ecological data to go unchecked. Without these processes, Ontario will enable the mass erasure of critical habitat based on bad faith reports, and I know it is the intention that you hope no Indigenous Nation, conservation staff, or technical reviewer will be able to stop it.
Scientifically, the evidence is overwhelming:
• Habitat loss is the single greatest driver of species extinction (IUCN, 2022).
• Ontario’s species at risk rely heavily on ecosystems—wetlands, forest edges, tallgrass prairie, and river systems—that are also prime targets for development.
• Peer-reviewed studies confirm that permit systems with independent review are the most effective mechanisms for protecting habitat and ensuring compliance.
The situation with Colicroot (Aletris farinosa) in Windsor, Ontario is a clear example of this failure. Despite being listed as endangered under the ESA, 50% of the local population was permitted to be destroyed. The remaining individuals in other populations are simply surrounded by a fence, or being overtaken by Phragmites -an invasive species- with no meaningful recovery plan, no long-term monitoring, and no ecosystem protection. This is not species recovery—it is abandonment.
Remedy Requested
I am calling for the complete withdrawal of ERO Proposal 025-0380. No amendments, substitutions, or compensations will undo the damage this proposal would cause. The permitting system must remain in place—and must be strengthened, not weakened.
• Retain and expand the permitting system to ensure public accountability, thorough environmental review by professional certified SAR research experts, and the triggering of constitutional consultation.
• Reinstate the technical and ecological review of natural heritage by conservation authorities.
• Establish and enforce strict ecosystem-wide protections, not just pathetic single-species fencing policies.
• Recognize Indigenous legal orders, including the personhood of species and relational ecosystems, in the development of policy and law." (E. Hayward, 2025)

This proposed legislation is unbelievably short-sighted, reacting to the current political tensions between our lands and the government to the south. We deserve better. We need to do much better. At a point in time when crises are multiplying, it is even more vital that we truly consider our choices with a long-term view. Governments come and go in the blink of an eye. The damage we are leaving behind will be here for many generations to come. I cannot believe that any person would want to leave a legacy of damage and degradation as this proposes to do. Do better. Be better than this. This is about so much more than simply getting rid of red tape - it is about what we value and our place in this web of relationships we call life.