Subject: ERO # 025-0380 -…

Subject: ERO # 025-0380 - Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025

Dear Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA) in ERO posting # 025-0380. I am concerned that this proposal may have significant adverse impacts on the protection and recovery of species at risk (SAR) in Ontario. My concerns are detailed below.

The proposed change to the purpose of the ESA and SCA suggests that protection of species should be equally balanced against social and economic considerations including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario. This changes the province’s mandate from active protection of species at risk and their habitat and promotion of their recovery to passive maintenance of current statuses with no obligation to lead or contribute to recovery efforts. I understand the government’s desire to reduce red tape and unnecessary delays to essential development, but this is not the way to do it. Efforts should be focused on reducing approval timelines and promoting consistency in regulations with other levels of government NOT on removing critical protections for species at risk. I am concerned that this restructuring will undervalue species’ protection in favour of any type of development, and not just those Projects with a demonstrated significant social or economic benefit to Ontario as a province. I am concerned this will result in the unmitigated development of land at the expense of species at risk. Further, the existing ESA already has an avenue for permitting activities with a significant social or economic benefit to the province under clause 17 (2) (d). The Minister also has the power to apply a temporary suspension of protections where the Minister thinks it likely the application of prohibitions would have significant social or economic implications for Ontario under clause 8.1. These existing clauses already allow for a balance in species protections with projects that have significant economic/ social benefits in a responsible, formal, and transparent way.

I am concerned about the new process for listing species and the fact that the government has sole discretion for adding or removing species from the list. This would result in a distinct lack of transparency regarding the evaluation process for Listing decisions and a lack of any defined timeline for making these decisions. Under the current ESA, amendments to the SARO List need to be made within 12 months of receiving a report from COSSARO and any delays must be publicly posted with rationale. If there are no formal parameters around these items, there is a risk of significant delays in the provision of individual and habitat protections that would have negative repercussions on a species’ survival in Ontario. It is also proposed that the SCA would not apply to migratory birds or aquatic species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk under the Species at Risk Act. However, the proposed legislation once again lacks any formal guidance on triggers and timelines for consideration of listing species that become downlisted to special concern under the Species at Risk Act but that have been classified as extirpated, endangered or threatened by COSSARO. There should be clear timelines, criteria under which the Lieutenant Governor could reasonably decline to list a species, requirements for publicly posting the decision with supporting rationale, and requirements for stakeholder and Indigenous engagement.

I am concerned about the changes to the definition of habitat and prohibited activities and the potentially devastating impacts this will have on the long-term viability and survival of species at risk in Ontario. Firstly, the new definition of habitat significantly narrows the scope of what is considered as habitat and blatantly disregards the surrounding ecosystem processes that sustain such features as dwelling places. For example, if the dwelling place of a bird is defined by the nest, the new definition of habitat would protect the tree the nest is located in and a small buffer around the tree. However, it ignores all the associated functions of the surrounding forest that contribute to nesting success, such as cover from predators, protection from sensory disturbances and edge effects, food availability, and drinking sources. Reduced nesting success results in lower reproductive rates which can impact the long-term viability and survival of the species.
Further, I am concerned that excluding “harass” from the list of prohibited actions against a species would eliminate the need for consideration of indirect impacts if they do not result in a direct physical injury or change to a physiological process of the species, as covered under the definition of harm. For example, sensory disturbance due to noise can cause changes in animal behaviour, such as avoidance of specialized habitats (e.g., caribou calving areas, bat hibernaculum) necessary to support critical life functions such as reproduction and overwintering that are essential to a population’s long-term viability and survival. This omission could result in approval of activities that have profound adverse impacts on behaviours (e.g., mating, breeding, foraging, movement between critical habitats, hibernation), which negatively impact reproductive success, health and fitness of populations and ultimately impacts the long-term survival of the species in Ontario.

Finally, I have significant concerns about the proposal to move the majority of approvals under the SCA to a registration-first process. This standard will severely limit the checks and balances that ensure Projects cannot proceed before it is clearly demonstrated they will not have severe, adverse and irreversible impacts on species’ survival. This provides entirely too much latitude to developers and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of species at risk ecology. Under the current ESA, species that are eligible for registration are limited to those with a well-understood biology and life history, relatively simple and defined habitat requirements that are easily replicated, and a documented history of successful implementation of mitigation and compensation measures which form the conditions of the registration. Is the government prepared to develop species-specific registration conditions that meet this same standard and defer all other species to requiring a permit, as will undoubtedly be the case for numerous species for which there is insufficient information? If not, any “blanket conditions” that would be applied are likely to be so generic as to prove ineffective for the majority of species. Alternatively, it will transfer responsibility for determining species-specific mitigation and compensation requirements to the Proponent (which is essentially what the current permitting process is) but without requirements for review or stakeholder and public engagement.

In closing, Ontario is home to over 250 at-risk species, many of which persist in only a few specialized locations in the province. At a minimum, significant changes are required to this proposal to address gaps that would otherwise result in detrimental, long-term, adverse impacts on the long-term viability and survival of species at risk in Ontario. However, at its core, the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act and proposed new Species Conservation Act would critically weaken protections for species at risk in Ontario to an unacceptable level.

I urge the Minister to seriously consider the potential impact of this proposal and to make a decision not to proceed with the proposal as presented.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen