Proposed interim changes to…

Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025

My comments are below, with respect to the listed items in this proposal.

"[...] > ultimately shift nearly all species-related authorizations to a registration-first approach – a process already successfully used for many species and other environmental authorizations"

NO. This will not effectively protect species at risk, as more oversight is needed to ensure that developers are abiding by species at risk protection requirements.

"> establish a new Species Conservation Program to support voluntary initiatives like habitat restoration that protect and conserve species"

NO. Habitat restoration should not be voluntary, it should be MANDATORY for protecting species at risk. The newly proposed Species Conservation Act would weaken protections for species at risk. Rather than the approach it is currently taking, the Ontario government should reinforce the Endangered Species Act by providing more resources, in terms of funding and staffing, to species at risk protections to improve these resources in the existing Endangered Species Act.
>strengthen our ability to enforce species protection laws to ensure that all proponents comply with the rules and expectations of this new approach

"[...] Under the proposed new approach, instead of waiting for the ministry to approve permits, most proponents will be able to begin an activity immediately after registering. Registered activities will be required to meet all associated requirements set out in new regulations. The ministry looks forward to developing these regulations in consultation with the public and Indigenous communities over the coming months."

NO. Proponents should have to wait for their proposals and environmental assessments to be approved before being allowed to proceed with development. This approach also has a high likelihood of neglecting meaningful engagement with Indigenous groups, in favour of accelerating development.

Species Classification and Listing:
"[...] However, the government would have discretion to add extirpated, endangered, and threatened species to the list of protected species. The government would also have discretion to remove protected species from the list."

This is deeply disturbing and unprecedented that the Ontario government would override recommendations by COSSARO, in favour of its own interests. COSSARO should retain its authority over species classification and listing independently from the Ontario government.

Wind Down of the Species Conservation Action Agency:
"[...] The proposal to amend the ESA would enable the ministry to take the necessary steps to wind-down the SCAA and the Fund. This includes transferring the money in the Fund to the government and requiring it to be spent on activities that are in alignment with species protection and conservation goals."

NO! The Ontario government should absolutely NOT have the authority to reclaim these funds and use them according to its own priorities. The Ontario government has shown itself to prioritize development above environmental protections, and I do not trust that the government would spend these funds towards species protection.

"Advisory Committees:
The proposed new legislative framework also removes the express ability to establish an advisory committee. As such, the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee will also be wound down. However, the ability to seek advice, including establishing an advisory committee remains the government’s prerogative. It will do so in the future as needed."

No. The Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee should remain active, and it seems unlikely that the Ontario goverment under Doug Ford would ever re-establish such an advisory committee.

Interim period changes – Amended ESA
"[...] the new habitat definition will replace the current definition in the ESA and “harass” will be removed from the prohibitions regarding harms to species
for clarity, proponents of activities may need to reconsider the magnitude of impacts according to the updated definitions and consider whether a permit or registration is required
the requirement for the government to develop recovery products for species will be removed from legislation enabling a more flexible approach"

The word "harass" should remain in the regulations surrounding species at risk protections. It is known that many species do not thrive with human presence, especially when the human presence involves clearcutting, paving, and construction activities. Additionally, permitting should be required when species at risk are present and must be considered for project development.