10 November 2025 Synthesis…

10 November 2025

Synthesis of full document

During our review of the proposed Species Conservation Act to replace the Endangered Species Act, we identified some potential uncertainties or ambiguities regarding the proposed SCA. Summary comments follow:
• Revisions to the proposed list of species protected under the SCA appears to leave some species currently protected under the ESA unprotected. Coordination with federal agencies may be required to ensure continued protection to protected ESA species removed from the proposed SCA list.
• The process of revising the list of protected species would benefit from additional rationale and transparency supporting the proposed changes to the list.
• Additional clarity on the implementation of the Registration Regulation and coordination or management of existing permitted activities under the ESA seems warranted.
• The transition process from ESA to SCA would benefit from the results of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of expected changes in level of species protection and specific improvements in the approval process, shared with the public.

RE: Proposed Species Conservation Act Regulatory Amendments

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks MECP) proposed legislative and regulatory amendments to the Species Conservation Act (SCA). By proposing five new regulations, MECP intends to facilitate a registration-first approach while maintaining environmental safeguards. Our intent is to review the proposed regulations, and identify implications associated with the proposed registration approach. Review and assessment of the regulations follow.
1.0 Assessment Review
1.1 Proposed Protected Species in Ontario
Overview
We support the continued effort to update and streamline the list of species protected under the SCA; however, several key issues require clarification and additional guidance to ensure effective implementation and consistency across environmental planning frameworks.
Requirements:
1 Guidance for Special Concern Species
The proposed regulation excludes 64 species currently classified as Special Concern by COSSARO. Although these species are not at immediate risk of extinction, many are in long-term decline and frequently occur within development areas. Clear provincial guidance is needed to outline how these species should be considered in planning and permitting processes, particularly regarding monitoring expectations, voluntary conservation measure, and reporting of incidental impacts.
Comments and Questions:
1 Alignment with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES)
OWES continues to recognize and include Special Concern species as part of the evaluation of wetland significance. If SCA protections no longer extend to these species, clarification on how OWES evaluation should integrate this information to maintain consistency between regulatory and evaluation frameworks is necessary.
2 New and Reclassified Species
The addition of four new species including Cleland’s Evening Primrose, Domed Disc, Forked Bluecurls, and Finlayson’s Oakworm Moth; and the reclassification of Black Tern and Riverine Clubtail require detailed explanation. Updated guidance should clearly describe how these changes affect permitting, registration, and conservation planning obligations.
3 Accessibility of Species List
The published list of species should be made available in an open, searchable digital format that includes details such as year of assessment, population trend, habitat type, and main threats. This transparency will support municipalities, consultants, and the public to understand protection requirement.
4 Database Updates (e.g., NHIC)
The NHIC and related database should be updated promptly to reflect the revised SCA list, ensuring data consistency across provincial tools and facilitating efficient screening for environmental assessments and land use planning.
5 Potential Gaps in Species at Risk Protection
The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)
Comments and Questions
1. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) applies automatically only to federal land. Species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and aquatic species as defined in the Fisheries Act, SARA automatically applies on provincial and territorial lands and waters as well. Revision to SCA may introduce gaps in coverage to aquatic vegetation and other aquatic and terrestrial species at risk.
2. What coordination with federal or other jurisdictions is occurring to close potential gaps in coverage for species at risk in Ontario?

1.2 Proposed Registration Regulation
Overview
Under the SCA, the registration regulation (RR) will establish regulation requirements for activities that qualify for registration. Any activity that may adversely impact a protected species must be registered unless the activity is already exempted from the SCA or prescribed as an activity that requires a permit.
Requirements
The following requirements apply to all registerable activities can be divided into two categories, which are outlined below.
1 Those that are common to all registerable activities:
o who is undertaking the activity
o what the activity is
o where and when the activity will occur
o which species may be impacted
o the extent of any species’ habitat impacted
In addition to these listed requirements, registrants may also be required to work with qualified professionals to develop site-specific conservation plans. These conservation plans could include details to avoid and reduce impacts on species and their habitat. Examples of impact avoidance and mitigations include implementation of appropriate timing windows.
2 Activity-specific requirements may also apply to certain activities depending on the impacted species and/or habitat or the severity of the anticipated impacts. Examples of activity-specific requirements include:
o activities impacting Boreal Caribou
o activities involving impacts to unhealthy Butternut or Black Ash trees
o the operation of infrastructure that may pose a considerable risk of impact to species or species habitat
o the possession of a species at risk for longer than seven days
o projects funded through the Species Conservation Program
o activities undertaken in response to a non-imminent threat to human health or safety
For activity-specific requirements, registrants may be required to demonstrate that specific conservation action can be implemented to mitigate lasting impacts. Examples of these conservation actions include:
o creating, enhancing, or restoring species’ habitat
o mitigating long-term impacts to local species’ populations
o supporting key research priorities and projects
Comments and Questions
1 Is there a general no-negative impact test required for all registrations?
2 What criteria will be used to determine if an activity, which results in harm to a listed species, is exempt under the SCA?
3 Similar to the question above, what criteria will be used to determine if an activity which harms a listed species, can proceed through a permit process versus simply being registered?
4 Can potential registrable impacts include direct impacts to listed species, such as immediate disturbance, injury or potential death of individuals?
5 A more fulsome list of activity-specific requirements is required.
6 Will all common registration details be made public?
7 Conversely, will all activity-specific requirements not be made public?
8 Can previous registrations be revised? If impacts are potentially greater, what are the limits to registration versus requiring a permit?
9 Does registration require any type of post-development monitoring or other follow-up reporting to ensure that registrants are following registration commitments to requirements of conservation plans?
10 More direction about application and status of “Recovery Strategies” are required when SCA policy is implemented.
 
1.3 Proposed Permit Regulation
Overview
This regulation will set out activities that would require a permit before proceeding with the activity. Review of existing information appears to indicate the permit regulation will be applied narrowly in terms of species and activities. Activities considered for inclusion in the permit regulation include:
• killing a protected species to alleviate threats to human health or safety;
• to introduce or re-introduce a protected species into an area where it does not currently occur.
Comments and Questions
1 Some activities now proceeding under permit would likely proceed under registration under SCA policy. What provision or process will be introduced to reduce ambiguity and coordinate existing projects proceeding under permit and similar future projects proceeding under registration? For example, would a permitted ESA project transfer to the SCA registration regulation if restoration efforts of an ESA registered have not been implemented?
2 A mechanism or process to transition an activity from registration regulation to permit regulation may be required if greater than anticipated project impacts are revealed during the implementation of an activity.

1.4 Proposed Exception Regulation
Overview
The ESA set out exceptions for which activities may occur without registration or a permit. The new proposed exception regulation generally reflects the exceptions in ESA sections 1.1 to 23.19 of O. Reg. 242/08 that do not require notice through the registry. While this approach may appear relatively neutral, this regulation proposes to combine and expand the commercial cultivation and species-specific plant exemptions to extend the existing commercial cultivation exemption to those that possess a plant that originated from a commercial cultivator, which could lead to loss of protection for some species. Proposed exceptions may benefit from case-by-case review to maintain acceptable levels of protection.
Stewardship activities that are now exempted by ESA section 17.1 of O. Reg. 242/08 – these include activities performed by municipalities, not for profit organizations, universities and some other groups – would be included in the proposed registration regulation. This inclusion may lead to beneficial outcomes such as coordination of activities, achieve quality standards, and holistic planning. MECP also proposed to remove exemptions that relate to species that will not be protected under the SCA.
Comments and Questions
1 If SCA was to expand the commercial cultivation and species-specific plant exemptions exemption to those that possess a plant that originated from a commercial cultivator, how would the provenance of these species be tracked?
2 If exemptions are removed for species not protected by under the SCA, how will protection for these species be maintained?

1.5 Proposed Transition Regulation (Dirk)
Overview
The Province proposes that activities authorized under existing permits, agreements or subject to a conditional exemption that requires providing a notice through the Registry, would be subject to the conditions that are currently applicable under the ESA. This would be based on the definition of habitat that was applicable at the time of the authorization, agreement or Registry. As part of five proposed regulations and amendments to the SCA, conditions are provided to inform the transition from the ESA to the SCA.
Requirements
• We understand that the Species at Risk in Ontario List (SARO List) will be replaced with the Protected Species in Ontario List under the Species Conservation Act. The changes will result in the number of listed species being reduced from 271 (ESA) to 169 (SCA) species. This will be a key component of the transition from the ESA to the SCA.
• For conditional exemptions that are subject to providing a notice under the ESA, it is proposed that only administrative amendments be allowed after December 31, 2026.
• Any changes to an activity resulting in impact to a new species would be subject to a new permit or registration under the SCA.
• The proposed amendments to the SCA (consolidation period from November 3, 2025) provide direction for transition from the ESA to the SCA, including under Part VIII (Transition) and Transitional regulations outlined in Subsection 67(1) regarding the application of provisions of the Endangered Species Act on a transitional basis.
Comments and Questions
Recognizing the need for legal language in the explanation and implementation of an Act and associated regulations, the language used in the Act for describing the applicable conditions relating to transition subsections is difficult to interpret. A review and update to provide for clearer, more reader friendly language is recommended. Particularly because there are many proponents and individuals with existing permits, exemptions and agreements that have a key interest in understanding the implications for their projects in the transition from the ESA and SCA.
A future supporting document that provides proponents with a step-wise explanation and process for transitions under the scenarios of an existing permit, exemption or registry is recommended. This could include project examples of different scale.
The proposed changes to the list of species that will be subject to the SCA and transition from the ESA appear to include the removal of special concern species and birds protected under the Migratory Bird Convention Act.
The provision of supporting information and direction for proponents and individuals would be beneficial for understanding the implications for the transition of species and habitat projection to the federal agencies. Will there be a proposed approach or framework for the transition of identifying site-specific habitat? Have there been discussions with federal agencies about a consultation process that proponents can be aware of and prepare for? How could this effect timelines for projects? Will the methods for the identification of habitat previously defined through regulation descriptions or general habitat guidelines continue to be utilized in some form? What types of discussions have occurred between provincial and federal agencies regarding the transition of habitat and species projection?

2.0 Synthesis
During our review of the proposed Species Conservation Act to replace the Endangered Species Act, we identified some potential uncertainties or ambiguities regarding the proposed SCA. Summary comments follow:
• Revisions to the proposed list of species protected under the SCA appears to leave some species currently protected under the ESA unprotected. Coordination with federal agencies may be required to ensure continued protection to protected ESA species removed from the proposed SCA list.
• The process of revising the list of protected species would benefit from additional rationale and transparency supporting the proposed changes to the list.
• Additional clarity on the implementation of the Registration Regulation and coordination or management of existing permitted activities under the ESA seems warranted.
• The transition process from ESA to SCA would benefit from the results of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of expected changes in level of species protection and specific improvements in the approval process, shared with the pu

See attached for more details