The proposed repeal of the…

Numéro du REO

025-0380

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

127401

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses

Commentaire

The proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 2007 and its replacement with the Species Conservation Act (SCA) of 2025 is concerning for several reasons. The new legislation would weaken all protections by narrowing the definition of habitat, meaning only an animal’s immediate dwelling (like a den or nest) would be protected, rather than the broader ecosystem it relies on for survival. This leaves species even more vulnerable to habitat destruction, which is often the leading cause of species endangerment.

While the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) would still assess species, the government would have the power to add or remove species from the protected list at its discretion. This opens the door for political or economic motivations to override scientific assessments - which the government has shown by previously trying to open up the greenbelt and change OWES to make developing wetlands easier.

The "Register-First" Approach is highly problematic. Instead of requiring permits before development, the new system would allow developers to begin projects immediately after registering, without prior environmental review. This could lead to irreversible harm before proper assessments are conducted.

The new law removes requirements for recovery strategies and management plans for at-risk species, meaning there would be no formal roadmap for helping species rebound, thereby continuing and exacerbating the risks to already at-risk species.

These changes prioritize economic growth over conservation, but also over the long-term health and well-being of our communities. This would allow projects to proceed even if they cause severe declines or extinctions of species. These changes could be catastrophic for Ontario’s biodiversity, making it easier for industries like mining and infrastructure to proceed without strong environmental safeguards, which have been established for a reason. We do not need less protections - we must think many generations ahead, and think about the world we are creating and leaving behind for them.