As an ecological consultant…

As an ecological consultant who works closely with species at risk and their habitats across Ontario, I’m deeply concerned about the direction the province is taking with the proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the introduction of the Species Conservation Act (SCA). While I understand the desire to streamline the process, these changes risk significantly weakening protections for species that depend on a range of interconnected habitats, not just a single nest, wetland, or overwintering site.

For example, Eastern Foxsnakes in the Carolinian region rely on a mosaic of habitats throughout the year, wetlands for overwintering, open areas for basking, forest edges for foraging, and upland habitats for gestation. If only the overwintering site is regulated under the new approach, we’re ignoring all the other habitat types that are equally critical to their survival. The same applies to Blanding’s Turtles, which use a network of wetlands and uplands seasonally. Narrowing the scope of protection to a single life process severs the connections these species need to maintain healthy populations.

Beyond the ecological consequences, I’m also concerned about how these changes impact the role of ecological professionals (and job security). The shift toward self-registration and away from formal permitting reduces the incentive for early involvement of qualified ecologists in project planning. This not only puts consulting roles at risk, but reduces the likelihood of high-quality, science-based mitigation, something that benefits both species and proponents.

In practice, the lack of oversight is already apparent. Across more than 50 projects I’ve worked on that were registered under the current system, I’ve only been asked to provide additional details or justification on two. This means the vast majority of registrations are being processed without any meaningful review, even in cases where habitat complexity or potential risk to species clearly warranted closer scrutiny. If we move further in this direction, there will be little to no assurance that mitigation measures are appropriate, or even implemented at all. While the legislation suggests that enhanced auditing will be part of the new system, this simply isn’t realistic without a significant increase in MECP staffing and capacity.

What’s even more troubling is the broad new authority being granted to the Minister to allow certain projects to proceed without any permit, registration, or conditions, depending on the nature of the project or who is proposing it. This kind of discretionary power removes transparency and accountability from the process, and it undermines the entire premise of equal protection under the law for listed species. It opens the door for inconsistency and politicization of species protection decisions.

I urge the government to consider the following improvements to this legislation:

1. Require Mitigation Plans Before Registration
Projects should not be eligible for registration until a mitigation and monitoring plan has been developed by a qualified ecologist. These plans should outline avoidance, mitigation, and any required compensation, and should be tied to clear implementation commitments.

2. Define “Qualified Ecologist” Clearly in Regulation
To ensure these plans are meaningful, the term “qualified ecologist” must be defined. This should include a relevant post-secondary degree, a minimum number of years of field experience with Ontario SAR (suggest 5 years at a minimum), specified experience with the species being registered, and membership in a recognized professional organization (currently does not exist as a requirement in Ontario, but suggest this should be formed).

3. Maintain Broader Habitat Protections Where Justified
Species with complex life cycles and wide-ranging habitat needs, like Eastern Foxsnake and Blanding’s Turtle, require broader protections than just a single nest or hibernation site. The legislation must retain flexibility to protect functional habitat where scientific evidence supports it.

4. Restrict Discretionary Exemptions by the Minister
Any provision that allows projects to bypass permitting or registration entirely should be subject to strict, transparent criteria and public review. Without safeguards, these exemptions risk eroding public trust and putting vulnerable species at greater risk.

I believe in smart, science-based conservation that works for both development and the environment. But these proposed changes, as written, undermine the very purpose of species at risk legislation in Ontario. I hope the province will reconsider and strengthen these laws in a way that keeps experts engaged, protects species effectively, and maintains public confidence in the process.