The proposed amendments to…

The proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act put forward by the provincial government are abhorrent. The changes outlined in this proposal will fundamentally impact Species at Risk and their habitat, and lead to a decline in Ontario’s biodiversity. There are a multitude of concerns that I have regarding the proposed changes that I have outlined below.

First, the proposal states: “…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 incredibly concerning as the government does not have any scientific merit to be adding or removing species from the list of endangered species. Species protected under the Endangered Species Act are carefully assessed by experts in biology/ecology, who have a deep understanding of Ontario’s species and how to conserve its biodiversity. Qualified ecologists monitor species populations and understand threats to their survival and habitats. It is deeply concerning that the provincial government would abuse their power in this manner and step over the guidance from qualified professionals.

Second, narrowing the definition of habitat for species at risk would limit protection to only a small portion of the areas these species rely on for their survival and recovery. For example, only protecting a nest of a species but not considering the other habitat components of a species (i.e., habitat for breeding, feeding, roosting, etc) would severely impede the survival of these species whose populations are at risk. When looking at a habitat it is critical to consider the different components a species requires for their survival and how they function together. Guidelines have been developed over time that take this into consideration, and going against this will greatly impede the survival of Ontario’s flora and fauna.

Third, the proposal states: “We are making these changes because the current definition of “habitat” creates uncertainty, includes broad areas beyond core species protections, and results in confusion when making decisions about what actions to take when carrying out required protections.” Just because an act or protocol is “confusing” does not mean that it should not be followed. It is important to take the time to understand legislation that has been put in place and deciding that it shouldn’t be followed shows the lack of accountability from the provincial government. There are plentiful resources out there that companies can refer to and many reputable environmental consulting companies that can work with construction companies to ensure environmental compliance. This demonstrates the importance of working as a team and consulting with different discipline experts to ensure compliance of all applicable legislation. These construction projects can happen; however, it is critical to follow legislation that has been put in place to mitigate effects to species at risk and preserve Ontario’s biodiversity.

Fourth, the proposal states: “Under the provisions of the current ESA, anyone carrying out an activity impacting these species on non-federal lands has been required to obtain authorizations under both federal and provincial species at risk legislation. To remove this duplication, species protections in the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025, would not apply to these SARA protected aquatic species and migratory birds, allowing for projects to move forward in a more efficient and cost-effective way.” Removing federal protections from projects would leave significant gaps in the protection of species. The species protected under federal legislation vary compared to species protected under provincial legislation and vice versa. As well, the levels of protection and protection measures vary between the legislations. As such, it is critical that federal legislation remain in place so there are no gaps in protections.

Fifth, the proposal states: “The proposed amendments to the ESA would remove the requirements to develop recovery strategies and management plans, government response statements, and reviews of progress from legislation”. These documents and studies are critical for the recovery of species whose populations are declining. It's essential to track species recovery, assess current strategies, and identify improvements to better support Ontario's at-risk species. Removing these actions shows a lack of accountability, transparency and integrity from the provincial government.

Finally, the proposed actions state: “Under the new registration system, proponents will be able to get projects started as soon as they have completed their online registration, provided they are following the rules in regulation. This eliminates the step of waiting for the ministry to review and approve permits.” Permits ensure companies thoroughly plan their projects, apply and monitor mitigation measures, and provide compensation when required. The permitting process allows environmental professionals to review projects and offer guidance on protecting species at risk. Allowing companies to simply register and begin work immediately risks causing irreversible damage to our species at risk and their habitats.

Overall the proposed changes and future appealment of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, shows a lack of accountability, transparency and integrity from the provincial government. The short term economic gain from the provincial government’s reckless plan will cause irreversible damage to Ontario’s biodiversity.