The proposed changes to…

The proposed changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and the planned introduction of the Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA) represent a profound shift in how the province will manage species at risk. Below are some of my concerns, and some recommendations:
________________________________________
1. Undermining Scientific Independence and Integrity
A core strength of the current ESA lies in its reliance on science-based assessments by COSSARO (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario). While COSSARO’s role remains intact under the new framework, the proposed legislation gives the government discretion over whether to list or delist species, despite COSSARO’s recommendations. This political override of scientific advice introduces the risk of decisions being driven by economic or political considerations rather than ecological need. This weakens the objective, evidence-based foundation upon which species protection should rest. Recommendation: Work on improving efficiencies in the administration of the Act, but keep the science on listing and delisting species.
________________________________________
2. Weakening of Core Legal Protections
By shifting from a permitting system to a “registration-first” model, the province is removing a key mechanism for vetting the potential harm of activities to species and their habitats. While the government argues this model is already used effectively for some activities, extending it to virtually all authorizations substantially reduces oversight. This change allows projects to proceed immediately upon registration, potentially before appropriate mitigation strategies or compliance checks are in place.
Moreover, the removal of “harass” from the definition of harm reduces legal protections for sensitive behaviors like nesting or courtship that may not cause immediate physical harm but still disrupt species' survival.
Recommendation: Retain the existing permitting system.
________________________________________
3. Narrowing the Definition of Habitat
The proposed redefinition of “habitat” reduces the scope of what is protected by focusing only on specific, directly used areas (e.g., nests or dens), and omitting broader ecological contexts such as foraging areas, movement corridors, or seasonal ranges. This limited definition may leave critical supporting habitat unprotected, particularly for wide-ranging or migratory species. The result could be fragmented conservation efforts that fail to address the full life-cycle needs of species.
Recommendation: Maintain a scientific approach (such as the current approach) that addresses the full life-cycle needs of species. This would be the best way to protect species.
________________________________________
4. Weakening Recovery and Planning Obligations
The removal of mandatory recovery strategies, management plans, and government response statements may allow for administrative flexibility, but at the cost of transparency, accountability, and strategic direction. These documents are essential tools in assessing progress, identifying threats, and outlining clear recovery actions. Making these discretionary rather than obligatory could lead to inconsistent or insufficient conservation efforts.
Recommendation: Maintain the current recovery and planning obligations while finding ways to improve efficiency for proponents.
________________________________________
5. Reduced Protections for Migratory Birds and Aquatic Species
By removing the application of provincial species-at-risk protections to migratory birds and aquatic species already protected under the federal SARA, the province effectively abdicates responsibility for key species. Although intended to reduce duplication, this shift risks creating enforcement gaps and assumes that federal protection is sufficient—despite known challenges in enforcing SARA on non-federal lands.
Recommendation: Maintain protections for migratory birds and aquatic species.
________________________________________
6. Funding Commitments and Voluntarism
The proposed $20 million investment in a new Species Conservation Program is notable and welcome, especially if targeted toward meaningful habitat restoration and community engagement. However, emphasizing voluntary actions without robust mandatory requirements raises concerns that conservation will become more performative than effective. Voluntary programs alone are insufficient substitutes for strong legislative protections and regulatory oversight.
Recommendation: Ensure the Species Conservation Program builds in some compliance and oversight to ensure that its intent is achieved.
________________________________________
Conclusion
While I agree that the way in which the ESA is implemented could be improved to make it more efficient, I recommend that a scientific approach be maintained to identifying species at risk and their habitats. Keeping the science in the Act while allowing for improved efficiency in its application would ensure the best protection of Ontario's biodiversity for current and future generations.