Dear Ministry of Environment…

Dear Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the Endangered Species
Act, 2007 (ESA) and the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA) in ERO posting # 025-0380. I
am concerned that this proposal may have significant adverse impacts on the protection and recovery of
species at risk (SAR) in Ontario.  My concerns are detailed below.
1. In both the proposed interim changes to the ESA and under Part III, clause 14 (1) of the SCA, it is
proposed that the Lieutenant Governor in Council would have sole responsibility for deciding if a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List or the Protected Species in Ontario List as extirpated, endangered, threatened or special concern.

Comment: Will there be a timeline for when this decision must be made after receiving an annual report from COSSARO? Currently, under clause 7 (4) of the ESA, the Minister must file an amendment to the Species at Risk in Ontario List within 12 months of receiving a report from COSSARO. I am concerned that if there is no defined deadline for making a listing decision, there may be significant delays in the provision of individual and habitat protections that would have negative repercussions on a species’ survival in Ontario.

2. In both the proposed interim changes to the ESA and under Part III, clause 14 (2) of the SCA, it is
proposed that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a regulation to list a species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List or the Protected Species in Ontario List as extirpated, endangered, threatened or
special concern, it is not required to list all of the species classified by COSSARO.

Comment: Would the Lieutenant Governor be required to provide rationale for declining to add a species classified by COSSARO to these Lists? I am concerned that there is a lack of transparency regarding the evaluation process for Listing decisions. There should be clear timelines, criteria under which the Lieutenant Governor could reasonably decline to list a species, requirements for publicly posting the decision with supporting rationale, and requirements for stakeholder and Indigenous engagement.

3. In both the proposed interim changes to the ESA and under Part I, clause 1 (b) of the SCA, the
purpose of each Act would be to provide protection and conservation of a species while taking into
account social and economic considerations including the need for sustainable economic growth in
Ontario.

Comment: This proposal changes the province’s mandate from one which actively protects species at risk and their habitat and promotes their recovery to one which passively maintains the current status of species at risk with no obligation to lead or contribute to recovery efforts. The existing ESA has an avenue for permitting activities that would have a significant social or economic benefit to the province under clause 17 (2) (d). The Minister also has the power to apply a temporary suspension of protections where the Minister thinks it likely the application of prohibitions would have significant social or economic implications for Ontario under clause 8.1. What is the rationale for these existing clauses not being adequate to balance species protections and significant economic/ social benefits? I am concerned that this restructuring of the purpose will create an unbalanced evaluation process whereby species’ survival is only found to be reasonable and warranted if it will not affect development potential. And further, that the focus would be for any type of development, not just those Projects with a demonstrated significant social or economic benefit to Ontario as a province. I am concerned this will result in the unmitigated development of land at the expense of at-risk and endangered species.

4. It is proposed that prohibitions under clause 9 (1) (a) of the ESA be revised to remove “harass” from
the list of prohibited actions against a species. Similarly, the SCA defines prohibitions as a “section 16
activity” under Part I, clause 2 (1) which excludes “harass” from the list of prohibited actions against a
species.

Comment: I am concerned that the elimination of “harass” as a prohibited activity would limit the
consideration of indirect impacts if they do not result in a direct physical injury or change to a
physiological process of the species, as covered under the definition of harm. For example, it is well-
known that sensory disturbance (e.g., noise) can result in indirect impacts such as causing individuals to avoid specialized, critical habitats (e.g., caribou calving areas, bat hibernaculum) necessary to support life functions such as reproduction and overwintering that are essential to a population’s long-term viability and survival. Because sensory disturbance primarily impacts animal behaviour and does not necessarily result in a direct injury or change in physiological process, would these Project components no longer be considered in contravention of the ESA or SCA? I am concerned that this omission could have profound adverse impacts on animal behaviours such as mating, breeding, foraging, movement between critical habitats, hibernation and overwintering. Changes to these behaviours can negatively impact reproductive success, health, fitness and overwintering success which would ultimately impact the long-term survival of the species in Ontario.

5. In both the proposed interim changes to the ESA and under Part I, clause 2 (1) of the SCA, it is
proposed that the definition of habitat for an animal species include a dwelling place and the area
immediately surrounding the dwelling that is essential for the purposes of breeding, rearing, staging,
wintering or hibernating.

Comment: I am concerned that this significant narrowing in scope of what is considered as habitat will
result in the protection of an insufficient area to support the long-term viability and survival of species’
populations in Ontario. This definition of habitat blatantly disregards the surrounding ecosystem
processes that sustain such features as dwelling places. For example, if the dwelling place of a bird is
defined by the nest, the new definition of habitat would protect the tree the nest is located in and a small buffer around the tree. However, it ignores the fact that the bird may be an area-sensitive, interior forest nesting bird and that removing the entire forest surrounding the nest would eliminate all associated functions of the forest that contribute to nesting success, such as cover from predators, protection from sensory disturbances and edge effects, food availability, drinking sources, etc. Reduction in nesting success results in lower reproductive rates which can impact the long-term viability and survival of the species. Alternatively, how would habitat for tree-roosting bats be defined when specific identification of maternity-roost trees is notoriously difficult and bats may move between several different roost-trees during the maternity season? Under the current definition of habitat, the entire woodland would be considered as habitat, which accommodates this roosting behaviour.

6. With respect to the SCA Part I, clause 4, it is proposed that the SCA and associated regulations will not apply to migratory birds or aquatic species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk under the Species at Risk Act.

Comment: It is clear that the reasoning behind this clause is to reduce duplication with federal legislation and the need to obtain multiple permits for the same species. However, this change ignores that in common practice, most Projects do not obtain multiple permits because agencies tend to agree that a single permit under the most relevant legislation achieves the same end goal. I am concerned that instead, this clause will result in species and habitat protections slipping through the cracks. For example, if a species is downlisted to special concern under the Species at Risk Act but has been classified as extirpated, endangered or threatened by COSSARO, what would trigger the Lieutenant Governor in Council to consider listing the species on the Protected Species in Ontario List? And what would be the timeline for that decision? Without formalized standards there is a significant risk that vital protections will be left in limbo for indeterminate periods.

7. Under the SCA Part III, clause 16, it is proposed that the default avenue to obtain permission to
contravene the SCA would be through registration.

Comment: I am concerned that this will severely limit the checks and balances that ensure Projects
cannot proceed before it is demonstrated they will not have severe, adverse and irreversible impacts on species’ survival. This clause provides entirely too much latitude to the development industry and
demonstrates a lack of understanding of SAR ecology. Under the current ESA, species that are eligible
for registration are limited to those with a well-understood biology and life history, relatively simple and defined habitat requirements that are easily replicated, and a documented history of successful
implementation of mitigation and compensation measures which form the conditions of the registration. Is the government prepared to develop species-specific registration conditions that meet that same standard and defer all other species to requiring a permit, as will undoubtedly be the case for numerous species for which there is insufficient information? If not, any “blanket conditions” that would be applied would either be 1) so generic as to be ineffective for the majority of species, or 2) will transfer responsibility for determining species-specific mitigation and compensation requirements to the Proponent, which is essentially what the current permitting process is, but without any requirements for review or stakeholder and public engagement.

In closing, Ontario is home to over 250 at-risk species, many of which persist in only a few specialized
locations in the province. At a minimum, significant changes are required to this proposal to address gaps that would otherwise result in detrimental, long-term, adverse impacts on the survival of species at risk in Ontario. However, at its core, the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act and proposed new Species Conservation Act would critically weaken protections for species at risk in Ontario to an unacceptable level.
I urge the Minister to seriously consider the potential impact of this proposal and to make a decision not to proceed with the proposal as presented.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen