The proposed changes to…

The proposed changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), as outlined in Environmental Registry Notice #019-7380, pose significant risks to the survival and recovery of species at risk (SAR) in Ontario and undermine the core purpose of the Act for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate Definition of Habitat for Species Recovery
The newly proposed definition of "habitat" is not sufficient to support the population recovery of SAR. A narrow focus on areas currently occupied or used by the species disregards the broader ecological context in which many species carry out vital life processes. Habitat must include not only nesting, overwintering or breeding areas, but also foraging grounds, movement corridors, dispersal zones, and ecosystems that contain the specific features critical to species’ survival. Species cannot recover in isolated habitat fragments or in areas stripped of the resources necessary to complete their life cycles. A meaningful habitat definition must be ecologically informed, aligned with species recovery strategies, and reflective of the complexity of natural systems.

2. Removal of ESA Permitting for Birds and Aquatic SAR Is Dangerous and Short-Sighted
The proposed elimination of ESA permitting for bird and aquatic SAR protected under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) is deeply flawed. As David Browne, senior vice-president for conservation and policy at Birds Canada, rightly notes, “the federal law was never designed to completely replace the provincial law…It's there as a last resort” (CBC, 2024). Many bird SARs, such as Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark, rely on specific habitat types—like large hayfields, pastures, and open grasslands—for breeding. If only active nests are protected—as would be the case under federal regulations without complementary provincial measures—then virtually no meaningful protection is provided as the nests of these ground-nesting birds are extremely difficult to find. Protecting only active nests, rather than the habitat that supports them, will almost certainly result in unchecked habitat loss, leading to population declines within just a few years. Without the preservation or compensation of these critical habitats, these species face a very real risk of local extirpation as result of this proposed change to the ESA.

3. Registration-First Permitting Could Work—If Backed by Clear Habitat Definitions and Strong Conditions
A registration-first approach to permitting can facilitate more efficient project timelines and provide adequate level of protection to species—if it is designed with strong safeguards to ensure protection or offsetting of impacts to species at risk. Conditional exemptions must have robust criteria, including: clear and science-based definitions of habitat specific to each species, unambiguous thresholds for when authorization is required, strong compensation obligations, and clearly prescribed mitigation measures. The government should prioritize updating O. Reg. 832/21 to include clear, ecologically valid definitions of habitat for all species listed under O. Reg. 230/08, grounded in their Recovery Strategies, and using these to define species-specific habitats in the registration-first approach, instead of the new proposed habitat definitions. Further, the registration-first approach should include clear, standardized thresholds of impact that trigger the need for authorization. For example, if more than 5% of a forested area containing a high density of snags (critical for roosting SAR bats) is proposed for removal, then a registration should be required, with mandatory compensation such as habitat restoration or enhancement. Such standardized metrics would eliminate the current guesswork and provide greater clarity to both consultants and proponents, while ensuring habitat protections are meaningful. A well-designed registration-first system would streamline development timelines without sacrificing species protection—provided that it is underpinned by scientifically sound, transparent rules that define habitat based on ecological needs, require meaningful offsetting of impacts, and clearly state when and how authorization is triggered without any loopholes for proponents to not do any of these requirements.

4. Politicizing the Species List Undermines Science and Conservation
The proposal to allow government discretion to delist or downlist species independent of recommendations from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is unacceptable. The integrity of SAR protections must remain grounded in independent, peer-reviewed scientific assessments. Allowing political influence to override science introduces unacceptable risk and opens the door to decisions driven by development priorities rather than ecological need. The cascading and often unpredictable effects of species loss on ecosystems are well documented. To ignore this is to gamble with biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the long-term health of Ontario’s natural heritage and ecosystem services.

5. Enforcement Alone Won’t Save Species—Tracking and Limiting Habitat Loss Is Critical
Increased enforcement for compliance with registration conditions by proponents after the fact is insufficient without a broader system for monitoring cumulative impacts. Simply ensuring compliance on paper ignores the bigger picture: how much habitat is being lost overall across the province. A cap system to track cumulative habitat removals for each SAR at the provincial scale and local scale must be developed and enforced instead to ensure that habitat loss stays within scientifically defensible limits that will not jeopardize the species recovery in the long term. Simply removing habitat for development and creating new habitat as compensation elsewhere will do little in species recovery if all of the natural habitat is gone. For instance, planting young trees as compensation for mature forest habitat removal may not provide usable habitat for bat SAR for at least 20 to 30 years—by which point the local population may already be gone. Time-lagged offsets must be scrutinized carefully, and real-time monitoring of habitat loss must inform policy and approvals.

6. Elimination of Recovery Strategy Requirements for Uplisted Species Is Deeply Concerning
Removing the requirement to develop or update recovery strategies when a species is uplisted to a higher risk category is unacceptable and undermines the core purpose of the Endangered Species Act. Recovery strategies are essential for identifying threats, guiding habitat protection, and setting out concrete steps toward species recovery. To acknowledge a species is in greater danger while choosing not to plan for its recovery is both scientifically and ethically indefensible.

In Conclusion:
The proposed changes weaken protections when Ontario’s biodiversity is already under significant threat. A functional ESA must be grounded in science, focused on recovery (not just short-term survival), and must integrate habitat protection, enforceability, and transparency. I urge the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to halt these changes and engage with scientists, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders to strengthen—not undermine—Ontario’s commitment to protecting species at risk.