Subject: Concerns Regarding…

Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Changes to the Endangered Species Act

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed amendments to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the associated impacts on species at risk and their habitats. The ESA, when first enacted in 2007, was considered one of the strongest pieces of legislation for species protection. However, over time, amendments, exemptions, and policy changes have significantly weakened its effectiveness, making it increasingly difficult to safeguard vulnerable species.

Transparency in Species Removal

Any removal of a species from the ESA list must be based on scientific evidence demonstrating that delisting will not contribute to population declines. The government must ensure that clear, publicly accessible data is provided before any species is removed. Additionally, newly listed species must receive immediate protections to prevent further loss of biodiversity in Ontario.

Concerns Over Habitat Redefinition

The proposed changes to habitat definitions are extremely restrictive and inadequate, failing to account for the ecological needs of species. The Provincial Planning Statement defines habitat as areas supporting life processes such as breeding, feeding, shelter, and migration. However, the newly proposed definition—limiting habitat protection to a den site and the immediate surrounding area—is insufficient and could jeopardize long-term species survival. Many species rely on multiple interconnected habitats throughout their lifecycle, and protections must reflect their ecological requirements rather than arbitrary limitations.

Scientific Basis & Accountability

Habitat descriptions were previously developed with expert contributions, ensuring protections were based on ecological science specific to Ontario. Any decisions to restrict habitat must be backed by Ontario-based scientific research, rather than models from other jurisdictions. The government must be transparent and accountable regarding any habitat definition changes.

Investment in Species Protection

The government must outline clear conservation strategies and financial commitments to ensure species are protected, especially given the proposed removal of permitting requirements. Without a structured plan, the absence of regulatory oversight will increase habitat destruction and species vulnerability.

Failure of the Rules-in-Regulation Approach

Ontario has previously seen ineffective results from rules-in-regulation approaches in environmental legislation, including the ESA and the Public Lands Act (PLA). These approaches allow proponents to self-screen, often without a full understanding of regulatory requirements, leading to unauthorized habitat disruptions. Compliance and enforcement are reactive rather than proactive, making it difficult to impossible to prevent harm before it occurs. In addition, the province is hugely lacking in environmental and natural resource enforcement resources. Ontario does not have enough staff to monitor and enforce current environmental and natural resource legislations and penalties for offenders are weak and do not deter non-compliance activities.

Enforcement & Development Pressures in Southern Ontario

Southern Ontario is experiencing intense development pressure, creating significant challenges for environmental regulation and enforcement.

At any given time, numerous activities occur, many without proper permits, undermining conservation efforts.
Traditional regulatory methods, such as activity registration, have proven ineffective in ensuring compliance.
To address these issues, a large-scale effort is required, including:
Increased enforcement officers trained in land-use and environmental protection.
Advanced monitoring technologies to track and mitigate habitat disruptions.
Clear and enforceable policies balancing development with species conservation.
Community involvement to strengthen compliance efforts.
Legislative Interactions & Stronger Protections Under the ESA

The ESA provides stronger protections in certain cases compared to the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). Ontario must also evaluate how these amendments could affect other provincial legislation, such as the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which has similar objectives. Ensuring policy consistency and alignment between these laws is critical to maintaining effective species protections.

Final Recommendations

Given the potential consequences of these changes, the Ontario government must:

Ensure public transparency and scientific justification before delisting any species.
Maintain a comprehensive habitat definition that reflects species’ full ecological requirements.
Commit to funding and structured conservation efforts to protect species without permitting loopholes.
Reject rules-in-regulation approaches in favor of proactive enforcement.
Increase enforcement capacity and monitoring to address development pressures.
Ensure policy consistency with related environmental legislation.
Strengthen penalties for non-compliance.
Ensure that any policies have clear and enforceable requirements rather than relying on self regulation.

The ESA was originally enacted to protect vulnerable species and their habitats in Ontario. Weakening its provisions through amendments, exemptions, and habitat reductions will have long-term ecological consequences. I urge the Ontario government to reconsider these proposed changes and prioritize strong science-based, transparent, and enforceable protections for species at risk.