Habitat destruction is the…

Habitat destruction is the number one cause of wildlife extinction and endangerment. Stronger habitat protections are needed to ensure our society does not kill off the current 230+ endangered species in Ontario, or create new threatened species. The proposed changes will only weaken these protections.

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. These proposed changes raise significant concerns regarding science-based conservation, legal safeguards, and long-term ecological outcomes. Below is a critical analysis of the proposed legislative overhaul:

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 arbitrary 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.

2. Erosion 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.
External checks and balances are required because history has shown repeatedly that developers heavily prioritize profit over societal good. 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.

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 will 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. Habitat destruction and degradation is the leading cause of species endangerment and extinction. Reducing protected areas and weakening habitat protections has the strong potential to drive species extinct and create newly threatened 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.

5. Increased Governmental Discretion with Limited Accountability
The proposed legislation removes the requirement to establish advisory committees while preserving the government’s ability to seek advice when “needed.” This erodes the role of independent, ongoing expert input and public oversight in guiding conservation policy. The winding down of the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee and the Species Conservation Action Agency (SCAA) further centralizes authority within the Ministry, with no guarantee of transparency in how species conservation funds will be allocated.

6. 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.

7. Overstated Emphasis on Economic Expediency
The repeated framing of the ESA as a barrier to infrastructure and economic development sets a concerning precedent: that species protection must be secondary to growth. While streamlining is valuable, conservation legislation must prioritize ecological integrity. The proposed changes shift the balance too far toward deregulation and project facilitation, undermining the precautionary principle that has long guided species at risk policy. Before 2018, Ontario's ESA was considered the gold standard for endangered species protect, largely due to the fact that economic considerations were not a factor when protecting species. Including economic arguments in ESA policies often devalues the importance of endangered species to the long-term health of Ontario's natural systems in favour of limited short-term gain.

8. 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, enforcement, and regulatory oversight.

Conclusion
While the government frames these changes as “balanced” and “modernized,” the proposed amendments represent a substantial weakening of Ontario’s species-at-risk regime. They shift away from precautionary, science-based decision-making and reduce meaningful oversight, while increasing reliance on voluntary compliance and political discretion. The consequences of such changes could be irreversible for vulnerable species, especially in the context of accelerating biodiversity loss and climate change impacts.

Recommendation: The Ministry should reconsider key elements of this legislative overhaul, particularly the removal of binding recovery planning, the weakening of habitat protections, and the downgrading of science-based listing. Any modernization of the ESA should enhance—not compromise—our collective capacity to safeguard Ontario’s rich and imperiled biodiversity.