1. General Position While…

1. General Position

While the stated intent of the Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA) is to “modernize” and “streamline” approvals, the proposed framework represents a significant weakening of Ontario’s existing species at risk protections. In practice, it prioritizes administrative efficiency and economic expediency over evidence-based conservation outcomes.

The Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) remains one of the strongest pieces of conservation legislation in Canada, having been modelled on the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to ensure transparency, science-based decisions, and the application of the precautionary principle. The SCA removes or dilutes many of these fundamental principles.

2. Key Concerns
2.1 Shift from Permitting to Registration

Replacing most ESA permit requirements with a self-registration system introduces serious risks of non-compliance and habitat degradation.

Registration allows proponents to self-assess potential impacts and mitigation without direct ministry review.

This creates a regulatory gap where projects with complex or cumulative effects (e.g., infrastructure corridors, aggregate operations, or energy projects) could proceed with limited oversight.

The lack of a robust pre-authorization review undermines the precautionary approach that is essential for protecting species with limited data or declining populations.

2.2 Reduction in Transparency and Public Accountability

The current ESA requires public posting of permits, conditions, and rationale for decisions on the Environmental Registry.

Under the SCA, registered activities may proceed without notice or opportunity for public comment, significantly reducing transparency.

The removal of Part II EBR requirements for SCA permits further limits the ability of the public, municipalities, and Indigenous communities to review and appeal decisions affecting local ecosystems.

2.3 Fragmentation Between Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions

By excluding 42 aquatic and migratory bird species on the basis of existing federal protection, the SCA creates regulatory fragmentation that complicates project planning and compliance.

Projects affecting multiple habitat types (e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, uplands) could now fall under split jurisdiction, with unclear agency responsibilities.

This may lead to inconsistent application of mitigation measures and habitat compensation frameworks.

2.4 Removal of Science-Based Decision-Making

Under the ESA, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) provided independent, science-based classifications that directly triggered legal protections.

The SCA enables ministerial discretion to determine which species are protected and how protections are applied, weakening the link between science and regulation.

The ability to issue broad exceptions and transitional authorizations without new assessments risks politicizing conservation decisions.

2.5 Weakening of Habitat Definitions and Transition Rules

The transition regulation allows ESA permits and registrations to continue “to the extent that the impacted species is subject to the SCA,” potentially resulting in retroactive loss of habitat protection.

The use of the historical habitat definition from the time of permit issuance further erodes adaptive management and ignores evolving ecological knowledge and habitat mapping improvements.

2.6 Cumulative Effects and Enforcement Gaps

No mechanism is described for cumulative effects tracking or centralized reporting on species declines under the new registration system.

Without ministry review or audit capacity, compliance monitoring will likely be complaint-based and reactive, placing further strain on MECP enforcement staff.

3. Broader Ecological Implications

Ontario’s biodiversity and ecosystem resilience are foundational to both the province’s economy and long-term sustainability. Weakening species protections to “unleash the economy” may provide short-term administrative efficiency but will generate long-term ecological and financial costs through habitat loss, water quality degradation, and increased restoration liabilities.

The removal of independent oversight and cumulative impact assessment directly contradicts commitments made under Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and Canada’s international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

4. Recommendations

Retain the ESA framework until robust evidence demonstrates that the SCA will provide equal or stronger protections.

Require ministry review and approval for all activities with potential for adverse effects, rather than broad self-registration.

Maintain public posting and comment opportunities for all permits and registrations under the Environmental Registry.

Integrate cumulative effects monitoring and annual reporting of species and habitat trends.

Preserve science-based decision-making by maintaining an independent COSSARO with binding authority on listings.

Commit to a no-net-loss or net-gain approach for critical habitat, consistent with DFO and MECP wetland offsetting frameworks.

5. Conclusion

The proposed SCA, while framed as modernization, represents a fundamental shift away from precautionary, science-based environmental protection. It risks undoing decades of progress in species recovery and responsible resource management. Ontario can achieve economic growth and environmental protection simultaneously—but not by dismantling the core safeguards that ensure both.