This proposal to enable the…

This proposal to enable the SCA will only further undermine progress on the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy and further imperil our most vulnerable species.
• The SCA is inadequate for managing species at risk in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, specifically due to:
o the limited definition of ‘habitat’ compared to the ESA
o the discretionary listing of species, removing an independent and science-based assessment approach
o the offloading of responsibility for migratory birds and aquatic species to the federal government
o the registration first approach
o the elimination of recovery strategies

The proposed regulations do not provide enough details for meaningful feedback. The language across the proposal uses wording such as ‘being considered’, ‘registrants may be required’, ‘information submitted may be made publicly available’.
• This language lacks transparency and clarity on how the Ministry intends to implement the SCA, raising significant concerns on how species will actually be protected.
• Overall, the lack of specificity and description of regulatory implications for the environment throughout this proposal goes against the intent of the Environmental Bill of Rights, preventing Ontarians from meaningfully commenting on government proposals.

Proposal #1:
Protected Species in Ontario List
• Transferring responsibility for 42 aquatic and migratory bird species runs counter to the federal, provincial, territorial Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, which stipulates a need for complementary species conservation initiatives.
• The Ministry needs to clarify the status of federal protections for the 42 aquatic and migratory bird species and confirm the federal government has been engaged on this proposal as outlined in the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Species at Risk.

Proposal #2:
Registration Regulation
• The registration first approach limits the ability of the Ministry to provide oversight on activities impacting habitat for listed species.
• With the limited definition of habitat under the SCA, it is unclear how allowing proponents to simply register an activity will do anything to protect the species

Proposal #3:
Permit Regulation
• Any activity that might impact a listed species or its habitat should undergo a permitting process with enforceable terms and conditions, in addition to significant limitations on when and how permits will be issued.

Proposal #4:
Exception Regulation
• Given the weaker habitat protections and lack of recovery planning in the SCA, no exemptions should be granted for the far more limited prohibitions.

Proposal #6:
Proposed Regulatory Amendments under the Environmental Bill of Rights
• Under the ESA, a proposal to issue a permit is a Class I proposal for an instrument under O. Reg 681/94 for the Environmental Bill of Rights. Permits under the SCA should be subject to Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights for full public transparency.