I strongly oppose the…

I strongly oppose the proposed Species Conservation Act (SCA) regulations and related legislative amendments under ERO 025-0909. The proposed framework significantly weakens Ontario’s ability to protect species at risk by prioritizing administrative convenience and economic flexibility over science, accountability, and ecological responsibility.

The “registration-first” model, broad exemptions, narrowing of the provincial species list, and removal of key transparency requirements would collectively undermine biodiversity protection and public trust. Ontario must strengthen—not dismantle—its species protection laws.

1. Registration-first model enables harm before review
The proposal allows activities that may harm protected species or their habitats to proceed through a self-registration process without prior independent review. This “registration-first” approach prioritizes speed over oversight, leaving species vulnerable to cumulative and poorly monitored harm.

Recommendation: Restrict registration to low-risk activities only and require independent permitting and scientific review for all activities that could cause habitat loss or population decline.

2. Removal of many species from the provincial protection list
The proposed Protected Species regulation lists approximately 169 species but excludes 42 aquatic species and migratory birds, as well as 64 species of “special concern.” This approach abdicates provincial responsibility and creates protection gaps, particularly where federal protections do not align with provincial land-use and resource management activities.

Recommendation: Restore provincial protection for aquatic and migratory species, or establish binding cross-jurisdictional safeguards to prevent habitat loss caused by provincial decisions.

3. Ministerial discretion and broad exemptions weaken accountability
New permitting and exception regulations give the Minister wide discretion and allow some activities to proceed without registration or permits. These powers risk overriding scientific guidance and enable inconsistent, opaque decision-making.

Recommendation: Limit exemptions to narrow, well-defined cases and require published justifications for any ministerial decisions that deviate from scientific recommendations.

4. Loss of transparency under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR)
The proposal would exempt SCA permits and orders from Part II of the EBR, removing the requirement for public posting and comment. This undermines transparency and public participation in decisions that may authorize harm to species at risk.

Recommendation: Withdraw this exemption and ensure all SCA permits and orders are subject to full EBR posting and public notice requirements.

5. Risky transition rules and “grandfathering” of weaker protections
Allowing existing ESA permits to continue under outdated habitat definitions and weaker conditions will entrench lower standards and ignore updated science.

Recommendation: Reassess all transitional activities using the most current science and ensure all ongoing projects meet the modern standards of the SCA.

6. Erosion of independent, science-based listing
The proposal weakens the independence of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) by decoupling scientific assessment from automatic legal protection. Political discretion must not override science.

Recommendation: Make COSSARO’s classifications legally binding for listing decisions and require that any deviations be justified through public, science-based reasoning.

7. Inadequate Indigenous consultation and recognition of Indigenous rights
The proposal fails to ensure early, meaningful, and resourced consultation or co-management with Indigenous communities. It also lacks provisions to include Indigenous knowledge systems in decision-making.

Recommendation: Embed binding requirements for early and funded Indigenous consultation in all listing, permitting, and recovery processes, consistent with reconciliation and treaty obligations.

Summary of Key Recommendations
1. Withdraw the proposed exemptions from EBR Part II and restore full public transparency.
2. Limit the registration model to low-risk activities only; require independent review for others.
3. Maintain provincial responsibility for aquatic and migratory species.
4. Make COSSARO’s assessments legally binding and science-driven.
5. Reassess all transition permits to reflect current standards.
6. Ensure meaningful Indigenous consultation and co-decision making.
7. Retain strong enforcement mechanisms and funding for recovery implementation.

Conclusion
The proposed Species Conservation Act framework represents a fundamental weakening of Ontario’s environmental governance. It replaces strong, science-based protection with administrative shortcuts, political discretion, and limited transparency. Ontario’s biodiversity—and the ecological, cultural, and economic systems that depend on it—cannot afford this regression.

I urge the Ministry to revise this proposal to:
• Reinstate science-based species listing and recovery planning,
• Maintain public transparency through the EBR,
• Uphold Indigenous rights and partnerships, and
• Restore Ontario’s leadership in species at risk protection.

Protecting Ontario’s natural heritage is not a barrier to progress—it is the foundation of a sustainable future.