Comments – Proposed…

Comments – Proposed Legislative and Regulatory Amendments to Enable the Species Conservation Act, 2025
ERO 025-0909

I am submitting my comments to express my opposition to the replacement of the Endangered Species Act with the profoundly inadequate Species Conservation Act, and to offer my comments regarding the proposed legislative amendments and regulations to implement the Act.

First and foremost, as an Ontarian with a long career in provincial public policy development I am shocked and dismayed by the failure of the government to consider over 61,000 comments on Bill 5 (025-0380) expressing widespread opposition to the elimination of the Endangered Species Act and its replacement with the Species Conservation Act. In my long career I have never seen a bill posted to the EBR for public consultation receive such widespread opposition, only to be passed without modification three short weeks after the posting closed with the decision “comments were considered and the bill was subsequently passed”. There is no possibility that over 16,000 individual registry comments were even read within three weeks, let alone truly considered. Through my policy career, we took public consultation seriously and made all effort to consider modifications to address key concerns of the public. That is the responsibility of government, to remain transparent and responsive to Ontarians. I am dismayed that this government has stripped the EBR posting process of all meaning and has made it political and self-serving.

The Bill 5 decision posting indicated that comments would also “inform the development of the regulations...” I do not see any sign of that in the materials posted for comment. In fact, the information posted does not constitute true consultation as it provides no clarity or detail on what is being proposed. Postings should not occur until there is a proposal of substance being offered for true public input. Vague statements about what the regulations “may include” is not consultation.
In reading through the decision posting on Bill 5 and the proposed legislative and regulatory amendments, I remain opposed to the foundations of the Species Conservation Act, in particular:
• The change to the purposes of the Act to include “while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario”. Protecting and conserving Ontario’s most vulnerable species, at risk of extinction, and the habitat they rely on for survival must be the primary aim of the Act, without the subjective qualifier to walk back that protection. The Endangered Species Act was needed because economic growth already trumped species survival. Vulnerable species in Ontario are declining dramatically and action was needed to create a more balanced approach. A healthy environment is a critical building block for a sustainable economy and Ontario’s future must not be traded off for expedited, short term economic gain. That is not what “sustainable” means.
• The unscientific, politically motivated change to the definition of habitat to include only a species’ immediate dwelling place (den, nest) and surrounding area. The original definition under the Endangered Species Act was science-based, reflecting the area a species requires for survival through their life cycle (e.g. for shelter, feeding, mating, migration, hibernation). Eliminating most components of a species’ habitat from regulation will ensure the extinction of Ontario’s most vulnerable species.
• The registration first approach – self-registering of an activity that will have detrimental impacts to species at risk will do nothing to protect them.
• Exemption from registration/permitting – I have great concern about potential exemptions, particularly when coupled with the narrowing of protections under the Act, and regulatory exemptions that are likely to occur under the Special Economic Zones Act.
• The discretionary listing of species. The list of species at risk must remain based purely on scientific expertise through COSSARO. Granting the government “discretion to add or remove” species from the list is unscientific and contrary to the primary purpose of the Act. I support continuing COSSARO science-based assessments, yet it is unacceptable to then grant the government discretion to remove species from the list, ignoring expert scientific advice.
• The removal of migratory birds and aquatic species subject to federal protection is unacceptable and contrary to the coordinated approach agreed to under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and the Canada Ontario Agreement on Species at Risk.
• Elimination of recovery strategies. Recovery strategies are critical to ensuring that Ontario’s most vulnerable species have a chance to survive. Eliminating these plans for short term economic gain is short sighted and fails to consider that Ontario’s economy and the health and well-being of Ontarians rely upon a healthy environment.

The following comments relate to the regulations and legislative amendments proposed in the posting. It is noted that it was next to impossible to comment on the descriptions provided for most of the regulations as they provided no descriptive detail or clarity.

1. Proposed Protected Species in Ontario List Regulation
Ontario’s protected species list must continue to be informed by science, through COSSARO experts, and without the discretion of the minister. It must also reflect COSSAROs entire list, including migratory birds, aquatic species and species of special concern. Offloading to the federal government under the guise of “duplication” is unacceptable and not reflective of reality. The federal government does not duplicate provincial responsibilities. The intent under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and the Canada Ontario Agreement on Species at Risk is for a cooperative and coordinated approach, not duplication. The federal government does not have the capacity to perform provincial responsibilities. The result of this removal of 42 migratory and aquatic species is that they will no longer be protected from damaging activities under Ontario’s regulatory purview.

2. Proposed Registration Regulation
The registration first approach is concerning as it will limit Ministry oversight. The wording of the proposed regulation overview in the posting is so vague that there is no way to know if it will do anything to protect vulnerable species, without knowing what activities will be “registerable”, what rules will apply and whether those rules will be enforced. Coupled with the inadequate habitat definition, I do not support the proposed emphasis on a registration approach.

3. Proposed Permit Regulation
Any proposed activity that may impact a listed species in Ontario should be subject to permitting with enforceable terms and conditions, particularly given the narrowed application of the Act. It is unclear based on the posting how broadly or narrowly the permitting requirements are intended to be applied. The limited examples provided appear to indicate a virtually non-existent permitting requirement. It is concerning to see an example as “killing an animal species if the activity is not subject to an exception...” This implies that killing vulnerable animal species would be acceptable if an activity is excepted.

4. Proposed Exception Regulation
Given the dramatically reduced prohibitions under the Species Conservation Act and weaker habitat protections, no exemptions should be granted.

5. Proposed Transition Regulation
The ESA should continue unimpeded. I am opposed to the proposal allowing persons to seek cancellation of permits/agreements/registrations issued under the ESA in order to allow them to proceed under the weaker protections of the SCA.

6. Proposed Regulatory Amendments under the Environmental Bill of Rights
I am opposed to the proposed exemption of permits under the SCA from public consultation under the EBR. Posting of permit proposals under the EBR required posting as class I proposals, and that requirement should continue, to ensure public transparency.

7. Legislative and Other Regulatory Amendments
The content of the legislative amendments claims to be minor although no information is provided to know if that is true. It is concerning that the legislative amendments were already passed, prior to the closing of the comment period, while claiming in the related posting 025-1223 that the legislation did not require posting as comment was occurring under this posting (025-0909). Passage of legislation should never proceed until the comment period under the EBR has been completed and all comments are considered. This is not transparent consultation and constitutes double speak.

I urge the government to take seriously the responsibility of protecting and conserving Ontario’s most vulnerable species. Economic growth can and must be achieved in a truly sustainable manner that benefits Ontario’s short-term goals without sacrificing its future. Ontario’s economy, its environment and the health of its people are interdependent and management efforts must not treat the environment and those most vulnerable as simply a deterrent to growth.