ERO: 025-0909 Comments…

ERO: 025-0909
Comments submitted by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) on the Proposed Protected Species in Ontario List regulation
1. PROPOSAL TO REMOVE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN FROM THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) strongly oppose de-listing 64 species that are classified as “Species of Special Concern” under the Species Conservation Act, 2025 and the removal of this category from the regulatory framework.
We note that this proposal and the proposal to remove Migratory Birds from the regulatory framework (which is discussed below) follow a series of recent actions by the provincial government that have considerably weakened environmental protection, including changes to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, a shift to a registration-based system for activities having the potential to impact species at risk and the weakening of habitat definitions.
This action, like those before it, will further jeopardize the future of Ontario’s most vulnerable plant, animal, and bird species.
Many of the species that are designated Species of Special Concern have already been identified as nationally endangered or threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) but are not yet protected under Ontario’s legislation. Others are species with documented population declines in Ontario, but again, are not yet formally protected under the legislation.
Nevertheless, the Special Concern category is important in formally recognizing these species as vulnerable and in providing a framework for preventative conservation. Ongoing monitoring and other proactive conservation measures include recovery strategies that aim to manage these species to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened in the future.
But once this framework is removed, and conservation measures become a thing of the past, it’s not difficult to foresee that population losses will accelerate.
In de-listing these 64 Species of Concern, the Province is effectively putting a rubber stamp on their extinction. Once proactive conservation efforts cease, these species are far more likely to slip into threatened or endangered status unnoticed, at which point recovery becomes more difficult, costly, and uncertain.
In proposing to remove this category from the Species Conservation Act, the Province is effectively abandoning its responsibility to prevent these species’ further decline. A few generations from now, if not sooner, it can be expected that some of the 64 species will be in the “Extirpated” category.
The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) urge the Government of Ontario to reconsider the proposed regulatory changes before the Species Conservation Act, 2025 is brought into force.
At this critical juncture — while the Species Conservation Act, 2025 has been passed but not yet proclaimed — there remains an opportunity to pause, reflect, and correct course. The proposed removal of the “Species of Special Concern” category, the shift to a registration-based system, and the weakening of habitat definitions represent a significant departure from the science-based, precautionary approach that has guided species protection in Ontario for over a decade.
Up to now, Ontario has recognized the importance of early intervention, habitat protection, and public accountability in preventing species decline. We strongly urge the Province to retain these core principles and ensure that any new regulatory framework strengthens — rather than dismantles — Ontario’s leadership in biodiversity conservation.
As noted in the proposal details: “On June 5, 2025, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025 (Bill 5) became law. The purpose of Bill 5 is to support faster development by speeding up provincial permits and approvals to help Ontario’s industries thrive, respond to trade issues like U.S. tariffs, and support the long-term strength and security of the province and its economy.”
It’s ludicrous that species at risk have come to be seen as a major threat to the government’s goal of faster development.
There are many other and more effective ways that the government can support faster development than by dismantling environmental protections — for example, by incentivizing developers to plan and build their projects and housing developments in suitable locations and in ways in which they can co-exist with species at risk, without harming them and destroying their habitat, including wetlands (that store carbon and reduce flooding), woodlands (that cool the air and support biodiversity), and grasslands (that stabilize soil and support pollinators).
This is not just a legislative transition — it is a moment of ecological consequence. Decisions made now will shape the future of Ontario’s species and ecosystems for generations to come.
2. PROPOSAL TO REMOVE SPECIES PROTECTION UNDER THE SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT, 2025 FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) strongly opposes the Province’s decision to withdraw from its responsibility for protecting migratory birds, and we are unsatisfied by the explanation provided for taking this action. Although the rationale being put forward in support of this proposal — to remove duplication for species already receiving federal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) — may appear reasonable at first glance, this rationale is not supported by the facts:

▪ HABITAT PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT: Although SARA allows for habitat protection of endangered and threatened species, enforcement is limited and is rarely applied on non-federal lands. For migratory birds, SARA works alongside the MBCA, which primarily protects nests and eggs. Broader habitat areas — such as forests, grasslands, wetlands, and shorelines — are not consistently protected unless they are explicitly designated as critical habitat under SARA, or unless the federal government takes specific action to protect them, which is rare.
In contrast, the Species at Risk Species Conservation Act, 2025 offers localized, enforceable protection for threatened and endangered migratory birds that complement (and, crucially, do NOT “duplicate”) federal protections. Without any provincial enforcement, habitat conservation for threatened and endangered migratory bird species will become voluntary, and recovery strategies may not be developed at all.
▪ DIFFERING APPROACHES TO HABITAT PROTECTION: This proposal, if approved, will remove provincial oversight for migratory birds like the Red-headed Woodpecker (EN), Piping Plover (EN), and Prothonotary Warbler (EN), which rely on habitat protection that federal laws alone do not guarantee. Under SARA, these species are eligible for legal protection of their habitat if they are already protected federally, but only under certain conditions. Also, under SARA, the definition of habitat is narrowed to just the nest or dwelling place and its immediate surroundings. It follows that broader habitat protections (e.g., feeding, staging, and overwintering areas) will no longer be regulated by the Province. In other words, the Province will not enforce habitat protection for these birds anymore.
▪ DIFFERING APPROACHES TO HABITAT CONSERVATION: Federal laws do not cover all aspects of habitat conservation, especially on provincial and private lands. Federal protection is often limited to federal lands (e.g., national parks, military bases). On provincial or private lands, habitat protection depends on whether a Critical Habitat Order has been issued — and this is not automatic. While SARA does include recovery strategies, the effectiveness and timeliness of these strategies can vary, and they often do not replace the need for provincial recovery planning, especially when it comes to habitat protection on non-federal lands.
▪ DIFFERENT CRITERIA USED IN DESIGNATING STATUS: While migratory birds are protected under SARA and the MBCA, these laws do not guarantee active enforcement or habitat protection at the provincial level. As a case in point, the status of the Red-headed Woodpecker in Ontario is Endangered, but its status in Canada is Threatened, under the federal Species at Risk Act — the result being that going forward, this species will receive less protection in Ontario than it presently has.
▪ DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES TO PROTECT THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: In practice, provincial protections have proven to be more effective and responsive than federal mechanisms. Maintaining provincial oversight ensures a stronger, more comprehensive approach to recovery strategies and habitat management plans that are tailored to the specific ecological conditions and conservation needs of Ontario’s threatened and endangered migratory bird populations, as they exist and interact within Ontario’s natural environment.
In view of the facts, we are not at all convinced that there is duplication between provincial and federal regulations, at least in any way that matters. But even if there is, it fails the test of being serious enough to warrant this sweeping proposal to offload Ontario’s responsibilities in protecting threatened and endangered migratory birds to the federal government.
We respectfully submit that changes like this one, with such potentially far-reaching implications — including the risk of serious and irreversible harm to Ontario’s threatened and endangered migratory birds — must at the very least be based on compelling evidence, not on undefended claims of bureaucrats about duplication between provincial and federal regulations.
In conclusion, we urge policymakers to pay more attention to the concerns of experts in Ontario Nature and other environmental organizations, and less to the concerns of developers and their consultants; to stand firm against thinly disguised attempts to accelerate land-use and economic development by bulldozing through one environmental protection measure after another; and to uphold and where possible strengthen the Province’s critical role in conserving biodiversity and in supporting measures that are geared towards the recovery and long-term survival of all Ontario’s at-risk species.