We wish to submit our…

We wish to submit our comments against ERO 025-0909, Proposed legislative and regulatory amendments to enable the Species Conservation Act, 2025. We are specifically concerned with the ERO’s exclusion of the following in the proposed regulation:

• the 64 species classified by COSSARO as special concern including 6 species that were classified as special concern in COSSARO’s 2024 Annual Report. Note that none of these species are subject to the prohibitions under the ESA
• the 42 aquatic species (fish and mussels) and migratory bird species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act. This removes duplication for species already receiving protections federally. Activities impacting these species will still need to comply with the following federal legislation: the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

These choices reflect the worst of the repeal of the prior Endangered Species Act-- the proposed new legislation replaces a science-based species listing process with a system that gives the government broad discretion to decide which species are protected and which are not. This leads to species being removed from the at-risk list, even if they still face threats. More protection is not bureaucratic duplication.

Under the amended ESA and SARA, the only part of an animal’s habitat that will now be protected is the den or the nest – in other words, where it sleeps. All the other areas that animals need to live and survive, such as breeding grounds, migratory routes, or areas essential for its sustenance, will no longer be protected. For some species, protection of migration routes and breeding grounds are essential, beyond what is covered broadly in the Migratory Bords Convention Act, 1994. If the areas that animals need for feeding, reproduction, migration, and other life processes aren’t protected, it is unlikely that conservation efforts will be effective. So this change will undermine the overall ability to ensure the conservation of a species. It will make it more difficult to ensure that projects which will harm the habitat of species at risk include reasonable protections from the outset. Proponents may be able to secure permits that would previously have been denied because of harm to breeding or grazing areas. And even where protection might not have been automatic, there will be fewer opportunities for First Nations to be consulted and accommodated as a result of the narrowing of the protected habitat.

Bird friendly cities are those that mitigate threats to birds, and changes to the Species at Risk Act put too much of their threatened future into the hands of government bureaucrats and out of the hands of scientists and conservationists. Please leave SARA alone, and protect our birds.

Sincerely,

~Co-Chairs, Bird Friendly City Kitchener