See Attached. Understanding…

See Attached.

Understanding how different activities are proposed to be treated under each of the registration, permit and exception regulations is critical to providing regulatory certainty to industry and ensuring meaningful consultation and engagement with the impacted stakeholders. Additional stakeholder engagement on the specific regulatory language proposed under the Proposal should be provided. In addition to opportunities for direct engagement with key industry stakeholders, any specific proposed draft regulatory language should be posted to the ERO for a second round of public review and comment prior to being implemented to avoid any unintended consequences.

The Protected Species in Ontario List Regulation should define the specific criteria the Minister must consider when applying discretion to update the Protected Species in Ontario List. The means to ensure transparency and evidence-based decision-making in connection with such discretion should be clarified. Also, the SCA allows for a one-year exception for a new species listing in respect of section 16 activities. The MECP should also specify the timelines to make amendments to the Protected Species in Ontario List and when any amendment will come into force. There should be a specified date by which the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall amend the Protected Species in Ontario List to reflect the latest COSSARO assessments. Certainty on timing of listings is critical for industry to plan their investments and SCA compliance activities.

When developing the registration-first approach, MECP should leverage its existing conditional exemption framework to minimize adverse effects to species, allowing developers and operators to register for the potential impact, and commit to a site-specific mitigation strategy that is based on project-specific factors, and supported by current science and defensibly effective mitigation measures (i.e., an adaptive management approach). This would include leveraging the current conditional exemption available to Wind Energy Generation Facilities under section 23.20 of O. Reg. 242/08. To the extent the MECP is considering requiring particular activities or industries to implement “specific measures”, such measures should be provided for consultation in order to assess their potential impact. For example, for Wind Energy Generation Facilities, the potential inclusion of a minimum cut-in speed would be concerning. Such an approach would be overly prescriptive and have negative impacts on wind production and electricity reliability in Ontario (including by reducing the number of wind power projects that are economically competitive in IESO procurements and eroding investor confidence in the province). Instead, an adaptive management approach provides Wind Energy Generation Facility operators with flexibility to determine the most efficient and effective approaches to minimize adverse effects on species, including informed curtailment, variable cut-in speeds, adjustments to daily and seasonal timing windows, and other effective site-specific approaches, while mitigating significant negative impacts on energy production. This will enable modern, flexible, creative, and innovative approaches to minimize effects on wildlife. The Proposal contemplates the use of a “Qualified Professional” to develop site-specific conservation plans, but the requirements to be a “Qualified Professional” are currently not defined. Consistent with its use in other legislation, the criteria to be a “Qualified Professional” should be clearly defined. For purposes of the SCA, MECP should consider broad criteria along the following: one or more persons with expertise in relation to the subject species, including i. aboriginal traditional knowledge and community knowledge, if it is reasonably available; ii. the biology and ecology of the subject species or a species with largely the same suite of biological and ecological traits, and iii. knowledge on conservation genetics or other relevant conservation sciences.

The MECP currently publishes guidance that includes some service standards and timelines for the review and approval of environmental permissions. Permits required further to the SCA should be supported by guidance that includes process and requirements, and service standards and timelines for the review and approval. These service standards should align with the 90-day service standard applicable to permit applications for species protected by SARA.

The extent to which the new regulations will deviate from the current conditional exemption available to Wind Energy Generation Facilities under section 23.20 of O. Reg. 242/08 is unclear. Any specific requirements that may apply for certain activities should be clearly and transparently articulated and adequate time for public consultation provided. For continuity, and investor certainty, Wind Energy Generation Facilities should remain a registerable activity.

The Proposal contemplates that if changes to the Protected Species in Ontario List require a registration to be updated after December 31, 2026, a new registration under the SCA would be required. This appears to risk creating competing requirements and increasing the compliance burden for industry. The MECP should also clarify if an amendment to a registration or permit is required when a species’ classification changes (see section 16(7)). To avoid this, after the regulations have been finalized and posted (which we understand is expected to be Q1 2026), and the SCA comes into force, existing facility operators should have at least one year to conduct expert professional assessments and develop site-specific approaches in order to determine and implement their optimal path forward considering the new requirements. In the interim period (e.g., until Q1 2027), facilities should be allowed to operate in a business-as-usual state.

The MECP should also consider practical opportunities to further streamline SCA requirements for industry. For example, a single digital permitting platform would provide a faster, more predictable approvals process and improved customer service (e.g., My Ontario Account). Moreover, the existing Natural Resources Registry information should be ported to the new Species Conservation Registry.

Any fees required further to the SCA requirements should be clearly identified and supported by a payment system that allows flexibility for proponents. Also, the details on when and how refunds of charges will be made by the MECP should be specified. The MECP should also define the specific criteria the Minister must consider when requiring financial security. It is important for industry to understand the quantum of any such potential requirements.