Can we balance the demand for more development while protecting Ontario’s endangered species? This question, among others, resurfaced after Premier Doug Ford revoked the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on March 30.
Once hailed as the gold standard for conservation, the ESA was renowned for its scientific approach, mandatory protections, and focus on species recovery. It was one of the few bills passed with all-party support back in 2007.
The ESA’s predecessor, the Species Conservation Act (SCA), came into effect as part of the provincial government’s Bill 5, The Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economies Act. Critics argue the move is a serious step backward for conservation in Ontario and reflects the government’s development-at-all-costs mindset, citing reductions in habitat protection, the removal of recovery goals for endangered species, and the weakening of oversight for development projects.
The new SCA also changes how species are identified as endangered. Under the old ESA, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), a group of conservation experts, determined a species’ status as endangered or not through a scientific process. However, the new SCA says the government can ignore the COSSARO recommendations.
“Cabinet now has the power to add or remove species from the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list, replacing the independent scientific process that previously governed listings. This means that it is no longer based on expert science but that decisions will now be made by politicians, not scientists who have dedicated their lifetime to studying the ecosystems and species,” said Lance Wolaver, executive director of Wildlife Preservation Canada.
The provincial government has already made some changes to the list of provincially protected species, removing 106 species previously protected or monitored, including migratory birds, aquatic insects, and species of special concern. Part of the rationale for removing protections for migratory birds and aquatic insects was that these species are already federally protected.
Developers argued that the double protection of species created an inconsistent regulatory landscape for them to navigate. According to Kirstin Jenson, Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) vice president, this caused unnecessary delays to development as developers had to comply with two different pieces of legislation for the same species.
Rebecca Rooney, a professor in the department of biology at the University of Waterloo, argued that the loss of provincial protections for these species meant they might not receive any protection because of the federal government’s inadequate action.
“In 2022, the Auditor General of Canada found 10 per cent of federally listed species still lack recovery strategies and management plans. So, we are kind of kicking the ball over into their court to manage migratory species and aquatic species, [but] they’re not doing a good job either. So taking away provincial protections from these species does not mean that they’ll be protected at all, even if they’re meant to be covered under federal protections under the Federal Species at Risk Act,” she said.
For Rooney, one of the most alarming changes in the SCA is the provincial government’s shift away from species recovery. Under the new SCA the government is not required to have a recovery plan for species based on scientific advice, like in the old ESA.
“It eliminates the requirements to create recovery strategies for all the at-risk species. Without those recovery strategies, we’re abandoning the goal of bringing these species back from the brink of extinction and settling for a goal that’s “let’s just not let things get any worse.” That’s really dropping the bar in terms of expectation,” said Rooney.
In a statement to The Observer, MECP spokesperson Gary Wheeler said that the “previous approach to species conservation wasn’t delivering the outcomes the people of Ontario expect. That’s why our government is modernizing its approach to Species Conservation to focus on preventing and mitigating activities with the greatest negative impacts on species.”
The MECP refused to elaborate on what these outcomes were.
Endangered species will no longer have their foraging grounds, breeding sites or corridors protected under the new SCA. Instead, the protected habitat for species is limited to “occupied” or “habitually occupied” locations for animals, such as dens and nests and the important root zone for vascular plants.
The narrowing of the definition of an endangered species habitat provides more clarity for developers who previously faced inconsistent uses of the term. Jenson noted that, depending on where developers were in the province, the definition would be inconsistently applied.
“We were really looking for the ministry to give much clearer definitions, clearer identification and monitoring standards, and just a lot more clarity,” said Jensen.
While the new habitat definition provides greater consistency for developers, Rooney argued it isn’t ecologically meaningful.
“Only den sites or nesting areas would be protected, but an ecologist recognizes a bird also needs to eat, and so it needs foraging grounds. If it migrates, it may rely on key stopover lands. Many animals have specific overwintering habitat needs beyond just a den or nest site. So, just protecting these narrowly defined “habitats” does not actually provide for the survival of these animals,” said Rooney.
She emphasized that technical definitions, such as habitat, should remain scientific and apolitical.
Under the new SCA, it will be easier for developers to move projects forward. Under the old ESA, there was automatic habitat protection for listed species, and developers had to obtain specific, often lengthy, permits. The process also required developers to prove they would achieve an “overall benefit” to the species.
Now, the SCA has shifted the permit system toward a registration-focused approach where developers submit project-specific plans online rather than waiting for ministerial approval, prioritizing faster development timelines
Critics argue that the shift leaves “the fox to watch over the hen house,” relying on developers to self-report their project’s environmental impacts.
“Developers would just register activities that might impact at-risk species, which means that there’s not a case-by-case review of applications with an opportunity for experts to provide input and then ultimately approve or reject a proposal. Instead, projects can begin as soon as they register, with no government review required,” said Rooney.
“This is going from a precautionary-principle approach, where we’re trying to prevent damage to at-risk species habitat or their populations, to a sort of voluntary, self-administered approach where there isn’t this permitting that could protect species by saying no to development.”
Throughout the discussion on the new SCA, both Rooney and Jensen emphasized that protecting Ontario’s wildlife and increasing development don’t have to be mutually exclusive goals. However, they have slightly different approaches to balancing the two outcomes.
“We know that environmental protections and housing delivery are not mutually exclusive, and we’re more concerned about how the system itself functions in practice,” said Jensen.
“Any kind of modernization and process improvements that lead to addressing time delays and getting projects moving a bit quicker, but also ensures that those protections stay in place and ensuring strong, effective environmental outcomes at the same time as being able to deliver housing, our association and our membership is in support of any kind of modernization and progress that attributes to that.”
For Rooney, the new SCA falls short of protecting endangered species and prioritizes development. In her view, the key to balancing conservation with the increasing demand for development lies in changing our approach tourban design.
“I’d really like to see us thinking from an urban planning perspective. More like European cities,” said Rooney.
“I think that’s a really big part of the discussion that gets forgotten, the housing crisis is a housing affordability crisis. We need to be building affordable housing. And a lot of the approaches to addressing housing are kind of bumping into what they call the red tape, these environmental assessments. Those developments are the ones where the types of housing they’re building aren’t addressing the housing affordability crisis.”
She recalled having conversations with many Canadians who love travelling to Europe, excited to be a part of the vibrant life there, with walkable streets lined with shops and cafés.
“But then we come back to North America, we get in our cars, and we commute out to the Costco, to our distant offices, and we complain about our sore backs,” said Rooney.
“It’s somehow not connecting for people that the way that they have in Europe, developed municipal planning to promote walking, to promote accessible cities, to have more of that, mid-density housing, mixed zoning, mixed use. We could have that here in Canada, and if we did, we’d actually be simultaneously addressing the housing crisis while still doing a great job protecting biodiversity.”
