Tay Valley Township Council…

Tay Valley Township Council submits the following comments about Schedule 10 of Bill 5 – Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025.

The province proposes a number of changes to the way Endangered Species are protected in Ontario. A few changes appear beneficial e.g., to reduce duplication with federal regulations and thus speed up approvals and to increase the amount of funding available for habitat restoration or species protection. However, other changes appear to greatly reduce species protection.

1) “Shift nearly all species-related authorizations to a registration-first approach. Under the proposed SCA, almost all activities that currently require a permit before proceeding are anticipated to instead require registration.”

This proposed change eliminates the review of potential impacts on species and their habitat by experienced, neutral, government professionals.

Previously, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) biologists would have identified potential impacts to species and required mitigation plans. Under the proposed changes, consultants hired by a proponent may choose to downplay impacts and, therefore, identify no need for mitigation.

The Township has direct experience with a proponent’s biologist changing their description of a wetland to a hayed marsh, and then to a meadow, to benefit their client.

MECP does not have enough staff to review the registrations so species will receive less protection.

Developers and corporations will be permitted to regulate themselves. This process is open to abuse and corruption.

2) “Focus on the core protections and redefine habitat essential to the conservation of species.” “The definition of habitat is proposed to be reframed as follows:

• for animal species:
a dwelling place, such as a den, nest, or similar place, occupied or habitually occupied by one or more members of a species for the purposes of breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, or hibernating and the area immediately surrounding a dwelling place described above that is essential for the purposes mentioned
• for vascular plant species: the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species
• for all other species (for example, lichens): an area on which any member of the species directly depends to carry out its life processes.”

Therefore, the definition of animal habitat will be reduced. According to conservation organizations, habitat loss and degradation are the leading threats to most species at risk. Taking foxes as an example, just the den and the soil around the den, would be protected. None of the habitat that the fox lives in, that it needs for food, or the water it drinks, or the area it needs to find a mate would be protected.

Many animals and most snakes and turtles are killed on roads, far from where they hibernate or den or nest. Protection of just point locations in their lifecycle (dens, nests) will eliminate protection in other stages of their lives, resulting in species loss.

3) The government would have discretion to remove protected species from the list, not just the Committee on the Status of Species At Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). The concern with this proposal is that the government could make decisions based on politics, not science.

4) Establish a new Species Conservation Program to support voluntary initiatives like habitat restoration that protect and conserve species” with funds “up to $20 million/year”.

While quadrupling the amount of spending on habitat restoration is welcome, the program is designed to rehabilitate habitats that have already been destroyed, instead of protecting them in the first place. Protection should be the priority, not restoration.

Also, it is fundamentally unfair that the cost of restoration is being borne by the general taxpayer, and not the corporations and developers who are destroying the habitat.

Previously developers had to provide an overall benefit to a species impacted by their project by creating three times the amount of habitat destroyed. That provision was then replaced by a requirement to contribute to a fund for conservation activities.

Now, without regulations being introduced to set fines or any other consequences for habitat destruction, it appears that public tax dollars will be used to compensate for private profits achieved through species destruction.

5) Remove duplication with federal legislation for migratory birds and aquatic species. This provision is supported by the Township.

6) Propose to strengthen enforcement of the amended Endangered Species Act and the proposed Species Conservation Act with clearer inspection and investigation powers and new order powers to achieve species protection. The Township looks forward to seeing investigative powers and orders strengthened. However, with the habitat protection so greatly reduced, strengthening enforcement powers is not likely to compensate for the loss of habitat.