I am concerned that the…

I am concerned that the changes proposed in Bill 5 will weaken the protections currently in place for at-risk species in Ontario. It seems like the Bill is prioritizing economic development over the survival of species that are already struggling to survive. Ontario is home to over 250 species at risk, and these changes could make the situation even worse. Protecting our wildlife should be a priority, and I believe Bill 5 puts that at risk with the following concerns.

1. Reduction of Scientific Input in Decision-Making
One of the biggest concerns with Bill 5 is that it reduces the role of independent scientific experts in decisions about species protection. Currently, the Endangered Species Act, 2007 relies on the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), which uses scientific data to assess and classify species as endangered, threatened, or at risk. However, Bill 5 changes this by removing the mandatory scientific input when classifying these species. Instead, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the power to decide which species should be protected, even if they’ve already been identified as at risk after consulting with experts and Indigenous governments.

The reduction of scientific input contradicts the recommendations of Smallwood et al. (1999), who argue that conservation decisions for endangered species should be based on the best available scientific data. This includes comprehensive risk assessments, ecosystem evaluations, and independent scientific reviews, all of which are essential for making informed and effective protection decisions.

This shift implies that the final decision is left to politicians, without clear rules on how they’ll use this power, instead of the scientists. This raise concerns that political or economic interests could influence species protection, potentially ignoring expert advice and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK). Decisions about protecting species should be based on science and ecological facts, not influenced by political or financial pressures.

2. Narrower Definition of Habitat
Bill 5 also introduces a narrower definition of “habitat”, which could weaken protections for species at risk. The new definition focuses only on the immediate area around a species' dwelling place, such as a nest or den, and excludes other important areas needed for the species' entire life cycle, such as migration corridors.

This could be a significant issue for species that depend on large, interconnected ecosystems. For example, boreal caribou, which are already listed on Ontario’s Species at Risk (SARO) list, need vast and undisturbed boreal forest areas to survive. If only small habitat areas are protected, such as the calves, it won’t be enough to save the species because those areas are just one part of the species' entire life cycle. Without protections for the larger habitats necessary for migration and seasonal movements, such as those used by boreal caribou, their populations will continue to decline. This situation is similar to ensuring someone’s safety only inside their house but leaving them vulnerable when they step outside.

Considering large-scale projects like the Ring of Fire, a mineral development project in northern Ontario, as an example: if protections for key habitats outside of species' immediate dwelling areas are removed, development could spread into other crucial habitats necessary for their survival, including migration corridors. If these habitats are damaged, it could isolate populations and prevent species from accessing vital areas for feeding, breeding, and seasonal movement. Effective habitat protections should cover all areas species rely on. Without these protections, conservation efforts will not succeed, and species at risk could face even greater challenges.

3. Shift in Authorizing Activities That Affect Species
Furthermore, Bill 5 introduces changes to how Ontario will authorize activities that could affect species at risk. Currently, under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, anyone planning activities that could harm species, or their habitats must obtain a permit. This ensures that potential impacts are properly reviewed. However, Bill 5 suggests replacing this permitting process with a new system where most activities only require registration through a "Species Conservation Registry", with regulations to govern them. The specifics of these regulations are still unclear.

This shift removes the assumption that activities likely to harm species need to be reviewed by the government. Instead, the bill presumes that most activities can proceed immediately after registration, with only certain exceptions requiring further approval. This raise concerns that activities with serious risks to species could proceed without enough oversight.

The reduction in review and consultation processes also limits the chances for expert input, public feedback, and Indigenous consultation, which are important steps to identify risks and avoid harm. Without these measures, critical issues might be overlooked, potentially harming species at risk. This approach is at odds with steps being taken in other provinces, where courts and governments have recognized that automatic registration systems that bypass consultation could violate constitutional rights (Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023, paras. 426-430).

4. Elimination of Recovery Strategy Requirement
Additionally, Bill 5 eliminates the requirement for Ontario to create recovery strategies for endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, the province is required to develop recovery strategies that outline the actions needed to restore endangered species and their habitats. Keeping the requirement for recovery strategies would ensure a structured, science-based approach to conservation, helping Ontario address the specific needs of at-risk species and reduce ongoing threats.

Without this requirement, conservation efforts could become fragmented and less effective, making it harder to achieve successful recovery. Recovery plans are essential for identifying and addressing the root causes of species endangerment, such as habitat loss. These plans ensure that recovery actions are focused and supported by the necessary resources. Without mandatory recovery plans, species at risk may not receive the support they need, reducing their chances of recovery. Moreover, targeted recovery plans that are directly linked to the species’ habitat improve their effectiveness. Without these plans in place, at-risk species may miss the critical interventions required to support their recovery.

In conclusion, Bill 5 introduces several changes that could significantly weaken the protections currently in place for at-risk species in Ontario. By reducing the role of scientific experts, narrowing habitat protections, removing mandatory recovery strategies, and reducing consultation processes, Bill 5 may ultimately make it harder to protect and recover endangered species, putting the survival of many endangered species at greater risks.