I do not support the passing…

I do not support the passing of Bill 5, particularly in its current state for several reasons listed below:

1. The bill seeks to immediately amend the current Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), later repeal the ESA, and enact a new Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA). This shifts nearly all species-related authorizations to a registration-first approach while simultaneously allowing proponents to begin activity immediately after registering. This would result in a process where developers and other proponents DO NOT need to submit any documentation, environmental plans, and financial commitments to protecting, relocating, and caring for the habitat of species that would be affected by the proponents. We have seen in other provinces across Canada, such as oil extraction clean-up, that when we do not require such pre-planning and protection of the environment, proponents likely will not provide any such clean-ups, protection, and financial commitments once they have already built and profited from their activities. This leaves the onus, financial burden, and consequences of their actions onto the province and residents both from a tax standpoint as well as residents who must live within the newly destroyed environment. Not to mention the species and their habitats that have been destroyed throughout the process.

2. The bill seeks to make obsolete the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). While the bill states that the COSSARO's role as an independent science-based committee responsible for assessing and classifying species in Ontario will not change, the details of the bill also include that the government would have discretion to add AND remove protected species from the list and that any species added to the list must match the classification assigned to it by COSSARO. It is clear that there is some due process in adding a species but none to remove a species. This effectively means that the government is free to remove any species from the list resulting in proponents not having to adhere to any protection and recovery of species as outlined in the ESA. The freedom of discretion that the government has also means that there is no oversight (whether public or in the form of COSSARO) in their decisions. This presents a risk where proponents can lobby the government to remove species causing "roadblocks" to their development plans from the list to speed up their process and not be financially or legally liable for the protection and recovery of such species. In combination with point 1 in this comment, proponents can register with no intent of protecting and recovering species and lobby the government to remove the species within their development area from the list.

3. The bill proposes to remove the concept of “harass” from species protections which greatly reduces the protecitons afforded to species. The removal of this concept means that as long as proponents do not kill, harm, or capture species from the list, they are free to do anything else to the species such as intentionally inconveniencing species to essentially evict them from their habitat.

4. The bill proposes to reframe the definition of “habitat”. Particularly for vascular plant species, the bill narrows the definition to only include the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species. This greatly limits the protection of vascular plant species to be just the ground directly under it (i.e. the root ball) and does not protect any other roots or the seed area surrounding the plants. When other parts of the root are damaged through proponent activities, the plant must use a lot of energy and resources in order to heal from this damage, preventing it from flourishing to its full potential.

5. The bill seeks to reduce duplication with federal legislation, namely the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) by removing aquatic species and migratory birds from the SCA to allow projects to move forward in a more efficient and cost-effective way. The bill should include a clause that re-introduces aquatic species and migratory birds into the SCA should they no longer be protected under SARA.

6. The bill seeks to remove the requirements within the ESA to develop recovery strategies and management plans, government response statements, and reviews of progress from legislation citing duplication with federal recovery documents. While both the recovery strategy requirements under ESA and SARA are similar, the SARA does not require proponents to provide an estimate of when the preparation of the strategy will be completed while the ESA does. This important information to report and makes proponents to commit to a specified timeframe in which their recovery strategy needs to be reasonably completed by. The removal of this recovery strategies from the SCA does not make sense since the duplication with federal documents does not actually add significant additional effort to proponents, almost all of the information required is the same so proponents can just submit the same document with the addition of recovery timeline estimates to the Ontario Ministry. Further, recovery documents are only required federally, the onus of reviewing all of the documents across Canada lies solely on the federal Ministries which actually increases response time for proponents as opposed to submitting to the province who are dedicated to only reviewing Ontario submissions.

7. The bill intends to wind down the Species Conservation Action Agency (SCAA) and the Species at Risk Conservation Trust (Fund). While the SCAA has been focusing on starting-up its operations and has not spent any funds on projects, it has committed to repaying the start-up operation costs back to the fund by the end of fiscal year 2026-2027. The SCAA has also outlined a 3-year plan from 2024-2027 on using the funds for species conservation, protection, and recovery. Based on their 3-year plan the priority in fiscal year 2024–2025 is the development of species-specific funding plans for Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark (birds) and Butternut (tree), followed by funding plan development in fiscal year 2025–26 for Eastern Whip-poor-will (bird) and Blanding’s Turtle. Given that these efforts are already underway and planned for, the Fund should continue to be used by the SCAA to recovery activities of those who opted to pay a charge rather than completing on-the-ground beneficial actions. If the Fund is transferred to the government, a new period of start-up and planning would go underway, delaying the recovery efforts.

8. The bill seeks to remove the express ability to establish an advisory committee and wind down the current Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee. The presence of an advisory committee is prudent as it gathers a committee of experts who assemble scientific information, including community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge, that should be given to the COSSARO to assist it in the classification of species. This knowledge forms the backbone of ESA and CSA as it heavily shapes what is classified as a species in the list. The removal of the committee strips away valuable expertise when making decisions.

As it stands now, the earth we live on and its environment is already in a decline with threats to bio-life, climate change, and pollution among many. In its current fragile state, we must be prudent in protecting what we can. As outlined in my points above, Bill 5 creates gaps and opportunities for proponents to endanger not only protected species but also the environment that could create serious ramifications to our living standards. I strongly object to the passing of Bill 5. The ESA should continue to be enacted as it provides sufficient protection.