I am writing to you to voice…

I am writing to you to voice great concern over the proposed changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act under Bill 5 “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025”.
When Ontario's Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) went into effect June 30, 2008, it was one of the strongest pieces of legislation around the world for the protection of Species at Risk. It was seen as one of the most important tools to truly protect declining wildlife. While not perfect, as no legislation can be, it was still seen as the most powerful safeguard to slow wildlife declines, and work toward the recovery of species. Thousands of scientists, government officials and community members worked diligently to ensure the Act worked as intended through recovery teams, recovery strategies, on the ground research and threat mitigation, through enforcement and through education programs.

Unfortunately, the ”More Homes, More Choice Act (2019)” lead to the first round of amendments to weaken the Endangered Species Act. These changes not only reduced protections for a number of species, but it also reduced the scientific rigor of the ESA by putting more control in the hands of politicians, while at the same time changing the criterion used to list species under COSSARO (Committee On the Status of Species At Risk in Ontario). Additionally, the make up of COSSARO changed considerably at this time, from a number of taxa specialists, to increased numbers of consultants, many of which had strong connections to the forestry and mining industries.

Now, with amendments proposed under Bill 5 this month, the Endangered Species Act will again be substantially weakened, and subsequently replaced under Schedule 10 of Bill 5, with the “Species Conservation Act”. Bill 5 would also result in the “Special Economic Zones Act”, legislation that would further put our natural areas and wildlife at risk through a significant reduction of safeguards for species and their habitats under the Act.

A number of proposed changes are not conducive to proper protection of Ontario’s wildlife. I am concerned about a number of the following changes to the ESA:

1)Putting decisions about the future of Species At Risk in the hands of politicians, rather than based on the best available science, will reduce or eliminate the potential for impacted species to recover, and may cause outright extirpation locally, or throughout their entire Ontario range. Furthermore, this limits the voice of not only scientists, but also Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members dedicated to the protection of land and species. Such free-reign of power without adherence to science is a reckless approach for a province that should be leading Canada in biodiversity protection.

2)The inappropriate and narrow definition of habitat being proposed means that the majority of Species At Risk, and all other species that have protection through them, will now be at risk if they leave their primary denning and/or nesting areas. Species do not live in such narrow definitions of habitat. Such wording reduces most protections for wildlife. If the foraging grounds are lost, we lose these species. If travel corridors are lost, we lose these species. If summer habitat areas are lost, we lose these species. If changes due to climate change or other environmental factors occur and wildlife have nowhere to move, we lose these species. In human terms, if our bedroom is protected, but not our kitchen, we will not survive; or if our home is lost due to flooding, and we have nowhere to retreat to, we will not survive.
Furthermore, habitat is not static. Putting such strict legislative walls around habitat protection means that there are limited options for species’ migration/expansion over time. For many species, as our environment changes due to climate change, natural succession, flood years vs. drought years, invasive species, etc, they must move. Wildlife may change their behaviours and habitat use over decades, not just months. For example, habitat use by many species during high water years along the Great Lakes will cycle over decades or more. As water recedes, animals return to previously used habitat areas, until the next high water cycle begins in 10 to 15 years. This type of cycle is not limited to the Great Lakes and can be caused by many factors.
Many wildlife species have either large ranges, or changes in movement over time based on changes in plant diversity, changes due to natural succession, changes due to human use, and, as we are seeing more frequently, changes due to climate change (warmer winters, exceptionally hot summers and changing weather patterns). Once the habitat is developed, it is gone, and thus having such a narrow definition of protected habitat means that unless the animal stays only where it currently brumates/hibernates or nests for the coming decades, to centuries, or more, it will be lost. In the history of the planet, no species would be able to survive in such a narrow area of protected habitat. The way the definition of habitat is presented under Bill 5, would suggest it was written in a way to ensure the eventual elimination of a species over time, rather than to protect them. There is no scientific basis to this definition, and it appears the wording for Bill 5 was formulated to appease those that do not understand wildlife biology and ecology, assuming that the public will not notice that damage that it will cause.

3)Allowing consultants/developers to self-register for development activities before appropriate surveys, environmental assessments or government permits are provided is inappropriate, since in many situations the individuals doing the development are not aware of Species At Risk, or may be choosing to ignore the fact that important habitat, or the species themselves, could be destroyed. It opens the door to pleading ignorance and having the damage done before measures are taken to mitigate for harm.

4)The creation of “Special Economic Zones” that can allow for the circumvention of environmental legislation is a reckless approach to development in Ontario, showing a lack of regard for both wildlife and wild spaces. This also sets an alarming precedent.

5)With reduced protections and weakening/dismantling of the ESA, Ontario’s residents, including Indigenous communities, have a limited capacity for informed consent of impacts to land and wildlife within our province. Even now, the wording surrounding our environment by the provincial government is blurred with rhetoric about environmental laws as red tape, and misleading information about protecting the environment and the economy, meanwhile the changes to the ESA will irreparably harm species and habitat in many cases.

Ontario has experienced some of the most significant losses of biodiversity in the country. Since European Settlement, over 68% of wetlands in Southern Ontario (with up to 90% in some areas of southwestern Ontario) have been lost, some of the worst wetland losses in the world according to an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources fact sheet (https://www.abca.ca/downloads/MNR_Wetland_Restoration_-_final_26Feb07b…).

Of the remaining wetlands, many are now polluted, managed as human-recreation areas, or are cut off from larger natural systems, making them less viable for many wildlife species. Similarly, 80% of southern Ontario’s original forests have been lost. Even with reforestation efforts over the past decades, many counties in southern Ontario have extremely low forest cover: Essex 2.8%, Chatham-Kent 2.8% to 3.5%, Perth 9%, Middlesex 9.9%, Lambton 13.44%, Oxford 14.3%. And even these numbers are misleading, as many of the remaining forests are monocultures of pine that were planted for logging, and provide little diversity for wildlife. In other cases, the forests are overrun with invasive species, have been impacted by Emerald Ash Borer and other pest species, have been heavily used for recreation or are fragmented to the point that they offer limited opportunities for wildlife. Southern Ontario, from Pelee Island to Ottawa contains the highest biodiversity of any region in Canada, yet it is one of the most heavily impacted areas of the country due to human activities.

Even with the unprecedented historic losses of wetlands, forests and other natural cover in Ontario, we continue to see wetland drainage and pollution, reductions of natural forest and prairie habitats and decreased protections for natural areas, including recent changes to the listing and protection of Provincially Significant Wetlands. When you consider the rapid growth in human population, the continuing development of roads, the expansion of urban areas, the sprawl of development outside of cities and the already extensive agricultural lands that exist in Ontario, it is difficult to understand how wildlife will be able to persist long-term without strong legislation and immediate conservation activities.

At a time when the planet’s biodiversity is under the most threat in human history, we should not be reducing protections, but increasing them. We should not be using environmental protection as a scapegoat for the ills of society, but rather understand that without a healthy ecosystem, humans ultimately pay the price. We have not done well in protecting Ontario’s natural world over the past 140 years, and so there is no time like the present to ensure that what we have left is protected and valued now and into the future. This starts with ensuring the most vulnerable species are protected under the ESA, and to do so, we must strengthen the ESA, not dismantle and replace it with weaker protections.

For every Threatened or Endangered species with habitat protections, those areas do not simply protect that one species, they provide opportunities for countless plants and wildlife to thrive long into the future, and provide opportunities to expand their ranges, to migrate during difficult years, and to fill new regions as the world warms through Climate Change. Furthermore, it prevents more species from becoming at risk. At the same time, these natural areas with intact ecosystems, help purify our water, sequester carbon, reduce runoff, protect against flooding and provide important areas for humans to reconnect with the natural world we’ve evolved with.

We cannot view the natural world as the path of least resistance when progressing human needs. We need to view it as the area that sustains us. When it comes to southern Ontario, can we afford to lose more than we have already lost? If the Greenbelt issue is any reference, we know that Ontario’s citizens care deeply about our natural areas and wildlife. However, just because the majority of people in Ontario are not aware of the severity of changes proposed under Bill 5, it does not mean it should proceed. All wildlife and habitat protection legislation should be guided by good science, not government fiscal priorities that lead to permanent losses to our environment. There are ways to streamline the ESA, but weakening/replacing the Act, rather than strengthening it, removes decades or progress and ultimately will cause great harm.

Strong science-based Species at Risk protection represents respect for our natural world, confidence in science and support for the hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents that do their part in protecting or speaking up for our wildlife and wild spaces.