As a young professional with…

As a young professional with experience in the environmental sector, I am firmly against the proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and its replacement by the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA). These amendments proposed under the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 (Bill 5) are short-sighted and will result in irreparable environmental destruction, threaten human rights, and erode public trust in government, ultimately having the opposite effect of what Bill 5 intends.

I am concerned foremost by the following proposed changes:

1. Schedule 2, Subsection 2 (1): altering the definition of “habitat”
2. Schedule 2, Section 7: altering who determines species listings from a science-based committee (COSSARO; Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario) to a political decision-maker (Lieutenant Governor in Council)
3. Schedule 2, Section 11: Removing requirements for recovery strategies
4. Schedule 2, Section 17: Transitioning from a permit-required to registration-first approach for development projects

I recommend that the government uphold the current ESA.

1. The amended definition of habitat will restrict species to functionally useless pockets of land. The “dwelling-place” of animal species, such as a den or nest, is insufficient for species survival. The definition lacks any reference to foraging or migration requirements. Without habitat to feed or move between “dwelling-places” (e.g. from hibernation sites to breeding sites), threatened and endangered animals will face rapid extirpation or extinction. The “critical root zone” is similarly insufficient for preserving threatened and endangered vascular plants. Many plant species in decline require specific environmental conditions (i.e., moisture, temperature, etc.) to grow. If conditions within their immediate root zone change, but no nearby suitable habitat is protected, they will be resigned to extirpation or extinction.
The current definition of habitat is intentionally broad to effectively encapsulate the variety of life strategies used by species to survive. Species depend on the healthy functioning of their habitats to carry on their life process, which cannot be whittled down to the confines of their immediate dwelling.

2. Granting the government the power to decide what species receive legal protection by the Act is arbitrary and unscientific at best and sets an alarming precedent at worst. Current listings determined by COSSARO are based on years of compiled scientific data and consultation between experts on a given species. Shifting the final say of species listing to a government power undermines evidence-based decision-making and brings to question the government’s motivations. The purpose of acts like the ESA is to identify, protect, and promote stewardship of species at risk and their habitats as the only meaningful provincial legislation conserving endangered, threatened, and special concern species in Ontario. Moves by the government to delist species listed by COSSARO will misalign with the ESA and erode public trust in the provincial government.

3. Removing the requirements for recovery strategies signals a lack of commitment by the government to conserve Ontario’s endangered species. The reason cited for this removal is to avoid duplication with federal recovery documents. While overlap may occur with some species, the unique provincial recovery strategies apply outside of federal land in Ontario, cover species that are not listed or classified differently at the federal level, and can address the unique challenges faced by endangered species in Ontario, one of the provinces with the most at-risk species and the highest human population.

4. The registration first approach could be disastrous for endangered species protection, human health, human rights, and long-term economic prosperity. Eliminating requirements for permits and proper environmental impact assessments before project commencement will result in the destruction of endangered species’ habitat. Registration of such activities under the SCA will provide little benefit to species, even if mitigation measures and construction of artificial replacement habitats are required. Evidence that typical (even species-specific) mitigation measures (e.g. stormwater ponds, snow fencing) employed to counter the effects of destructive activities enough to preserve habitat values is usually speculative or entirely unsupported.

Eliminating the permitting process to expedite projects can have unpredictable and dangerous consequences. For example, the Walkerton Water Crisis of 2000 was in part due to a reduction in regulatory oversight. Protected habitats can provide many valuable albeit unnoticed ecosystem services, such as water filtration and flood prevention, that can be lost when development occurs.

The well-being of many Indigenous communities is tied to the natural resources surrounding them. Fast-tracking development through the registration system threatens the health, safety, and sovereignty of these Nations and jeopardizes current efforts at reconciliation.

Removing the permitting process in favour of rapid economic growth irresponsibly threatens the health and sustainability of Ontario’s economy. Our economy is dependent on the functioning and sustainability of Ontario’s ecosystems. The proposed bill says it will unleash the economy, however, in reality, the wanton and short-sighted destruction of Ontario’s ecosystems will have long-term consequences on the sustainability and longevity of ALL economic activities that depend on natural resources. The short-term economic benefits will not end up in the hands of hard-working Ontarians, but instead be funnelled into few private interests, namely mining proponents and development projects, at the cost of any legal requirement to consider the interests of the public, communities, nature and health. Endangered species aren’t standing in the way of higher housing output or the creation of new industrial workplaces. In fact, it has been well established in Ontario and throughout the world that protecting biodiversity and advancing economic development can occur together. For example, Ontario built a massive new Georgian Bay section of Highway 400 highway through endangered species habitat. That project used innovative underpasses and overpasses, coupled with fencing that was able to protect rare species and human lives from car-wildlife impacts. That project was a win-win and underscores the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The evidence-based, committee-driven approach to endangered species protection currently in place, is better suited to safeguarding Ontario’s natural resources than the proposed politico-economic-focused SCA. As such, I urge the provincial government to abandon the ESA amendments and the SCA in their entirety. I agree that economic growth is important for Ontario, but it is irresponsible and unCanadian to do so at the wilful expense of the environment. Our economy is embedded in our environment and 80% of Canadians (40% of surveys in Ontario) are strongly committed to species conservation in principle (89% agree), including the need to limit industrial development (80% agree) (McCune et al. 2017). Furthermore, in the wake of the global biodiversity crisis and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is of national and global importance to develop our economy with consideration for conserving endangered species and the rights of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Peoples. These proposals should be abandoned in their entirety, not just because of their harmful side-effects, but because they would undermine, rather than advance, any genuine effort to protect Ontario.