Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill 5 Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025. These comments represent the official submission of Wildlife Preservation Canada.
We are the country's leading and most experienced organization dedicated to saving endangered species using hands-on action such as reintroductions to give back directly to nature. The Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) is the most important piece of legislation protecting Ontario’s biodiversity and has been a global beacon and respected example for other countries around the world. As an organization that has worked in conservation and recovery of our most at-risk species for the past 40 years, we are gravely concerned at the proposed plan to amend, and ultimately repeal the ESA. The changes have no scientific justification, and will have serious and likely irreversible consequences for our natural heritage, and consequently, for our communities. We are, after all, a part of the environment: we all live here. Our concerns are itemized below.

1) Allowing the government to override species listing decisions made by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) undermines and politicizes what is currently a transparent, evidence-based approach.
The purpose of COSSARO is to provide independent, science-based recommendations in species listing and/or de-listing decisions, with a transparent and defensible process using all available knowledge from both western science and Indigenous knowledge systems. Providing the government with the ability to override the decisions of COSSARO on the inclusion or exclusion of species on the list of those that are protected opens the door for politically-motivated decisions that lack transparency and will create deep government distrust. With the current lack of any guidelines on how the government might make these decisions, we fear the distrust is warranted. This proposed change mirrors the capricious decision-making that we are observing in the United States under their current administration, and which has already set back environmental conservation efforts drastically as they attempt to dismantle their Endangered Species Act. Arbitrary removal of species from the protected list without any scientific basis will certainly lead to declines in species that are at most need of protection.

2) Redefining “habitat” to include only an animal’s dwelling is ecologically flawed and will severely impact species survival when other key areas that support species’ life processes are lost.
Ontario’s species at-risk are adversely affected by habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. When “habitat” considers only an animal’s dwelling, this effectively eliminates protections for areas that support the majority of an animal’s life processes. For example, the MECP General habitat description for the Forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou (2013) describes the landscape-scale habitat requirements for the species, and explicitly states that caribou “depend directly and indirectly on the entire range as habitat” as all areas are “required for caribou to carry out their life processes and for populations to persist for multiple generations.” A reduction of protected area to simply a dwelling for a species such as caribou ignores the reality of the species’ biological needs and directly contradicts guiding documents previously developed by the province.

Further, this change assumes that it is a simple thing to identify an animal’s dwelling, but this is often not the case. For example, in the Breeding Bird Survey, which was first introduced in the 1960s and is now used to monitor bird populations across North America, one of the possible observation categories is “probable breeder”. This category includes instances where there is strong evidence that an observed bird likely has a nest in the area, though its precise location is not known. Observational data such as these are highly trusted in the scientific community to identify the breeding grounds of protected species, but with the proposed changes to the definition of habitat it seems these data would be discarded given no direct observation of a nest. This is just one example of disparity between the scientific understanding of habitat, and what would be used in the new legislation, and shows how areas critical for species survival would be lost with such a restrictive definition.

Redefining “habitat" would also lead to the loss of habitat corridors that are vitally important to allow animals to move across the landscape while avoiding human encounters, thus reducing the potential for human-wildlife conflicts. The increasing number of coyotes in Toronto urban spaces, and the resulting conflict with humans and their pets, is an excellent example of what happens when key habitats and corridors are removed in highly populated areas, and highlights the importance of habitat areas beyond just the dwelling.

The proposed redefinition of habitat in the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA) will exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation, allowing large-scale erosion of natural habitat, and will severely impact species that are in dire need of protections. Species can not thrive in small, isolated pockets of habitat without any connectivity, and reducing protected area effectively ensures the continued decline of at-risk species.

3) Removal of “harassment” from regulated activities ignores the detrimental indirect effects of development on wildlife populations.
Under the proposed new SCA, there is regulation of “activities that are likely to kill, harm, capture, or take a member of a species listed on the Protected Species in Ontario list”. Notably absent is the term “harassment”, which is currently included in the ESA. Removal of “harassment” suggests that only activities that directly harm an animal are detrimental to their survival, which is demonstrably false. There is ample evidence demonstrating how the indirect effects of development (which constitute “harassment”) impact wildlife. For example:
- Footprint meets hoofprint: measuring a mine’s effects on caribou (https://natural-resources.canada.ca/stories/simply-science/footprint-me…)
- Disturbance of wildlife by outdoor winter recreation: allostatic stress response and altered activity-energy budgets (https://boris.unibe.ch/88883/1/Arlettaz_EcoApp2015.pdf)
- A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife (https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12207)
The proposed omission of “harass” from regulated activities adopts a narrow view of what an animal needs to thrive (much like the proposed redefinition of “habitat”) and entirely ignores the magnitude of the impact of indirect effects of development on wildlife populations.

4) Removing the “requirements to develop recovery strategies and management plans, government response statements, and review of progress from legislation” risks losing Ontario-specific recovery needs, and creates further delays in planning and implementation.
Removing the requirement to develop provincial recovery documents and instead relying on federal documents is an idea with some merits, though there are flaws that ultimately make this an inappropriate approach. While there is admittedly sometimes duplication between provincial and federal recovery documents, the development of provincial documents ensures that any unique provincial distinctions or concerns for a species in question are fully addressed, and plans can be developed that are specifically suited to the Ontario landscape. Therefore, rather than remove the requirement for these documents, it would be better to refine the process so that duplication is reduced while still ensuring Ontario-specific perspectives and implementation needs are captured. Additionally, removing the requirement for development of progress reviews, while at the same time decreasing habitat protections (item 3, above) and allowing development to proceed without an initial review of impacts (item 6, below), will create a system where there will be no regulatory oversight of the effects of development, nor will there be any means by which to gauge the effectiveness of government policy on conservation.

Further, there is an existing backlog in the federal system, as outlined in the 2023 Independent Auditor’s Report: Follow-up on the Recovery of Species at Risk (https://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.920626&sl=0). Reliance on the development of federal documents, where known backlogs already exist, will lead to planning and implementation gaps for species that are already facing serious declines in Ontario.

5) New Species Conservation Program will provide much-needed funding, but with limited effectiveness without sufficient habitat protections
Conservation work is underfunded in Ontario, so the creation of a new and expanded program to fund conservation and recovery is welcomed. However, this crucial species-focused work will be severely hampered if the proposed redefinition of habitat is adopted, for the reasons stated in item 3 above.

6) “Registration-first Approach” and the removal of permitting requirements puts business interests above those of the environment, as well as communities that may be impacted.
Implementing a registration-first approach to development with no permit requirements puts an immense amount of trust in industry. If this process is to avoid devastating conservation outcomes, it requires industries to understand both the ecology of an area in which they plan to work, and the complex environmental impacts their projects might have. Further, while many industry proponents want to operate ethically when planning development, it is an unfortunate reality that there may also be those that are not acting in good faith with regards to minimizing the environmental impacts of their projects if it impacts the bottom line. This registration-first approach opens the door to environmental harm due to inadvertent errors of omission in the best cases, and exploitation by bad actors in the worst cases. Furthermore, while the ministry has indicated that “new regulations” will be used to implement the SCA’s registration model, this bill is being put forth without those regulations yet being drafted. We are deeply concerned with the attempts to move this legislation forward without having clear processes in place that can be appropriately scrutinized.

The posted proposal for the SCA presents the point that the vast majority (95%) of projects submitted to the ministry already use a registration approach. The inference here is that if registration is sufficient for the bulk of projects, then it should be sufficient for all projects. This ignores the spectrum of impact severity that projects may have and since so many projects already only require registration under the ESA, we can assume that only the projects with the biggest impacts on the most sensitive species and habitats would fall into that 5% minority of cases. “Unleashing the economy” in these sensitive cases clearly puts economic interests above those of the environment, and will cause serious and irreparable damage to the natural heritage of the province. Continued and unhindered degradation of our natural environment is not just an issue for wildlife populations; there are very real and serious implications for human communities. Ontario is already experiencing the effects of climate change and these effects will only worsen if we continue to lose vital wetlands and peatlands that help to clean our water and regulate flooding. Destruction of these habitats will also release large amounts of carbon that they sequester, which will further exacerbate our current climate crisis.

Crucially, moving towards a registration-first approach also removes the review process that facilitates First Nations consultation on projects that impact their lands. This undermines Indigenous communities’ right to free, prior and informed consent for projects on their territories, which is a key component of the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). At a time when governments should be looking to correct past wrongs with Indigenous Peoples, this proposal instead is a regression in accountability and efforts at relationship-building.

Though the current permitting system may cause delays for some projects, there is valid cause. It is important that all projects should be monitoring their impacts on sensitive habitats and species, as well as the effectiveness of any mitigation measures that are put in place. It is also important to know that all reasonable alternatives have been considered and that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize adverse effects. Wildlife Preservation Canada and other pragmatic and forward-thinking organizations that work to save at-risk species from extinction partner regularly with similarly forward-thinking businesses, industries and developers, demonstrating this need never be an either-or conflict. In fact, the benefits that arise when different collaborators from different backgrounds work together can be very positive for all. We have worked with industry in development projects in Ontario that undertook all steps required by the ESA; some plans were necessarily changed along the way to minimize wildlife impacts but the development still proceeded in an environmentally responsible way with vetting by environmental experts. If these vital checks and balances are causing undue delays, then the solution is not to remove those checks but rather to offer more support and resources to the bodies that would conduct these reviews and issue permits. The removal of this process entirely, as proposed, is a wholesale abdication of the government’s responsibility to protect our natural heritage.

7) Absence of “Recovery” as one of the purposes of the Species Conservation Act, 2025 devalues Ontario’s biodiversity and indicates a lack of political will for change.
One of the purposes of Ontario’s ESA is “to protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk.” In comparison, the purpose of the proposed SCA is “to provide for the protection and conservation of species while taking into account social and economic considerations, including the need for sustainable economic growth in Ontario.” The addition of economic consideration to species protection and conservation is notable, as addressed in item 6 above. Even more disconcerting, the omission of “recovery” as one of the goals suggests that the government believes the current state of the environment is effectively going to be as good as it gets. We reject this idea wholeheartedly, and would urge the government to consider the long-term implications of a lack of political will to affect positive environmental change.

For all of the reasons stated above, the repeal of the ESA to be replaced by the SCA will be a death knell for Ontario’s most at-risk animal populations and habitats. Wildlife Preservation Canada opposes this bill with the strongest possible terms and urges the government to withdraw this proposal.