I do not agree with the…

I do not agree with the contents of Bill 5 and believe enacting it will be needlessly harmful to Ontario's environment and species at risk. The proposed weakening of endangered species protection through the replacement of the ESA with the SCA, the creation of Special Economic Zones with the potential for widespread exemptions from environmental regulations, and the undermining of established environmental assessment processes prioritize short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability and ecological integrity. These proposed changes demonstrate a clear disregard for well-established scientific principles in the fields of conservation biology and ecology and carry the very real risk of leading to irreversible ecological damage and a significant loss of biodiversity across Ontario. The lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities regarding this legislation will certainly be pursued in court at the expense of Ontario taxpayers. My concerns are discussed in detail below, followed by my recommendations.

1) The definition of habitat is too narrow.

Extensive scientific research underscores the importance of safeguarding the entirety of a species' habitat range to ensure its long-term survival and eventual recovery. By limiting the definition of habitat to only the immediate dwelling and its surroundings, the proposed changes will lead to increased habitat fragmentation, a well-documented driver of biodiversity loss, and ultimately accelerate the decline of species already at risk. For example, many migratory bird species rely on specific habitats for crucial refueling stops during their long journeys (i.e., stopover habitat); under the proposed narrower definition, these essential areas would likely no longer be afforded protection.

Restricting the definition of habitat to only the immediate areas where a species dwells fundamentally disregards the ecological reality that most species require a complex and interconnected network of habitats to successfully complete their life cycles and maintain healthy populations - networks that may shift spatially or temporally depending on a number of variables. This proposed change suggests either a basic misunderstanding of the ecological needs of these species or a calculated effort to reduce the geographical scope of protected areas within the province. The overwhelming scientific consensus, as evidenced by a substantial body of literature, emphasizes the necessity of comprehensive habitat protection for the conservation of biodiversity. Bill 5's proposed narrower definition directly contradicts this established scientific understanding, strongly indicating a prioritization of development initiatives over the fundamental ecological requirements of Ontario's vulnerable species. Adding to these concerns is the provision within the bill that allows the premier's cabinet to further limit the definition of habitat through regulatory means, without requiring a vote in the legislature. This provision raises the spectre of future, potentially detrimental, erosion of habitat protection based on political expediency rather than scientific rationale. The analogy of an individual being safe only within their house but vulnerable once they step outside illustrates the inherent flaw in this limited approach to habitat protection.

2) Species protections and recovery need to be based in scientific facts and evidence, not political whims.

Recovery strategies are widely recognized within the scientific community as essential frameworks that outline the specific actions deemed necessary to help populations of endangered and threatened species rebound and achieve sustainable levels. By repealing the mandatory nature of these strategies, Bill 5 effectively removes the government's direct responsibility to actively work towards the recovery of these vulnerable species.  

Changing the listing requirement from being mandatory following assessment by COSSARO to discretionary power from the Lieutenant Governor in Council introduces the potential for political and economic considerations to inappropriately influence which species receive legal protection, potentially overriding the objective scientific assessments conducted by COSSARO. The revised purpose of the Act, as outlined in Bill 5, explicitly incorporates the consideration of "sustainable economic growth" alongside the goals of protection and conservation, signaling a clear change in the fundamental priorities guiding species protection efforts.  

The transition from legally mandated recovery planning and species listing to actions that are subject to the discretion of the Cabinet introduces a significant level of uncertainty and weakens the foundational legal framework designed to protect species at risk that has been used in Ontario for nearly two decades. This proposed change moves towards a system where political expediency and prevailing economic interests, rather than rigorous scientific evidence, will ultimately dictate which species are deemed worthy of protection and the extent to which efforts are made to ensure their survival. Strong and effective endangered species legislation is typically characterized by clear, legally binding obligations for the development and implementation of recovery plans. Bill 5's proposed removal of these mandatory recovery strategies, coupled with the shift to discretionary listing of species, directly undermines this principle. This shift renders the protection of species at risk susceptible to political considerations rather than being driven by the objective imperatives of scientific necessity. The explicit removal of "recovery" as a stated goal within the new Act further underscores this change in the province's approach to endangered species.

3) Exempting Special Economic Zones from regulations will damage Ontario's environment, natural heritage, and further lead to species declines.

The proposed legislation does not impose any significant limitations on the size or geographical location of these SEZs, meaning they could potentially be established in virtually any area of the province. The creation of SEZs with the explicit authority to override established environmental regulations represents a substantial erosion of environmental protection measures and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Prioritizing the acceleration of economic development in this manner will lead to ecological damage that could be irreversible in nature. Environmental laws are, by their very design, intended to protect ecosystems and prevent activities that could cause harm to the natural environment - they have been developed over decades, often stemming from incidents and issues that could have been prevented had such legislation existed at the time. The government should not have the power to selectively suspend these protective laws. The absence of clearly defined criteria for the designation of both SEZs and "trusted proponents" is concerning regarding potential favouritism and a lack of transparency in the application of this legislation.

4) Projects should not be exempt from the Environmental Assessment process.

Environmental assessments are widely recognized as critical processes for systematically evaluating the potential environmental and socio-economic ramifications of major development projects. These assessments play a vital role in identifying potential harms and in developing appropriate mitigation measures to minimize or avoid negative impacts. By exempting the Eagle's Nest mine and the Dresden Dump from these rigorous assessment requirements, Bill 5 effectively bypasses this crucial step in responsible project planning, potentially leading to unforeseen and unmitigated environmental damage that could have long-lasting consequences. In the case of the Eagle's Nest mine, this lack of assessment is particularly troubling given its proposed location on the traditional lands of the Neskantaga First Nation and its proximity to the ecologically sensitive Attawapiskat River.  

My recommendations:

1) Withdraw Bill 5: The Ontario government should immediately withdraw Bill 5 in its entirety due to the significant and unacceptable environmental risks that it poses to the province.  

2) Strengthen the Endangered Species Act: Instead of repealing the current ESA, the government should commit to a process of strengthening it. This should include ensuring mandatory protection and the development of robust recovery strategies for all species at risk identified by the independent scientific body, COSSARO. Furthermore, the definition of "habitat" should be broadened to fully reflect the ecological needs of species throughout all stages of their life cycles.  

3) Reconsider the Special Economic Zones Act: The concept of establishing SEZs with broad powers to grant exemptions from fundamental environmental laws should be abandoned due to the exceptionally high potential for significant and widespread ecological harm. Any future economic development initiatives must be subject to rigorous and transparent environmental oversight and regulation.  

4) Maintain and Enhance Environmental Assessment Processes: The government must uphold and actively strengthen the existing environmental assessment processes for all major development projects undertaken within the province. This is essential to ensure a thorough and objective evaluation of all potential environmental impacts and the implementation of effective mitigation measures. The proposed "registration-first" approach should be rejected in favour of a system that requires thorough expert review and the issuance of necessary permits before any development activities are allowed to proceed.  

5) Prioritize Science-Based Decision-Making: All decisions pertaining to the protection of species at risk and the broader environment must be firmly rooted in the best available scientific evidence. The independent role and expert advice of COSSARO should be fully respected and adhered to in all relevant processes. Political considerations should not be allowed to override objective scientific evaluations in these critical areas.  

6) Ensure Meaningful Consultation with Indigenous Communities: The government must commit to engaging in transparent, respectful, and meaningful consultation with all affected Indigenous communities on any projects and legislative initiatives that have the potential to impact their rights, traditional territories, and cultural heritage. This consultation must fully adhere to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Development should not proceed without the free, prior, and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples whose lands and rights are affected.  

7) Adopt a Sustainable Development Approach: Ontario should commit to adopting a comprehensive and integrated model of sustainable development, one that genuinely recognizes and values the critical interrelationship between environmental protection and long-term economic prosperity. A healthy and thriving natural environment is not an impediment to economic growth but rather a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring the long-term well-being and prosperity of all Ontarians. This requires a long-term vision that prioritizes both the conservation of Ontario's natural heritage and the fostering of a resilient and equitable economy for future generations.